Everyone here should know, this is due to you and the conversations you’ve been having, media you’ve been supporting, and any actions you’ve taken to directly protest, letter write, etc.
Activism works. Being annoying af works. Simply changing the media you consume has an impact. Conservatives get what they want from their elected officials because they demand it. You too can demand things of your elected officials (so long as you can hold them to consequence, ie, the problem with bnmw).
I’d argue his observed positions on Unions, (as long as they’re toothless), immigrants (a little human rights violation is fine), and supporting a literal genocide did that.
Also gaslighting the country about the economy while taking credit for it didn’t help either. In fact that hurt him, a lot.
And also kudos to Lemmy and Lemmy mods for keeping this place relatively free from bots.
I wouldn’t count on that. I’m a dev, and I don’t really know how you reliably do that. You can catch low hanging fruit, but it doesn’t take much to evade.
This is due to Biden needing to go to Michigan, with its huge arabic population. His campaign people wanted to avoid loud and awkward protests from members of his own party, so they threw a tiny bone that they knew would make a big headline splash.
I hate to be this cynical, but listening to his campaign managers making the rounds on the political insider podcasts… they are overwhelmingly “professional” and entirely inauthentic.
Even if biden himself is earnest, this campaign is shaping up to have all the stage managed authenticity of Hillary’s 2016 run.
Lol if he comes to Michigan he’s just gonna hide himself at the Ford plant where they get a select few line workers to attend his speech so they can post it on social media.
Dearborn would eat him alive if he so much as so stepped outside the property.
His 2020 campaign did as well. It was just placed against the previous 4 years. It probably would have been enough for 2024 if this hadn’t happened too. In fact the reason I don’t believe October 7th was an Iranian called shot is because they aren’t dumb and game theory suggests they’d rather have Biden who they use as a political pinata than Trump who will start a war with them within 2 years of taking office.
TST is not a super great org unfortunately. They do stuff for great headlines but apparently little in the way of effective advocacy. I’ve also heard that there are pretty bad issues with misogyny among the upper echelons. While it’s extremely long at 2hrs, Dead Domain’s video on the subject goes into great detail.
It’s really unfortunate, I wanted to believe they were fighting the good fight but I don’t know if I can in good conscience anymore
… it’s not really an opinion piece? It’s mostly a breakdown of the church’s dubious history and leadership. I’m sure they also do video game stuff, but that feels like it has no bearing on the actual facts presented.
I don’t know how this has become a seemingly valid method of argument for an altogether too-large segment of the internet. Make some contrarian comment and then post a stupidly long video by some random that they seem to think is valid and useful evidence.
No one is going to watch this shit. Anyone who has two hours to waste on some random dude’s opinions interspersed with commercials needs to reexamine their life priorities.
I linked it because I recall it having a lot of cogent points and being relevant, and because I don’t remember off the top of my head the specific allegations, I didn’t want to dig through a two hour video I’ve already seen at the exact moment of writing because I only had so much time and research to dedicate to a Lemmy comment. It’s valid to be annoyed by a long video linked as an argument, but my comment was a “too long didn’t watch” version of it… that actually left out some details like the founder also being a fucking eugenicist.
I also use an adblocker, and the vid has some opinions obviously but was mostly going over evidence, recordings, and related allegations.
You don’t have to watch it if you don’t want to. I linked it as a secondary source. While primary sources are preferable and it might have been a good idea to do the legwork myself, I wanted something posted quick to maybe make people think twice on the “donate to TST” call to action in the initial comment.
If the entirety of the video is summarized by the three whole sentences of context you wrote in your initial comment, it sounds even less worth a watch than I initially thought.
From what I can find in actual sources, there’s two founders, and I’m guessing your claim on the eugenics is about Greaves, who certainly sounds like an asshole if not explicitly a eugenicist, but weirdly it didn’t take a two-hour anything to read about it.
The rest of it seems to stem from something a former spokesperson wrote in a Medium article and a bunch of other asshole stunts by Greaves, who yes totally seems like an asshole. None of this took more than ten minutes of searching and reading, maybe thirty if you read slowly.
I get that you’re not the only person in the world that does this, but if you actually care to make people think about something even once, like you claim to, maybe make the one thing you link to more accessible than a two-hour slog by some random YouTuber that I’m sure is super well-known to you and all their other followers but has no recognizable credibility outside of that tiny niche.
