If he’s that bad, they should seize the properties and bank accounts and use the funds to actually make the fixes. Then either operate them under public housing or sell them off.
It’s the constant, incessant, and deranged attacks on trans people and drag queens. The sociopaths in charge of the Republican party have figured out that attacking them is a good way to keep their supporters frothing - and keep the money coming in.
There’s a psychological phenomenon, a cascade effect, that causes people’s perceptions to flip if enough people around them also change their minds.
It’s not nefarious, or a sign of stupidity or ignorance, it’s part of how social primates like humans work. And it’s something that the Right knows to work, and is exploiting.
It’s how we got LGBTQ rights, and it’s how we’ll lose them if we, and especially the media, don’t stop giving these troglodytes and their ideas oxygen.
Anyone who tells you that if we just educate people it’ll make a difference ( it won’t, cf the Backfire Effect) and that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” is either woefully ignorant of how humans work, or is actively disingenuous.
Tl;dr radical centrists are paving stones on the path to He’ll.
Reminds me of Edward Berneys, nephew of Sigmund Freud and “father of public relations”.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
I agree it works in the opposite direction too. My boys both LGBTQ ask me about gays when I was teenager and I had to admit I never met any and if I ever thought about gay people it was not in a positive light.
Keep in mind I grew up in Southern Baptist environment were my dad was a racist. But when I grew up got away my prospective change when I got around more left wing individuals and exposed to gay people.
My daughter is queer and it is to my shame that when I was around her age (13), I used “gay” and “fag” as insults. This was Indiana in the late 1980s. That’s not an excuse for my behavior, just an explanation for why I thought it was okay.
And the really bad thing is my much older brother’s best friend is gay and I had known him since I was 5 or 6 but I did that anyway.
I was guilty of that kind of behavior too. We’re social creatures and will repeat what those around us say, sometimes without considering how that might be received - especially when we were young and dumb.
Things have changed culturally since then. It took brave people in marginalized groups to stand up and bring awareness that they did not appreciate having their identities used as pejoratives before a lot of us realized that we were being jerks unintentionally.
We can’t change the past, but we can do better for the future. The fact that you realized that you needed to do better and did is about all one can reasonably expect from a human being.
We need to educate the people who have not made up their minds. The internet is an excellent place to engage people who are sitting on the fence on a whole host of issues. We are in an information race, to reach as many people as possible. Not participating is how the fascists win. edit: typo
That’s actually my point: educating them doesn’t really work, and the failure of the information deficit hypothesis (and the ensuing understanding of the Backfire Effect) has pretty much proven it.
We need to pivot from trying to inform people and focus on changing their minds.
Fascists don’t bother with facts, because they don’t really work. They’ve realized that people’s brains aren’t computers, they’re rationalization engines that are just trying to make sense of the world and align it with ones precepts and social groups.
What would go a long was is coming down on the media and how it frames issues as having two sides, with equal validity. That’ll at least prevent the more toxic ideas from getting an audience, and thusly credibility.
We need to pivot from trying to inform people and focus on changing their minds.
This is a contradiction. People’s minds will only change with new information. In the long term, some minds can be changed. In the short term, such as between now and the general election, the Backfire Effect is a huge problem. We need to get true information to people first, before fascists get out their false information. Educating is essential, because so many people are uniformed on issues. Most people are going to tune in to the election between now and election day, so these next few months are crucial.
If we try to change the minds of fascists, in the short term we will be disappointed. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try though. People have demonstrated that it is possible to help people out of the MAGA cult, but this has been done on a case by case basis. Meanwhile, Fox News and conservative media in general blasts the airwaves with fascist propaganda. Mainstream news get it right occasionally, but a lot of the time they are still both-siding fascism. We are going to have to pick up the slack and get the word out to people on political issues. Fascists know they just have to trick people in the short term to win. We have to spread the truth to people who are sleep walking into fascism.
It's also the logic of TERFs. Somehow, tolerance and acceptance are a zero sum game to them. Giving basic dignity to one population somehow requires taking it away from another.
Lindy West and the leadership of Stonewall, for starters. Note: I’m a staunch proponent of equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity for everyone
Can you actually present evidence of them saying what you claim? Because my Googling sure doesn’t show it. It does show a lot of right-wing hatred for this Lindy West person… and Wikipedia doesn’t even talk about them writing about queer issues, so I’m not sure where you’re even getting this from.
