From the title by itself, I was expecting a simple change to skin tone, which would have been bad enough. Reading the story and looking at the pic made me realize that things are much, much worse. What the FUCK.
Supermodels are why I don’t really buy the whole “the media decides what’s attractive”, because it’s been trying to say that that’s the peak of attractiveness all my life but I’ve never bought it.
You aren’t wrong. High end women models and women porn stars look vastly different. One looks like a 19 year skinny boys the other look like women.
I think when people say that they mean that girls with confidence issues see these runway models and think that is what it means to be attractive, not that suddenly men will be attracted to that.
You know what is the worst thing about this for me.
According to his post, he did not produce the show and did not know that Wu was not compensated for her time until he saw her TikTok.
Not only did they cheat her out of being the model, and replacing her with a terrible AI photo. They also didnt pay her for doing the actual show, until this blew up and the designer saw the tiktok.
This isn’t saying she got paid after the TikTok – it’s saying the guy didn’t know she wasn’t paid, until he saw the TikTok. AFAIK she hasn’t been paid at all.
According to his post, he did not produce the show and did not know that Wu was not compensated for her time until he saw her TikTok. “After finding out through her videos that she wasn’t paid, I offered Shereen compensation for her time and talents,” Costello wrote.
It sounds like he at least offered to pay her, despite not being the one that was running the show and paying her.
He also initially threatened legal action against her, for unclear reasons. Like, he’s shared some racist Photoshop, gets called out for it, and his first response is to… Threaten to sue the model who simply made public comments about it?
Guy is a real piece of shit. He can walk back on stuff all he wants, but the first thing he did speaks volumes about what kinda person he is.
To be fair, Wu also states in the article that she wasn’t expecting to be paid in anything but “exposure.” But that i think is what makes this particularly egregious - she wasn’t even getting paid in that fake currency for the naive. Although the article says that many of the models are under a similar arrangement for the fashion week this occurred during, so maybe exposure still counts for something in the fashion and modeling industries.
It’s not that he’s a good person, it’s that he made the right decision at a critical moment. Still not a good decision, but a whole hell of a lot better than what he was prepared to do.
This is almost uplifting. Like, it’s terrible the man was suffering so much, but it’s admirable that he chose the better of the two options he was giving himself. That probably makes me sound like a terrible person.
I don’t think that sounds terrible at all. We can all agree, I think, that we’d rather this whole situation not happen at all, but of the two cases, one with one dead by their own hands, and another case with who knows how many dead at the same person’s hands, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying you’re happy it was the former and not the latter.
Terrible would be saying he deserved it. Or putting someone in that position. Or a variety of other things, but it’s not being relieved at a lower death toll.
Fuck you bud, our unit was more productive remote and we had the metrics to prove it.
Unfortunately, data doesn’t trump tiny minds who need to manage people in person, or obviate the type of bullshit rumors billionaires and those invested in commercial real estate tend to peddle.
Look at “annual % change” for 2020/2021 and you should quickly realize that this “historic drop” is actually just a slow recline from the historic rise we just had.
And the framing of this article is just as astonishing. The whole “does anyone even notice” spiel! Amazing.
Reminds me of how the news media frames the deficit, like we’re supposed to celebrate when the government puts 1.2 trillion on debt in a year rather than 1.4.
No, the article is talking about 2022 and 2023 statistics, where there is in fact a drop. The link posted in this comment only shows data up to 2021.
Actually I don’t know why they didn’t just post the actual source used by the article itself which shows more recent data. Either way, the basic point stands that this “huge drop” is basically a reversion after a large increase in 2020-2021. Things are going “back to normal,” so it’s kind of stupid to pretend this is something we should all be looking at.
Look at “annual % change” for 2020/2021 and you should quickly realize that this “historic drop” is actually just a slow recline from the historic rise we just had.
No shit. The caption of the photo says as much.
In a country the size of the U.S., scenes like this, of police investigating a homicide in Ontario, CA., are daily occurrences. Overall, however, homicides have declined nationwide after a spike in 2020 and 2021. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)
I think it was the most honest portrayal of mental illness in a show I’ve ever seen. not judgy about shit either and didn’t make it the only defining feature of a character. the writing was excellent.
Did Duchovny have a drinking/drug problem? I know he was a sex addict (which, in retrospect, makes Mulders porn addiction a lot funnier), but otherwise he seems like he has his shit together
I think it’s just a Hollywood cliche with enough truth it plays out in the real world here and there. a lot of the show was a commentary on LA culture and how it’ll swallow people.
there are a lot of parallels here but I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but it shows how right the series got it.
that show really hit me. I feel really bad for Matthew Perry, I didn’t know anything about his struggles until now and it’s really sad. the world really eats some people alive.
I don’t blame them. I expect viewership is down, as well as the other factors. Heck, when I click a link that goes to a tweet and it tells me I have to login… I press the back button.
Until Trump is behind prison bars with a minimum of 20 years without the possibility of parole, I do not have faith in any state or federal justice system that is or will be trying him.
Everyone getting a plea deal is an attorney, which means that Trump can still use the defense that he was following advice of counsel. These deals will likely mean very little as far as convicting Trump.
