“I’m a Texan. I love Texas. I’m raising my children here. I was raised here. I’ve built my academic career, my professional career here. You know, I plan to stay. And so I want to be able to get access to the medical care that I need, and my daughter to have it as well,” Cox said.
Yeah I don’t think you are learning anything out of this. Stay in a state that does not care about you. Like a physical abusive relationship.
This was my initial reaction as well, but now I’m not so sure. Somebody has to be the public example, and fight this broken system. This has gotten a large amount of national media exposure, and that is ultimately what mobilizes voters. She also seems willing to suffer for her convictions, which is more than most people can say.
Meh, I don’t think any of this matters. The right in US is winning BIGLY and none of those examples, media exposure or voter mobilization really matters. The right in 4 years of Trump managed to ban abortion and take control of the supreme court for the next, what?, 20 years? 30? Meanwhile, Biden and Democrats just sit there doing nothing. US need urgent reforms of education, healthcare, policing, gun laws, judiciary, political parties financing and many more a none of this will happen. The only things that’s actually changing is that the government gets weaker and corporations get stronger. The only thing this type of activism can achieve is taking half step back while each Republican term the entire country takes 10 big steps forward in the direction of dictatorship. Looking from outside I’m amazed at how bad thing are in US and how little people realize this.
Maybe the fact that you’re looking in “from the outside” explains why you’re operating under the misconception that Democrats ever had unchecked power to do any of those things.
Like during Obama’s two first years? Forgot about that? Yes, it was some time ago but all the problems were already there and Democrats chose to pussy foot around looking for weak, bi-partisan deals instead of addressing them. That they did very little even when they had full control was exactly why people didn’t go out to vote for Hilary. It’s not that Democrats can’t do anything because they don’t have full control. They don’t have full control exactly because they don’t do anything.
When they had a filibuster-proof majority for…checks notes…4 months. And they spent those 4 months…checks notes…trying to completely overhaul the entire US healthcare system. That is, instead of doing the half-dozen things you mentioned which would have taken literal years of work to push through.
Fuck off with that revisionist, fantasy-land bullshit. You want Democrats to be full-on fucking dictators who can do whatever they “choose” to do, whenever they “choose” to do it, and they’re not, so when they don’t “choose” to do the shit you personally want, your lizard brain has convinced you they didn’t do it because they “chose” not to. No amount of infantile teeth gnashing changes the way the actual world works, where checks and balances exist. That is, despite whatever the fuck is happening in your imagination.
Wherever the hell you come from, stay the fuck in your lane.
Tone police? I simply don’t see the point of discussing politics with childish people. I’m simply calm. You’re unable to express anything without profanities and insults. But yeah, I will do the grown up thing and simply block you.
I saw someone mention Rosa Parks, and it’s the perfect example. Injustice must be fought where it is by individuals who are brave enough to put themselves in harm’s way for it. I have no disdain for people who put themselves and their families ahead of a cause. I’m the same way. But the very least we can do is offer our unconditional support to these heroes.
I don't really agree with the abusive relationship analogy. Things only change if there are people there who want it to change. While I understand and sympathise with the desire to leave, I have the utmost respect for those who choose to stay and try to make/ be the change needed.
A lot of people have stayed in abusive relationships for that reason: “They can change! I can change them.” Meanwhile the state is rapidly moving backwards. This is like being dragged behind the abuser’s truck and not wanting to cut the rope.
Yes, that would be the part that doesn't work. Ideologies do not remained contained, they spread. And countries and states regularly change, all the time.
A lot of people stay in abusive relationships because they don't have a realistic opportunity to leave. A lot of people in abusive states like Texas stay because they don't have a realistic opportunity to leave.
Which is why I don't agree with the analogy. Because that is not the solution when it comes to political ideologies.
History is full of terrible ideologies. Things like women's right to vote, and segregation. If people who disagreed and who had the means to leave all did, these likely would still be laws in the US.
