This is mental illness by now! Seriously wtf? Why is this so important for her that she can’t stop talking about it? If I had some irrational hate for trans woman, I would not go on about it in public all the time. Don’t we have more important problems then to bash people that are so unhappy with their body that they are willing to take hormones and let people operate on their genitals? This is such a simple thought, everybody should be able to think it, right? But on the other hand, she is not the only one hating transgender women or men. I mean it is not right to hate people for that. But if I would hate trans people then I would just not invite them for dinner and would stop talking about them all the time. It must be some form of mental illness I have no other explanation.
They genuinely believe women are worse than men. So they invent a magical mystical quality to womanness that let’s them keep believing that, and live like they’re roughly equal with men at the same time
Trans people fuck all that shit up by forcing us to actually look at gender, putting all that shit in contact woth reality amd forcing us to really look at it, which invalidates their magical mystical shit they invented to call themselves feminists while still being archaic repressive misogynist pieces of shit who passionately hate women.
Flattening the territory until its as featureless as the map they drew.
She lives in a literal castle and will die before climate change kills her. She does not, in fact, have bigger problems than someone else getting bodily autonomy.
Property is theft, ownership is a disease, and remember how the character trying to abolish slavery in her shitty books was a literal joke?
have bigger problems than someone else getting bodily autonomy.
Except her problem doesn’t seem to be with people having bodily autonomy, her problem seems to be with trans women in what should be safe spaces for women.
I’m not saying I agree with her views, but it seems all nuance has been lost from public debate.
Lol, you think you can believe her words? She’s a Nazi, dear. The noises that come out of their mouths are wind. She’s just saying a less objectionable thing to popularize it, then she’ll take it a step farther, again and again and again.
She is so lost in her own transphobia, that she now hangs out and financially support people who are not only transphobic but openly homophobic, conservative, misogynistic and fascist, things i still believe she is against. But she is so blinded by hate that she is willing to ignore all those things to support transphobia
If you are interested in a (in my opinion) nuanced look at it I would like to point you towards the YouTube Channel Contrapoints Video on the matter, in case you haven’t seen it.
I know what it means. And, by all means, people can and should talk about Hitler and the Nazis in their historical context. WW2 was the defining conflict of the 20th century, after all. But you used it in the reductio ad Hitlerum sense. It’s just so boring to constantly see every Lemmy thread devolve into calling people Nazis or comparing them to Nazis, which is just the former with an extra step. It becomes meaningless after a while. So, when we are faced with an actual proto-fascist like Trump, the comparison has been exhausted and has little impact.
Not a reduction at all. The beginning of the Holocaust was when the Nazis destroyed the Institute for Sexual Research and burned all the books. I used Jews as an example rather than that because people were making the same “he’s keeping Germany safe” argument about Hitler persecuting the Jews that the person above is making about “they’re keeping women safe.” And I would not be at all surprised if they made the “they’re keeping women safe” argument about persecuting trans people then too.
It is encouraging genocide while defending someone who denied the Holocaust.
Why you think that is a reduction, I don’t know. It seems like a pretty close 1:1 comparison with Germany in 1933 to me.
Hitler didn’t start the death camps the second he came to power. You know that, right?
Well, comparing JK Rowling to Hitler and her fear of tran women to the Holocaust might be just a wee bit of exaggeration, eh? The purpose of citing Godwin’s Law is to remind people to step back and ask whether the person being discussed is actually similar in magnitude to Hitler and the Nazis.
I was comparing the excuse of her bigotry to the same excuses given to Nazis and it led to horrors. Horrors that are happening again and which she is fomenting.
I compared her to the Nazi ideology she supports and her supporters to the appeasers that excused the Nazis in the 1930s.
I will not apologize for calling a Nazi a Nazi. If you think you have to subscribe to every single thing the Nazis believed in to be called a Nazi, you’re wrong.
Is she Hitler? No, because she’s not a world leader. Would she do the same things he did to trans people, especially women, if she were? Of that I have little doubt.