Her complaint about her jet being tracked would be solved by renting as those companies tend to be rather quiet about who is on which plane at any given time.
While true, the topic is about tracking, and as a pragmatic option this would bury her travel in obfuscation.
If it were just about tracking environment, then having the popular tracker be just an odometer rather than specific paths would show the point without the scary tracking vibes.
Of course, this suggests the tail number is somehow well known and thus she’s got a problem regardless of this specific tracker. Once the tail number is known, all semblance of privacy is out the window.
You don’t seem to realize that these people are targets for verbal and physical harassment and assault. That’s exactly why she’s worried about her whereabouts being tracked.
taylor swift publicly has a tour schedule that anyone with internet access can get. and I’m sure that these places have airports. and flight logs are public. it’s not hard to figure out what plane left from the city she was in is going to her next tour date.
if she, the most famous and richest white woman on the planet doesn’t want her movements tracked her movements would not be tracked.
Note that her private plane is a bit separate and I think flying a private plane means your privacy is screwed unless you absolutely know your tail number is a secret.
On the matter of tour schedule, that may be a matter of ‘professional’ versus ‘personal’ time. While doing her professional act, well, her whereabouts are obviously well known and extra precautions and vigilance are part of the cost of doing business. During ‘off’ time one might reasonably hope for being able to let your guard down a touch when you get to your rural mountain cabin that no one should know about.
Again, using a private jet as means of transport throws that out the window, but the concept that your work itinerary being widely known implies that of course your personal itinerary is fair game is not something I can get behind.
Do you think someone is going to try to shoot down her plane or something??? She still has that security with her right before takeoff and right after she lands
Yes she can, she can also afford a private jet to fly her around. Not sure what your point is.
Choices have consequences. She chooses a private jet that will have an ADS-B transponder that will thus be linked to her travel. That’s just how it works.
And you are complaining she faces violence threats. My point is, she can easily mitigate them.
Private security ain’t gonna do much in a sealed tube 10k feet in the air.
Stalkers aren’t going to do mush there, either. What danger do you think she faces in the air?
Such as?
Fly commercial. Much harder to find when you could be on any of dozens of flights. Also, she could charter different jets. People might still find her from flight plans, but it would be much harder.
We all know how it works. I’m suggesting maybe the way it works should change to improve safety.
And you are complaining she faces violence threats.
I’ve “complained” about nothing. You’re imagining things.
My point is, she can easily mitigate them.
Would you care to make a suggestion?
Stalkers aren’t going to do mush there, either. What danger do you think she faces in the air?
I literally just explained that in the comment you just replied to. Verbal and physical assault and harassment while in a sealed tube tens of thousands of feet in the air.
If you’re just gonna go on and on while ignoring that little fact then there’s no need to carry on this discussion.
We all know how it works. I’m suggesting maybe the way it works should change to improve safety.
I do not believe the current system is unsafe. This is 100% her not liking the articles about her massive carbon emissions. If anything, we should further expose these megapolluters.
I’ve “complained” about nothing. You’re imagining things.
Oh, going off a semantics! Whatever. You certainly are stating it.
Would you care to make a suggestion?
I did. You ignored it. What do you think paid security is?
I literally just explained that in the comment you just replied to. Verbal and physical assault and harassment while in a sealed tube tens of thousands of feet in the air.
How on earth are people verbally or physically assaulting her on her private jet? It is literally only her and her entourage on board. How does being able to track her flight lead to someone able to assault her on board? You make no sense
Hell, even flying commercial, they will land the plane and place the offender under arrest. They will restrain you in the meantime. They carry zip tie handcuffs and tape to secure disruptive individuals. Celebrities fly commercial all the time. Aside from maybe stares or people asking for selfies, they are perfectly safe. But that is part of the deal of being a celebrity. She is well compensated for it.
And I am ignoring nothing. I just wholeheartedly disagree with you an every point you have made.
They can charter jets and travel in greater luxury without having a tail number assigned to them personally. When I become a multibillionaire I will charter jets.
My step father is a private plane pilot.He owns the plane and rich people pay him to fly them places.
You’re right, rich people like Swift don’t need to own a jet themselves. It’s very easy to find jets to charter and likely cheaper because you’re not paying to maintain a plane.