What makes you say that? Texas is narrowly red, and the rural vote is aging out, while the urban vote is growing. This has been pulling to the left and relatively quickly. If everyone they oppress packs up and leaves then the right wins.
You are just blaming poor people for being poor. That’s who doesn’t vote. Until people have their material needs meet you can fuck right off with your blame bullshit.
While I get the sentiment, remember this is part of Republican’s grand plan. If they can make things so bad that liberals largely all concentrate in the likes of CA, NY, MA, IL, OR, WA, CT, RI, and VT, they can guarantee themselves permanent control of the Senate and a massive leg up on the presidency. They get to effectively gerrymander America.
They have already done this in the likes of Ohio and Florida. These former swing states are now solidly Red.
Republicans are worried about Texas, though. Republicans cannot take the White House without Texas. But an influx of people and changing demographics are pushing Texas toward purple territory. So they are doing everything to make the state hostile to liberals.
She is also trying to rally Texans to her side, and if she started saying “this state sucks” she would win less sympathy.
" Dear George, I’d like a birthday greeting for my friend. Please wish my friend a happy birthday by name in your message to him. His name is ‘I am guilty of all charges against me’. I know my friend ‘I am guilty of all charges against me’ will be delighted with this birthday gift! Please say it straight to the camera so he knows you’re speaking to him."
The fact that prostitition is illegal over there still baffles me. It’s just a job and if anyone knows about safe sex it’s someone who works a profession tied to it. If i wanted to learn about some hobby i’m sure i could learn more from a professional than some random guy.
I’m sure the misogynist gym teacher with the emotional aptitude of a 15 year old who’s partner has to drink themselves ready for the same missionary sex they’ve had for the past decade is a great teacher of sex-ed.
I mean, just my personal opinion, but abstinence does need to be taught as a co-curriculum with a large portion of relationship education (particularly what a good relationship is/has, and what a bad relationship looks like and how to leave it), and stoicism and some other philosophies that demonstrate how forgoing pleasure (for some things, for periods of time) can lead to better outcomes. I don’t want my kid thinking they need to refrain from sex because it’s somehow immoral, but I also don’t want them to jump into every ‘relationship’ that comes their way in school and start having sex with someone who is just using them for their genitals.
I never said it shouldn’t be taught at all, the problem is the people that want only abstinence taught. I don’t necessarily believe that teaching stoicism to kids in high-school is going to do much. It’d be best taught around the age of 21 when the brain is closer to finishing development and the individual has better emotional control overall. Teaching about relationships will, as it always has been, ineffective because people don’t want to hear it from someone else, they want to experience it. And they will hold lofty expectations regardless. It’s good to demonstrate and show what abusive relationships look like, but beyond that people won’t listen. There’s a reason that it seems like the amount of abusive and shitty relationships never seems to change.
we were like 14 years old when dude said “well, today’s the day”. then he took a banana out of one drawer of his desk, and a condom out of another drawer. like they had always been there. like they belonged there. like the box his desk came in said “sturdy construction, faux wood grain paneling, and advanced banana and condom storage solutions.” he then took ten minutes to explain to us that condoms don’t work, and we shouldn’t trust them, and that only by not fucking will we be safe from wrath, rack and ruin. He then tried to put the condom on the banana, struggled with it being upside down for a bit, and BROKE THE FUCKING BANANA.
This was the state of sex ed in the wilds of Pennsylvania circa 2000
I think to just put it on the level of any other basic profession is naive, and I think you know that. I’m on board, but to turn a blind eye to human trafficking is foolish. And to suggest legalizing prostitution would all of a sudden eliminate human trafficking is just as foolish.
I’m so sick of people bringing up trafficking whenever prostitution is mentioned. I just don’t understand it. What do cars have to do with any of this?
My god please put a spoiler tag on that word, I’m in the hospital recovering from the worst heart attack the doctors have ever seen! Scared the heebie jeebies right out of me.
Now excuse me while I look over my $200k hospital bill, might have to sell some organs for this one.
