Britain: “Screw the EU. We’re sick of following your regulations and welcoming your people into our country just to steal our jobs from hardworking British workers and scrounge off of our NHS and welfare state. But we still want to trade freely and come live in your countries whenever we feel like it, because we’re massive xenophobic hypocrites who think the entire world still revolves around us.”
They believe all trans folk are pedophile groomers that are brainwashing children into becoming trans by sneaking into bathrooms and school sports teams, so they want to kill us to Save The Children.
uhh, why don’t you use your fucking head for 3 seconds and google it, our ancestors didn’t spend years documenting the world in encyclopaedias for you to turn around and refuse to work with the internet at your fingertips, eejit
The person who makes a claim is responsible for providing sources to back up their claim. It is not my responsibility to take your claims at face value. If you speak of facts and statistics, show them. Don’t spew hateful shit for the sake of spewing hateful shit.
uhh, did i ask? google something you see on the internet, this isn’t a lecture hall and i’m not going to baby you through the process of basic analysis, the fact you are unable to do basic analysis tells me all i need to know, i’ll speak of facts and statistics which are approximately 5 seconds away from you at any given moment :)
OK, so the fact that you’re refusing to back up your claims tells me everything I need to know. You take talking points from far right rhetoric and pull them out of your ass. It stinks, you can’t show it because there is nothing to show. It’s all ass air, man. Ass air ain’t shit.
I wrote a post on Nextdoor.com about this sort of situation. “Use of force” laws in my state, with a few easy-to-digest links and quotes.
Post basically said, “Your rights may not be what you think they are, and if you fuck up, you may find yourself in a concrete and steel box for life.”
Nothing combative, controversial, derogatory, political or non-factual. Shot down within 30-minutes for being “insulting”. Yeah. LOL, I even quoted Masad Ayoob, a world-class expert on the subject, and quite conservative if you read between the lines. Not good enough around here.
I’m a LiberalGunNut™ who studies these things. I have guns at the ready, in my home, and sometimes on my person. It behooves me to know the law.
Part of the reason I wrote that post:
A man had been seen on another man’s lot fucking about, trying to get in an empty trailer. A lot next door, not the shooter’s domicile.
Next night, the shooter setup a chair just inside the tree line and hunted. When the other man came back, he popped 5-rounds of 5.56 at him (AR-15). Hit him a time or two, guy lived.
Next day the cops question the shooter. He lies, gets his story mixed up, gets arrested for 2nd-degree attempted murder. Well, fucking obviously!
About 40% of the Nextdoor.com comments defended the shooter. To sum: The homeowner saw a man trying to break into an empty trailer, on the homeowner’s land, hid himself the next evening and decided to execute this man for trespass when he came back. Think on that. Death for breaking into an empty trailer.
I’ll tell you what my conceal-carry instructor told us, a very conservative gun nut. “If you pull your weapon, you’re shooting to kill. Whatever situation you’re trying to stop, be aware, think, is it worth 20-years, maybe life, behind bars? Because that may well be the outcome, not matter how justified you think you are in the moment.”
Honestly I think my biggest frustration with guns in America is the culture around them. When I was a kid learning about guns in scouts you didn’t get to touch one till you’d learned what felt like 12 different times what the rules are and how to be a responsible gun owner and it feels like so many people really needed that handling.
Sorry to hear you live in an area where people’s perspective on guns is that they’re entitled to attempting murder with a deadly weapon if anyone interacts with them in a way they don’t like. That wouldn’t exactly make me very comfortable with the folks I live around
I am certain that there is still firearms training in the Boy Scouts. Sadly, your average leader is probably also a MAGAT so I can’t imagine that they are teaching safety like they used to.
I’ve often said, America doesn’t have a gun problem, America has a culture problem.
I’m 53 for reference. When I was a kid there were guns everywhere, and they were hilariously easier to get. FFS, one of my vintage shotguns was rebranded by Mossberg to be sold in Western Auto Stores. No one would bat at eye at some dude in his pickup with a rack full of long guns in the rear window.
