What infuriates me about articles like this is that it really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time, here's everything they did and what they plan to do for the year, and here are some kids' reactions and quotes about the club.
Instead, it says the kids had "a great time" and then moves on to the protesters, offering them several paragraphs to spew their vile hate speech, repeating the garbage that their hate-filled signs say, and then even quoting two people. And then it follows that with basically an advertisement for "the Good News club, a Christian evangelical Bible club that meets before school hours."
It's a sign of how biased society is towards religion that an article about a non-theistic after school club gives half of the article to a handful of religious bigots to let them spew their hate speech and then promotes their own Christian school club.
I think you’re whoooshing the article. Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
Indeed. I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn’t push their opinion seems counterfactual.
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
I don't see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That’s probably why we have different takes. You’re upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can’t interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn’t do that, so I’m glad you didn’t get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn't have expected them to publish kids' names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don't agree with you that what the article does is simply "shining a light." They're helping them out.
On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it’s like. I’ve read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn’t receive an article in a national publication because that’s not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn’t about the club being formed; it’s about the backlash to the club being formed, and that’s what they’re going to focus on. I’m not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what’s going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.
I get where you're going with this, but I'm not following along.
Pointing out that there were protesters and explaining what they were doing there/why they were there is one thing. And that's important news. But this article went way way beyond that. They interviewed the protestors, put their names in the paper, and published their bigoted message along with it. They gave them fame and a platform, and helped them spout their hatred.
When there's a terrorist attack, responsible news agencies are careful to avoid giving unnecessary publicity to the terrorists, such as publishing their name and manifesto, and instead they focus on the victims. That's the attitude that should have been taken here. Mention the protestors, but don't platform them. Focus on the kids who are being harassed by these bigots, and show them in the positive light they deserve.
These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn’t going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.
If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you’re seeing an opinion piece, not news.
That article sounds like a bunch of religious nuts making threats and calling parents that let their kids join an inclusive club instead of one of hate, bad parents. This reads like they 100% gave a platform to the nuts, instead of showing how the club overcame their hate.
These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they're not violent terrorists, but they're closer to that than they are to debaters.
both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language
Neutral language? Are you kidding me??
This is not a debate. One side's position is "we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted." The other side's position is "you are evil and deserve to die." If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no "neutral language" for hate speech.
The story is about the controversy surrounding the club. “New club starts after school, kids have fun” is a story that would only run in the schools newspaper. Outside of that it’s a complete non story.
So of course they are going to report about what the people who are protesting this are saying about it.
Additionally, the “advertisment” was really just a clarification on the point by ASSC that they only go to schools where there is another religious club.
This is a very neutral article just reporting the facts, you had to try very hard to be offended by it.
really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time
And you’re trying to argue that
“New club starts after school, kids have fun”
Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said? And you’re claiming I’m dishonest? Is this a joke?
Nah, I didn’t have to try very hard at all.
It was a completely inoffensive article that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims. I suspect this is because you know I’m right, but your ego is too fragile to admit it.
And you’re trying to argue that “New club starts after school, kids have fun” Is some gross misrepresentation of what you said?
Yes. Because that's not what I said at all. Go read what I actually fucking said.
It was a completely inoffensive article
It wasn't.
that you blatantly misrepresented so you could offended. Sorry, but you clearly tried hard to do so.
I didn't.
And I notice that you didn’t actually challenge any of my claims.
Because it was a dishonest troll comment that misrepresented what I said. Just like this one is too. There's nothing to challenge when all that you wrote was dishonest. And there's no reason to treat you seriously when you're just trolling.
My complaint is that they are platforming the bigots. Rather than reporting what is going on, they are serving as a mouthpiece for a hate group and promoting their agenda.
Now go fuck off to whatever bridge you crawled out from under.
Literally cut and paste it and you’re still pretending you didn’t say it. Lol you’re fucking nuts denying reality. It’s like when I argue with climate change deniers and trump cultists.
I also addressed your other point about giving a platform, by pointing out that the only story here is the controversy.
It’s not that I don’t understand your point, it’s that we both understand at least part of your point is absolutely ridiculous, you’re just too fragile to admit it. So gaslight and and attack.
Literally cut and paste what you said, and all you can do is try and gaslight and call me a liar and a troll over and over again. Lol Pretty sad what a joke you are.
Isn’t the name of the club deliberately provocative though? The only reason you would call it the Satanic Club would be to make Christians mad. Seems like trolling to me. Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Is that provocative? Is that offensive? Would you say that the school's evangelical "Good News Club" is provocative or trolling?
Calling is a Satan Club is "only to make Christians mad" but calling it a "Good News Club" is not trolling to make non-Christians mad? This says more about your own prejudices than anything else.
Articles like this are exactly what the club wants.
Not like the wholesome Christian indoctrination clubs and Christian students who bully anyone who isn’t cishet and white. Thank goodness they’re in the school to show us the light.
I really wish they’d stop putting Musk’s name on things like this. He didn’t design the engines, he didn’t plan the flight path, he did nothing but throw a bunch of money at a company because he’s obsessed with Mars.
Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in the world and it used to explode like this too. It’ll be 5-10 years of successful unmanned flights before anyone rides on this rocket.
Was NASA exploding rockets this frequently when they pioneered all of this decades ago? It only took NASA 8 years to go from first entering space to landing on the moon. SpaceX is nowhere close to that and they've been launching rockets for 17 years.