Attorney-client privilege doesn’t cover crimes the attorney is party to, and all of these people have taken guilty pleas. There’s going to be a lot less room to hide behind privilege here. The DA’s office wouldn’t have offered deals unless there was valuable testimony to be had.
Let’s hope this is the case. As of today, Ellis is blaming more senior attorneys for misleading her and Powell is reverting to saying that she still believes the election was stolen. Don’t sound too convincing as strong witnesses. That leaves Chesebro who deployed fake electors. Perhaps his testimony is the one that can make the difference. 🤞
I’m no lawyer or legal analyst, but them making excuses probably won’t mean much when it comes time to testify. Taking a plea deal requires waiving fifth amendment rights, so there’s no option to not answer a question during cross examination. I think all these theatrics are more trying to save face than anything else, personally. I guess we’ll see what happens when the former guy has to show up.
Yes, let’s sit back and accept the slap on the wrist for a multitude of highly treasonous acts that have caused grave and serious damage to the country.
Not saying it’s right or that you have to accept it, it’s just sadly the state of affairs when it comes to the two tier legal system, where being rich gets you special treatment
He'll never be in general population simply because of what he knows & his required Secret Service detail. He'll get house arrest in a shitty barracks in a military base, just like Nixon's lawyer did.
Rich doesn’t get you out of things, at least not on its own. Being rich gets you good lawyers who tell you not to do things before you do them, and then work with you to find loopholes so you can do what you want, anyway. If you do get prosecuted, good lawyers might get you out of it, or at least work down to a sweet plea deal.
Trump has driven away every good lawyer in the country, almost all of the not so good ones, and is now scratching around for the handful that technically passed the bar exam. Major firms, even one’s run by partners who vote for him, refuse to do business with him. Why would they? He ignores their advice, causes headaches, and then refuses to pay.
I think people need to temper their expectations and accept that a rich, white, ex president is never going to set foot in jail. Even a democrat controlled government will say it’s bad for the country and find a way to weasel him out. The best we can hope for is to bog him down in lawsuits till he dies of a big Mac overdose
Maybe I am a tad too optimistic. If he’s in jail in November 2024 and/or if he is ineligible to run for president in 2024, that will be the end of him.
There is no way he successfully runs a campaign from a jail house.
And in 2028, he will be four years older and have lost to Biden, twice.
Even his most deluded supporters will eventually get tired of losing.
I think getting the fuck out of Texas is exactly what this legislation is attempting to prevent. If they get away with this, I’d doubt they’ll stop there, either. Never mind abortion, this will set the precedent that they can legally “prevent” you from using public road infrastructure for any particular purpose they feel like.
It doesn’t take a legal expert to see why the line of reasoning they’re using to justify this is horseshit, nor to grasp just how dangerous this type of thing is.
That's easy to say, not so simple to do. Especially when friends and family ask why you are moving far from them ans your job. To speak nothing of the costs for Interstate moving.
That’s the idea. Republicans want a permanent majority in Texas, and they’re making the state as inhospitable as possible to anyone who might vote against them.
He’s suggesting that “medicine” has effects backed by some reasonable amount of scientific study. Telling people to ingest random substances that don’t have that is essentially witchcraft, not medicine.
But if you want to label progesterone as “faith items”, don’t they become even less controlled? If they are labeled as a medical item (or whatever makes sense to keep nut jobs from ‘prescribing’ it) wouldn’t they fall under more observation and inspection and control? The whole reason I’m asking these questions is because it seems like you all want to give religious nut jobs the ability to dose people with hormones as part of a religious ritual. Is that what you all are saying? I did say at the beginning that I might be misunderstanding.
I see your point, but I’m pretty sure there’s a legal way to both prohibit doctors from prescribing it and from witch-doctor nutjobs from “prescribing” it.
Yeah, it’s a hormone. Which is why I imagine any synthesis of it would be controlled like a medication and not declared as a faith item. But maybe I misunderstand
It shouldn’t be able to be marketed as medicine, because medicine is held to a higher standard. Kind of like how supplements and naturopathic stuff can’t claim to be medicine.
Well, I assume progesterone has some valid medical uses as a drug…. This ain’t that, though, and they’re should create a law that says “medically unproven treatements are bad and can get you canned”…
If biology for humans were such that both participants had an unpredictable, uncontrollable, 50/50 chance to carry the baby, abortion access for all and would be a non-issue.
Alternatively, if Jerry Falwell never existed, it still wouldn’t be nearly as contentious an issue.
You’re supposing the judge obeyed the Constitution here. He did not; freedom of religion is not freedom to defraud, and the people selling this drug are committing fraud.
These are critical chemistries that enable modern day life
Then maybe we need to examine "modern day life" with a more critical eye. Some sacrifices may need to be made, because they are worth being made.
There are also measures that lie between "ban" and "use freely". If we cannot eliminate the use of these chemicals in chipmaking, then we need to reconsider the disposability of these chips, or we can even consider if less effective processes result in less damaging chemical use, and accept a bit of regression as a trade-off.
Yeah, me I do, which is why I want to get rid of these forever chemicals because that’s how we’re going to end up with 40 year lifespans again.