I can’t believe in 2023 we are still in the position of having the only convenient capable way of incapacitating someone from a distance being to destroy their body.
I’m not trying to sound super anti-gun, it just seems like it’s not the right tool for the job most of the time, and it sucks that that is the choice we have to make.
I was really hoping we’d have the phasers from star trek by now, and we could just use the ‘stun’ setting for defense. Though, I’m sure conservative gun nuts would make a little club dedicated to only using the ‘kill’ setting on their phasers, because it’s their God given right to murder someone over inanimate objects.
Those murderers obviously have 0 empathy for any humans beside themselves so the next best thing to convince them is to say how bad it would go for them
You don’t seem to understand the second-most important reason we have prisons: to deter people from committing crimes in the first place due to their fear of the consequences.
Deliberately misunderstanding my post? Point being, even in obvious self-defense, it can be a tricky thing. But yeah, there are very certain circumstances where I would take a life. Namely: Home invasion (while someone is home) and attacking myself or my family. I would defend a stranger, but it would have to be a clear case of “stop this or that person dies”.
In no case does property damage of theft justify a shooting.
As another Liberal gunowner with a carry permit, what nearly everyone with a defensive firearm seldom understands, is even IF it’s a “righteous shoot”, it’s going to cost well north of a $100,000 dollars to prove it in court. If nothing else, it would be financial ruin for the overwhelming majority of those people who are most vocal about self-defense that want to mentally play Rambo.
Question from someone outside the US who’s genuinely curious about why law-abiding citizens feel the need to carry guns to begin with:
If you’re aware of this, how often are you carrying a gun in the first place? When/Why?
Following what you say, there’s obviously the scenario where you have to defend your life (not your property).
On the other hand, as I see it, the victim in the article would not have benefited from a gun in the car and the odds of a shell-shocked BF turning the whole thing into an actual shootout would’ve been >0.
I’m not trying to argue crime statistics or morals here, I’m genuinely interested in a gun owner’s perspective.
I carry, (when I do carry), because I live in a very rural area of my state where cell service is poor to non-extant in most areas and law enforcement can be an hour away even IF you can call or text. And in order to buy and carry a handgun outside of a legal hunting season, you need a carry permit.
So the reason I have a carry permit is to carry outside of a hunting season, (when it is legal to carry for any hunter), because I spend a good amount of time being out and about in 10,000s of thousands of acres of forest land. And it isn’t the idealistic vision of forest you might have. There be wild critters out there that will eat you if hungry enough or attack you if you bump into them and they feel threatened. The wolves and bears and even bumping into Bambi can go south quickly if you are very unlucky, but I don’t mind any of those critters too much. Because they are mostly afraid of humans and will try very hard to avoid them if at all possible. And that might not always be possible. But what is becoming more of an issue for me is the number of cougar sightings, (and not just the ones at the local bar), and despite our local fish and game department’s years long flat statement that there are no cougars here, there is now too much photographic evidence and reports otherwise. And I personally have bumped into one of them 3 times in the last 4 years in the forest and my wife nearly hit one with her car going to work.
The only time I will have my pistol on me in town is if I’m passing through on my way to go foraging in the forest or during a hunting season. If I’m just going to town to shop or do other business, I have no need of it.
And to answer your next question - No, the sight of an openly carried handgun doesn’t bother anyone here. The knowledge of guns, and more importantly gun safety, are a part of everyday life. Children often start deer hunting and bird hunting, (under direct adult supervision), at age 11 or 12 and this includes the girls too. So firearms are viewed as tools and NOT weapons of destruction for killing other people. And oddly enough, we just don’t shoot each other out here despite there being at least one firearm in virtually every household and often multiples. Perhaps “city people” are just mentally incapable of being trusted them. Who knows…
I made a post, as a lawyer, about some of the common law rules for self defense, five months ago, and I still get replies from people who don’t like the truth:
Deadly force is never authorized to protect property.
An intruder standing in your living room with no weapon or other outward sign of aggression is not a deadly threat and you will be charged with murder if you kill him.