Think like a Nazi, I’m going to call you a Nazi. Excuse a Nazi and I’m going to point it out.
She subscribes to Nazi ideology. Specifically the classifying of trans people as sub humans and demonizing them as a danger to public safety.
It quacks like a duck. You seem to think Nazi = killing people. It doesn’t. She supports a genocide. That’s all it takes.
Again, Hitler didn’t open the camps on day one to anyone but political opponents.
This seems more about you liking Rowling and not wanting to admit what she’s doing.
Once again, a transgender genocide is going on right now. She is supporting it. If you deny that genocide is happening, or worse, claiming she has a point like the person I responded to, you’re supporting Nazi ideology too.
Maybe the issue is that you agree with her that trans people are a danger to society?
She subscribes to Nazi ideology. Specifically the classifying of trans people as sub humans
Hyperbole
It quacks like a duck. You seem to think Nazi = killing people. It doesn’t.
Straw man argument
She supports a genocide. That’s all it takes.
Does she actually support a genocide? Who knew the bar was so low?
Again, Hitler didn’t open the camps on day one to anyone but political opponents.
Slippery slope argument
This seems more about you liking Rowling and not wanting to admit what she’s doing.
Ad hominem attack
Once again, a transgender genocide is going on right now.
Hyperbole
She is supporting it. If you deny that genocide is happening, or worse, claiming she has a point like the person I responded to, you’re supporting Nazi ideology too.
Ad hominem attack, again
Maybe the issue is that you agree with her that trans people are a danger to society?
Ad hominem attack again.
Do you ever make valid arguments, or is your mouth just a fire hose of irrationality?
I don’t agree with Rowling’s concerns about transgender people. They are no threat to me or the larger society. I also don’t think there is a transgender genocide going on. Again, reductio ad absurdum. Does that make me a Nazi? Again, who knew the bar was so low on Nazism?
It’s hard to take you seriously when your argument is just a long string of logical fallacies, as I pointed out in detail.
Cool. I never said disagreeing with someone makes them Hitler, so that’s not even remotely relevant.
I said denying this genocide, especially in the face of the overwhelming evidence I just provided you, makes you a fellow traveler who aids Nazis.
Sorry, if you don’t want to be told you’re helping out Nazis, don’t be a genocide denier. And if you don’t want to be called a genocide denier, don’t deny a genocide is happening when you’re very, very, very clearly shown that it is and even refusing to review the evidence you’ve been given.
That makes you a fellow traveler of Nazis. It’s not my fault that you’re a genocide denier, it’s yours.
I do love that someone who denies a genocide is happening in the face of a mass of evidence they clearly are refusing to review is telling me to get a grip on reality though. My grip on reality is based on evidence. Yours is apparently based on misunderstanding what Godwin’s Law means. Although I think it’s an intentional misunderstanding to avoid admitting you’re a fellow traveler.
Nope, I literally called you a fellow traveler and a Nazi supporter. Because you’re supporting Nazis.
And it’s odd that you’re talking about credibility when you continue to refuse to review a lot of information about an ongoing genocide so that you can continue to claim it isn’t happening.
I already pointed out the logical fallacies one of your posts, in which virtually every word was part of a logical fallacy. That must be very embarrassing for you as a grown man. I don’t think I need to embarrass you further. But keep going. Tell me again that I’m a Nazi.
Nope, I’m claiming that you’re lying because you’re lying. You lied twice about me calling you a Nazi, which I never did, once by claiming that a fellow traveler and a Nazi are the same thing, which they are not, and once because you claimed I backpedaled, which you did not do.
Furthermore, it is not a fallacy that there is an ongoing transgender genocide just because you arrogantly refuse to believe it.
Time for you to go back to school. Your style of argument is full of hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, slippery slope assumptions, hair splitting, and straw men.
her problem seems to be with trans women in what should be safe spaces for women.