There are many comedy shows about “debates.” The whole point is that they are comedy shows.
Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell is an American stand up comedy television series that premiered on FX on August 9, 2012, starring comedian W. Kamau Bell. On stage, Bell did mostly observational comedy on recent news stories and current events. After an opening PowerPoint monologue, the program usually cut to a segment filmed outside of the studio. Additionally, since all of the show’s writers were stand-up comedians, many often appeared as correspondents who performed monologues. As the last segment of the program, Bell interviewed a celebrity guest. In order to ensure the show’s topicality, most of the show was taped on the day that it was broadcast. In the first episode, Bell interviewed Chris Rock, who was also an executive producer of the show.
Let’s not pretend that you didn’t already have your mind made up when you first replied to me. I’ve learned the hard way that conversing with folks like yourself is more pointless than bedding Kim Kardashian, then expecting her poonany to be tighter than an oil drum
All I’ve made my mind up about is that you judge people for their inherent characteristics, which is something I would not expect a queer person to do.
I’ve judged West as a dunce based on the emptiness of her thinking*, not any inherent characteristics. That(Judging people based on what they say and do)is the way sane, decent people operate, no matter what sexual orientation they happen to be
You literally mocked her for her BMI just now. So you absolutely did judge something inherent about her. Or are you one of those nutty “anyone can be thin” people?
Also, Shecky Magazine is another comedy source.
You’ve provided two comedy sources to “prove” your claim and insulted someone for their BMI. You are not here for serious discussion.
You didn’t even tell me what I supposedly made my mind up about.
Lindy West admits to being one of those nutty people who refuses to lay off the Twinkies, under the pretext that her doing so is “Fighting Systemic Oppression…” She clearly won’t get lean with a mindset like that. She describes herself as a comedy reformer, so yeah… Shecky has taken an interest in her idiocy
Making such a prediction reveals that you don’t think highly of West. By contrast, I’ve expressed faith in her capacity for achievement. Who’s being ignorant and intolerant now?
That is a lie. I gave you many opportunities to give actual evidence, which you did not provide. You gave me a comedian whose weight you made fun of, showing you are neither serious nor tolerant.
And it doesn’t change the fact that you have not answered any of my questions.
I also just looked at your comment history and see that you’re right-wing, which explains a lot.
Easy to label everyone who’s thoughts aren’t carbon copies of your own as “right wing”. If folks such as yourself and every other devout Guardian reader are to be believed, Sydney Sweeney is “right wing” for not cutting off contact with that portion of her family who’s political leanings aren’t sufficiently Far Left, even though there’s no indication whatsoever that she’s particularly political
I’m labeling you as right wing because of the right-wing things you post:
Lots of luck creating a human society devoid of Capitalism where everyone isn’t dirt poor. Decapitating the patient to relieve their scalp psoriasis doesn’t ultimately get them well
When the city government spends two decades allowing hordes of homeless dope fiends to regularly shit on the streets, chase their fellow citizens down with machetes, and litter every nook and cranny of your town with syringes, the general public typically reacts by gravitating towards civic leaders who speak and act like Dirty Harry
This is you saying empathy is bad, a very right-wing position to take:
You failed to quote what I wrote in it’s entirety regarding San Francisco. The final sentence read: “I say all of this as a proponent of repealing our drug laws, and treating addiction as the psychological ailment that it is”. Hardly a right-wing view. And had you followed the link in that third quote, you would be aware that Paul Bloom explicitly makes the case for Rational Compassion
It’s much easier just to say what’s on your mind outright: “Someone is expressing thoughts which run contrary to my own, and I don’t like it. I want everyone to always agree with me, and to just re-enforce my pre-existing beliefs”
Therein lays the peril of not being honest with yourself… A gadfly like myself inevitably comes along, and articulates what you’ve been hinting around at, in Plain Language
Note: I’m a staunch proponent of equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity for everyone
Those sound like weasel words. All people, rich or poor, are banned from sleeping under bridges and stealing food is “equality before the law.” Removal of programs that give minorities a step up is “unhindered access to opportunity.”
It’s telling that you don’t defend your own words and instead point to other words.