Damn you clearly know nothing about technological development. Elon stands on the shoulders of all those who gave their lives in the past. He benefits from all the safety regulations.
And still with all of that. The tens of billions of dollars the government hands out to him. And more than twice the time of the Space Race he had accomplished so little. How many successful rockets did NASA develop in that time? A lot more than SpaceX.
Look how long it took to develop SLS and how much money was spent, and then how much each launch costs. And the moment Starship is complete SLS will be obsolete.
No, but the resources given and the requirements set are different. The Saturn V did not have to be reusable and was awarded two orders of magnitude more funding. Which is ultimately why it stopped being made.
Exploding rockets is totally common in rocket science. In fact, their mission objective wasn’t even for the rocket to succeed at making it to space. When you put millions of pounds of fuel into a tube and heat it up, there is a lot to take into account. No one has ever launched anything this big, so they are going to have to iterate quite a few times. Even the computer models can’t catch everything. Sometimes it is as stupid as a bad part manufacturer.
You literally said you were concerned for manned flight in your last comment. So originally it was the rocket and engineering you were concerned about.
You literally said you were concerned for manned flight in your last comment
You’re oh so slightly twisting the dude’s words. What he said was:
Which is why I’m nervous for when they decide to start doing manned flights.
This could be expressing concern about the flights themselves, or about something that happens around the time the decision to start doing manned flights is taken - like cutting corners that leads to employees getting injured.
Dude even clarified what he meant, and you’re like “nope, I won’t accept that”?
IIRC, they wouldn’t take his money because he misunderstood the price they wanted, tried to bargain it down and lowball them, and ended up pissing them off so much they doubled the price.
This just false. Sure, he did not do everything alone but he has a huge hand in engineering concepts and design decisions. Lots of hate and complete misunderstanding how spaceship, spaceX and Musk work in this thread.
Anyone who writes code knows that is not a practical way to review.
Maybe in his time he got book smart about some physics/rocket concepts. That’s the least I would expect anyway. But that doesn’t mean he really has any expertise to offer to the product.
So this was at the bottom of the article where McConnell weighs in “this is why congress shouldn’t run for 5 weeks straight, things get weird.” Wtf, what about everyone else in the world that works 52 weeks straight. Just another example of how out of touch some representatives are.
Yeah, it's not. From my experience in the restaurant that I visit (in LA) I see maybe 1/4 or 1/5 that still wear them.
As a parent of a pre-K kid (for those who don't know, daycares and schools for young kids are grand centrals for microbes) I no longer get sick from covid, but I can still tell I got it, because there are specific symptoms I'm still getting from it that are quite annoying. One of the worst is that for few days I feel just extremely tired. If I have nothing to do, and I can just sleep that time off. Working during that time is no fun.
So even if mask reduces chance of getting that by half, it is still worth it. It also would help employer as being tired at job one won't get as productive as they normally could. And this is just my experience, and other people have it worse.
Just had it for the first time. About a week in I had a day where I was extremely tired, almost like I never fully woke up that morning despite getting a great night sleep. Pretty awful symptom and probably the worst of all the symptoms I had. I could barely function that day. Covid is a strange disease.
How are you still getting it that often. I got it once in the UK after if been jabbed three times, that felt like a pretty bad cold for a week, and since then I’ve tested with each cold, but it hasn’t been Covid since that first time.
First thing is that, I am taking immuno-suppressing drug regularly.
Second thing is what is happening to me is (depending how you look at it) minor. I don't get cold symptoms anymore either (although I my first covid was just runny nose). The primary thing is that I get that mentioned tiredness. I think most people would chalk it up under having a bad day / not sleeping enough etc.
The thing though is that when it happens it comes with few other symptoms that I had when I had covid:
flare up, causing joint pain especially in the morning
first day there's a light diarrhea (also nothing concerning on its own, and following day is normal)
And those three things always come together at the same time.
No, I'm not testing and I doubt it would even show positive. I don't have any cold-like symptoms, and tests, test my mucus.
It's not like what you described having covid, or even my first covid.
Perhaps I should not say that I had covid, but instead I was exposed to it multiple times and my body naturalized it before it became anything significant but it still caused those symptoms?
Right wing Christian nationalist with 1.6 million followers says a gay dad should be publicly killed, all because his bigoted speculation is being asserted as facts. His crime? Being a dad who’s also gay.
“Some pervert homo has access to at least four kids around the clock all the time,” Peters said in a video posted to both Instagram and Rumble. “He can take them to drag conventions and then post the evidence, post pictures and videos of criminal sexual conduct … and somehow not end up in jail, or better yet, the gallows.”
But it’s “the violent radical left” that is causing domestic terrorism in the US.
Sounds weirdly like projection, or maybe the bigot is just jealous about a father’s “access to at least 4 kids around the clock” - which is a super weird take, and likely a confession.
Otherwise known as being a parent. I dread to think why this persons mind went here and what they would do with access to children. Projection all the time with these freaks.
He can take them to drag conventions and then post the evidence, post pictures and videos of criminal sexual conduct … and somehow not end up in jail, or better yet, the gallows.
Because, Stupid Peters, those things are not against the law.
I know, I know, you conservatives have a real hard time with that concept.
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Do people actually take their kids to drag shows or is that just a right wing talking point? I’m not really sure what kids would get out of it, aren’t those aimed at adults?
I’ve never seen a kid at an adult-oriented drag show, fortunately, but I’ve seen Pride events occasionally offering a kid-friendly show, and there’s the drag story hours that are a perennial conservative lightning rod. Drag queens are good at interacting with crowds and they’re generally really colorful - they’re probably quite entertaining during story hour.