She claims that that is her problem, but her solution isn’t “let’s make sure that we harshly prosecute those who abuse the goodwill of other’s trusting in your own self identification to invade and attack women”, is “all trans women are really perverts trying to invade women spaces to attack women”
So, really, her problem seems to be with trans people existing at all…
After enough time has passed since the initial conflict, it becomes less about the subject of the conflict and more about the conflict in itself. The reason becomes secondary and instead the goal becomes winning against the other side or at least making it hurt.
Yes I think you are right. And I think this is borderline a mental illness if you can’t stop lashing out. As I understand it, she somehow thinks by bashing trans women she is doing something good for women. Trans women are somehow taking away her womanhood or something like that. I have read something like this several times from Rowling but I have no clue how trans woman could do that. But Rowling is obsessed with that, for what ever reason.
Following this train of thought, what I gathered from other comments is that she had a bad experience with a man in the past, her targeted social media experience likely concentrated the bad news in that direction and her view is now that the trans movement is just evil men looking to invade women’s personal spaces in order to abuse them.
If you look at her as someone bombarded with Fox News type of content, then perhaps that kind of paranoia and fear is what makes her so vocal in her opposition.
Yeah. And it’s important to understand that the pipeline she followed does a swap. Once she became convinced trans women were the problem she began associating with men who are misogynists and support the harm to cis women that she fears. By the time she’s standing with Matt Walsh and funding groups that also oppose abortion access protecting cis women is no longer her primary concern, it may be what she thinks is her primary concern but if so she believes that trans women are a larger threat than those who oppose the right to choose to stop being pregnant or men who want to relegate cis women back to traditional gender roles.
My only concern is that people are going to think that he only stayed playing civ all night because it’s exciting to do something. But that’s not the case.
Innocent people are going to try this game and keep saying “one more turn”.
What you want is a sport that’s obscure in your country. Don’t need to compete if nobody else is applying to represent your country for it at the Olympics. Or so I’ve learned from Cool Runnings and Eddie the Eagle.
I remember how, 20 years ago, I read that just knowing how to snowboard at the age of 14 was enough to be a very promising candidate for the winter Olympics in my country. I live in Brazil
I recall a story just a few years ago about a teenage girl being the only one in her division, so she did a few basic snowboard tricks and went home with first place. I can’t find any articles about it now, unfortunately. I can’t remember if it was the Olympics or some other competition.
Come on, I think you know there’s more to it than that. One also needs to make sure there’s a body of water beneath, which involves observational skills.
A friend of mine shot skeet in the Olympics one year. His gun cost about $12k. He reloaded his own rounds and went through about 250-1000 rounds a day before training, roughly tripling that leading up to the event.
The gun was so expensive because the brand would take your old one on trade every year (for a relatively small fee) for a new one. The program was for people just like him.
So let me get this straight. You’re not having any luck competing with regular schlubs in the real world, so you want to fake your way into a situation where you compete with a group of fitter and more attractive people?
I don’t think those AIs have watched a competitive ping pong match. Shooting/archery are probably ok, I’d also say curling is a solid option at least for the winter olympics
That is just plain wrong. People that switch over to cycling and are successful within a few years are athletes from other disciplines. You can not build up the necessary cardio to be an olympic level cyclist in just a few years.
Well, Chris Hoy, one of GB’s most decorated cyclists, switched to track cycling and was considered a medal hopeful within four years. That’s why I mentioned cycling.
Besides…I’m not a olympic cyclist. It probably isn’t true, since it was written by a journalist and not a cyclist, but that’s what the UK rags always say.
She luckily has access to the best medical care you can find in the world. Can’t say the same for most of the rest of us peasants if we get struck by cancer.
At what point do a few Republicans not running for re-election just say “Fuck it” and vote for Hakeem Jeffries? The margin is down to what, three flips? McCarthy being so thirsty for the job that he let them change the rules has fucked them over, because Ted Cruz et al made government shutdowns and other refusals to do routine shit such a losing national issue for the GOP that once in the job, even Christian-Nationalist ideologues like Johnson have to “betray the principles” of idiots like MTG, Gaetz, and Boebert.