Problematic means it causes a problem. Problematic can be used in a variety of situations, but it always means that to anyone with a brain. Blue pill is stupid meme shit that means “Don’t talk to this person again because they probably hate black people and women.”
Clever because the response both answers my question and attempts not to. It presumes that you understand entendres, and thus hate people for wanting to be able to live their lives.
In the same way it’s subjective to believe that sending a platoon of armed soldiers into a village of dirt poor peasants, then ordering them to murder everyone in the village is a no-no might be “subjective”. Yeah, there’s a portion of our species who will resort to remarkable feats of intellectual contortion in their efforts to justify such things
Most folks recognize that our capacity for forethought and self-possession are what separates human beings from the animals though, and that rewarding those who behave contrary to these standards undermines the very notion of civilization
A growing body of research indicates that those who are capable of comprehending dark/morbid/twisted/macabre/gallows humor are a minority of our overall species youtu.be/FEM-r3YWKZg?si=wO7V77ROKvz8AKdp In the spirit of equity, let’s now enact affirmative action for all those who “get” Jimmy Carr, Jeselnik, and Mike Ward’s act
“California’s statewide minimum wage is $16 per hour. Newsom signed a law last year that says fast food restaurants that are part of a chain with at least 60 locations nationally must pay their workers at least $20 per hour beginning April 1. But the law does not apply to restaurants that have their own bakeries to make and sell bread as a stand-alone menu item.”
Is there an explanation as to why making your own bread means minimum wage laws cannot be applied to businesses that otherwise meet these requirements?
Cali should be full of progressives. But there’s lots of money in being an incumbent in a seat the other party can’t win.
Hell, Pelosi and AIPAC just got another I to the Senate. He’ll keep taking donor money well after Pelosi is buried, and preventing a candidate that agrees with Cali voters from taking that seat for decades.
It can’t change till we get them out of power in the Dem party, but we can’t compete with their do ors money in a primary.
These days were lucky if we even get a primary.
Shit needs to change while it’s still able to change
Flynn has been a generous donor to Newsom’s political campaigns, including contributing $100,000 to fight a failed recall effort against the governor. Bloomberg reported that the two men attended the same high school. Flynn also acquired a resort managed by Newsom’s hospitality business in 2014, but terminated the management contract about a year after the purchase, according to the news outlet.
Because unfortunately, both sides are bad and one side is leaning hard on the other side being so off-the-rails they’re openly ranting about how badly they want to lock up and kill minorities.
If you don’t see how the absolute deranged criminality of the right is helping change expectations about what corruption is, you’re naive.
Literally, your post proves it, you’re more concerned with how it will affect people who see criminality and corruption on both sides, instead of admitting “Yeah, both sides do corrupt shit, but it’s firmly clear one side is off the rails and readily wants to hurt people.” It’s really easy to not have to offer anything of substance to your constituents if all you have to say is “The other guys literally want to kill you” and you’re being honest when you say it.
Your comment is literally an example of letting it slide. “That is unfortunate.” No, its grifting and accepting bribery to carve out an exception for your fucking buddy, something you’d probably be screaming fucking bloody murder about if it was a Republican doing it. Guess what, we can cry bloody murder about both and not act like it’s time to just let corruption happen because it isn’t as bad as the other sides corruption.
Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.
Not exactly a secret that local economic interests dictate policies to career climbers in the political scene. This isn’t even a “both sides” thing. Its a “how does a democracy actually work in practice” thing. The Whigs operate like this. The UK Tories and Labour operate like this. The German Greens and the Spanish People’s Party operate like this. Its the baseline of liberal democracy the world over.
people gonna find out the hard way the libertarian party is funded by psychos.
the democrats are the best that the current voting system can deliver and we should make more efforts to implement an alaska style top 4 RCV system in the future. The way you prevent corruption of elected officials is to make it very easy to vote them out.
The libertarian are psychos. The next time you meet one and you determine that they aren’t just a Republican trying to have sex with a Democrat just mention to them “age of consent laws” and watch a small part of them die.
“Because I had never viewed [IVF] as wrong…” is not a justification. I rarely swear, but from the bottom of my heart fuck the people of any religion or political ideology who believe they have some special pipeline to absolute truth. And an extra helping if they believe that gives them the right to legislate their beliefs onto everyone else.
How can you ban “aborting” embryos that are in the womb but support IVF which results in way more “aborted” embryos.