Oh shit, I read the first few words of your reply out of context and was horrified at the thought that I may have accidentally spoiled some form of media for someone. I take that shit seriously.
Christianity, racism and corruption. Politicians love to target poor people, and prostitution is a job that often draws in the desperate. Conveniently, POC make up a large percentage of the impoverished population.
Sex trafficking is out of control in the US, yet it’s never talked about by politicians. Even with Epstein, the focus was on how terrible he and his accomplices were, not on the actual problem. Not the thousands of other women and girls who are still being trafficked in the US. Legalizing prostitution is pretty much the only answer.
In every facet of life the rich, wealthy and powerful choose to put their descendants before others. It’s literally what modern society is built upon: the idea that your children will have it better than you did.
Have you ever worked anywhere and saw that people didn’t put their friends, family and coworkers ahead of the others?
Have you ever seen a human system that didn’t put “others” behind whatever group they decided to create?
Even nonprofits and charities end up playing favorites. Once any organization gets to any real size it’s going to be corrupt. It’s human nature. All of humanity competes over this world’s limited resources. People will do anything to win.
Nature in and of itself is competition. The theory of evolution depends on it. The strong survive and the weak perish because of natural selection. The strong multiply and become our future generation.
It can be smart to keep the weak around. Like a weak animal in a big herd. Sometimes a sacrificial lamb is useful when it’s time to ride or die. Your kids though, they HAVE to survive, right? Two kids are about to get killed and you can choose to save only one. It’s always yours, right? This example only works if you’re a parent but I don’t think you’d find many parents who would put a stranger’s child over their own.
Sure, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago we decided as a society to eliminate people who put their family and friends above others’ a different human imperative could have emerged, but like it or not this one is the dominant one. Ignoring the competitors just takes you out of the running and statistically means you will not be moving up the ladder very much if at all.
Nature is not just competition! It’s also cooperation and companionship and symbiosis. Cultivating a different human nature is entirely possible if we decide we want to - a world where no one puts their own children ahead of anyone else’s is not unimaginable.
The concept of parenthood isn’t even universal! Some human societies view all children as the collective children of the tribe. The nuclear family is actually fairly new.
Your choice of companion is part of how you compete.
People generally pick friends based on what their friends do for them and how their reputation (e.g. influence) is, whether or not they actually realize that. So much of this is done subconsciously.
Nobody wants to keep the friend around who is always asking for help… everybody wants the friend who asks for little and is always there for them.
I do agree that the social construct of nuclear families is not natural in any way. You see this with divorce rates quite clearly. It’s quite common to find the rich, powerful, influential and attractive having many sexual partners and many followers. Without things like child support I suspect there would be many MANY more bastards out there than there already are.
Anyway, you are looking at things through an idealist lens. I’m pointing things out in a blunt narcissistic lens. People are shades of gray, not black and white. If you ignore the competition and pretend everyone will be nice you’ll quickly find this doesn’t work when scaled out past a small community. It just doesn’t. It never has. It never will.
People are competitive within a competitive framework because human nature is contingent on the material conditions. I’m not some fucking idealist, I understand competition exists lol
In fact, I literally said “nature is not just competition” - that necessarily means that it is also competition. It’s just more than competition. Get it?
No, this is Capitalism and our culture. There were and still are societies where there is very little competition between individuals or even where the concept of “competition” is unknown.
This works with small communuties living naturally, like tribes in South America. But I think with technological advancement and a cultural shift towards are more social and less individualistic society this could also work on greater scales.
If a bunch of people become stranded on an island it doesn’t become lord of the flies turns out. Human nature is to help one another because what is good for the tribe is good for you.
We know this because it has happened, there are documentaries about it, and those are circumstances where there are actually limited resources. Currently there may as well be unlimited resources because there aren’t enough resources for one person to completely consume. I think it is perfectly unnatural the way the rich in particular act, and I believe it is under our current system in particular that drives people to act that way.
If you’re trapped on an island with a group you’re probably under the size of the monkeysphere.