“In the anti-gun Spokane newspaper, internet comments indicated that many people had the clueless idea that Gerlach had shot the man – in the back – to stop the thief from stealing his car. One idiot wrote in defense of doing such, “That ‘inert property’ as you call it represents a significant part of a man’s life. Stealing it is the same as stealing a part of his life. Part of my life is far more important than all of a thief’s life.”
Analyze that statement. The world revolves around this speaker so much that a bit of his life spent earning an expensive object is worth “all of (another man’s) life.” Never forget that, in this country, human life is seen by the courts as having a higher value than what those courts call “mere property,” even if you’re shooting the most incorrigible lifelong thief to keep him from stealing the Hope Diamond. A principle of our law is also that the evil man has the same rights as a good man. Here we have yet another case of a person dangerously confusing “how he thinks things ought to be” with “how things actually are.”
As a rule of thumb, American law does not justify the use of deadly force to protect what the courts have called “mere property.” In the rare jurisdiction that does appear to allow this, ask yourself how the following words would resonate with a jury when uttered by plaintiff’s counsel in closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased over property. How much difference is there in your hearts between the man who kills another to steal that man’s property, and one who kills another to maintain possession of his own? Either way, he ended a human life for mere property!”
― Massad Ayoob, Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense"
Yeah, that about sums it up. Think about the optics in front of a jury, your family, and probably your local community newspaper when you have to take the stand and tell the prosecutor and the rest of the court, “yes, I shot that man 7 times in the back, but he was running off with my laptop.”
Deadly force is never authorized to protect property.
Never say never. In Texas there are some specific instances where it is, but they are narrow enough that most people probably can’t cite them offhand and they’re certainly narrower conditions than what those people think.
When people have the wrong idea in their head it’s so exhausting to change their mind. You need to treat them like delicate children. Like I believe you should debate respectfully and not be condescending, but most people are so sensitive you need to bend over backwards to bring up facts in a ridiculously delicate way. Meanwhile they’ll bring up absolute bullshit in the most rude and condescending way possible, often just leaving arguments out completely and just cussing you out. Discourse is completely broken.
And this is the type of people that our current education system spits out. Complete inability to be self-critical. Complete inability to think critically about anything.
This story is about the Supreme Court’s en banc decision on the application for certiorari, on appeal from the court below which I believe was the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit tossed the district court’s order finding in favor of Texas. The denial of certiorari is the explanation, it means they agree with the reasoning and analysis of the Fifth Circuit. It’s very rare for a denial of certiorari to have any commentary.
Ohhh the lower court. "Court below" kind of threw me.
Still, the SCOTUS vote on cert was 5-4 against. Four of them voted for cert, and while that was not the thing I was initially asking about, I do wonder about why they did.
The court below provided the justification when it vacated the district court’s ruling. Denying certiorari as in this order is the court saying they agree with how the lower court resolved the appeal.
There is some hyperbole - that’s an “and” not an “or”. So the law wouldn’t define anyone of Hispanic descent as a terrorist, just like it doesn’t define non-hispanic convicted gang members as terrorists.
Still completely fucked up and racist, but the article title is slight hyperbole. And the politician is a total shitbag.
If there are people that would fall into points 2 and 3 but are in non-Hispanic gangs and because of that alone they aren’t labeled as terrorists in the same way, how would this be constitutional? Not that the politicians proposing it care, but it seems like it would be struck down, or they would have to amend it to remove that sort of language. Maybe if they were claiming it was combating Mexican cartels or other criminal foreign nationals with a qualifier about nation of origin, they could try to argue that wasn’t racist.
Edit: Ah I didn’t read the article, as another commenter pointed out:
He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”
Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.
“Well that’s not too typical, I’d like to point that out,” Calhoun tried to explain.
“How is it untypical?” Asked Dawe
“Well there are a lot of these planes going around the world all the time and very seldom does anything like this happen. I don’t want people to think planes aren’t safe.” replied Calhoun
“Was this plane safe?” Dawe continued
“Well I was thinking more about the other ones.”
“The ones that are safe?”
“The ones where the doors don’t fall off.”