The exact way they are doing here: insist that they’re somehow different and avoid thinking about the logical result of their beliefs in order to escape cognitive dissonance.
I’d guess their view is something like, with an abortion, if you don’t, there’s a baby, but with an unimplanted embryo, if you do nothing there’s no baby. Essentially absolving people for not taking an action, even though the outcome is the same as those they condemn when an action is taken in a similar situation. But it’s also weird and telling how they’re now arguing that just having more babies be born is some kind of implicit positive.
They don’t see mental gymnastics as a problem in my experience. They make all these rules for how everyone should live and then naturally it sucks if you actually comply 100%, so they find ways to make the things they want ok (usually only for them though). They want babies, so actually it’s totally fine to dispose of unused embryos. See also: modesty standards, gender roles, social programs, and so on.
You may be overestimating how familiar they are with the specifics of IVF. It could be perceived as simply as “IVF means more babies, which is good, because I want babies. But abortion means less babies, which is bad.”
If those people like that perception, they will resist or deny any further detail that would jeopardize those perceptions to remain willfully ignorant, especially if they have utilized IVF themselves. The cognitive dissonance would be too strong otherwise.
I’ve always thought christian/catholic doctrine, if it really takes each potential life seriously, should require everyone to constantly procreate with anyone and everyone in order to instantiate each potential life.
One of the fascinating aspects of modern politics is how rapidly the malice shifts. It has to, given the rapid advances science offers to society. 20 years ago, IVF, abortion, and contraceptives were very visibly on the chopping block due to republicans… republicanning. Nowadays they’re broadly accepted.
The accelerating shifts in social pressures have created a sort of compartmentalization of bigotry in new voters while older voters hate just the same as they ever have, plus a few new things they picked up along the way. Tom Parker, 72, fulfilled one aspect of his ancient bigotry. Despite everyone talking about it constantly, the new bigots barely recognize the old bigots for what they are. It’d be more interesting if their actions weren’t killing people.
We literally have millions of working poor fighting and voting against unions because they watch fawx news, listen to preachers, and believe a New York city slicker/rapist/con-man is the next coming of Christ.
Don’t ever let your right-wing party cut education. The bullshit we are dealing with is a direct result.
We have the most privatised education system in the world where publicly traded companies get tax money to educate people and make profit off it. It’s a shit show. It’s already happened.
It doesn’t help that Americans have been told for decades, long before Fox News, that unions are all corrupt and just care about taking a percentage of your paycheck.
Don’t forget about McCarthyism, where everything attached to the labels of communism and socialism are evil. That of course, does not include socialism for corporations. That’s fine.
Then you couple that with classic Ayn Rand individualism.
I wonder if it’s a regional thing? Growing up I never heard bad things about unions, and when I found out the job I’m currently in is union I was pretty happy. For the record I’m in my early 30s in the Midwest, which is not exactly widely liberal.
Not at all. There is a very long history in the U.S. of anti-union propaganda and union busting. And the people who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s had actual psychologists working on them to persuade them that unions were a bad thing.
The 1970s and 1980s were an altogether more hostile political and economic climate for organized labor.[26] Meanwhile, a new multi-billion dollar union buster industry, using industrial psychologists, lawyers, and strike management experts, proved skilled at sidestepping requirements of both the National Labor Relations Act and Landrum-Griffin in the war against labor unions.[40] In the 1970s the number of consultants, and the scope and sophistication of their activities, increased substantially. As the numbers of consultants increased, the numbers of unions suffering NLRB setbacks also increased. Labor’s percentage of election wins slipped from 57 percent to 46 percent. The number of union decertification elections tripled, with a 73 percent loss rate for unions.[37] The political environment has included the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labor failing to enforce the law against companies that repeatedly violate labor law.[41]
Labor relations consulting firms began providing seminars on union avoidance strategies in the 1970s.[42] Agencies moved from subverting unions to screening out union sympathizers during hiring, indoctrinating workforces, and propagandizing against unions.[43]
By the mid-1980s, Congress had investigated, but failed to regulate, abuses by labor relations consulting firms. Meanwhile, while some anti-union employers continued to rely upon the tactics of persuasion and manipulation, other besieged firms launched blatantly aggressive anti-union campaigns. At the dawn of the 21st Century, methods of union busting have recalled similar tactics from the dawn of the 20th Century.[44] The political environment has included the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labor failing to enforce the labor law against companies that repeatedly violate it.[41][45]
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to dispute that anti-union had existed for decades. I was just trying to feel out why I’ve never heard people speak ill of unions or seen anti-union propaganda in my area. I don’t imagine we have a disproportionate amount of happy union workers to counteract the propaganda.