So she can stop complaining about her silver spoon not being polished enough.
The reason they stopped at 34 cybertrucks is because vandalizing any more would make it a federal crime. You can read up on this by googling “cybertruck rule 34”
I like the thought of him picking up the cup at the counter, weighing it in his hand for just a moment, and saying to the kid young adult on the other side, “This feels a little light.”
Edit:I just remembered you had to be 18 to sell beer in Texas.
Conservatism as a political ideology is very attractive to psychopaths and sadists (and/or, in a word, idiots) – “the cruelty is the point” isn’t just an empty saying, it’s very often the literal truth when it comes to conservative moral judgements. Rulings like this are just an example of how devoid of any sort of empathy they can be. It’s not a political ideology so much as it is a way for people with dark tetrad personality traits to wield power; conservatives are extremely easy to manipulate due to being on average dumber than non-conservatives, so it’s a perfect combination.
Sources- The impact of dark tetrad traits on political orientation and extremism: an analysis in the course of a presidential election> In the present research (N = 675), we focus on the relationship between the dark side of human personality and political orientation and extremism, respectively, in the course of a presidential election where the two candidates represent either left-wing or right-wing political policies. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism were associated with right-wing political orientation, whereas narcissism and psychopathy were associated with political extremism. Moreover, the relationships between personality and right-wing political orientation and extremism, respectively, were relatively independent from each other. - Bad News for Conservatives? Moral Judgments and the Dark Triad Personality Traits: A Correlational Study> We found eleven significant correlations between conservative [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad – all at significance level of p<.00001 – and no significant correlations between liberal [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad. We believe that these results raise provocative moral questions about the personality bases of moral judgments. In particular, we propose that because the Short-D3 measures three “dark and antisocial” personality traits, our results raise some prima facie worries about the moral justification of some conservative moral judgments- Does Lower Cognitive Ability Predict Greater Prejudice?> [T]here exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitude. […] > > Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.> > Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).
I don't blame this on Conservatives. This is our fucked up government doing fucked up shit because there's a stupid rule written down somewhere, and 2,000 years of jurisprudence going back to the Roman Empire says we have to continue letting some asshole poison everyone.
There are so many ways we could be living, and we keep choosing this stupid shit.
Canada has drug ads, but with special rules. You can either mention the drug name or its indication, but not both.
So you’ll get ads that say stuff like “Ozempic - ask your doctor if it’s right for you” with people happily eating in a coffeeshop. But they won’t tell you what Ozempic is supposed to do.
While I agree in principle, there are people with fibromyalgia who wouldn’t know medications exist for it otherwise, because their doctors barely understand fibromyalgia.
This is true for a lot of other cases too. People live with chronic conditions because they either don’t know that it’s an issue and there’s treatment, or they sought treatment and there wasn’t any help at the time, and since then there have been new drugs release
There’s so much new stuff coming out that most doctors don’t know anything about it until someone mentions it or they go look it up on the internet. Some will only refer to their huge out-of-date drug encyclopedia and if it’s not there you’re SOL.
I know a few people with fibromyalgia who didn’t know that’s what they had until they saw a commercial for it. Doctors never mentioned it as a possible diagnosis.
As someone who worked in the medical CE space, oh yea. The doctors who have the most pull are the dinosaurs who have been using the same techniques for decades. Meanwhile the doctors with fresher views and novel techniques based upon new evidence struggle to get a dozen doctors to attend.
Especially for general practitioners. If you’re a specialist with a narrow focus it’s easier not as difficult to stay current but if you’re expected to know enough about everything to refer patients to those specialists, there’s a lot to stay current on, even if you’re motivated to do so.
Does that mean he/she was explaining the mechanism by which it works and it was good? Or was she/he explaining negative side effects they failed to mention or didn’t understand? Something else?
Ah, she was just correcting them on the mechanism of action, so I don’t think it was a good or bad thing. I was paying and leaving, so I couldn’t stay for the whole convo.
Thank you for coming back to this! Yes, that sounds like a great doctor, good to hear she wasn’t having to school them on how it was causing harm or something like that.
“hmmm have you considered that chronic pain isn’t real and you’re lying? Don’t worry, I’m still going to bill your insurance for the full price of an office visit.”