When group or tribe size exceeds the monkeysphere, that’s when you start seeing all the weird shit and blatant exploitation.
It’s usually not the rich and wealthy directly doing evil shit either, it’s the people under them following through on it to reach an objective - generally more money or resources for the ones on top of the food chain. By utilizing middlemen who feel like they have no choice if they want to “climb the ladder” no one feels like it’s their fault for causing the pain, so no one thinks they are a psychopath and no one person is blamed for the fault- it’s all those “big companies”
The nuance for this stuff goes on and on and on and on.
Nepotism is prevalent everywhere, sure. On another level, network and connections matter. Rich have connections and the consequences of not kissing their ass can backfire.
But in theory, we should all recognize that regulations should be in place to inhibit such acts. It’s like saying the family of the victim a HP be the judge, jury, and executioner in a court of justice. Obviously we’d all be happy to take up that role… But is that what’s best for society?
What is best for society is generally not what is best for the individual.
Enforcement of rules and regulations is one area that seems to always have potential corruption since nobody wants someone looking over their shoulder all the time for things that they are not doing right. It’s easy to say “investigate those crooks!” so long as those investigations aren’t targeting us.
I think it depends on the school. Monty Python were all Cambridge boys and mocked Oxford for the exact same thing, Oxford has a huge reputation for nepotism.
I feel like if someone is insane, it must be Musk, trying to circumvent the unions in a Nordic country, which have one some of the strongest unions and union culture in the world.
They used to have an even greater influence… These days there are no real extended demands, just smaller pay rises for many unions. And the social democratic political parties have severed the historical ties to them i many countries.
The collective agreements are still pretty strong, with unions blocking companies unwilling to agree to these collective Agreements.
Like when Burger King came to Denmark I believe it was, they refused to make collective agreements, and like in Sweden now, many other unions joined in year long boycotts until Burger King caved and agreed to comply.
McDonald’s made collective agreements from the start, but had some tax evasion scheme that resulted in them not paying any taxes for decades up until fairly recently.
There is still cross union solidarity, that flair up now and again. But lobbied so called “yellow unions”, that offers economical security benifits but without politics for a much lower fee price have chipped away at the older more classic unions.
The US is one of the most active places union wise these days. God knows they need it.
Well, yeah, when people are spending $30K-$80K on a car, they’re likely gonna miss payments eventually. The car market, including used cars, has been over-inflated for years.
We had a 2003 Honda Element that we bought in 2008 for $8000. It had less than 50,000 miles on it. We saw that same exact model in a car lot this year, with over 150,000 miles and they were selling it for $10,000. Over 15 years later and over 100,000 miles more on it and it’s selling for more. There is a serious problem with the car market right now.
Honda Element isn’t the best car to illustrate overall inflation. They’re kind of in trend right now, so the price is higher than similar cars of same era/mileage.
It hurts to agree with you. Like I wanted to downvote you but then I checked an inflation calculator. The problem is wages haven’t kept up. In a normal period of inflation nobody notices because their purchasing power is unaffected. But if prices go up while wages stagnate then everyone notices.
I am glad someone is calling the Florida school system on their bullshit. Being non-binary hard and being treated like the coping mechanisms you use for avoiding hating the experience of dealing with people and existing in your body are somehow a delusion, some sort of sexual kink or deliberately confusing is like trying to go about your day with weights strapped to you. It makes dealing with every social interaction so tiring. It really feels like everybody else in the room is obsessed with your sex organs and characteristics like complete perverts that they don’t see the question is about how happy you are and how you feel about all the people in your life and whether you feel anxious and isolated being around them or just comfortable and able to express your full range of personhood.
This teacher is standing up because they know there’s others much worse off who aren’t secure enough to do it. Pretty admirable I think.
This isn’t calling out Florida schools, this only calls out Florida employers. A teacher can be directed not to talk about gay in matters of education, and can be fired for not following such direction, but they cannot be discriminated against for their own sexual identity as a matter of their employment.