He’s my neighbor and acts like he’s got a 9-5, but I know he spends his off time in the basement with the light on thinking up new ways to enforce the global liberal agenda. Probably has posters of gay whales hung up in his office.
“As a tactic, self-immolation expresses a logic similar to the premise of the hunger strike. The protester treats himself or herself as a hostage, attempting to use his or her willingness to die to pressure the authorities. This strategy presumes that the authorities are concerned with the protester’s well-being in the first place.
It is not willingness to die that will sway our rulers. They really fear our lives, not our deaths—they fear our willingness to act collectively according to a different logic, actively interrupting their order.”
I think it is done to pressure the regular people to overthrow the government. Showing how important the issue is and how much he sacrificed himself just to motivate people, that everybody else can sacrifice far less by risking arrest overthrowing the government.
This strategy presumes that the authorities are concerned with the protester’s well-being in the first place.
Actually, it presumes access to media outlets/social media who will help build pressure on authorities. It’s a pressure campaign tactic whose success or failure relies on building outside, non-state civil society support. By failing to engage with why people resort to tactics like hunger striking or self-immolation and just making shit up, the piece fails to really make its case.
While I don’t support self-immolation as a tactic, the mentality this critique relies on enables the abuses that lead people to self-immolate or go on hunger strike to start with.
BTW about 98% of everything CrimethInc publishes is exactly this off-base and unhelpful.
When there’s almost no hope of owning a home ever, why bother saving? If I hadn’t gotten a home right before the housing market went to shit, I’d be discouraged too. As nice as it is seeing my little condo skyrocket in value, I’d rather all homeowners lost value in their homes if it meant home-buying was easier for more people. It doesn’t help having a place that’s doubled in value if every other home on the market has also doubled in value along with it.
The psychos see what happens in places where the ruling class gets what they want at all costs, and they still want the juice. Says everything you need to know about society.
Helen is living in her car, trying to feed her kids
She got laid off of work and her house was repossessed
It's hard to think clearly when it's 38 degrees
Desperate people have been known to render desperate deeds
But when she shot that family and moved into their home
The paper read she suffered from dementia
My reason to save was always retirement, end of life care, etc. And real talk, the money sink into my 401k is doing better than the money I’m sinking into the house I was lucky enough to score 5 years ago.
My main reason to buy a house was not because real estate was a better investment for me. It wasn’t. Like many of us, I hated my landlords, hated the fact that nothing ever got fixed in my rentals, hated noisy neighbors that were a wall away, etc.
Absolutely. It doesn’t matter what my house’s value is because I can’t afford to sell it. I couldn’t afford to replace it, and my house is the only realistic way I’ll be able to retire someday and actually have a roof over my head.
It also screws people like you over. Changing homes is going to be hell. When prices rise the variance between an OK home and a pretty nice home will shrink. Just like rents are getting squeezed. There’s an upper cap on most types of homes in specific locations (at least until the corps buy them all) as there is with rent. So we’ll end up seeing houses that used to be $1-200k difference become a lot closer in price. Meaning why would anyone sell to downsize if the trade-off isn’t worth it?
If I hadn’t gotten a home right before the housing market went to shit, I’d be discouraged too.
Same. My family hit the lottery when we decided to buy a house when the covid pandemic was tanking the market. Locked in a mortgage at around 2.25% and feel so privileged every day for it. The apartment we lived in at the time said they were upping the rent nearly 30% when we were due to renew, so we started looking at houses. We were incredibly lucky that we met someone entirely by chance who was planning on selling their home around the same time our apartment lease was due to renew. They never even listed their house on the market so we didn't have to deal with getting into a bidding war. And it was within our budget. And I got a raise at work right before we signed the papers (we were already gonna be able to afford it, but just barely). The stars aligned in so many ways at such an uncertain time in our lives.