Sure, you are allowed to have a firearm. As long as we (the police) never see you with it, or anything shaped like it, on your person ever, even if you are inside your own apartment. Oh, also don’t be black. Black people all have guns all the time. /s
That constitutional right doesn’t feel very constitutional when it’s a death sentence to exercise it.
He’s got a gun! Quick! Murder him as fast as possible!
But we have the right to have them? Oh wait I get it, you have the right to have a firearm but not the right to be alive at the same time, ahh, now it makes sense. Got me with the loophole, no “right to live while bearing arms” in the constitution, but you can bear arms, just gotta forfeit your right to be alive.
I was literally just coming to write a similar comment.
So right wingers are you still going to lick those boots or maybe actually give a shit about that 2nd amendment you love to use as a cudgel against “the left?”
What’s it matter? You think they are going to be lining up to vote for Biden who condemned the protests on campus and called the students (many of whom are jewish) antisemitic…
You actually have to register to be eligible to vote in the US? Aren’t you automatically getting your voting cards when there is an election and you are over the age of 18?
If someone is politically engaged enough to get arrested at a political protest, it seems like a reasonable assumption that they would be registered to vote
Authorities say an unknown male suspect sprayed what they described as a possible accelerant on the office door, set it on fire and fled. They said the suspect remained at large and no motive had been established.
“A significant fire engulfed the door and part of the vestibule, impeding the egress of staff members who were working in the office and endangering their lives,” Burlington police said in a statement. “The sprinkler system then engaged and largely extinguished the fire.”
That’s absolutely arson, and almost assuredly a couple counts of attempted murder…
Are you on an instance/app where images are default collapsed? Like a twitter clone or something rather than Lemmy?
Or is a giant image intentional?
I was just blocking everyone who does it often because it’s jarring. But so many of you keep doing it so I wanted to ask if there’s a reason or just why?
On both lemmy.world with the default UI and on the voyager app, images are resized to a reasonable size for inline display. It seems like a defect of whatever you’re using that it doesn’t do that.
I have looked on Android Firefox, Mac OSX Firefox, Android Chrome, Mac OSX Chrome, and flipped from portrait to landscape, I checked multiple instances, and thereby multiple themes (my account normally uses darkly-compact). In several of these scenarios the image is resized to be “tiny” as in <1/20th of the screen width, and from there it ranges up to 1/3rd, or at the absolute widest ~3/4ths of the screen (someone else also replied to the person you replied to showing this screenshot demonstrating that width for them too).
Throughout all of this, the person you replied to has only managed to conjure up 3 facts, one being an extremely generic term “web browser”, 1 seemingly objectively false (“giant”), and the other 1 at best seems unreproducible by anyone here (“full screen width”).
In short, the person you replied to seems to be acting in a trolling manner, as in like a canonical Karen, which frankly does seem surprising given how clearly articulated the original message of theirs was. We would be happy to help them diagnose further but at this point they just seem to be venting - granted though, not so much in the message you replied to on its own.
A picture is worth a thousand words. The AP article in the OP, right after the title, has a picture of Bernie Sanders, to help jog recognition and enhance immersion and feeling of reality, then has the wall of pure text after that - appropriate use of pictures enhances rather than detracts from the experience.
I too was put off by the constant use of pictures on Reddit, so I researched it a bit and found that millennials and beyond use pictures, especially the same memes over and over, to convey an entirely different experience than mere text. The memes speak to emotion and a shared set of experiences in this topsy turvy world. It being possible means that it works, and the more I thought about it, the more I came to appreciate it.
There is a second meaning to it: on hexbear voting is disabled and so they extremely often use pictures in replies to convey their thoughts instead of voting - but while on the hexbear server they are represented as tiny icons, like emojis basically, everywhere else all across Lemmy they are giant. After blocking the hexbear instance I have not seen much of those though - you might prefer that to having to block each person individually, see your Settings (not Profile), second tab, scroll WAAAAY down, to block an entire instance.
Regular pictures though, on the Lemmy webpages, likewise also do not have a way (that I know of?) to control the size. So they are all-or-nothing, have it or don’t (afaik). Having them makes this place more welcoming, especially to a younger crowd, and enhancing participation helps the Fediverse to encourage a more steady stream of content and help ensure that it does not turn into a circle jerk niche set of tiny interconnected communities.
So, while a “giant” image was not intentional, an image was. Also, I only just when getting to this very paragraph in this reply noticed how significantly different the height of the image is when I have my Android keyboard open in my Firefox browser vs. when I close that, as would be done by someone scrolling. As I composed it, and chose preview to make sure that it worked, it was shown at maybe half the width and two thirds the height, but then hiding the keyboard it suddenly jumps up to full width and height. So that fact too likely contributes to people not realizing the full extent of what the picture is going to look like to others later on. It also may look different in the place it came from too, further leading to the discontinuity between what was intended vs. received.
Anyway I do try to use pictures, especially memes that are easily recognizable, whenever possible bc they seem to work better in the communication process (that is a 2-way procedure between both sending and receiving partners) than a mere wall of words. So you may want to block me, although I will preemptively say that I will miss your perspective across the Fediverse in replies such as this one, though ofc I understand that if it is driving you crazy then you may want to take steps to improve your experience.