That is exactly it. One of my family members suffered from it for years before finding out about it online, and eventually had to switch to a new doctor that didn’t try to convince them it was all in their head. It’s hard to accept that the weight of a thin bed sheet on your legs being painful is just in your head, yet that’s the line they were given repeatedly.
You could always do like I do: not be a woman. No fibromyalgia for me at all. My mother and sister keep ignoring that advice.
But on a more serious note, that really has to suck. Autoimmune diseases are much more likely to affect women and are more likely to be ignored. There was a cool Radiolab episode on them. A hypothesis is that women have an overall more sensitive immune system because their immune system is suppressed during pregnancy so having a more sensitive one means you are less likely to get sick during pregnancy. Use of hormones like estriol seem to be helpful. But if you suffer from fibromyalgia, you probably know a good amount/all of that info and more.
Had a friend with a parent that was a doctor. Apparently she could tell which commercials were getting pushed more based on what patients kept asking for.
Maybe not medications, but people generally write off benign symptoms quickly, and a series of benign symptoms can often be an indication of something more serious.
Then that person sees a commercial and it lists all the symptoms they’ve been having at once and it makes them go “Hey wait a minute, all those symptoms sound familiar, maybe I should make an appointment”
Iirc there was a study a few years ago that determined that medication commercials can increase the rate people see doctors.
I don’t know a single person who has ever asked their doctor about something they saw on TV.
How many people have you asked this question to? You understand reality is not comprised of your personal experiences? There are billions of people you will never meet?
It’s obviously working. These companies aren’t spending millions of $ on advertising just to have 0 ROI.
I know a few doctors, and they all hate drug commercials (as well as webMD) because patients come in with their self-diagnosis trying to order drugs like it’s a friggin restaurant. One of them told me that even when she clearly informs them that’s not how this works, they regularly get pissed off as she continues to tell them no and doesn’t budge. She also said she knows other less stubborn or principled doctors that give into the pressure, which is exactly how big pharmaceutical companies like it.
It’s obviously working. These companies aren’t spending millions of $ on advertising just to have 0 ROI.
I think you’re probably right here, but just want to say that I’ve personally I’ve worked in multiple companies where they’ve spent millions on different things with no ROI. So it definitely happens. Sometimes leaders just like an idea and want to spend money on it.
Actually about 50% of the time your doctor will give it to you just by you asking. That’s why they do this. You’re not a person that advertising works on, but remember that the country is filled with monkeys.
Understandable, but you only need to do it if there is no pulse. If you are doing chest compressions to save their life, I am sure the majority would be quite happy with not dying. You don’t need to take off their top, and you are pressing on their sternum rather than their breasts. You can’t really mistake CPR for anything else if you are doing it correctly.
I’m pretty sure most places in the states have laws protecting people but there have been people who were sued for giving cpr to someone who wasn’t very grateful.
I know, but I was just assuming chest compressions, no other tools. If you’re strapping electrodes to an unconscious person, and the machine is talking you through the CPR steps, it’s even less likely to be assumed to be anything than what it is.
CPR does not save lives. It preserves a dead body until an AED or ambulance can bring it back to life. You need to remove her shirt and often bra (if there is a wire it must go, otherwise only if in the way) to use an AED so if some item of clothing is in the way don't worry about removing it.
Note that the above is generic CPR training that doesn't respect local laws which can say something different.
AED’s will not help someone whose heart is stopped (i.e. no pulse). They are used to shock the heart into restoring its normal rhythm. It will not start a heart that has stopped beating.
Yeahhhh… and it makes me glad that the ‘A’ part in AED exists, because there are apparently a not insignificant number of people who have gotten their CPR training from TV.
Please do not say CPR does not save lives, it 100% does. And in the United States our Good Samaritan laws protect anyone from liability if they are acting in good faith trying to help someone.
I’m a paramedic in the United States, hold a certification as a flight medic, nothing I can bring, in a helicopter or an ambulance will do anything for anyone if high quality CPR isn’t performed.
To break things down, yes in adults early defibrillation does make a huge difference but in kids it is literally high quality CPR that saves them. If you’d like I’d be happy to break down the details of resuscitation, but without CPR until I can get there and attempt resuscitation, then no matter how much I throw at someone to try to get their heart beating again, they’ll still be brain dead.