What principles? Oh yeah, vaping and giving handies at kids’ shows and throwing tantrums in The House while doing absolutely nothing resembling their actual jobs.
There are plenty of Blue state GOPs. I can see someone giving a speech along these lines; Things have gotten out of hand. It’s time to cooperate with the other Party. You know me, and that I am a strong Reagan Republican. Reagan worked with Tip O’Neil and we beat the Soviets.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of them (if you don’t believe me, check the Senate and the 2020 Presidential election results), but that doesn’t stop her district from being deeply blood-red-batshit-insane.
Thank Sarah Palin for the new political track. Back in the day, a losing pol could only go home or become a lobbyist. Now they can become media darlings. MGT will be flogging her wares for decades, in or out of office.
Because of the rule change, it’s going to fuck over Dems too when they take over Speaker of the House. Reps are just going to oust every single Dem elected to the position every single day. All they need is one vote to challenge the Speaker. I really hope they nullify the rule.
I don’t think those are House rules. Those are the rules they made for themselves. Democrats don’t have to abide by this. That’s my understanding at the moment. Feel free to correct me.
I think they are house rules, but a majority of Congress can changes those rules at any time. So if Democrats take the house they can just reverse it as part of installing a new speaker.
Pretty sure those are house rules. I think they are agreed upon at the beginning of every session of congress. They can likely be changed with a simple majority but the handful of fucking-batshit-insane GOP don’t want to give up that power. I can’t imagine Dems just holding onto that rule when it should just be an essay easy vote to revert back to what it was.
Thank you! I agree, I don’t think Dems would keep that rule. Which kind of makes it only for republicans. But now I understand that they are in fact House rules that would need to be changed. Thanks again bro/sis!
They do. The Constitution says that each chamber makes its own rules. Whoever is in power can do pretty much whatever they like. Usually they write sensible rules to avoid a pendulum swing each time power changes hands.
The just plain wrong. When you vote for speaker you also vote the rules in. Dems will not vote for the same set of rules and likely go back to a traditional and more sane set of rules.
The really fucked up thing is the origination fee. Banks charge like 1% to do the loan paperwork. Why does the paperwork for a $400k house cost more than a $250k house? Don’t the banks make enough money on the interest?
Not to mention PMI, which should just be illegal. Oh you don’t have 20% down? Great credit score? Doesn’t matter. We’re charging you another 2%.
That 20% down payment in today’s market is just atrocious. We’re getting ready to sell our home and we will profit maybe 80k, and that’s still not enough for a detached 3-bedroom home in our area. We’ll likely need to dip into our 401k to get up to 20% to avoid PMI
I think that the system for determining down payments and mortgage rates is probably okay. That market should be competitive – if a lender is demanding an unreasonable amount, a buyer can go somewhere else, same as any other market.
But how many mortgage lenders should you apply to? The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) recommends that you contact “at least three lenders” on your shortlist.
In such an environment, I’d expect that it’s hard for there to be collusion to artificially drive fees up. They’d have to have some way of preventing competing lenders from entering the market.
The down payment discourages a buyer from defaulting, so I suppose if lenders expect high down payments in a given situation, they expect a high risk of default. Maybe they assess the risk of the post-sale price falling as high, for example. Saying “I want 20% down” is the lender saying “I think the price might fall 20% and if so, I don’t want to be the one left holding the bag. You, the buyer, can eat the first 20% of price drop, and only after that will I start to be exposed.”
I think that if lenders are wary of lending to buy something without a large down payment, I might be wary of buying it too, as a potential buyer.
Might be interesting to see what the correlation is in historic spread in offered mortgage rates for various down payments with historic price movements of houses over some subsequent fixed period of time. If a lender can do a good job of predicting price movements, then one would expect them to have a higher down payment more-significantly reduce lending rates prior to situations where the price of the property falls.
Lenders these days lack nuance and are beholden to large corporate rules that are there to protect them. What you are saying is good but I don’t think it exists.