Hopefully Lemmy or your preferred app (or some other one that you could switch to) will implement a solution that doesn’t require massive effort and maintenance on your part to be constantly walling yourself off from what will end up being an increasingly larger share of the Fediverse as it grows and brings in newer and younger people, but for now the code is somewhat primitive in terms of such technical details.
In any case, I hope that this explanation helps.:-). Also, oh wow, could you imagine trying to have a conversation like this on Reddit!? :-P The technology here being far behind there does not begin to make up for the Fediverse being worthwhile, whereas Reddit is useless - as in even if I was not here, I still would not be there:-D.
OR, and hear me out, you could just not be a total asshole? Maybe have a baseline of tolerance and respect for the people who made you a billionaire? No? Then fuck right off and accept the consequences of your hatred.
It seems billionaires have really wacked out midlife crises. Instead of buying expensive cars and cheating on their partners, they come out as terfy nazis, build hate platforms, and crash companies. I mean to be fair, at this point the sample size is only two, JKKK Rowling and Musk, but it’s still surprising that it’d happen twice.
I’m not obscenely wealthy, so I don’t have the experience…but it seems plausible that a billionaire midlife crisis could be “Where am I going to put this ridiculous amount of money that I’ve earned through less-than-ethical means?”
I mean, the main motivator for the endowment was always Malinda Gates. I’m sure it functions as a tax shelter, but I doubt that was really the main motivator. He’s already given over several times what his tax burden would have been, and if we compare it to other NGOs whose sole purpose is truly preserving or raising money, they really aren’t comparable.
I’m in agreement that no one should have hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone billions. We can discuss the validity of NGO as a concept, but as far as NGO go, the gates foundation has done more actual aid work for 3rd world countries than most governments.
We can discuss the validity of NGO as a concept, but as far as NGO go, the gates foundation has done more actual aid work for 3rd world countries than most governments.
most governments don’t have nearly the same revenue. This is like saying corporations have done more to help homeless people than homeless shelters (to whom the corpos donate money.)
The reality is that a lot of the way things are, are caused by people like- and including- bill gates.
While there are many NGOs that exist to do good things- and are very good at aid- the gates foundation is not one of those.
I think you’ve bought into the reputation washing the foundation has done for the Gates, and severely underestimate just ho sociopathic they are…. And just how profitable the foundation is for them personally.
most* governments don’t have nearly the same revenue. This is like saying corporations have done more to help homeless people than homeless shelters (to whom the corpos donate money.)
In this hypothetical, the shelters are still necessary for the investment to do any actual good, therefore the input of the investment could never exceed the input of the shelter.
One of the things that makes the gates foundation an actual working NGO is that they employ their own aid workers, and set up the logistics systems that support their mission.
The reality is that a lot of the way things are, are caused by people like- and including- bill gates.
I agree, my claim isn’t that bill gates deserves his wealth, or that his NGO validates his earnings, or even the economic system that allowed it. My claim is simply that the gates foundation is about as good of an NGO we could ever expect to have within our current economic system.
think you’ve bought into the reputation washing the foundation has done for the Gates, and severely underestimate just ho sociopathic they are…. And just how profitable the foundation is for them personally.
I think that the vast majority of those impacted by the “sociopathy” you speak of are/were other wealthy silicon valley types, and the rest of the 1rst world in general. Was he a monopolistic technocrat who personally slowed the march of technology for personal gain? Yes, but to be honest so did other corporations like apple. The thing apple hasn’t done is save +30 million lives from preventable diseases.
As far as how profitable the foundation is… I don’t really think you understand how tax write offs work. They aren’t an infinite supply of free tax credits that you can deduct from your personal income. There is a point where the amount you give exceeds your personal tax burden.
If it were truly about making money, he would just do the same thing musk is, keeping his investments in unrealized gains, and then using those assets as collateral for tax free loans.
Also, Id hardly claim the gates foundation has been a success at reputation washing. I mean just in the last couple years he’s been accused of everything from drinking baby’s blood for adrenochrome, injecting people with the 5g, and even creating COVID. I think he’s a difficult person to have a nuanced opinion over. People tend to not criticize them for the things he’s actually done, and tend to focus instead on some hidden insidiousness.
Have you ever worked with the Gates foundation? Because calling it a “tax dodge” like that is completely baseless, they’re a really reallyngood charity, like honestly one of the best in the world, and also that’s very ignorant of how taxes work.
How is the money being out of their control the point?
The point is to save lives and help people, which the Gates foundation does incredibly well.
And it’s not a tax dodge, he’s literally just not selling his Microsoft shares for cash, getting taxed, and then giving the money to the foundation and instead just giving the foundation the shares directly.
You could just google it and alleviate your own ignorance of all the scummy ways both the foundation and the trust are used to avoid taxes (and other expenses.) here’s a forbe’s article with the stuff they’re actually allowed to talk about. The “good work” you’re so keen to point out… is part of the grift.
Specifically so schmucks like you pounce whenever some schmuck like me says “they’re not that nice.” That’s the part about “reputation washing”. he gives some money - literal pocket change for somebody that makes nearly 11 million per day.
you don’t get that fucking rich by being “nice” or “decent” or even human, really. this is about Bezos, but it puts their wealth into perspective. Decent humans, with that kind of wealth could solve global housing. Or they could solve the food shortage. he hasn’t even come close to that. No. The foundation isn’t a force for good, even if it occasionally does good shit.
My dude, I have worked with the foundation to help create diagnostic tools for deseases that would otherwise gone unnoticed in developing countries.