My CPR instructors put it the way I wrote it to encourage us to spend more effort on getting the AED and paramedics there fast. If you do CPR before the AED/paramedics is on the way you are wasting time, but getting those has been started CPR is important. However this is clearly semantics, I think we are all in agreement that CPR is important.
Not all states have "good Samaritan" laws. Most do, but if you live in the exception you might suffer harassment after doing CPR, including go to court - odds are the court will throw the case out, but it will still be annoying to do the right thing in those states. Though even lacking such laws, the odds that anything will happen are low.
Also not everyone lives in America. In more conservative places in Asia, touching a random woman (even if she is unconscious) and clearly in need of help is really asking to be judged.
And if a video with accusatory narration is posted on tiktok or something, you’re basically done for. Especially in a small town or country. You’re basically doxxed and won’t be easily hired for work because background checks are easily done, and the company (basically the HR) isn’t going to risk the bad rep of hiring a potential molester, rapist, etc.
And I agree some of this is just getting into semantics but yes get an AED if one is available, early defibrillation is without a doubt the best way to increase survival rates also activate emergency services as soon as possible there are things we carry that can help if the patient is receiving adequate CPR prior to our arrival, those steps are crucial. But ensure that you minimize any time spent not provided high quality CPR. Without blood flowing to the patients brain, it starts to die. Once the brain is dead there is nothing in modern medicine that can revive it.
I don’t have an argument if someone is concerned about consequences for helping another person. I do what I do so I can sleep at night knowing I did what I believed was best and I did it to the best of my abilities. If I have to go to court then so be it, the bonus for me going to court is at least I’ll get to meet someone I’ve helped successfully resuscitate, that alone would make going to court worth it, independent of any verdict that is rendered. But that’s just me, I’ve had to pronounce a lot of people. I’ve had one or two go into cardiac arrest in front of my and then after treating them they talked to me during the ride to the hospital and I know I’ve had a handful of people that made a full and complete neurological recovery, but I’ve never gotten to meet any of them, which is also fine, but it would be neat to get to talk to one of them and hear their side of the experience.
Youre afraid to save a persons life because there is a near zero chance that a very unlikely hypothetical situation may occur? Youre okay with letting someone die because you might get verbally chided, or worse, have someone misunderstand and be slightly rough with you? Wow.
I honestly can’t imagine being this scared of the world.
Please, give me any numbers that show people have been harassed, threatened or injured while performing CPR on a women.
You consider it an unlikely but possible threat. I would like to see what data informs that threat to you.
I expect its none, and instead you just want to feel persecuted because “women standing up for themselves in modern society makes me scared, so im going to pretend thats why i wont help a women that’s dying.”
We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is “I can’t find any proof there is danger here?”
The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
This isn't about giving lifesaving procedures, this is days latter when someone realizes what happens. There is plenty or evidence that 'bad touch' happened, and so lacking good Samaritan laws the law was violated and that is all we need to arrest someone. This type of harassment has happened, but I have no idea how often it does .
It’s pretty wild that you’re getting on someone’s case about lacking evidence when you’ve utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
Suddenly trying to substitute “perceived risk” for “real risk” is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn’t at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
You’ve been making the claim in almost every comment that there’s a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You’ve provided no evidence for that risk. You’ve admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it’s a real risk.
If neither of us have proof either way, it’s a stalemate. That doesn’t make me wrong, but it doesn’t make me right.
Given that if a bra has underwire, I may have to remove it for a defibrillator, you can’t perceive a possible misunderstanding?
The risk isn’t necessarily legal, but social so. A court case isn’t required for it to be real.
Kim wright is a case where the man was sued. You don’t see many cases because they’re laughed out of court, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t damage done.
I have 2 REAL questions for you.
If there’s zero risk to being accused of harm when you’re trying to help, why do Good Samaritan laws exist? What was the need?
Can you perceive a possible misinterpretation when I have to remove an unconscious woman’s garments including bra for a defibrillator?
I am a paramedic, these comments have lost me. At least in the United States there is a 0% chance anything will happen if someone does CPR on another while acting in good faith.