But I have not been able to afford to buy a house so I have no idea.
My take is that having a percentage fee of the total sale price for the realtor makes little sense. The realtor might be able to get a more-favorable price, sure. But the effort and return there aren’t linear in the price of a house. If one wants incentive to reflect what the realtor’s involvement actually does, I’d expect to do something more like have a commission based on how far the price differs from an appraisal or something.
Sure, there are different issues with gameability there, but let me put it a different way. Say you are selling or buying a ~$500k piece of property. Say the price can go up or down $50k based on what your agent does. Do you want to have the realtor mostly incentivized to get that swing in your favor, or incentivized to get more throughout? As things stand on our hypothetical sale, there’s a percentage of that that goes to both the buyer’s agent and seller’s agent.
As things stand in our hypothetical example, 80% of the seller agent’s incentive is to just close the sale. If they have to put in double the amount of work to get the best possible price rather than the worst possible price, it makes no sense for them to do so – they’d rather focus on doing another sale.
I remember thinking “it’d probably be a good idea to outright offer something like a 50% split on sale above some fixed level to the agent, if you’re selling real estate, even in addition to the existing commission, because as a seller, you want them focused on driving that number up, and the current system doesn’t much do that”.
As the existing structure has it, the real sales job that the seller’s agent is incentivized to do isn’t getting a favorable price for the seller, but rather selling the seller on having them, rather than a different realtor, represent them.
On the side of the buyer’s agent, the existing incentive is even more curious, because they get rewarded by having a higher price, not a lower price, which to the degree that they respond to incentives to have a different price, aligns their interests with the seller, not the buyer that they are hypothetically working for.
That being said, I understand that percentage commissions aren’t uncommon in the sales world. Just that usually, a salesman isn’t selling a fixed amount of product for the party that they are working for – you’re trying to incentivize them to sell a larger amount. And while I don’t know how procurement agents are typically compensated, I doubt that it’s normally tied to having a higher price. Any system is going to have its own degree of gameability, but the current set of incentives seems to me really removed from one that makes sense for the buyers and sellers involved.
Without PMI, if you don’t put 20% down, they just won’t give you the loan for that amount. Outlawing PMI would just screw the consumers who can afford the payments, but just don’t have the 20% to put down. Which was the case for me when I bought my first house.
This is why everyone seemingly has a real estate license. Low barrier to entry and no cap on income. I am guessing the barrier will increase now so the top producers get even more quantity to make up for the lower per transaction deal and push out the smaller fish.
Officer was backing away from the kid, and turned to run away from him. The officer was actively retreating from the attack at the time the shots were fired.
Two officers were present. It is not clear from the video who fired the shots. It is very clear, however, that the kid was actively attacking the officer.
To safely employ a tazer in this situation, the cop would have needed body armor completely covering his head, neck, torso, arms, groin, and legs. Wearing anything less than full riot gear, that attack posed an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Striking the officer’s head or neck with a bladed weapon could destroy an eye, sever the carotid artery, or cause a wide variety of maiming or permanently disfiguring injuries.
Employment of a pain compliance method is only feasible once that threat has been stopped, delayed, or mitigated.
Neither of the officers present appeared to have had any opportunity to use a tazer or less-lethal device to stop the attack.
I see. And what training, instruction, or other expertise do you have to support your assertion that this was a “non lethal situation”?
I believe that I could cause a permanently disfiguring, debilitating, or lethal injury with any of the long-handled tools in my shed. I believe if a racist teenager swung one of these tools at a black man, you, too, would consider it to have been a use of lethal force.
I think a reasonable person facing a 15-year-old attempting to strike them with any of my gardening equipment would reasonably fear a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
I reject your characterization of this as a “non lethal situation”.
I don’t know about him but I was an Infantryman who invaded Iraq. And no. You’re wrong. You don’t just shoot kids clearly having a mental health episode. Especially with multiple cops present. You only need one designated shooter while everyone else works the problem.
