They do this fun thing in the US for that its called “fucking shoot you”. I agree its all fucked up, but if you go an riot and respond with violence you just die dude. I don’t want somebody else raising my children because I got shot by the sheriffs patrol
if you can’t organize well enough to handle a local sheriff’s department, you’re pathetic. give me 5 well-armed and coordinated individuals and i’ll show you how to make the bastards scared of us.
EDIT: Lemmy is full of little bitch cowards and i’m not going to lose any sleep over the dystopia you limp-wristed fucks inherit.
Violence isn’t a way to solve this problem, it would only justify the use of force which the police/military are most willing to do. Fascism develops faster in the face of violence as a way to justify itself.
I’m giggling at the idea of anyone rioting at this woman’s trial over skimming free gas and charging her friends for it. It’d be this one dude running around punching the air and screaming something about our corporate overlords.
No, this isn’t a loophole. She found a way to put the pump into maintence mode and set the price to zero. “The computer let me do it” isn’t much of an excuse. The self checkout at the grocery store lets me tare a steak like it’s bananas, but I’d definitely expect shopplifting charges if I got caught tricking the machine to charge me $0.40/lb for steak so I could fill my bag with steaks. There would be plenty of evidence that what I did was intentional and dishonest.
She exploited this glitch for $28k worth of gas in just 7 months, presumably for profit. That’s way more gas than a single vehicle would consume in that time.
This wasn’t a case of just paying what the screen said she owed. This was a case of gaining unauthorized access to the computer and adjusting the price to zero so she could steal at scale.
Very well. Please clear up the misunderstanding and say the words “the bailouts should never have happened and everyone involved in that disaster should have faced felony charges”
I’m not, it sounds like we are in agreement that she committed a serious crime. It’s a shame that the Wall Street types get away with it, but you seem fine with that?
Not “presumably for profit”, definitely for profit. The article mentions one person that paid her $500 for about $700 worth of fuel in that 6 months because she was told it was a discount card. She was literally charging other people for the gas directly. And 7400 gallons of gas in 6 months, that’s well over 100k miles with a low ball estimate for fuel economy. She probably pocketed nearly 20k cash in that time.
She got greedy. Back when a buddy and I administered our SWIFT platform there were a couple of well publicized exploits of the system for millions. We discussed how easy it would be to write a script to randomly skim a fraction of a cent off of transactions over a long period of time, just don’t get greedy. No one cares about rounding errors.
If this lady stuck to random fillups for free once every couple of months she probably could have flew under the radar for years and more importantly had a better claim to ignorance if caught.
At first I was with you but I was curious how she used $28,000 worth of gas and I’m kinda not with you anymore. I mean, has is expensive but let’s be realistic, no poor person is buying a year’s wages on gas over 6 months lol
“All told, the card was used 510 times, and more than 7,400 gallons of gas were pumped for free, the probable cause statement said.” The article also says she was letting other people pay her to use her card to get gas - so the gas pumped out free and they paid her a portion of what the gas would have been if they had paid the actual pump. That’s actually not the kind of thing I can really defend as just putting the poor people down.
They didn’t arrest her. The cops did. If she didn’t want to be arrested, she probably shouldn’t have stolen tens of thousands of dollars worth of gas. She’s a thief, plain and simple. We can rail against a justice system that allows the rich to get away with crimes, while also recognizing that this woman is just a thief and there is no need to defend her.
While you’re right, also still sounds like schemes rich business leaders get a wag of a finger over. So it’s not so much about it being too harsh on her, but instead how malicious rich person schemes earn too much leniency.
This is what I thought at first too. But after thinking about it more, it kind of falls into cybercrime. I can imagine hearing something like this on darknet diaries.
What is even going on in this thread. People are dissappearing like they are talking about Candlejack or something. For fuck’sake, it’s an airplane manufacturer not some ki
I’m pretty sure that would be a massive due process violation. Don’t get me wrong, I’d happily violate the board, but cutting corners like that would torpedo the prosecution’s case. A mistrial or an acquittal resulting from prosecution’s fuck-up would probably be the worst outcome – after all, that’s the reason Cosby is a free man now.