We aren’t getting rid of our nutritious diets and vaccines which are the two biggest factors in history that have extended average lifespans. Not Teflon pans and firefighting materials.
You underestimate the toxicity of PFAS chemicals and their manufacture. I work in a toxicology lab, I know a lot of people researching PFAS right now.
To make PTFE, they used to use a chemical called PFOA, which causes multiple types of cancer and other pathologies. Everyone has been exposed to it, especially since they have been found to just dump it in whatever river is convenient. They had to stop using it after getting sued, but now they just use a different chemical that had been show to have the same effects. And again, they’re just dumping it into rivers knowing the fines for polluting won’t be as bad as actually containing the chemical properly.
That is one PFAS chemical. There are so many others. Do not let corporations poison you for profit and then lick their boots for the privilege.
My comment was about how if elimination of these materials is impossible, then we should figure out how best to reduce their usage in an acceptable manner.
Jumping straight to black-and-white "So you'd send us back to the dark ages?!?!?!" type of response is kinda wild.
One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.
Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.
Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles. Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late. Therefore, electrification of private vehicles will be necessary, which will also require PFAS.
Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.
Of course. But if we want to reduce CO2 emissions then buses will still need electrification - and therefore require PFAS.
Okay. But again. My comment was that if elimination isn't possible, reduction should be pursued.
So saying "we still require this" is completely irrelevant.
Furthermore, public transportation will not be able replace all private vehicles.
Nowhere has anyone even hinted that replacing all private vehicles is the goal.
Once again. Reduction is the goal.
So saying "we can't replace all" is completely irrelevant.
Or at least, it cannot replace them all quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. By the time the necessary infrastructure was built, it would be too late.
Buses require almost exactly the same infrastructure as private cars.
Basically, we are at a late enough stage of CO2 emission that the only realistic hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change requires mass production and adoption of EVs.
No. What the hell. Why would that be true?
Public transport is a better option for basically every major population centre. And for those centres, we should not be encouraging private vehicle ownership, but rather replacing that as much as possible with public transport. Hell, even if that public transport is on-demand low-occupancy shuttles and ride sharing, that's still better.
Electric private vehicles are better than internal combustion, but they are still awful.
So saying “we can’t replace all” is completely irrelevant.
I think it’s relevant to the person you were replying to as well as the original point of the article.
PFAS are critical to some modern technologies. In some cases, they cannot be replaced. Any time we replace cars with buses, we will need PFAS to electrify the buses. And likely we will need more PFAS in the future than we are using today.
You’re right, you were quoting the article not another person.
Regardless, you asked for a critical look at the necessity of PFAS and whether it is possible to reduce usage. My original answer is the same, namely:
One of the main uses for PFAS is electric vehicle batteries. So if “modern day life” means reducing CO2 emissions, then it will inevitably mean increased use of PFAS.
Don’t forget that we have 8 hour workdays, weekends off, payed time off and other benefits all thanks to union efforts. All of them we take granted for. They were not granted because of the kindness of employers.
And for a view into what jobs could look like without unions “interfering” with the owners’ wishes, look at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. That factory had long hours, horrible working conditions, doors locked to prevent workers from leaving (the owners claimed it was to keep employees from stealing scraps of fabric), and more. When a fire broke out, nobody could open the doors to escape and close to 150 workers died. Many fell to their deaths because they got to high windows and jumped out - hoping to survive the fall rather than be burned alive.
Several likely knew it would kill them and took the quick death. I know I would… I don’t care if it would take several minutes or 10 seconds to kill me, fuck that I ain’t burning alive.
The shirtwaist factory incident definitely needs to be taught from like third grade onwards as an example of why unionization and labor laws are in fact necessary in a capitalist society.
The jury acquitted the two men of first- and second-degree manslaughter, but they were found liable of wrongful death during a subsequent civil suit in 1913 in which plaintiffs were awarded compensation in the amount of $75 per deceased victim. The insurance company paid Blanck and Harris about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty.
Jesus fucking Christ not only did they get off, they ended up making money off the whole thing. It really feels like not much has changed in 112 years
And $75 in 1913 is the equivalent of $2,325.95 today. Imagine if a factory was wildly unsafe, caused the deaths of a hundred workers, and then the courts said “their lives are only worth about $2,300 each.” There would be marches like crazy and calls to hold the owners liable for much, much more.
Yes, to further clarify your clarification, just the post title is incorrect because they are claiming ‘consecutive’ days. Without that word its accurate.
She is widely credited with marshalling the passage of former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, as well as bills to address infrastructure and climate change under incumbent President Joe Biden.
Her big claim to fame…
Getting republicans to vote for a more conservative healthcare plan than what the Republican candidate for president wanted to pass if he had won.
It’s fucking disgusting moderates still act like that was the finish line over a decade later and oppose any more improvement to it, while demanding we call them progressive for it.
Although, once you’re in your 70s, a decade probably feels like two weeks. Time flies when age related mental decline stops you from noticing the passage of time.
Hey, they had to get rid of the public option part and gut the bill to get some republican support! Ignore the fact that it was still passed entirely from a down party lines vote with zero republican support. They had to make it a shitty gutted bill for some reason. It was such an accomplishment forcing everyone to get healthcare from multi billion dollar companies with fat profit margins.