Also, pain compliance is to neutralize threats. If there is no threat then you’re just torturing them. Where I’m from that’s called a war crime.
Surely we’re holding our police to a higher standard than a 19 year old scared shitless in a warzone? Right?
I’m referring to an upvoted comment here that suggests soldiers wouldn’t have been justified in shooting this kid in a war zone, due to ROE. The author of that comment pulled it straight out of their ass: there never has been and never will be an ROE that would have prohibited this use of lethal force.
You’re right. A Soldier could have shot him in a war zone. I would very much like our police to perform better than a scared shitless 19 year old kid with 14 weeks of training and no sleep in the past 48 hours.
Jesus there is some hard cop-sucking cope here. A govt sanctioned gang member shows up and shoots a 15 year old. This self-aggrandizing hero kills a kid rather than retreating and licking his wounded ego. This is not public service. These are cowards who immediately soil themselves at the first sign of danger and then pat each other’s soiled bottoms over how brave they are when they kill someone.
He was 15. You’re saying that two trained and experienced police officers couldn’t deal with a 15 year old boy. Don’t make me laugh. “Bladed weapon”? Was the kid a samurai?
They deal with hardened criminals and meth labs in San Bernardino. But a confused 15 year old was their arch nemesis? No one is going to believe that and they better not try to convince a jury with that story. Like the acorn guy, these cops are going to be laughed off the force.
Tazers fail. A lot. You have one shot and if one of the two barbs don’t both go in for a good connection it doesn’t work. It’s not something anyone would want to count on in a situation where you or someone else is being attacked.
If you have multiple cops at the scene though, you can easily have one go through the tool kit using tazer, pepper spray, etc, while the other one covers them with a gun.
That’s not as simple as it sounds. Even if they somehow knew exactly what has happening and had pre-arranged a plan of action, by the time they knew the taser has failed, the partner is as likely to shoot the other officer as the assailant.
Tasers simply aren’t effective in these situations.
Pre-arranged plans… Hmmm like Standard Operating Procedures? Or Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures?
They didn’t need a football pre game huddle. It’s as simple as one guy saying “cover me” while they choose a less lethal option. This is literally why they train. Why we give them so much money.
And just because you deploy a Taser does not mean you stop creating space. Likewise, there is no rule that the partner needs to take a shot from 10 meters away. Standard infantry practice for an engaged buddy is to get right up in there and shoot where you can be sure of it. Just make sure you call the shot so your buddy knows to turn away. Which is all also training.
These guys ran straight into an unknown situation and someone died because of it.
I did see the video. He didn’t have to go straight in. He really should have waited for his buddy. But they train to operate individually and just go straight to guns. So that’s what panic stricken cops are going to do. Insert themselves into situations and kill people until they can go home again. At which point people like you show up to defend them.
We don’t have to accept this behavior. We can see better models of threat reduction in other countries.
The officer entered the house without a weapon drawn. Upon observing a threat, and was engaged by that threat before he was able to draw and aim his own weapon.
For the officers to have had sufficient time to engage him before he completes his initial attack, they would have had to have approached the door with weapons already drawn.
That’s why I asked about the time frame. Meeting your expectation for this scenario
The only feasible way they could have feasibly de-escalated the threat or used a less-lethal weapon would have been to enter the home of a black family with tasers and nightsticks in their hands.
I am comfortable in assuming that you would have a giant fucking problem with taser-wielding cops barging into black homes with no indication of an active threat.
You want the officers to wait for backup? I am comfortable in assuming you would have a giant fucking problem with a cop sitting in his patrol car while an attack is in progress, just waiting around until his partner arrives.
No, there’s no policy or standard that they could adopt that would actually make you happy, so there’s no point in trying. Since you and people like you are going to be pissed off no matter what they do, they might as well ignore you completely, and focus on someone else.
Yes, exactly. They work through every less-lethal option they have, with an officer ready to escalate to lethal if the subject ever puts someone at imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
If, for example, an atttacker is ever close enough and aggressive enough to attempt to stick a shovel in someone’s head and neck, a covering officer can immediately stop the attack with lethal force.