A lot of people do not draw the distinction between talking about things in an educational context versus it being a way they express themselves for their own needs. Laws like this make people afraid to do so until it is contested because the act of contesting it is itself punitive. The cooling effect is implicit in the design of the law because it recognizes law removes people’s ability to support themselves in a society before it has a chance to be tested meaning only the secure of a minority under extreme fire can contest it and that means becoming very visible in circumstances where one’s safety often relies on being invisible.
This teacher is likely under extreme fire right now by a mob of people telling them they are a pedophile, delusional, harmful and trying to exploit every shred of exposed weaknesses to gendered nonsense one naturally lets be known when one comes out as non-binary.
Where legal protections are shaky schools will fire teachers under concerns for that teacher’s physical and mental safety if enough parents are valued at being a threat by feeling empowered by their interpretation of the law or the idea that a school is operating outside the law. Ultimately running a school is government money that needs to be paid so an employee going up against a school board for wrongful dismissal will not impact the individual school as much when the main currency for the school board employees is time and complexity of a bunch of individual parents suing because their little darling asked them what someone calling themselves Mx. means when they came home.
That’s a good point. Gorsuch’s surprising cross over to rule with the liberal justices in a recent supreme court ruling (Bostock vs Clayton County) allowed gender and sexual identifies to be protected by current federal employment law. The very logical conclusion that comes from, any discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity revolves around a person’ s assigned sex at birth, which is definitely prohibited, and you can’t discriminate on those things without it being an illegal discrimination test based on sex. Basically if you fire someone assigned male at birth for wearing a dress but not someone assigned female at birth for wearing a dress, this is sex discrimination, already protected by current federal law. Similarly if you’re firing a male for marrying a male but not firing a female for marrying a male, than that’s sex discrimination already prohibited by current law.
Unfortunately I don’t know if the current Supreme Court reasoning would extend the existing federal law to protect non binary honorifics, since the school could argue it would fire anyone using a non binary honorific regardless of that person’s assigned sex at birth. Though maybe if you could get the school to admit they’d allow a non binary honorific for an intersex individual that would open up the door for non binary protections too via current law? But this is why we need a real updated federal law explicity protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual and gender identifies, including non binary identities. In the meantime the states that do have explicit protections in their state laws are going to be much better places for non cis and hetero people to work in.
We absolutely do need updated Federal law, discrimination in general should be simplified and more comprehensive. It’s somewhat strange that Title II doesn’t cover sex - I can understand why (eg women’s hostels only allowing women) but I feel this should be an exception to a rule, not an absence of any rule whatsoever. Title II already has an exemption for “private clubs” so it wouldn’t be that unusual.
Thank you for sharing how thus affects you. It’s important for people to see that this is affecting actual people and not some strawman concept they don’t understand.
It’s something even a lot of my friends don’t even really get. I ended up going to a Birthday party where across the street from the restaurant there was a 250 plus rally of anti-trans protesters with zero counter protesters. We didn’t realize the thing would be there. I ended up not being able to eat because the stress from proximity made me throw up everything.
I know we get called sensitive snowflakes but having that level of outright hate shoved in your face can easily make anyone feel very small and very vulnerable and at some level it’s visceral.
Not only that, but then have the hate be called “reasonable debate”
As if we aren’t actual real people that just want to exist in the world. It’s like you have to fight against the fucking river in making anyone even believe you that what they are seeing is hate, transphobia.
We’re simply not treated like real people in these debates, and it’s frustrating and exhausting. If they faced the same treatment you would bet they would protest severely.
But I guess that is also the case for cis women in the abortion debate. I guess the debate being about half of the population still isn’t enough for empathy.
Pretty real stuff. A feels like lot of people just want to punch through us to hit somebody on the other side. I can’t say I like the way they frame things about parents rights either. It’s like they want to own their children like property not just be a major influence in their lives. The lack of empathy doesn’t even really extend to their own flesh and blood much less us.