This does exclude some some uncomfortable situations where family is screaming at me that I’m not doing enough or that I need to help them and people have appeared to be close to getting violent but I’ve never been attacked, and if someone is threatening another individual that is trying to help, leave. We can’t help other people if we become another person who needs help.
But I’ve done CPR on a lot of people, it’s violent. No one around will ever have to wonder what is being done, it is very clear and I don’t believe it is possible to confuse with touching an unconscious person inappropriately. Again, these comments have lost me. Maybe if some of these people would see a resuscitation attempt, they’d probably realize once the patient is spitting up blood from how violently their chest is being pushed on, there is no way to misinterpret CPR for groping.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
You made a claim:
“this action has risk.”
You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
Now you’re asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
Thats your gotcha argument? “I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn’t exist, so therefore it does exist?”
Verbally chided? Getting sued for SA and getting your life ruined doesn’t really seem like “verbally chided”. Yeah, I’d probably let people die because my life is more important.
One of the few cases where consent of anything can be assumed is lifesaving of a person unable to respond. One of the first steps of cpr is to seek a response to ensure that the person is unconscious before then confirming no pulse.
Stop trying to deny that it happens. It’s risky af for men to help, why do you think they don’t do it? Anyway why is it up to men to help? Why can’t women help? Since they’re obviously in a better position, and generally aren’t considered perverts by default.
How am I supposed to know which country you live in? And who are you to dictate how many arbitrary articles I need to provide? You said any news outlet.
And just because you don’t live there doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Carry on with your denial tho. It happens, and just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it false. Why do good samaritan laws exist? Why are men reluctant to help? Are all men mad?
My god. The mental gymnastics you’d go through just to pretend this doesn’t happen. I’m out. Believe what you want, I’m not gonna try to educate the uneducateable.
Sure. Carry on then. Some people are extremely reluctant to change their view, even when they’re obviously. That’s what it means to be educateable. You can pretend it’s a non-issue all you want, but why do these articles and study exist then? You make a lot of noise but you haven’t been able to answer a single one of my questions.
You’re one of those who just hope that by being the most outraged, you’ll get your way. Sorta like Trump. No wonder. Nah, you bother replying. Just carry on living in your bubble.
Care to cite any examples in the US of prosecutions or civil cases that weren’t immediately tossed within the last 30 years? This was once a problem. Good Samaritan Laws were passed to fix it, probably before you were even born. You’re just making stuff up.
Fortunately they are cheap and easy to use correctly (and nearly impossible to use wrong), as such they are all over. If you are in a public place I'd be surprised if you didn't have ready access to a defibrillator in the US, though you may not realize where it is.
You would think so, right? But the reality is that men are always assumed to have the worst intentions. Especially in hindsight. i.e. “he didn’t need to do that right? he must be trying to cop a feel”.
Same reason men aren’t usually kindergarten teachers, because they’re immediately assumed to be pedos.
Even though you’re joking I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did react like that. “Uhhmmmm, that’s no CPR, you’re just fondling her! I know because I went to CPR training.”
The instructors advise you to speak aloud your actions as you do them. Also helps if you have already levelled out instructions to the rent a crowd to perform specific tasks like send for help and get the defib and you three who said yes to cpr training let’s line up and take turns doing cpr.
…of course, the training to be comfortable giving these instructions is not really done.
If you’re touching her tits, you’re not giving proper CPR. Proper CPR happens just below the sternum. That’s well below any kind of bra band. If her tits are that low, she’s either an EE cup or 80 years old.
Huh, I looked it up and checked out the instructions and diagrams of several websites. Every one of them said to place your hands on the upper part of the chest and every image showed their hands between the nipples.
You need to compress the chest, so pressure needs to go on the sternum. If you’re pressing below it, the only thing you’re compressing is their intestines, which is not gonna help anyone
Wouldn’t that break the xyphoid process? Below that is where you Heimlich. Above, on the strong center bone, is where you do chest compression. Also, as a haver of boobs, I can vouch that they will have enough space between them when she’s flat on her back and braless that you can put your locked fists between them on that bone and shove the heel of your hand towards the floor.
Then put whichever Karen looks fiercest in charge of compressions. Either she’ll get in there and do them, or she’ll demur, in which case you say you will and she should watch so she can start when you get tired. That makes her your witness. Don’t forget to tell someone else to call emergency services.