“If this one wasn’t safe, why was it flying around at tens of thousands of feet?”
“I’m not saying it wasn’t safe. It just perhaps isn’t quite as safe as the other ones.”
“Why?” Dawe said with a puzzled expression.
“Well some of them are built so that the doors don’t fall off at all.”
“Wasn’t this one built so that the doors wouldn’t fall off?”
“Obviously not.”
“How do you know?”
“Well, because the door fell out!” Calhoun, starting to sound a little exasperated.
-The Original, for those who may not be 50 years old
Problem is most of these PR people are trained and experienced in bumping their gums without ever answering questions and the investigators let them get away with it.
In this particular case, you have two of the few words in English that are two separate words in Spanish by mere coincidence. I guess you could say “¿Por qué no ambos?” which is a literal translation but it sounds less colloquial.
They don’t even feel the need to explain themselves either. We truly need a revolution, French style, to fix this situation. It won’t happen until the grocery stores are empty
The amount of Republicans that would go on killing spree because they don’t have their porn would be insane. Better they can’t eat than denying them hypocrisy.
All of the court ascribes to "We don't want to look political despite being very political", and this is a cheap win in that area for them. 'Above board' is a strong term.
There were no noted descents. This wasn’t a ruling. We don’t have 9 voices. It means that less than 4 justices wanted to take the case. It’s rare any desents in this type of decision would be public.
I dk depends if there is an agenda or if the person saw data and forgot. I’m always skeptical if they don’t say equalivent or with inflation. They just wrote “compared” which seems like no math was done. Pretty sure we are all earning less than our counter parts in 80’s.
I lost a friend to ket. He was partying with bad people, he was sick, choked on his vomit and they stole his stuff / left him to die.
Ketamine is a very interesting ride, and has wonderful potential as an antidepressant, but for the love of yourself (and my badly missed friend, John the magic man), PLEASE have someone compus mentus watching over you while you experience it, if you choose to do so.
Also strongly recommend you DO NOT mix with alcohol.
Meh, I’ve been on bupe for 4 years and love hot baths and such, it’s not that big of a deal. His previous issues were more of a problem than that. Buprenorphine is somewhat of a miracle drug for those of us who have been trying to battle opiate addiction. It has very very little side effects and does nothing more than stop the craving and make someone like myself feel like a normal person instead of like the fucking junkie that I am (was).
Not denying that it has depressive effects on respiratory and other systems. But if you’re not abusing other drugs while using it, there’s really not any problem with that.
I’m on bupe as well, but both together is a bad news with the hot water. It increases the chance to sleep, and falling asleep in a hot tub will make you drown.
Add to his known addictive personality that he has had a problem with for decades, he shouldn’t have been on that combination.
I personally hate bupe because it rarely works on my chronic pain I’ve had for the last 20 years. The media blew up the legal fentanyl patches I safely took almost 10 years ago that gave me a normal life. This will be just another excuse to restrict medication that works. A buddy of mine has stopped his suicidal issues because of ketamine therapy.
They gave me ketamine the last time I was in the hospital for pain so they could knock me out.
It was the single worst experience of my life, even worse than the injury I was being knocked out for. I was semi conscious the entire time, but I couldn’t feel or hear anything. I just knew people were all around me doing something. It feels like I was dead for a while. I have very few memories from the time they first gave it to me in the ambulance to the time I woke up at home the next day.
Fucking awful experience all around. Next time I was in the hospital for an unrelated condition I told them I’d rather have zero pain medicine than even a tiny amount of ketamine
They gave me low dose in the ambulance. While it was a decent high, I still had the same memory issues (which I always have while high, but at least I can normally remember something)
No, it’s basically an entire day of my life that I know happened but I can’t remember any specific details of. I know I went through insane amounts of physical and emotional trauma (I laid there in pain for no less than 8 hours because it was literally the same week COVID started), and not being able to remember it at all is preventing me from moving on or healing.