So, wait. He wants to secede, but also supports the US military spending money to sponsor an event in his state? Do you want help from the federal government or not, Gregg? Or did the tree hit more than your spine when it fell on you? Though I suppose both can be true…
You mean the tree limb that fell on him, sued his neighbor, got a massive payout (millions) and then got elected to higher office only to turn around and pass laws to make sure no one else could get payouts like that? Fuck Greg Abbott. I hope the tree comes back to finish the job.
You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Hypocrisy and double-think are the bread and butter of Texas Republicans.
Off topic tanget but I’m pretty tired of being told “housing is affordable, just not where YOU want to live” I’m in a midwest state and buying a home anywhere near a city is apparently now a luxury.
All my home owning friends keep telling me to stop throwing away my money on rent, and just move somewhere the nearest grocery store is quick 40 minute drive away. There are USDA loans to help, no city tax, no homeless or crime, if I could only stop clinging to “societal interactions and infrastructure” I could have a great homestead!
if I could only stop clinging to “societal interactions and infrastructure” I could have a great homestead!
This is so true, and something that really gets ignored in the discussion. I don’t WANT to move to bumbfuck nowhere where I have no roots, I want to stay and give back to the community that raised and nurtured me into the person I am today. Unfortunately I (and a lot of others) have been priced out by home speculators.
How is there a loneliness epidemic in all age groups of our society, and yet no one is asking if one of the factors might be people having to move for education and then work to chase affordability, while getting pushed further and further away from their social networks?
It’s not actually a joke, it’s the reality of the current housing market. If you want to own a house now or soon, that is where they are affordable. The other part of that reality to face is that this situation is not going to be fixed anytime soon, so you will have to deal with it by renting a high-priced small place in a big city, or taking the option to own your home where you can afford to buy.
I’m on track to have my house paid off about 15 years early, out here in rural USA where houses can still be bought. I would never trade this life to live in a big city, unless it was free to do so. It’s 5 minutes away from 2 grocery stores, 30 minutes away from the largest city in this part of the state. Most people in my area commute about 20-30 minutes to work. All of my peers own their own houses here too.
So you can laugh all you want at that “joke” but those of us living it are laughing at you paying $2000 a month for rent.
Name them, they need their SOP redone. I have never heard of this in real life and I would bet it’s a bad officer/dispatcher following Hollywood rules rather than their unit policy.
I don’t have a list of names but regularly listen to podcasts like Dateline and Crime Junkie and these are common themes among many of the stories. Families and friends will try to report someone missing and are told they must wait 24 hours or more.
I can’t be certain by I’d wager that’s Hollywoodism seeping through. Either the podcast is wrong or the dispatch/officer on duty has it wrong. The first 48 hours are the most vital in finding a missing person, they would not want to waste half of that as procedure.
Edit: I don’t want you to just believe some rando online. Here’s some sources:
I used to work in TV news. I can’t speak for all adults, but if the missing person was elderly or had special needs, the cops pretty much ran to us with the report so it would be on the next broadcast.
I do wonder if the GQP will lose full control over these groups. They are good at getting them riled up and keeping their attention, but if we take a page from apocalyptic cults; after several failed predictions they often conclude that it is up to them to ensure the second coming.
I mean, that’s ultimately where this is going to head I’m afraid. Lots of these crazies are thinking a civil war is imminent, which means they may try to kick something off. We’ve been seeing this largely isolate behavior now for a few years, I don’t think it’s going to get any better anytime soon.
They’re poking a tiger and then leopards ate face is gonna happen. They allowed Margie to have a platform and she’s surprisingly good with it. Bobo didn’t know how to use it, but Margie is a natural. It’s all gonna go to hell pretty soon. I’m planning on getting out.
That’s high school-level shit right there: “If you ask a cop point-blank, ‘Are you a cop?’, they legally have to answer you, it’s the law!” I don’t know how many times I heard that.
His name is Simon. He’s ~2 years old. He is primarily white, with a few black spots on his face, and a solid black tail. He doesn’t know how to meow, but he makes a chortle sound much like a penguin. His favorite activity is hiding his toys (and whatever he thinks are my toys) and then chortling relentlessly until I go find it. Then he repeats the process all fucking day long, usually in the same spot…
After confirming that the undercover agents were not law enforcement, he began discussing his beliefs that the government was “training to take on its citizens” and allowing migrants to enter the country to assist them.