So, officers could start with a less-lethal option, like a baton, or tazer, or bare hands, and only escalate to lethal force if the situation actually calls for it.
Wasn’t there a case some year back where a police officer was attacked and they mistakenly grabbed their gun instead of their tazer due to panic? The details are murky.
He spent the day trying to kill everyone around him, and you think he deserves a slap on the wrist?
Parents penalized? Theit kid tries to kill them, and you’re going to penalize them? The victims?
Your value system is completely out of whack. Kid is a threat to himself and others, and should have been locked up. Whether as a patient in a psychological institution or an inmate in a correctional facility is an open question, but separation from society and professional supervision is not.
Yes, lock him up, that’ll fix him! Fucking put him in a solitary, that does wonders to mental stability, scientifically proven!
Of course he needs to be institutionalised, but I bet to fuck that this didn’t just happened out of thin air and parents were neglecting symptoms. I bet they didn’t want to / couldn’t deal with it because of the insane (no pun) costs associated with it. (only in the USA, of course)
Either way, shooting down an underage with a sharp stick is barbaric and medieval.
In many parts of the US we create paths for unwanted animals to cross freeways safely. Most are tunnels under, but sometimes it’s a crosswalk over. The idea is that no matter what we do, the animals are going to find a way to cross. We create the paths(at significant expense)so as to avoid unwanted death of the animal, and also to prevent people from hitting them at speed, causing additional injury, death, or at minimum financial burden.
I feel we should either treat these people like humans and help them (legalize their immigration), or treat them like animals and do at least a little bit to prevent them from causing further harm and financial burden. Treating them like terrorists seems to be the worst option.
Fuck that. Fewer and fewer options just means the biggest companies can bully everyone else.
Anti-trust this merger and cancel it. The Feds have the power, we saw what they did with Ma Bell. They just need to actually flex their muscle instead of being captured by corporate interest.
Yeah and then Ma Bell just reformed under other names and started doing it again. When there’s no actual enforcement, it doesn’t matter how much politicians grand stand
Police doing police shit: “They drove away … indicating that we think they were outsiders.” Uhauls can be rented and picked up anywhere. Pigs won’t lift a finger to stop nazis.
It’s not their job, our constitution protects nazi protestors the same way it protects climate protestors. The right to assembly.
Confronting these things is our job, as citizens. Not the police’s job. If they weren’t causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.
I think the thing in this case is that it is the job of police to pull over a box truck full of human cargo. The implication here is so you think they’d have let a truck they knew was full of immigrants just drive away?
They would at the least be booked on charges that will obviously not stick, so that there face and name becomes public data and they get added to lists by political rivals. This was the MO throughout 2020, there were several popular twitter accounts that would just post the mugshots and names of people arrested, the majority of which weren’t charged or often weren’t even part of the protest but ended up doxxed and harrassed by chuds.
You’re almost there. Yes their primary role is to protect capital interests through systemic oppression. They selectively enforce certain laws over others.
They will beat down peaceful leftist and progressive demonstrations through the enforcement of petty law breaking like jay walking. I’ve been witness to this. They could do this here but they choose not to because capitalism requires systemic racism.
Their primary role is whatever the local governance makes it. There is no universal set of regulations governing local police. Though we might need some.
Additionally, what one person witnesses and attests to is not a sound basis for making policy decisions.
All that said, I do agree that leftist protestors frequently get treated more harshly than right-wing protestors, and that is a problem we need to address.
Thanks for invalidating my experience and those of black and brown people across the US. It is a systemic issue, their job is policing capital interests. History books and plenty of fields of study show this.
I didn’t intend any offense, but validating individual personal experiences is not what policy is for. It’s a statistical thing. Those fields of study are vastly more valuable than any anecdotes, which can be subject to a lot of different potential problems.
Particularly on the internet, which is absolutely full of people saying shit that is not actually true, and pretending to be things they are not.