The work we have done has saved thousands and thousands of peoples lives. So you can take your.
The “good work” you’re so keen to point out… is part of the grift.
And shove it right up your arse. If saving peoples lives is a “grift” to you because bill Gates didn’t sell his shares in Microsost before he gave them to his trust, because obviously the shares will keep increasing in price, then honestly I don’t fucking care.
And yes I know Bill Gates did shitty things and screwed a lot of people over in his early carrier to become so rich and I’m not excusing that. But the Gates foundation isn’t part of that and has done way too much good for humanity as a whole for some ignorant chucklefuck with no first hand experience of what they do to dismiss it as a “grift”.
A strong case can be made that the ability of the Bill and Melinda Gates to keep their money and use it for charitable purposes was the biggest and best tax break in American history.
The “good work” you’re so keen to point out… is part of the grift.
Steve Jobs killed himself because he thought he knew better than his doctors. Well, that’s wacked out too, but at least it’s not being a Nazi…
Steve Jobs was always a piece of shit, and he had that diet well before he got cancer. But yeah the fact he continued to double down in the face of death shows how much of a narcissist he was.
I think a factor with some of them, probably both the ones you mentioned, is that they can’t handle criticism. So when they get any push back they double down. Then they get drawn into conservative nonsense that reinforces their beliefs. Then it’s a downward spiral as they get radicalized far beyond their original positions.
No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.
No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.
I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.
Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.
I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.
They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.
What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.
Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.
Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.
A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive,” with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.
We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don’t deserve the protections of a tolerant society.
JKR isn’t just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.
Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.
Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread.
No, arguments about free speech recognize that there is no more important right that a free society can have. If a group can dictate that the language that they find distasteful is criminal, then so can any other group.
Without protections for free speech, what happens when an authoritarian like Trump determines that support for trans people is actually misogyny, or that support for POC is racist against white people and then criminalizes that speech? These are arguments they already make.
You’re talking about prior restraint which, at least in the US, has always been harshly scrutinized. As it should be. A line needs to be drawn, but promoting violence should be that line, not merely that which is distasteful.
Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you… You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.
Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it’s definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.
But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that’s just free speech… yep makes sense… totally fair and balanced
What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.
So… we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?
Well I think that’s a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.
Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people’s freedoms, hate speech goes too far, advocating people’s right to healthcare to be stripped away is too far, advocating we be classified as sex offenders just by existing is too far.
I don’t care what your abstract notion about free speech is, it’s just a fanciful notion that has never actually been realized and doesn’t work in practice. Meanwhile real people are getting hurt now and you choose to defend the speech of those advocating that violence. It’s wrong.
Well I think that’s a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.
You can do a lot without being authoritarian. The question is if the government can do it with threat of violence, and I don’t think that’s ok. To point a gun at someone for saying* something I disagree with.
Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people’s freedoms,
Agreed, but advocating it, definitely not. If so anyone advocating draft, or imprisonment for a crime I believe unjust, or according to some people- taxation, or banning unpasteurized milk. Would all be to some people advocating infringing on their rights.
The incident bears similarities to what is known as a “rough ride,” a term used to describe police placing a detained person in the back of a van, without a seatbelt, and then driving erratically. The term came to mass prominence after the controversial 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, who suffered severe injuries as he was being transported in a police van.
Wish we could stop tip-toeing around it. This was clear extrajudicial punishment but everyone from cop to judge will pretend it’s some kind of accident or misunderstanding and ignore the totally systemic source of the problem- that cops have zero accountability.
The murder of Freddie Gray. The cops knew that what they did was dangerous because they have to clean up car accidents. Choosing to give someone a ‘rough ride’ is premeditated murder or attempted murder and anyone other than a cop would be charged.
It is also not in their job description to disperse “justice”, or do anything but apprehend suspects and then allow the Justice System we have in place to deal with that. The second they step outside of that description they should be treated like any other citizen who took vigilante justice into their own hands, being charged and tried as such.
If I remember, Gray didn’t even commit a crime. They arrested him for something the officers didn’t realize was legal in their state, and he wasn’t even doing it any way.
I think it’s great how Americans mistrust the police so they live vigilantes but apparently the police also wants to play vigilante even though they would be in the perfect position to ensure that vigilantism isn’t needed.
“No, you’re going to take the ride today. I’ve decided that you’re going to actually go to jail today. Far too many problems with you,” she responded. “We’re getting all kinds of complaints. Can’t be doing this,” the officer said.
“You get tickets all the time. You don’t care. You don’t change your ways,” she explained.
In the body cam footage, Thacker remarked that any crime should be a felony after certain number of incidents. “A year in jail would probably settle it,” he added.
Yeah I dunno how anyone can hear these words come out of this person’s mouth and think this is anything other than “extrajudicial punishment”.
Talking about what “should” happen, rather than upholding the law.
Sounds like they shouldn’t sell spray paint at all if they’re so concerned about graffiti. How many other products of theirs could be used for vandalism? Maybe the safest option is to go out of business entirely.
Everyone, stop staying “duh” to research outcomes. Research takes time to design, fund, run and analyze and it’s purpose is to scientifically prove something we all “felt” a while ago.
Our feelings don’t mean too much because they are often wrong, data backed fact means something. Start being happy about these validation posts and hold off on the pickachu face memes.
While the defence for science is nice (wasn’t attacked here), outrage is allowed on public discourse. I think most people are outraged for the lack of inaction of regulatory bodies at the sight of extreme price fixing when everyone and their mother had at least the gut feeling that it is all bullshit.