And this is what kills me, dude has a big conspiracy about the goverment attacking it’s own citizens. But it never occurs to him that government agents might lie?
10,000% chance this dude also had a “Blue lives matter” bumper sticker.
”They don’t need to be put in cages, separated from their children like during the Trump Administration, or be cut up by razor wire furnished by, of all places, South Dakota,” [Star Comes Out] said.
Good for the Oyate standing up with a strong leader. If anyone knows anything about the cruelty the American government can inflict, it’s the Native American people.
As a Satanist myself, I honestly think that would/should be their lawyers case.
We are atheists and the argument that we’re not really a religion is something conservative courts might believe.
I haven’t looked into any filings for religious exemption/status, etc so I’m not sure how we’ve made our case in the past. I think we should be prepared to advocate that our mutual belief in the seven tenets is our religion.
Here in Germany religions and world-views have equal status, and if Baphomet is a symbol of your specific brand of atheism and its values then desecrating it is, well, desecration: An insult of those values.
Zen folks also aren’t religious in the western understanding, the whole distinction is a western construct, yet I don’t doubt burning down a Zen temple would be considered a hate crime even by Christians.
From what I understand the legal situation in the US is actually similar. When people started the Sudburry school they had a look at the options and went straight-ahead for making it a denominational school as it offered the best conditions and flexibility. They specifically created a humanist creed just for that founding.
Push come to shove, lessons to learn? More architecture, more fancy robes and chants.
That’s really interesting that religions and world-views are given equal credence. Excuse my ignorance, but are they covered under the same word? Or what would the translations be?
Different words. Quoth Article 137(7) of the Weimar constitution (one of the paragraphs that are part of the current constitution):
Den Religionsgesellschaften werden die Vereinigungen gleichgestellt, die sich die gemeinschaftliche Pflege einer Weltanschauung zur Aufgabe machen.
Associations whose purpose is the communal cultivation of a world view shall be treated in the same way as religious societies.
Meaning they’re seen as different in some sense, but as they’re 100% equal under the law courts never bother to make judgements on whether something is the one or the other. Courts are really good at avoiding deciding something if they don’t absolutely have to. In laws you always see them mentioned side by side, e.g. §166 StGB:
(1) Anyone who publicly insults the content of a religious or world-view conviction of others or disseminates such content (Section 11 (3)) in a way that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
(2) Likewise, anyone who publicly or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) insults a church or other religious or world-view association existing in Germany, its institutions or customs in a manner that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty.
That law is age-old, dating back to after the 30 year war to keep Lutherans and Catholics from inciting wars against each other. And just for the record yes you can call the Catholic Church a child fucker cult: Courts ruled that it’s not that kind of statement which disturbs the public peace, priests fucking children and the church sweeping it under the carpet is what disturbs it. The statement may be pointed but it’s still a statement of fact, not an insult.
OTOH you won’t see Churches over here saying things like “atheists are inherently amoral”, that very much is an insult. Or the good ole Lutheran line of “Catholics are Idolaters” – Lutheran theology still says that they are, but, hey, you don’t have to say it out loud, least of all using fighting words.
Today, a world view is primarily understood to be the totality of personal values, ideas and perspectives based on knowledge, tradition, experience and feelings, which relate to the interpretation of the world, the role of the individual in it, the view of society and, to some extent, the meaning of life.
So philosophically speaking religions are actually a subset of world-views and the question of “is this a religion” is rather meaningless to the philosopher – they’d rather use terms such as “theological world-view” or such. For the established religions, though, the term is very important and noone wants to rock a boat that doesn’t need rocking.
Thank you for the detailed and insightful response. That’s such a fair and egalitarian stance. I wonder why other countries haven’t adopted similar? Or if it’s that the church in Germany doesn’t hold as much political power as other places.
Germany isn’t even secular as such, there’s a gazillion state churches and world view organisation, organised under public law and having privileges such as sitting on the public TV councils, and even writing their own employment laws. You do have to be compatible with humanism, though, and not in opposition to the free and democratic basic order.