It’s not personal, it’s very coldly impersonal. On purpose. I would discount an individual experience regardless of who the person was, or what they said.
Nazi ideology is explicit violent and encourages murder of non-white people and others, there is no constitutional protection for literally threatening someone’s life even if only through words.
If you menancingly say to someone “I’m going to kill you” you can be charged with a crime for that in the US. Supporting Naziism is little different than saying “I encourage the murder of Jews and other non-Aryans.”
Nazis marching are an explicit threat to all minorities and queer people. It should be treated as any other threat of violence is- as a violation of the law and disallowed.
Tolerance will never extend to protect intolerance. Hate and violence will never be considered protected. It’s not “for better or worse” douche, it’s for WORSE because they are a violent hate group that wants to kill. Is this really so hard to comprehend?
lol No, it’s not. However, the law is not subject to any kind of broader ethics. It’s subject to laws written by people, whoever those people are and whatever they want, and the interpretations, which are again, done by people.
The law is not inherently “good”, so the ethical interpretation of it is just one consideration. The law is blind.
If everyone voted for nazis, and those nazis made laws banning being jewish on pain of death, then that is what the law would do. This is why we need to rely on ourselves, as citizens, to fight this battle and not merely hope in the law.
I don’t think the Constitution should protect them. Hell, I don’t even think laws against murder should protect them.
But they do. If they break the law, throw the book at them. Until then, it’s our job to try and change the law or fight them on other fronts, such as in civil court, like they are doing in Massachusetts.
The new attitude, coupled with a cost of living crisis that leaves many younger generations unable to afford a party lifestyle, is having a knock-on effect on the nighttime economy.
Title is blatantly misleading. Gen Z wants to party as much as their predecessors did, they literally just don't have the money to do so.
Millennials didn’t have money, either (and still don’t), but that didn’t stop us from partying. I literally entered the job market right as the economy crashed, but I still found a way to get my party on. Cheap hobo wine is the nector of the gods when you’re 21 and have been unemployed since you were 17.
I bet it’s a little of both. I think every successive generation in the US has become more socially isolated. Car culture, suburban sprawl, internet culture, lack of “third places”, etc. I’m reminded of the sociology book Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam. It starts with the observation that more Americans go bowling than ever, but memberships to bowling leagues has fallen. Americans are still bowling, but they’re bowling alone.
But I thought if we had universal healthcare there would be death panels deciding whether gradma got her medicine! Now you’re telling me its the private insurers that do that?
Well it’s obviously better because if consumers get mad about the decisions from the death panel at company A, they can just go to company B. Like if you don’t like McDonald’s, you can just go to Burger King instead.
Except there might not be a Burger King restaurant (let’s say in Burger King’s “network”) anywhere near where you live. And your employer already decided that everyone on the payroll has to eat at McDonald’s, and trying to deviate from that is a gigantic expensive hassle for some reason. And you’re basically locked into a single burger chain for the year, except for a tiny window of time when you can elect to switch. And you’re on the verge of starvation.
I want my death panels incentivized by … keeping me alive to keep paying taxes, instead of incentivized to reduce costs and increase short-term profits.
Everyone does that. Unless you are filthy rich you cannot afford whatever medical costs you might have. Private insurance means you get to choose which death panel decides your case - except that the way insurance is setup in the US you don't get that choice.
Okay, stupid question, as an European I don’t know if that’s the case with our insurance. Sure there may be waiting times for organ donors or whatnot, but healthcare is not going to put me into debt. I’ve had one in a million illnesses in my family where one has to stay at a hospital for months before and after a complex surgery, but it never has been a money issue.
Most beople have health insurance here and don't go into debt. it is a minority that run into problems.
you may not be allowed some expensive care, but your doctor won't tell you it is an option elsewhere as you can't get it. If you have such a condition you could go to a different country for care, but odds are you don't as such things are rare.
Trump’s decision to run for president was in part inspired by a throwaway joke Obama made about him being a “birther”… Which when I think about it, is another huge red flag that American voters over looked.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.