We share that frustration, but anger/frustration at a post like this hurts that cause. It’s a moment for amplification that the CEOs need to be held to account and not for anger at a new tool that can help make it more likely that good people act - and good people do act - they just aren’t as loud. Ultimately we don’t focus on them because anger is what catches and hold our attention.
Too many times studies arrive (years) late, because they take time, and never make an impact outside of the academic world… Similarly, global warming studies are depressing in that they are exceptionally pedantic (and good) science that leads to nowhere, because in the end that’s not what the institutions care about. We’re missing grass-roots movements that would be springed-forward by social media. The outrage just needs chanelling into action. People are annoyed by studies.
Having the same team that did the study actually put forth a petition for regulation (while putting a bit less time into being pedantic and less focus on having 1300 corporations) would probably be a better use of everyone’s time. But I assume they don’t stand by their findings that strongly, and assume it’s not their fight (even though they are academically spear-heading it). Quick google found nothing.
In a perfect world, studies into peoples’ gut feelings (presumably also shared by anti-monopoly regulation institutions’ leaders) would be launched immediately, take months and be more focused (instead of looking at a 1300 corporations), have results and court callings for comment and explanation would be sent out. But we’re far from that. There is no [actually working] “criminal justice system” for the “free” market so far…
Studies such as the one in the thread are nice archival information though. Definitely maybe a step forward (if not forgotten quickly).
What does it really mean here? You really think anyone will actually take action based on this data? You think it will convince anyone that didn’t already know it was the case? You think companies are magically going to stop overcharging us?
No, companies will keep lying, politicians will keep lying, and consumers will keep getting screwed.
And the “science” don’t need to take long. When companies claim they are raising prices due to increased costs while simultaneously recording record profits, it is obvious what’s going on. Yeah, economists will make excuses, but that is only because they work for the wealthy.
Your absurd call to violence aside, windfall taxes have to be passed through Congress, and every single member of the House majority has signed a literal contract vowing to fight any tax increase.
Sorry I think these thieves should be punished. Guess you don’t care. But yes, put me in a room with most mega corporation CEOs, and it would take incredible self control to not personally beat them to death due all the suffering they willingly choose to cause.
And, yeah, exactly my point, this study accomplishes nothing. Republicans and plenty of Democrats will happily run interference for greedy corporations.
It doesn’t take research to understand that overwhelming demand + lots of cash-on-hand yields inflation.
Literally everyone expected inflation after COVID.
“Greedflation” is just a manipulative way to describe the mechanism of inflation itself, which is price rising to the natural limit the market will bear.
What’s really manipulative is describing any of this as “natural”. People also expected complete stock market collapse during the pandemic but when it comes to rich people’s money, various parts of the government spring into action, and that was completely averted. Turns out what “the market will bear” is pretty damn high when industries are dominated by 2-3 large companies at most, the government fully supports them, many of the goods (e.g. food) are essential, and consumer spending is helped along with credit.
There are many things that can be done to resolve this, like the government breaking up these conglomerates. It’s down to greed, pure and simple. In fact, you basically admit this when you say it’s the price rising to the limit that the market will bear, but you sprinkle in “natural” and “the market” to abstract away the fact that these massive corporations are putting the squeeze on people.
If homeopathy had a different name it wouldn't be nearly as popular. People see it and they think "Oh, it's a home remedy because it says HOMEopathic."
There's plenty of home remedies that are at least marginally effective against colds: Hot water with honey, ginger, and lemon, for example. But homeopathy is not that. It's diluting something over and over again until there's nothing left of the original substance, and then selling it to gullible and/or desperate people like it's going to work.
It's diluting something over and over again until there's nothing left of the original substance, and then selling it to gullible and/or desperate people like it's going to work.
It's crazy, like, a child can see right through that, yet you have millions of desperate adults falling for and hawking that obvious bullshit everywhere. It's really sad.
It utterly boggles the mind that it's legal to sell homeopathic products. The word scam comes to mind, but it's so much worse than that because it's a scam that doesn't merely do nothing; it actually causes harm by confusing people and causing general distrust of actual treatments.
Labeling doesn't help either. Apparently the FTC understands the general public is dumb enough that we need "don't drink this" labels on bleach, but they credit them with being able to see through the confusing mumbo-jumbo that homeopathic products put on their labels to disguise the fact that it's just water.
Is this... homeopathic cleaner? So like... just water? I notice they didn't dilute the dye for some reason. I wonder why homeopathic theories don't seem to work on color and scent additives....
Some things labeled as homeopathic do work… because they have real stuff in them that does work…and perhaps does have side effects known and unknown not to mention interactions.
I used the original formula Snore Stop which was originally marked as homeopathic snore help, and it worked. It also was slowly slowing down my tongue and making talking trickier. The FDA decided it had actual levels of plant extract that was lightly paralytic. The newer formula didn’t work as well for me plus I worried about cumulative consequences.
Isn’t the rule that if it’s really homeopathic then it won’t do anything and if it really does it’s a medicine?
If what you had was effective, it wasn’t homeopathic. Homeopathy requires very large amounts of dilution, to the point there aren’t even two molecules of the active ingredient present in a dose.
Isn’t the rule that if it’s really homeopathic then it won’t do anything and if it really does it’s a medicine?