So, what you are saying, is that Democrats are extremely bad at getting their own party members to vote in line with what their voters want them to accomplish? Sounds about right.
“Getting their own party members” to vote for something is not as easy as you think. Just ask the current majority leader how easy it is to push around his “Freedom Caucus”.
And the public option was not killed in the House. It was killed by Joe Lieberman, who was not even a Democrat any more. But he was the 60th Senate vote, he was opposed to it, and nobody - not even you - could have changed his mind. Consider that his final “F*** you” to his former party. So you can blame the people of Connecticut for that, not Pelosi.
This could perhaps be excused if it was a one-off freak happenstance, but with Manchin and Sinema, it’s obvious that the ol’ switcharoo is intentional.
Manchin, Sinema, Boebert, McCain, Lieberman, and many others all serve to demonstrate that you shouldn’t expect party members to vote together all of the time. Even if everyone in that list voted with their party >90% of the time.
It’s not a “switcharoo”, it’s baked into a system in which representatives are ultimately chosen by constituents, not by party leaders. If anything, Congress was originally intended not to have longstanding parties or factions. It was originally intended for everyone to be like Manchin and Sinema. So like it or not, lack of party discipline is a feature not a bug.
McCarthy is constantly trying to keep Gaetz, Boebert et al from forcing him out as Speaker. He wishes his caucus was as unified as the Democrats. As their leader, Pelosi watched Republicans turn against Hastert, then Boehner, then Ryan.
Reid kept his caucus of 60 together to pass the ACA, McConnell couldn’t keep 50 together to repeal it.
Trump was constantly squabbling and calling out the Republican Congressional leadership. By comparison, Biden is best friends with the Democratic leadership.
The only thing the Congressional GOP is good at is obstruction, because that doesn’t require any coordination. That’s why they rely on the SCOTUS to actually advance their agenda.
Party squabbles mean little when ultimately they’re getting their way. If anything, those squabbles push the republican party even more to the right and gets them even more of what they want. Passing the ACA was the best that the democrats could do with a super majority and even then it was a watered down bill.
But they aren’t getting the legislation they want.
They failed to privatize Social Security, failed to repeal the ACA, failed to build a southern wall, etc.
In contrast, Democrats passed the ACA, passed Dodd-Frank, passed ARPA, passed the IRA, passed CHIP, etc.
Republicans only look successful because they had to drastically lower their bar for success. They don’t want to pass laws any more, so it’s easy to get what they want.
It’s pretty obvious where the country is heading. You can pick and choose legislation, but the trajectory is clear. Also, things like ACA and Dodd-Frank were watered down trash. CHIPS was bipartisan because it was meant to stick it to China, but you’re trying to rebrand it as a democratic victory.
Politics always involves compromise. ACA and Dodd-Frank were improvements on the status quo, which is usually the best you can hope for. They do not need to be perfect to be good.
CHIPS was a typo. I meant to cite CHIP, which provides health care to children, not CHIPS.
Democrats compromise far more than republicans. ACA and Dodd-Frank are bandaids. You still see many suffer under the healthcare system in this country, meanwhile insurance companies post record profits. As for Dodd-Frank… you’ll see another “once-in-a-lifetime” economic meltdown soon, which will show how effective that legislation was.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is impossible for legislation to solve every problem. The ACA and Dodd-Frank didn’t solve every problem, but they did solve some. We are better off with them than without them. Even if they don’t stop the next catastrophe.
Democrats do compromise more than Republicans, which is exactly why they get more legislation passed than Republicans.
Getting more legislation passed doesn’t matter when that legislation does far less than the fewer pieces of legislation that the republicans can pass. Just look at the state of the country and tell me which party is winning.
The sheer brazenness with which they will lie to your face when they say stuff like this is stunning.
But what is kind of terrifying is that I personally think that, in the moment that they are saying it, they genuinely fool themselves into believing it. They simultaneously know their true intentions and that the argument they are making is complete nonsense, but in the moment that they are making it, they convince themselves of it fully. That is a dangerous thing to get into the habit of.
Bring on the down votes but my opinion is this will only make things worse. I think people should judge the police on a officer to officer basis. I work in public service and the majority of cops are really decent people who are trying to help. There are always bad seeds. Even if a cop is on a power trip if you ask them they will help you.
In my opinion the biggest problem w the police isn’t the officers it’s the training and culture. They have their hands tied w ridiculous use of force policies and almost no training. But bring on the hate and call me a fascist.
Edit: biblical service to public service. Jesus has no place in these streets.
It’s fine to have a different opinion and you shouldn’t be downvoted. If you’ve had that experience of them it’s perfectly valid. There’s just a lot of cops who are secret white supremacists who get outed routinely and that’s genuinely scary. Cops should get a lot more education than they do in the US.
I 100% agree I have met and delt with so many really shitty cops in my own time. Then factor in the 1% that are real monsters and I understand the way people feel. I train Jiu Jitsu with some amazing cops that are really trying to be better for their community and themselves. I am just defensive after reading all the comments.
Again preaching to the choir over worked and riddled w PTSD obviously the result is domestic violence and other unsafe behaviors. I mean the 1% monsters like this fellow. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44402948
1% monsters like Jenkins 40% that beat their families can and should fuck themselves. I am referring to the corruption and actively destroying the communities they work in not just home life.