From the reformation to the age of the enlightenment there were first wars, then people could be cast out of a lord’s territory if they were of the “wrong” creed – which was a huge win in terms of religious freedom, before that they often had to face some sort of inquisition.
Catholic areas were of course catholic, in Protestant areas multiple new creeds developed, some accepted by the state, some not so much. Actual religious freedom was introduced 1848, simultaneously the authority to marry was taken away from the churches and put into state hands. Same thing with schools, though confessions still can (and do) have private schools, but it’s all under state oversight.
That whole approach then got firmed up a bit in the Weimar constitution, put into its current organisational form, then the Nazis happened, and then it got firmed up even more in the sense that the state now is now not neutral but actively humanist. (Even if it’s often outsourced to specifically the EKD as they are very good at not arguing from theological principles but speak plain ethics. In practice no law concerning say stem cell research passes without their ok as their reasoning always demands respect) And this humanist orientation of the state also leads to decisions that I think look rather strange from an outside POV, such as at-will abortions not being legal, but decriminalised. The constitutional court really was shouting “you can’t just willy-nilly declare a developing human to not be human” from the rooftops, reminding politicians of the state’s duty to protect life, while also saying “you don’t have to implement that protection with criminal punishment that’d probably be counter-productive anyway, use social and welfare means”.
This is so so interesting! Especially the concept of religions and world views needing to be compatible with humanism, and that the Protestant Church is able to provide ethical insight that’s not pure religiosity but properly reasoned and considered. My biggest question mark of this morning was what would happen if someone tried to found a religion based on hatred, or organize a group sharing the same hateful world view, by tossing around “facts” (the statistics that are often cherry picked, removed from context, and thrown around to justify racism for example). I imagined that Germany would be particularly sensitive to that possibility but wasn’t sure how it might be handled- you cleared it up beautifully.
Are you in a line of work or study surrounding this history and principles? Or is the average German citizen this knowledgable on the subject?
Yeah, heading into the 2018 midterm Trump tried to create a border crisis. It didn't work. This is their election trick, create a lot of smoke, rile up the base, think that it will rile everyone else up.
I mean let's look at the core aspect of Abbott's argument from his statement.
That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Right out the gate, Abbott is based his ideology on a dissenting opinion. That is, the NON-MAJORITY finding of the court in Arizona v. United States. In fact, Arizona v. United States indicated explicitly that enforcement of the border was the sole privilege of the Federal Government. So right out the gate Abbott is literally using a case that ruled the opposite of the determination he indicated in his statement.
Additionally, Art. I, § 10, C. 3 of the Constitution.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Historically this was used for Native American invasions of property and so the key factor in cases around this is "will not admit of delay". Texas is not burning. No historical read of this section of the Constitution supports immigrants coming into the Nation. By definition as we have it thus far, Texas is not being invaded. Additionally, Scalia's conceptualization of this section, no other Justice has joined in on that understanding. So outside of the opinion of a single justice, a Governor just saying "I'm being invaded! I get to invalidate federal law!" nobody else has ever indicated this is the way it should be read.
With Art. I, § 10, C. 3, you can say "I'm being invaded!" But you still have to follow the law. You can fight invaders and maintain the law of this land, they are not mutually exclusive things, no matter how hard Abbott or Scalia wishes it to be otherwise.
And finally, the Art. IV, § 4 argument.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded. But Abbott is adamant about Biden "isn't enforcing…" And the thing is, Governors do not get to legally make that determination. What laws are and are not being enforced by a President is the sole prerogative of the Executive branch. (Wayte v. United States)
The Governor of Texas cannot just unilaterally make a determination that the President isn't XYZing. That's what the court system is for and distinctly the thing that Abbott has lost. If the Governor felt that the President was not holding up their end, they have every right under Article III of the Constitution to take it up there. Which that's what Abbott did and lost. Also, why when he was questioned if his defiance would be upheld by SCOTUS, he merely indicated that he felt the 5th Circuit would uphold it. Meaning, he knows that SCOTUS will overturn any determination the Governor is making on this front.
And with all of that, his core argument has nothing. It's easy to pick apart. Now here's the thing, Gov. Abbott is not stupid in the legal sense. He's quite aware that his determination is unfounded. He's banking on stirring the pot enough to make either Biden do something so that can be plastered all over the place or getting the issue fresh into his base's minds.