Good point. On the other hand if you tell her to start, and when she starts to object you say fine I’ll do them until i get too tired, she’ll feel like she won the argument which is a step in the right direction.
If you’re doing CPR they’re effectively dead before you start. If you’re the only one there, no witnesses unless you manage to save her. If you’re not alone, you should tell them you’re going to start CPR and order them to call 911 or 999 or whatever. Or volunteer to call while they start compressions. Then you can take over/take turns and vouch for each 's intentions.
If you have cpr or aed training…and a person is unconscious, consent is implied. Especially if you follow training. You felt for a pulse and/or they were not breathing, you will not get sued in this country. If someone manages to get it to court, they will lose.
I am a certified CPR and AED , a registered WFR and just had a training class on the matter. As long as you follow proper protocol you are ok. And I’d like to add, as a man, yeah, I’d be nervous also exposing a womans chest in a crowd, people are stupid, but you can probably save a life.
I firmly believe that if any other candidate, in a primary or general election, either republican or democrat, had said this, it would end their campaign.
We have become so accustomed to Trump saying outrageous bullshit, that this will be forgotten in less than a week, and most voters will never even hear about it.
Trump has steadily pushed the limit of what a politician can get away with for years. He is a master bullshiter devoid of any moral capacity to feel shame and bullshited his way through everything. No low will ever be too low for him.
It’s easily forgotten because he’ll say something new and outrageous again next week. Even his voters don’t know what he intends to do. They just get caught up in whatever word salad they attach to. In reality, he will probably not do a fraction of the bullshit that he spews as promises. He has never kept a promise in his life anyway. He’s not starting now.
Last time he was president all he did was golfing while letting bad guys run wild. He’s enabling “chaotic evil” by being an idiot.
For instance, the pathetic half-assed wall didn’t solve the immigration issue at all. The real evil were the stooges organising ICE to encage children.
Other people organized, staged, and enacted that coup. When he realized it was happening, he decided the coup stagers were “loyal” to him, so he was on board from that point on.
It is not random. He has a group of people doing a deceptively good job crafting the message for each region. Just like he did in 2016 with Cambridge Analytica.
He, himself, is a barely coherent idiot, but I think it allows their message to be received by people who also don't have that good an education.
E.G. find one of his speeches from the rust belt. They're all fairly similar. Will hit notes of corruption, proud people, fight the NYC and California democrats that did this to them, anti-trade and protectionism, etc. Then go find one like this one that was to bible belt extremists. Completely different. Will still hit some common notes(NYC/Cali), but the underlying message and theme are miles apart.
Edit: to be clear, its all bullshit lies that are telling people exactly what they want to hear.
I’m not sure why the senate shouldn’t subpoena him, and have him appear before them to explain just what he means by this. He wouldn’t show, of course, and end up in contempt of congress. Of course, this would make him even more popular with his cult, but we already know who they’ll vote for.
Really, he keeps doing shit that would get anyone else arrested. It’s time to arrest him.
This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-
Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.
Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.
Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.
McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.
Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.
Snyder - Kickbacks aren’t actionable. <- We are here.
The thing about suing for damages, which is what I assume hell sue for, is that your payout is based on their value. And hospitals are “worth nothing” on paper. In the US.
So… He should probably take it.
I mean I’m kidding, he can probably afford a good lawyer and get something done here. But, you or me? Take that shit.
It’s true use is to use as a legal argument that you accepted restitution. Luckily, he wisely declined or his suit might have been dismissed on grounds that they’d made it right already.
As much as Trump is obviously guilty as fuck, I’m not willing to adopt the “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the cops law” mentality.
It’s really easy to avoid sentencing, I’ve done it all my life by following one simple rule: Don’t Do Crimes.
Yeah, sorry, I misunderstood this to mean, “not doing crimes == not being convicted”. Which sounded a lot like the “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear from the police” mentality.
The risk can be pretty fun hombre but you do what works for ya and I’ll own up to what I’ve done if I have to. A seemingly rare trait here in the states
Eh. I’m a pretty plain vanilla middle aged lady and I do crimes on occasion. Not big crimes, but you can’t just not do crimes. Especially before weed was legal, lol. Some people live in states where it’s illegal to commit various consensual acts between consenting adults. They should do crimes. Some people need to not be pregnant, but they are pregnant and it’s illegal to become no longer pregnant where they are. They should do crimes. Some people are drag queens and live in places where that is a crime. Not all laws are good laws.