“It’s only 1% because I’m very specifically framing my world view in a way that I feel justified in cropping domestic abusers out of the picture of bad actors.”
I am not saying 99% are upstanding the 40% that abuse their families are monster. I am saying the 1% that are corrupt at work and using their power for personal gains.
Even if only 1% of cops fall into that category, the percentage of cops that support and enable that behavior is much larger. Police unions routinely defend and endorse bad actors, and reinforce and propagate toxic warrior cop culture. The whole damn tree is infected, and needs serious reform. Unless and until that happens, ACAB is the best rule of thumb.
It’s hard for me to judge them individually cop to cop because literally EVERY.SINGLE.ENCOUNTER I have EVER had with a cop has been a negative experience at best. Every single one. I’m not going to hate on you or call you fascist. Just pointing out it’s like saying I’ve never met THIS wasp before, maybe I shouldn’t judge it unless it stings me! Then surprise motherfucker you got stung, whodathunkit.
even if a cop is on a power trip if you ask them they will help you
Fucking bullshit, sorry but not sorry, but you’re delusional man. And I’m a 40yo professional white guy in the suburbs! My god, I can’t even imagine being black from the hood.
From one white suburban 40 year old to another I understand what you’re saying and as I said before I have met plenty of wasps. I guess what I am trying to get across is that blanket hate for cops isn’t the answer. It’s a very hard job that they are not trained to do and it does attract assholes. But every encounter I have with a cop I start out just being friendly and the majority of the time they are friendly back. Also well aware of my white 6’2” privilege when dealing with them.
White suburban 40 year old that works public service in mixed cities with large populations of poor black white and Latino communities so I don’t live in a bubble. Most cops I work alongside seem to treat decent people decently. Again there have been some bad apples but it’s a work in progress.
I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant. You are a white, suburban 40 year old. Your demographic does not get targeted with police brutality, so it’s no surprise that cops treat you well. It’s a form of bias called survivorship bias.
No I understood what you said and I agree with you. I am aware that I get treated differently. However I have noticed that a lot of the younger cops that I see interact with minority populations much better than older “salty” cops and they gives me hope. There are real assholes too, my hope is things get better. Because I see the cops treat scumbag white people the same way they treat scumbag black people.
Finish that phrase. Here, I’ll start it for you “A few bad apples ruin…”. Any time someone uses the phrase “a few bad apples” and then can’t point to where those bad apples have been purged with extreme prejudice, they’re just illustrating how broken things are and why police need to be abolished and replaced in-mass with a new police force that’s designed for actually helping people with proper checks in place to permanently and aggressively deal with those that abuse their positions.
The tradeoff for police getting special powers should be that when they use those powers to violate peoples rights, the weight of the law should come down on them like a ton of bricks. If a cop commits a crime, they should have a MINIMUM of 10 times the sentence a non-cop would get. Cop assaults someone and that’s normally 6 months in jail? Cop should get 5 years in jail. Cop murders someone and normally you’d get 5 years? Cop gets 50 years. If there were extremely harsh punishments cops would be a hell of a lot less likely to abuse their positions. You also need to fix the incestuous relationship between police and prosecutors. There should be an independent department purely dedicated to arresting and prosecuting police for crimes.
I like the idea of a new police force but what you are describing sounds like inanity. You had me until you make the punishments 10x the crime. What happens when someone make a honest mistake? Because they had a off day their lives are ruined. Even in this fantasy where the constitution no longer exists who would sign up for that job? You will have to pay $500k a year and have genius lawyer monks doing the job.
That’s the risk you take on when you’re given powers nobody else in our society has. Police can literally kill people on purpose, something that nobody else is allowed to do. Police can imprison or detain people, once again something nobody else is allowed to do. Police can take your property, once again, something nobody else can do. They can invade your privacy, and even though there are some checks on that power they’re extremely limited. Every time an officer decides to exercise their powers to violate someones rights, whether they’re justified in doing it or not, should be a weighty decision that comes with heavy consequences if they choose wrong. If a cop is worried about being punished he could always take the safe approach of you know, just not violating someones rights. You’d see a hell of a lot fewer instances of cops immediately going for their gun as their first last and final solution to literally all problems if getting that wrong actually had dire consequences for them instead of just some annoying paperwork and having to sit through interviews.
If I have an off day at work, someone gets the wrong email. If a cop has an off day at work, someone’s dad gets killed. Do you not believe LEOs should be held to a higher standard of accountability? Anyone given the power to kill on behalf of the state should be held to a higher standard than the general population.
Even if I did believe that was a good thing it’s against the constitution to have 2 separate punishments. That said I think cops who fuck up should be tried in court like any other citizen. If you want change go apply to a department.
If you actually think police will change their ways of their own volition you’re truly living in a different reality. Change will come to law enforcement from the outside, not from within; they’re too entrenched in their avenues of power and abuse to have any interest in legitimate reform.
Unless and until they start following section 1983 of the federal code, as was written and passed by Congress not as was illegally revised in 1874 by one person that had no authority to do so, they are all criminals and deserve nothing but scorn.