And like I said, this is exactly what they did 2018 and lost. Abbott is just trying to get under everyone's skin and he seems determined to spend as much of Texan taxpayers' money in litigation to do that one thing.
Great analysis. I genuinely think Abbott is also trying to make as much work available to conservative lawyers as possible, like a jobs program for assholes.
Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded.
Which is good because if we classify border-crossing migrants as “invaders” then not only does that mean really bad things for them, it means Abbott was funneling invaders further inside our borders by paying to bus them to denver or fly them to chicago or whatever else.
It’s pretty clear he didn’t think the treasonous implications of this particular initiative through very well.
No it isn’t. There’s nothing stopping us from, for example, growing our own crops and trading them to each other. And we can do that whether or not it’s legal.
Point in fact, triggering them into outlawing something so harmless would kind of be the point. Then it would force a confrontation they would lose because so many people would be negatively affected – especially the right wing which already does this in their rural communities.
🤔 Come to think of it, it might be one of the better ways to solve the problem than any other idea anyone has come up with…
You don’t have to grow your own crops. You could buy vegetables from a neighbor with a garden, or offer a service. The point is more about subverting the multinational conglomerate machines that drive our current economy
That’s what people don’t seem to get: you can’t have extreme rich without having extreme poor. That’s a baked-in side effect of our current strain of capitalism.
The Alliance Defending Freedom video tapes a sermon by a preacher specifically violating the rule and send it to the IRS, trying to bait them into applying the rule because they are confident SCOTUS will declare the rule unconstitutional. The IRS never takes the bait. They’d rather have the appearance of a rule than no rule at all. As it is it is mostly self-enforcing on most congregations.
The Alliance Defending Freedom video tapes a sermon by a preacher specifically violating the rule and send it to the IRS, trying to bait them into applying the rule because they are confident SCOTUS will declare the rule unconstitutional. The IRS never takes the bait. They’d rather have the appearance of a rule than no rule at all. As it is it is mostly self-enforcing on most congregations.
The Alliance Defending Freedom video tapes a sermon by a preacher specifically violating the rule and send it to the IRS, trying to bait them into applying the rule because they are confident SCOTUS will declare the rule unconstitutional. The IRS never takes the bait. They'd rather have the appearance of a rule than no rule at all. As it is it is mostly self-enforcing on most congregations.
Sending a child with a highly infectious disease that is as dangerous and potentially deadly as measles into a day care should be held accountable. This is reckless endangerment of other peoples’ lives.
Agreed. It would be nice if people weren’t so pressured to go to work for money that they could take care of children rather than feeling like you need to abandon them for a job. I’m not saying they did this. But over 3/4 of my sick days last year was to take of my kid. And when I had COVID, I was out and the statutes to pay me were gone.
It’s also very important to vote carefully before deciding to have a baby. In most 1st world countries, you get a few family responsibilities leave days a year, that an employer cannot deny.
Under law in those countries, you are a parent first and an employee second. That comes with privileges and responsibilities.
What I meant, is that if you plan to have kids, you may want to vote for politicians that will give your children the best future, even after they are born.
This is a very nuanced issue, and I won't be able to explain my thoughts without someone whatabouting it.
And while you're right, it is absolutely insane that we blame individuals for the exploitive nature of society.
Kids are expensive because businesses realized they could charge whatever for everything and then run ad campaigns about how bad of a parent you are for not buying their product or service. Simultaneously cutting every public, infrastructural component that used to support parents.
Poor Americans. I just can’t imagine having to deal with limited sick days. If I’m sick for more than six weeks in a row, I get a little less money, and then from my health insurance instead of my boss, but that’s the only limit that is.
Hopefully DCFS can investigate them then. They are endangering not just the lives of their own child but others too. I would be livid if I was a parent and these idiots got my kid sick.
It’s not about watching video, it’s about having to navigate a touchpad menu while driving. I was in a car share the other day that had a screen like that, and while driving on the highway, it changed itself from the navigation screen to tire pressure information, forcing the driver to exit that inane notification and navigate all the way back to the navigation screen, again, on the highway. It’s absolutely insane.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.