But the system is rigged so that a relatively small minority of morons can fuck shit up for everybody else. So yeah, guys, vote like your life depends on it because it literally does.
And those of us who are voting and get elected will, and have been, continue to stop vote rigging, jerrymandering, and voter intimidation.
Voting doesn’t end at the end of the presidential election. It involves your local elections too. Especially anything to do with your local educational system.
It’s not a relatively small minority. Trump has lost the popular vote every time he’s run, but not by huge margins. There are a lot of people that legitimately want Trump as a president, and many more that view him as the lesser of two evils. Don’t underestimate that and definitely don’t let down your guard.
He’s the Republican nominee. What do you mean by letting “the media and talking heads convince you of anything?” Based on the previous two presidential elections, he’s got a 50/50 shot which says a lot about his opponent.
The world where out of the 400 RNC candidates filed through the FEC, Trump was the one that people have been voting for in the primaries by a landslide.
There were 161 Million total registered voters in 2022, and 335 Million total USA Population, so even if tens of millions of people, a comparatively small fraction, vote for Donald Trump then he can very easily win this election.
In this world. He already won one election and came very close to winning the second back in 2020. Combine that with yet another weak-ass Dem candidate being the only other option and you have a recipe where it’s entirely possible for him to win again.
You’re comparing apples to oranges here. The circumstances have changed since 2020 and to ignore 4 years of hearings, charges, additional threats (much less vague now) and libertarian distain for trump is significantly different from what it was when he ran in 2016, and when he had that momentum in 2020 (Covid year, don’t forget)
Donald Trump is going to bite the curb this election and I’ll bet you a bunch of people still vote for RFK.
Yeah this sounds a lot like pollsters claiming that Clinton had a 99% chance of winning in 2016.
Biden seems to be going out of his way to alienate progressive voters and conservative voters will never vote for him. The ‘fence sitters’ who don’t pay attention to politics will simply see inflation and high prices and blame whomever is currently holding office due to all the conditioning and rhetoric they hear regarding it.
Any election should see a guy like Trump defeated in a landslide, but that’s not the reality we live in and the guy running against him is doing such a poor job that Trump might actually win again.
I agree with your final paragraph. He isn’t a perfect candidate.
But I don’t think there will ever be a perfect candidate and when they’re running against a literal fascist dictator, I know who I will vote for. I’ve said this before but a primarily 2-party system is dangerously naïve. Simplifying the insanely complex reality that is the US into 2 options is stupid. Not to mention how much it alienates minorities (of all types not just race, religion, sex)
How are we to represent down to the minority level via a popular-vote. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Exactly, and even if it might seem like your single vote doesn’t matter, you would be surprised. trump won in 2016 because disinformation on social media convinced people that their vote won’t change anything and Hillary will win anyway.
Also vote at least every 2 years, it isn’t just the president that matters, the Congress is important too
By district, which is all the voters in a smaller geographic area. House Reps are up for re election every 2 years. The intent of the House is to give more representatives to states with higher populations, so for example New York has 26 representatives while Kansas only has 4.
However, instead of purely representing population, the number of House reps has been capped at 435, which weighs heavily in favor of less populated (Republican) states. If that cap was removed, Democrats would have a permanent lock on the House.
I live in italy and here too government took a steep turn to the right since last elections.
It is like the most roborantly bamboozling idiocy someone from a stage can scream the more he gets applauded as the folks’ hero for speaking their unsung voices.
On the other hand if you try to build an organic and critical dialogue you only get yawned away as utterly boring.
I don’t think it is the ones screaming from their stages being the morons, well not the most moron at least, but instead they are those who give their precious votes, hard conquered from their ancestors who gift them with a life in a democracy, to these unambiguously unmistakable frauds, and who hide in the self-obliviousness of the guilty conscience for the vote they have cast their incapability of admitting their own deep existential self-inadequacy.
Lots of people are incredibly stupid. Many of those stupid people are also selfish and mean. It will always be easy to appeal to those people by blaming all their problems on others. Until science figures out a way to force on the empathy parts of our brains, we’ll go through these cycles of stupid people cheering on fascism.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.