This only applies to the thugs with badges in the US. It may not apply to your utopian police department.
Hell no, that’s only going to make things worse. First police won’t do anything if something is stolen, so that’s just wasting your time. As for assaulting you, there’s a good chance that’s going to end up with the cop beating you up instead. You’re better off asking for help from some random passer by, there’s a better chance they’ll actually help. If my house is on fire I’ll call the fire department. If I’m having a medical emergency I’ll call an ambulance. If crime of some kind is happening you deal with it yourself because the cops will either do nothing or make it worse.
Yes seriously, only thing cops are good for is the paper trail for insurance. Call them while you’re being assaulted and they’ll probably just join in the fray.
You need to talk to some other people about their experiences with cops. I look like you, but i’m autistic, so I can’t act like you. Police constantly think i’m lying/hiding something/acting guilty because they’re taught to interpret the way I interact because of a developmental disorder as criminal behavior. Then, if they push us into a meltdown by intimidating the hell out of us, because they assume we’re criminals, we get beaten and arrested or shot.
You seriously need to think more about how your position in life and outward appearance actually affects the way the world interacts with you. Things aren’t just harder for some people. They’re completely different, and these institutions are supposed to exist for all of us. f you understood what it was like to interact with the police as an autistic man or a black man, you would not be defending the police.
That sucks man and I hate that that happens to you. I am not beating my chest for every cop but not all are animals and until people stop being awful to each other they are needed. I try to de escalate every scene I am on when I feel the cops are being assholes. Their job is almost impossible and unfortunately it attracts douche bags but also there are some great cops.
Watch some Police Audit videos. About one out of 10, a cop does something spectacularly good (or at least not horrible). Once, they even arrested another cop on the scene because the other cop crossed from “merely bullying” to outright criminal behavior.
The other 9 out of 10 are disgusting and disappointing. So your view of them sure isn’t far off reality.
You know every time I’ve had something stolen and filed a police report I have not even once had my stolen shit returned. They don’t even call back after weeks to say “hey we didn’t care enough to follow any leads, good luck”.
And yet they take every fucking chance they can to write my as many moving violations as possible, whether or not they apply.
Fuck the officer for going along with it. They can quit and find a different job that doesn’t make them out to be a piece of shit like the rest of us. Nobody forces them to become a cop, but by choosing to become one, they’ve branded themselves as part of that fucked up system. That’s on them. ACAB
Considering studies show dollar-for-dollar we can effectively do what good police do by putting their budget money in other services (mental health, welfare, etc), I’m ok with having a LOT fewer cops with a lot more limited mandate.
Honestly, I’m not super married to the idea of “solving” crimes. I would rather prevent 1 crime than solve 2. The idea that solving crimes is more important than preventing them only works for the punitive model of justice, one that I do not ascribe to.
If we could cut the crime rate 90%, but the people who committed crimes went free, I’d still strongly consider it.
That’s despite the fact I don’t agree that big crimes wouldn’t get solved. Of over 650,000 police officers, only 10,000 are detectives, who are trained and tasked with solving crimes. That’s a LOT of cops that solve crimes for a living at all. They “keep peace”. Sometimes you DO need a cop to keep peace, when the most important thing is the presence of mitigating force. The rest of the time, a social worker is more effective.
What do you do for work, and how much time do you spend in depressed areas? I have seen babies shaken to death mothers cutting their wrists while their children are in the next room, people placing gasoline bombs in banks around town, a guy set his ex wife’s house on fire with her in it, a guy shot in the stomach for the cash in his register, a pregnant woman stabbed in the belly 9 times by a stalker abd Countless other awful things and for these reasons I am glad cops are working. Obviously there are douche bags. But the real world is really hard and at times evil. So without police and the idea of punishment I think it would be chaotic. There has to be a better way to deliver public safety and I am on board with it but for now it’s better than nothing.
What do you do for work, and how much time do you spend in depressed areas?
I grew up adjacent to two cities with some of the highest crime rates in the US. The one that went easier on the cops and heavier on local programs and improvements had its crime rate plummet. The one that doubled-down on policing still has a gang problem (and drug OD problem) today. The former had the higher crime rate, including a street that hit the top 10 deadliest streets in the country.
As for what I do, immaterial. But I live with emergency workers, and they are saints who put their lives at risk every day. They also don’t like cops, but are afraid to say it because cops can fuck up their lives. Yes, sometimes they need cops for the direct prevention of a violent situation (see my point below), but as often the cops get in their way. They are required to obey a lawful order even when they’re doing their job, and sometimes that costs a patient’s life. Very often, accountability on that is more politics than justice.
I have seen babies shaken to death mothers cutting their wrists while their children are in the next room, people placing gasoline bombs in banks around town, a guy set his ex wife’s house on fire with her in it, a guy shot in the stomach for the cash in his register, a pregnant woman stabbed in the belly 9 times by a stalker abd Countless other awful things and for these reasons I am glad cops are working
How many of those didn’t happen because of the cops’ presence? The math (see below) says zero of them. If you could be confident that 50% defunding police and replacing them with social programs would cut the rate of those things substantially, what would your opinion be? More crime and more thugs to punish it, or less crime?