Idk if it’s just a me thing, but I hate not remembering entire large sections of time. After the first time I got black out drunk I didn’t drink alcohol for almost 2 years
I think you and I had very different experiences! While ket abuse can defo lead to paranoia and becoming more insular, in my circles it was taken at hard house / trance events or after parties. Lots of silliness and fun times.
Unfortunately for my friend, he lived on his own in Manchester and fell in with a rough crowd after moving to Salford :'(
The Satanic Temple is an atheistic organization that uses Satan metaphorically, mostly to troll Christians.
DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.
Thats a complicated thing to say because the ST functions as a real religion in the US which is the basis for why they’re able to challenge things in court. If they didn’t qualify as a sincere religion their mission wouldn’t work, and that “sincerely held” qualification is actually challenged in some cases. Recently this qualification became an even bigger deal when people claimed they had religious beliefs against vaccination. In the past its been applied to people challenging the draft on behalf of sincerely held religious beliefs.
I don’t think they’re a religion like Christianity though, maybe a pseudoreligion or civil religion.
That is the exact goal of The Satanic Temple. They would be incredibly happy to have their own symbols removed, as it would mean all religious symbols would be removed from government institutions. They are trying to scare Christians into voting against their own legislation, basically.
The first amendment in the constitution makes it so the government has to give equal rights to all religions, so the Christians can’t remove the Satanic symbols without also voting to remove their own.
Whenever anyone says “the economy”, you can and should mentally substitute it with “rich people’s yacht money”.
Rich people’s yacht money doing well doesn’t do shit for 90% of the population. It doesn’t pay the rent, put food on the table or clothes on their back. They can’t afford to see a doctor or ride the damn bus.
And you want them to be happy because some stockbroker is getting a second holiday in the Maldives this year?
Best there was was a fundraising agreement that favored the established candidate, could have done better but that’s not manipulating the vote unless you’re an idiot.
Meanwhile Bernie’s caucuses with fascists? You sound like you have no grasp Of the world because anyone less than pure is a facist to you while actual fascist get voted in because of you ignorance and apathy.
Again Bernie endorses and caucuses with democrats. Because they rigged the vote? You realize how aligned he is with the dem party and works with their establishment. So he’s a fascist too?
Again Bernie endorses and caucuses with democrats. Because they rigged the vote? You realize how aligned he is with the dem party and works with their establishment. So he’s a fascist too?
Along with refusing to endorse a ceasefire, Bernie is just proving Stalin correct: social democracy is the leftwing of fascism.
Bernie refuses to oppose genocide Gaza because he refuses to endorse a ceasefire. This is a fact, regardless of whatever handwringing he’s doing to pretend like this isn’t an obvious betrayal. The Squad endorsed a ceasefire. Why won’t he?
Revealing article. When food prices jump 25% and rent 30%, then wages need to jump similarly to make up the difference or else people can’t afford to eat or live. But wage growth still hasn’t outpaced inflation and won’t until the end of next year. (I don’t know about anyone here but my salary certainly hasn’t caught up to inflation yet. Not even close.)
It is no wonder regular people are going hungry and think the economy is failing them. Because it has. Until more people can afford the absolute basics their perception isn’t going to change.
Prices go up every year, it’s by how much matters. For example, rent has been going up slower than inflation for a year now. For every person whose rent went up, there must be a lot of people who don’t go online to verify their rent did not go up
I was. The economy didn't feel much different. Barely had anything left at the end of the month and a major expense would bankrupt me, just like today.
Gas is actually the one thing I’ve noticed that has been a lot better lately. But everything else is still expensive from the crazy greedflation every company was trying to pull when we were tolerating post-pandemic cost rises.
Gas prices are one of the few economic indicators most people are aware of, sometimes painfully. If Biden wants to turn sentiments around, lowering those more would probably be the most effective means.
Health care is actually hugely underestimated, here. Health costs have been going up decade over decade and people’s health problems have been stacking up. While in the '70s and '80s people could get treatment, someone born in those years started out with the ability to get medical care but has increasingly lost access as they’ve gone through their lives.
Those people are getting older, now, and it’s getting to the point where they can’t just ignore the stuff they can’t afford. Conditions that would have been easy to treat (but often rare/expensive) are becoming chronic, fatal, or debilitating.