Not quite. I don’t know anything about the labeling on the particular product you used, but homeopathy is a magical process and not a chemical one. It relies on the theories that “like cures like” and that “water has a memory”. A homeopathic remedy for a cold might use black pepper since it makes you sneeze, and then a tiny bit is added to water, and then that water is shaken to make it magical and diluted 50%. The shaking and diluting is allegedly performed tens or hundreds of times, because in homeopathy the LESS “active” ingredient there is, the stronger it is.
You’re correct that an herbal or other traditional remedy becomes medicine once it’s proven. However homeopathy has been conclusively disproven, and in fact never proven to work better than placebo (because that’s all it is - there’s intentionally nothing actually in it)
Not quite. Homeopathy is a medical belief structure consisting of certain practices that attempt to cure “like with like”. It has shown no benefits over placebos or other medical treatments, and on certain occasions, has been shown to have serious consequences.
There are many parts to homeopathy that are widely criticized, such as “potentisation”, a process of diluting a substance to such a degree that there contains little or none of the beginning ingredient. Additionally, since the goal is to treat symptoms by using like symptoms, the causes are never truly addressed, especially since the underlying philosophy of homeopathy is that the body can cure itself.
Thus, if you were helped by a homeopathic medicine, it was more than statistically likely a placebo effect. Please do not rely on homeopathy for medicine.
That’s the point. The product DID things. In fact it raised the attention of the FDA and they changed it. Theres all kinds of products trying to fly below radar.
Not how that works, and also not true. If it’s marked as homeopathic, it’s NOT approved by the FDA. There are FDA guidelines for homeopathic medicines, including the use of active ingredients, but they are specifically not approved by the FDA. And looking at Snore Stop, it never stopped being homeopathic, so no idea what you’re talking about.
Used their website, which would definitely have stated as such. I feel like you want to suggest that homeopathic medicine is good, but homeopathic medicine doesn’t have to prove it is effective nor that there aren’t any side effects. Labeling as homeopathic is just a way to put products out and avoid the FDA or having to prove it works.
In this particular case, being labelled as homeopathic IS typically a sign that it does not work and might actually cause harm.
No, I wanted to point out vaguely herbal remedies masquerading as homeopathic.
If some things labeled as homeopathic actually aren’t as in they actually contain ingredients that have actual impacts it could give false credit to the whole genre, right?
Memory of water bullshit - no argument there from me. Some chemicals can be very dilute, but still present, and can still aid or harm. Fentanyl is a great current example, or the crazy tiny amount of peanut it takes to hurt someone highly allergic etc.
Those? They can say homeopathic on the label but if they contain enough of anything to work or harm medicinally then they are lying.
So you have products labeled as homeopathic that might work or hurt people, and then placebo stuff.
If I take 1 grain of fentanyl powder, and sell it diluted in an entire liter of water, it might sound like homeopathy, I might label it as such, but it isn’t because there’s enough powerful chemical present to have consequences if consumed.
Perhaps you are confused that two things are called homeopathy?
Homeopathy is a medical belief system. Homeopathic medicines originated from this. But other (unregulated) medicines wanted to use this, too. That’s how these medicines can be labelled like this, but this labeling is not restricted to the homeopathic system, and is used by ANYONE that doesn’t want to be regulated the same way.
Homeopathic medicine is unlikely to help you because it is unregulated. If there were studies that showed effectiveness and safety, they wouldn’t hide behind the homeopathic label. That doesn’t mean that they don’t do anything, because they are allowed to contain active ingredients.
Dilution advocated by Hahnemann for most purposes: on average, this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient.
because they have real stuff in them that does work
No. Don’t confuse homeopathy with herbal remedies. Homeopathic preparations are diluted, must be diluted to be homeopathic, to a degree where you don’t have an atom left of “active” ingredient in the mix, insert some gross unscientific explanation about the “memory of water”. That then is either taken directly, or sprinkled on sugar.
The effects of homeopathic preparations, any of them, is not distinguishable from placebo. If you look at them under a spectrograph they are exactly placebo: Water or sugar.
Herbal remedies, though? It’s a hit and miss, some have been tested to not have an effect or not really the assumed one, a metric fuckton do have effects exactly as traditional use tells us (random examples: Valerian for nervous excitation, elderberry for colds), others very much do have effects but are not used because they’re too dangerous (e.g. fern against tapeworms: Fern contains a neurotoxin and getting the dose wrong is easy, and easily fatal, nowadays we have synthetic stuff that’s toxic to tapeworms but harmless for humans).
There’s one single thing that’s proven to be clinically effective about homeopathic treatment (compared to standard practice): The way doctors talk to patients, not just hearing reports about a particular symptom and then digging down into that, but taking stock of pretty much their whole life situation, it’s a very broad interview. Because, yes, many people are indeed better helped by someone being visibly interested in their well-being than swallowing clinically active pharmaceuticals against their stomach bug which is actually a symptom of stress or such.
There’d be nothing whatsoever wrong with introducing that in standard care, it’ll probably even save tons of money in the long run, as well as prescribing placebo – the patient knowing that it’s placebo doesn’t mean that placebo effects don’t get triggered, there’s still a very good chance of an effect happening, the bodymind is funny like that. If in doubt, flank with hypnotherapy you’ll have a regime that’s not just more effective at triggering placebo effects than homeopathy, but is also ethical.