My hometown’s council is like a microcosm of the whole thing. A vocal group storms the trustee meetings to rail on and on about how we need to Protect children from gender ideology, they run over their alloted time so nobody can get any regular business done and the board turns their mic off so they can just function as a government. The “spurned Conservatives” then go to the local paper and tell everyone that their freedom of speech was unjustly curtailed because a hypocritical progressive turned their mic off. The paper prints the story uncritically and all of a sudden we’re a threat to freedom of speech and democracy… They then turn around and say “I’m not transphobic” as though they didn’t just paint us as bogeyman who are dangerous to be around women, kids, polling stations, government, pens and paper etc. etc. etc.
It’s harder to feel like a capable badass when you’ve borrowed a friend’s hat to cover your rainbow colored hair and are ralphing korean food into a strip mall garbage can.
At some level we as a demographic are sensitive, I can’t really control the way I feel about my body and my place in society. Being out does mean exposing that vulnerability where other people can see. Sensitivity isn’t cowardice but it does mean having to realize where your limits are and how you work. A lot of us learn to put on a tough as nails affect over time so we can get through a regular ass day. Realistically I know I am not a coward any more than I am Superman. I am just doing my best
Outstanding journalism. Say the numbers and say their names. Do not let the water barons hide.
The generational accumulation of massive wealth and its centralization among only a few families is a hallmark of inequality, and it’s no different for a farming empire than for a tech or finance empire.
When there is no more water, drink Alex Abatti’s blood instead.
Asked this spring if it was fair for Imperial farmers to receive so much river water, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Desert Sun,“It is what it is. It’s called senior water rights, and they are well established in law. And they matter.”
The eastern US uses riparian water rights; everyone has the right to use a reasonable amount of water. If there’s not enough water, water usage is limited essentially equally across all the rights-holders.
The western US mostly uses the prior appropriation doctrine - “first in time, first in right”. Basically, as the west was being settled, you could use as much river water for a mine or settlement as you wanted, so long as you didn’t impact the people who were already there. In the case of a shortage, people with the most recent water rights have to reduce their usage so they don’t impact the senior water rights.
Western water rights maybe made sense originally as the first mines were being built, but they have inequality baked into them from the start. They don’t seem like a great system for the conservation challenges of today.
Really? I never knew that. With that in mind, I now understand why the People of the North loved Tim Horton's so much, and have vocally lamented its decline in quality.
Edit: Seems like the reason I didn't know that is because it's not true.
Mother Parkers [which is a privately held family company] is the supplier of coffee to McDonald’s Canada. Tim Hortons used to use this supplier prior to constructing its own roasting facility [in April, 2009]. McDonald’s has had a coffee supply agreement with Gavia Gourmet Coffee since 1983.
It’s farther up in the chain. They got the better beans. I watched some food documentary on it years ago, so I can’t give better details. What I recall is TH got the old board swap. New team wants to increase profits, so they look for cheaper beans. McD steps in via their supply chain and pays the farmers more so wins the long term contract on the beans that were going to TH. TH got their cheap beans they wanted from some other source. McD got the higher quality beans that used to go to the TH supply chain.
None of that is what you originally said. McDonald's did not "[buy] out the old Tim Horton supplier."
McDonald's doesn't roast its own coffee beans, either, the supplier does - which means that McDonald's doesn't pay the farmers anything. Maybe the supplier got the beans, but even so, the roasting process is different, the brewing process is different, the grinding process is probably different. Not the same coffee.
In one of the links above, it's stated that McDonald's Canada gets its already roasted beans from Mother Parkers (where TH got their beans prior to 2009). Many other places report that McDonald's gets its coffee from Gaviña.
I feel like Starbucks is bad coffee. It's an excellent coffee-flavored carrier for syrups and creams, so if you want a dessert drink, it's great. But if all you want is coffee, it's flat burnt shit.
I’ve had an Americano from Starbucks (espresso, water, nothing else) and it was fine.