Life expectancy is starting to drop and while that drop is largely due to COVID (which, by itself, is an insane thing) it’s also a warning sign about what’s to come.
Definitely not true for me personally or anyone I know well enough to know their financial info. Most people I know are barely able to stay in place, with their ‘raises’ almost immediately consumed by inflation and higher rent everywhere.
That’s why they say “unemployment being too low is bad for the economy”. Low unemployment means higher negotiating power for workers, which means higher wages and better working conditions. The only way that statement makes any sense is if they’re exclusively talking about yacht money.
Low unemployment means higher negotiating power for workers
Too bad all those “right to work” people have been actively fighting against negotiation powers for workers. But lets blame the ‘yacht owners’ and piss and moan about how they take advantage of the lopsided negotiation powers we voted in for them.
I know! We should put exclusively yacht owners in power! They’ll totally fix it. /s
Don’t even start on the wage-inflation-spiral idea. It’s the workers’ fault for wanting higher wages as it allows service-oriented business to charge higher prices, driving inflation.
While the theory probably has roots in real-world pricing algorithms (eg how much can we charge people in X region for Netflix) that rise in cost contributes to inflation figures. The fact that wages have been stagnant for decades undermines the whole argument.
“Well the poors can afford it and the shareholders will love it!” FFS
Not at all. You’re missing the forest for the trees lmao
The problem is that no matter how much inflation goes down, if the price gouging capitalists that own the grocery stores, the gas stations, and so on don’t stop.
It’s not about rich people’s yacht it’s about the American people being taken advantage of simply because they can. The economy is doing a lot better, record low unemployment for example is a huge metric here but what difference does that make when the grocery stores are selling less for more money?
You’re crying about rich people’s yachts when you should be crying about record price gouging without any cause. Those yachts don’t have impact on the average American’s QoL but price gouging absolutely does.
When investors do better, nobody else does better. The whole system is based on harvesting wealth from society as a whole, and concentrating it in the top 1%. Ever hear of the Gini coefficient?
Yes, price-gouging companies jacking up their prices and paying fuckall in wages are the direct instrument of suffering. But they do so in order to provide yacht money for the investor class, and in so doing they impoverish literally everyone else.
I asked my doctor, you know, best case, how much time she thinks we would have with her. And she said, ‘Could be an hour. Could be a week,’ but that we needed to prepare ourselves to be placing this baby onto hospice. There’s no treatment. So that was very, very hard," Cox said.
Why bring a life into the world just to suffer and die?
These laws are beyond cruel. And the authorities are actively fighting to deny justice.
How is it not god’s will that the fetus is aborted? I thought eVErYThiNG HApPeNS fOR a rEAsOn & gOd HAs a PLaN
It’s pretty goddamn arrogant to assume that this is what god wants, especially one who is ostensibly a loving god you know god’s will when god is something beyond our realm of comprehension*
assuming god even exists*
**you may now shove me in a locker for my prattling on
The Christian god was never loving. He has always been an egomaniacal sociopath with an inferiority complex and some mood disorder. Maybe borderline personality disorder. He seems paranoid, controlling, and prone to manipulation and explosive rage when he feels line he has been slighted.
I may be misremembering the DSM negative characteristic map for BPD though. To anyone with BPD out there reading this, I apologize for making a joke at your expense. I know it is a very difficult mental illness to live with, at least when you recognize what is going on. I have known a few people who did not and it wasn’t pretty for those in their life.
I often use pets as an example. We have no problem ending the life of an animal to prevent suffering. But we are unwilling to do the same with fellow humans.
Because it’s about controlling women. If a women has a miscarriage or the baby is nonviable in any way the woman must have done something to cause it. So she must be punished, if not legally, than medically. Just look at what’s happening to women that have miscarriages in Ohio. (a state that just enshrined the right to an abortion by popular vote but it’s still controlled by the GOP.) If you live in a read state and are pregnant, leave the state asap. Your life and your babies life is in danger even if you have a pregnancy with no complications.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.