God, all these people ignoring “labeled as homeopathic”…
Because yeah, there are “homeopathic” remedies on the market that actually contain significant quantities of their ingredients, they’re just using the word for marketing. Most of them do nothing, or are just a slightly higher dose of what you’d get from sleepytime tea. A very well-known muscle relaxant in that niche says it contains something like the equivalent of half an ounce each of valerian root, lemon balm, etc once you break down the obfuscation.
Homeopathy is total bunk, but it seems like there is no shortage of companies happy to defraud the believers, going so far as to actually give them what they think they’re buying.
I don’t expect people making bank to have many ethical concerns, tbh.
“It’s just one small thing. Besides, there are many other things to complain about!” said every investor tied to everything people complain about, probably.
To be fair, I think one could argue with a straight face that if we’re still buying the products, then we really don’t care that much. Why should a company be motivated by morality if we as a society collectively aren’t?
We should hold ourselves to the same standards or we’re just hypocrites.
In principle I’m inclined to agree, however isn’t this glossing over the degree to which markets are consolidated?
You try to opt out of products/services and choose more ethical alternatives, but it turns out the most readily available alternatives are in some way connected to the same unethical parent company. Ultimately the individualistic approach to addressing these matters is untenable and requires collective action in some form (ideally it would be leveraging a government that reflects the interests of the people).
And those companies have spent a ton of time and effort discouraging and preventing people from collectivizing via union busting. There’s a huge power asymmetry at play here, an individual should not be held to the same standard of accountability as the people who literally control the economy through non-democratic or straight up unelected positions of leadership (board of investors or private CEOs respectively). They can, at any moment, choose to reduce their profit margin for the betterment of the planet - but they don’t, because as a small group of owners, they exist to profit so they would never agree to do so in a meaningful way*. And because they’re collectivised and we’re not (just look at the swathe of antitrust cases where businesses that are supposed to compete, have instead chosen to act like a cartel), they hold almost all the power. Let’s focus our attention away from blaming the average person, and onto the real root cause so that we can actually collectivise against that root cause rather than fight amongst each other.
*: without the state straight up socialising their risk, for example the green tech grants and loans we have been and are giving out, all over the world. Something Elon Musk is very familiar with, given that Tesla might not have existed today without the generous $465 million government loan they got in 2009.
“Opting out” doesn’t mean you “opt in” to whatever forced you to “opt out” to begin with.
If I give you a choice between being punched in the face or getting kicked in the crotch, it’s not moral acquiescence to either regardless which you choose.
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Consider: “if you oppose slavery, just don’t buy slaves, and we’ll let the market sort out who’s right and wrong”
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Meaning this genuinely, not in a snarky way: did you read to the end of my comment? My phrasing may have been poor or a tad wordy, but I recognize what you’re describing and advise collective, political action instead of voting with one’s wallet.
The parenthetical at the end wasn’t to suggest otherwise, only that doing so via one’s existing/current government may not be a readily available option, demanding one change their government so as to make it work to those ends. I should have been clearer on that point.
If the only fridges on the market contain CFCs then people are going to buy them because they need fridges. If the only CFC-free fridges are more expensive than CFC ones then only affluent people, at most, are going to buy them.
It’s called a market failure: There are costs associated with a product that are not taken into account because the regulatory regime doesn’t make sure they are. In the case of CFCs we went even further than making fridge producers pay up for the externalities they cause (which would’ve been an astronomical sum) and right-out banned that stuff. The consumer, after all, is still saving money with CFC fridges (their food doesn’t spoil as easily), they’re not paying for the ozone hole, either.
See the free market is a theoretical model, it indeed promises prefect results given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths makes sense. Perfect rationality and information don’t exist in the real world, though (and in fact ads and company secrets exist to degrade the information available to everyone) so we need regulations to fix market failures so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating the free market. Misunderstanding of this point brought to you by peddlers of institutionalised market failure equivocating “free market” and “unregulated market”.
The EU tends to have a good grasp on it, the US, boy oh boy.
I think what you’re saying is either inaccurate or excessively vague. Many ultra rich people got money by inheriting it, through the stock market, and to a much lesser degree, through government spending programs.
The way you framed the issue is a classic one, and it’s essentially blaming us, the consumers, for creating the problem that we are facing. First of all, that would simply be inaccurate because there are many causes, and second of all, it doesn’t really matter who you blame. The question is how we can fix the broken situation.
Not really. They said consumption AND labor. Stocks are capital, and their profits come from underpaying workers for the value they produce through labor. Inherited wealth is also acquired through and stored in capital.
In addition, the government is an essential part of capitalism, as it protects owned property more economically than the private armies of feudalism. Government spending programs that give the rich money are paid for by political donations, but the actual profitability is hard to quantify.
I love how you protest blaming consumers and then in the next sentence say “it doesn’t matter who you blame”. The answer to “how we can fix the broken situation” starts with identifying the problem (AKA laying blame).
In reality, there is no shortage of people to blame. You can blame the corporations, the stock market, politicians, nepotism, capitalism AND consumers, and none of that would be wrong. The only wrong thing to do is to remove blame from any of them.
blame, responsibility, and the ability to do something are three interrelated but distinct concepts. the ability to force bad actors to change by refusing to reward them for bad actions does not put the blame on us for failure to do so. If you forget to lock your front door and someone robs you, there was something you could have done to prevent the robbery but only the thief carries the blame.
Tesla batteries and modular car battery charging systems incoming, they’re not going to give up their market foothold so easily now that they’ve got their foot in the door.
These people have money for blood, what makes you think their ethics are any different? I don’t care what sets the face eating leopards off so long as they get to eating faces.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.