I’d like to take note that everything you said in your last reply might be appropriate if I were some punk kid saying “let’s get rid of all the cops in the world” or somesuch. I’m saying let’s stop funding them beyond their need and stop trusting them to do the things they are not qualified for. Of all the horrible things you’ve seen, police still cause more deaths than they prevent, committing 5% of homicides themselves… while police budget and saturation does not have any detectable correlation to homicide figures. That means, $1 spent on policing causes a net increase to homicide rates.
Again, that’s NOT saying those figures would stay the same if we cut 90% or 95% or 100% of police funding, but they sure as hell would if we cut 30% or 40%, and if we reallocated that into programs that DO solve those problems? We have those programs. They’re just underfunded by people who don’t think we deserve free mental healthcare, free food, etc. EVERY $1 that goes into welfare does more to cut crimes than $1 into police.
Never in my above posts did I say the police are perfect and nothing needs to change I too have had dealings with some real shit police. Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am. I am all for it though if it’s possible. I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.
I’m not sure you know what you’re arguing. You seemed to get really defensive when I said we should reduce the police. So I explained why it is smart to reduce the police.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction for people who have experienced criminal behavior to want more police and harsher sentencing. Often times it helps to shake them out of it to discuss efficacy. To ask “what if more police and harsher sentencing doesn’t work, or has the opposite effect?” Ultimately, you seem to want the same thing as me - less crime, less violent crime. So why not support things that are more likely to work over things that are less likely to work?
Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am.
You’re not going to have a hard time finding/training social workers, and they tend to make less than half of what police officers do in most states. They actually spiked really high unemployment rates a few times, and the low demand and low wages of social work is the only thing keeping people from pivoting to that field. You are right about one thing. Social workers are actually required to be properly trained, unlike police (who often don’t even know the law they’re supposedly enforcing). But I guarantee if the funding showed up, the workers would as well.
There is a part 2 to that of course. There are a lot of people who would more readily spend $1b in police than $1m in social work because “poor people don’t deserve anything for free”. But you talked like you care about violent crimes not happening, and you aren’t getting that by maintaining the current huge police spend.
I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.
I don’t like the term “crushed”. I expanded upon you saying “Cool let’s not have cops” with pointing out the value of changing from a police-oriented society to a solution-oriented society. Your points were:
With fewer police, crime will go unsolved, to which I pointed out that only a tiny percent of police are tasked with solving crimes and pointing out that “solving crimes” means we failed to prevent those crimes from happening
That you’ve seen horrible things, therefore we need to support police. To which I tried to dismantle that and show you that the police did not, and do not, prevent those horrible things from happening, including referencing (without citation I’m afraid. I was tired/lazy) studies that showed reduction in police funding does not actually increase crime rates.
I’m sure other people are giving you more harsh replies, but I’m sticking to just the facts of the situation. In most (but not all) situations, the need for police represents failure by society to do something, something they could have done cheaper without the police. The #1 such failure is insufficient welfare and safety nets, that benefit far more per-dollar to reduce crime than police ever will.
A small “response” crew dealing with volitile situations like a domestic disturbance being escalated beyond the scope of a social worker, and a smaller “combat” crew dealing with things like hostage situations and ultra-high-risk situations… that’s mostly all the police need/do that could effectively protect us. Hell, you don’t even need a guy with a gun to handle most common infractions like DUIs.
I’m not sure you know what I am arguing I never said I want more police or harsher sentences this is arguing in a vacuum all I said in most of these replies was it’s counter productive to not allow police in your restaurant.
I am a huge advocate for social programs and I think it’s criminal that they are the first to go when the budget gets tight. I would love to see more social workers on scene but you are still going to want a cop there if the person get violent.
As for the police budget I would love to see it spent on useful training instead of tanks for barricaded suspects that never gets used.
Those cops making more than social workers are doing that with overtime on road jobs or filling vacant shifts. Any cop or firefighter making $150k a year is living at work.
I am sure not in a comment section this conversation would go a lot smoother.
So you’re saying the system is broken? Well, that sounds like something we can agree on then. The police force is broken, needs to be torn down back to its foundations and rebuilt. Every time something happens with police you always get the same response “It’s just a few bad apples”, conveniently leaving out the rest of that phrase “that ruin the bunch”. Well, those bad apples have been left too long, and it ruined all of them. There are only two kinds of cops, the bad apples, and the ruined apples, both need to be thrown out. We need to abolish the current police and replace them with a uncorrupted version, the rot has set in too far in the existing police force, there’s no salvaging it.
Damn you sure are painting with a broad brush. I have been replying to a lot of comments so if you read this reply in another comment sorry. I agree that the police need reform and I agree that it attracts a lot of the wrong type of people. I think their training is lacking in use of force and de escalation tactics. I think they should have more than 2 hrs a year of grappling training and a lot of departments are moving in the right direction.
I am sorry you have only had dealings with asshole cops because I know a lot of really good ones. Have a great day.
I agree with you there too the cops need another layer especially for behavioral or psychological calls. But that’s a training and budget issue. Also I have been to so many crisis intervention calls as a paramedic and was thankful the cops were there because they patted down the pt and they had either a gun or a knife on them. Every municipality is complaining about their budget so I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for trained social workers thst want to respond to the shelter or nursing home at 4 am for the psych.