It's one of the few things that gives me comfort in trying times. So many things could go wrong, but we've got a house with a fixed mortgage and a very low interest rate and a half acre of land for our kid to run around and play in. I'd say my general anxiety levels have been lower since buying a house cause it just passively comforts me to have gotten so lucky. Even though maintaining a home is a big responsibility compared to renting an apartment, it's totally worth it, and I've enjoyed becoming more handy over the years as things have needed fixing.
With any luck, we'll never move again. It's a nice place about 15 minutes from the nearest town, which is already a rural area, so there's little light pollution so the stargazing opportunities are nice. Hoping to eventually add some solar panels to the roof to lower the energy bill one of these days.
If we were still living in a basic apartment and paying effectively the same amount in rent that we're currently paying in mortgage for a 3 bed 2 bath house with a garage, I'd be depressed as fuck about it every day.
Because there is more to life than just owning a home? How about having some buffer in the event you lose your job, or get sick, or a million other reasons. You’re way too fixated on the idea of owning a house.
There’s more to it than the idea of owning a home. A 30-year fixed mortgage means your “rent” will be the same* for 30 years. Then you just… Don’t have to pay it any more. Need to move? That’s cool, you can just take that equity you’ve got and put it towards your next house.
yes, I know property tax and insurance is a thing. The bulk of the payment is for principal and interest
I’d like if home-buying was more affordable, but we are still stuck in the supply problem. My brother put his house on the market and priced it the highest any house in his neighbors sold for. He got an offer for that in 2 weeks. The housing value will crash if the market get flooded, but home builders don’t want that.
Dont you guys not have phones parents? You will get a house once they die. If you have siblings, tough luck, you will have to battle royale for the house.
Perhaps some kind of black full body sheet for women would help? You could cut a tiny hole so they can look out like a pillbox. Much easier than men showing a little self control.
Republicans really don’t understand how much in common they have with certain people they hate.
This isn’t the first time the christofacists have created a snitch line and had it filled with junk spam. What makes them think “this time it will work!”
The thing about conservatives is they are babies, they can’t handle an actual policy discussion and they don’t care. They just want a story about a bad guy to hate and they don’t care about any aspect of reality that doesn’t interface with that story they like. In the conservative viewpoint of the world NOTHING matters except narratives pre-processed into those little applesauce juice packs for kids that they can slurp up without having to use a spoon.
If you start talking about the boring reality of governments and movements (I hate that “organizing” is a perfectly accurate term for building movements lol but that’s exactly what the work is) how change happens through policy making and how those policies can have reallllly annoying details that make them backfire or have the opposite impact they are supposed to (CAFE regulations with trucks and gas mileage in the US) conservatives just shit their pants and start screaming at you.
Conservatives would really like to be able to enjoy their baby food without someone else (them it is always them) making another steaming turd appear in their pants, ruining the whole experience yet another time, but it almost never happens which is why they are so angry all the time. They are babies.
Conservatives like using numbers over statistics until it matters. I remember them comparing the BLM move protest to the Jan 6 insurrection by quoting property damage as a justification. I have to speak to their emotions and hopefully makes some sort of connection before I can even begin to get them to understand my side.
A federal judge has paused the lawsuit against Meade and Franklin County until after the criminal case. The officer had argued that simultaneously defending himself in both cases would put him in a no-win situation.
It seems a “no-win situation” is being Black while bringing sandwiches to Grandma’s house.
simultaneously defending himself in both cases would put him in a no-win situation.
What is that even supposed to mean? He has to prove that his actions where justified. How is his a no-win situation? Is his plan to first argue that he’s innocent because he wasn’t trained correctly and acted out of fear and then claim in the second case that he actually received proper training?
Seems to me like it would make more sense to want the cases to go simultaneously since the civil case can use any evidence and admissions from the criminal case.
If they are tried at the same time, there is a chence that would not work because of deadlines to submit evidence.
I have no idea what that argument is supposed to be.
Civil cases have a lower standard of evidence, and fifth amendment protection is weaker. Defendants can end up in a situation where they have to say something in a civil trial that then kills their defense in the criminal trial.
On the flip side, if the criminal trial gets a conviction, then the civil trial is a lot easier.
School lunch debt is the so incredibly dystopian that I hope 20-30 years from now people will have to use an internet search to find out what it meant to people in this decade. Like it’s so unabashedly wrong as a thing, I hope we look at like when Bayer made heroin and bloodletting was in practice.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.