And then the corollary; Every so often, there’s a good cop that has stood up to their bad cop neighbors, calling them out publicly for evidence tampering and racial profiling. And then the union kicks them out - making them a good person, but no longer a good cop.
Even if a cop is on a power trip if you ask them they will help you.
I was with you until about here. I’ve seen cops shoo away people in need rather than even deign to give directions. I would say the majority I’ve seen have been very unhelpful and the encounters that have been nice or cordial have been the extreme minority. It’s like their default is power trip mode.
I think that part of the problem with your response, not just biblical vs public service, is that it is a bias based on your own experience.
Like the rest of us, the police are overworked, and it is reasonable to expect that they feel pressure to act and do, not to take time to reason and consider. For an office worker, they might get angry and have a short fuse. For an officer, that might have dire consequences.
What purpose do the police serve? In my youth, they helped get baby kittens down from trees. The officer with the glowing smile would hand the kitten to the little girl who needed help. The highly legible and large typeface said “Cop gave cat.” Factual and warming.
This isn’t the interaction I usually have and it isn’t the interaction I’ve heard others have. Was Timmy and Suzy’s Big Day wrong? Consider the difference between The Andy Griffith Show and Dragnet. It’s a big difference when you know the people you are there to “Protect and Serve,” but reality is considerably different for most.
On the other side of things, you have folks that have been underprivileged from the crib. Social pressures indirectly, if not sometimes directly, perpetuate their plight. It instills anger and a general distrust.
Now mix those groups together.
Grouped by association is going to be the outcome unless people recognize their biases and actively try to work outside that. It means recognizing how your experience might not be shared amongst others. That’s all anyone is asking.
I work in biblical service and the majority of cops are really decent people who are trying to help.
Your inability to see your selection bias and account for it (while claiming to do just that) is beyond staggering.
Like… you’re saying the words, but then your overall takeaway proves that despite what you’re saying, you have no concept of reality beyond your own lived experience and world view.
I’m not in the ACAB/Defund camp either by any means, but you should either learn to truly acknowledge your bias (and not just pay it lip service), or just fucking own it and stop pretending to have a nuanced and enlightened opinion.
Like…don’t try to make yourself sound like you’re speaking from any sort of well reasoned position that accounts for the limitations of personal experience and acknowledges the experience of others. Just say, “Hey, the vast majority of cops I’ve interacted with, I’ve had no problem with. Therefore I think most cops everywhere are decent people and the tiny fraction that aren’t are just an unfortunate and unavoidable, but ultimately acceptable exception that is worth it in exchange for the services police forces as a whole provide for society.”
Because that’s literally what you’re saying.
You’re a white guy working and interacting with these cops in a religiously charged setting that already puts you in familiar and friendly territory with them in terms of ideology, race, and gender. These are three huge factors that are all coloring the interaction, and given the closely intertwined threads of American right wing politics with police, religion, race, and gender, every single interaction you’ve had with them benefits from being on their side in all the major categories that matter. With that frame of reference, you cannot possibly (at least while maintaining intellectual honesty) use your own personal experience as being at all broadly representative of that of the average person in the general public.
It’s like showing up to game day in the home team’s city wearing the home team’s colors and singing the home team’s fight song…and then the next day when you see a story about how many of those fans you met were harassing and assaulting fans of the other team, your response is, “Well I interacted with dozens of those fans and they were all really nice to me. Since I have real experience with them, that proves that they’re nice people who would never do those bad things. Must have just been 1% of bad apples. But overall, there’s no problem with bad fans since they were all nice to me.”
In my opinion the biggest problem w the police isn’t the officers it’s the training and culture.
That’s sorta the point that people generally have issues with cops dude. It’s the overall culture of shielding of each other from consequences, stoking a “everyone is your enemy”/warrior mentality among officers, bad or lack of training leading to unneeded violent escalation etc.
It’s been police departments dragging their heels and throwing tantrums on addressing these issues that have what caused people’s dislike of them to grow.
Yea I have been saying that the entire time and getting downvoted to hell. My opinion is one of the big problems are cops don’t think of themselves as part of the community so by kicking them out of restaurants will only make them feel like less of a part of the community. I am done responding to these comments everyone seems to be a expert lawyer and city planner that has extensive experience dealing w the public.
I would say they don’t feel part of the community because they are the enforcement behind alienation under capitalism. If everyone has housing, security, fair trials, etc then people wouldn’t perceive them as part of an alienating force.
my opinion is this (rejecting cops) will only make things worse.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt because if you don’t they will punish you isn’t really giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is a backhanded acknowledgement that if they are not collectively appeased and given unwarranted grace, they will behave badly.
That’s not an argument that they’re not bullies, it sounds like an acknowledgement that they’re bullies and it would be better to appease them
After the amadou diallo shooting the NYPD knee jerk response was to increase the trigger pull pressure of their pistols so it would be harder to pull the trigger. So instead of better training and use of force tactics they just made it harder to shoot. And that in turn makes it easier to miss and hit bystanders. A perfect example of the terrible policy to breeds bad cops.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.