I wouldn’t get regular black coffee from any chain place, though. Drip coffee in particular is just nasty, sometimes even through trying to mask it with cream and sugar.
And its highly over caffinated compred to normal coffee so if you do go to sbux, any coffee you get elsewhere is sure to not feel like enough chemically. Their decaf coffee can contain as much caffien as some caffinated teas.
Eh, I don't think this really tracks all that well. While it may vary by location, there are countless independent and small cafés in pretty much every city I've ever lived in. They generally have focus on having actually good coffee over the Starbucks style of ash water with syrup, but those are pretty distinct markets anyway.
No, it was during the mid 2000 era. I remember it as being one of the few part time jobs that would offer health benefits, and most of my friends who worked there were head over heels about it. I think they also had other perks that some employees enjoyed, like free bags of coffee.
We had a local coffee shop where high school students hung out and had local bands play. I was there most weekends in the late 90s, and I remember people complaining about how Starbucks had shitty coffee and what a chode the manager was. I never worked at either Starbucks or the local places, but I had friends that did, and that probably colored my perception of the company.
So, I have a question. From the Daily Beast article:
Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones said that deputies who tried to pull Copeland over for a welfare check witnessed Copeland step out of his car and shoot himself.
Why are we taking the word of the cops for what happened? We know the right-wingers don't distinguish between cross-dressers and pedophiles. We know that some of them find great satisfaction in abusing, torturing and even killing those that they consider "other". And we know that cops cover for other cops.
Yes, it's entirely possible and plausible that this guy killed himself, but why are we just blindly accepting the cops' version of events here?
That doesn’t really count for anything unless people other than cops look at the footage. Not that I’m saying it should be made publicly available but somebody independent should see it.
If it turns out there’s no body cam footage that’s a problem too but again unless someone outside the police force can see that there’s no body cam footage the lack of footage isn’t ever going to be made public knowledge.
The police have body cam footage to make sure they’re doing their actual jobs and not something else, for the bloody useless if they turn them off or no one ever reviews the footage. They are not primarily there for the police’s benefit they’re there for ours.
in most states civilians can request body camera footage. if you believe there to be misdoings then request it and have the journalistic scoop of ages “Cop kills transgender woman after claimed suicide”
What incentive would the police have to murder a guy? What do you think is more likely, that the cops decided to murder some guy for cross dressing, or that this dude is so embarrassed that he got outed as a giga pervert who stalked local women and killed himself because everyone now knows
What a dumb comment. There is no evidence the police shot this guy, and all the evidence to suggest that he killed himself.
You know how you can look at people who say the government is trying to kill them and rightfully laugh at them as crazy? That’s how I feel about people who think a cop has a 50/50 chance of killing you in America
not sure what point you are trying to prove. A great majority of those people killed were armed. 8000 people is really not that much over an almost 10 year time span and all the justified shootings. You have 50x higher chance of dying in a car accident than dying by the hands of the police. That number because 300-500x if you are unarmed. The USA population is over 300m, this is a speck in the bigger picture.
Dude it’s is human life your are talking about. Every death that could’ve be prevented, is a death to much. 8000 dead People is a lot of death. Especally if you compare it to countries like Germany, GB or Sweden, where the number of fataly shot people isn’t even in the hundreds in the same time frame.
In Germany about 60 people are shot per year by police, so that is well into the hundreds for the same time frame. In the united states, if you are not carrying a weapon, you have less than a 0.00001% chance of being shot by police. Obviously it’s better if no one got shot but let’s not overexaggerate the risk, like has been happening in this thread and is what I’m responding to.
In Germany about 60 people are shot per year by police According to whom? The officially reported figure lies between 5 & 15 fatality shots fired by police officers per year, with 15 being a sharp outlier.
Obviously it’s better if no one got shot but let’s not overexaggerate the risk, like has been happening in this thread and is what I’m responding to.
The thread you are responding to talks about the track record of US police officer not the all around risks of being alive. So let’s look at the track record of US police officer. A US police officer is 200x more likely to shoot somebody, then his German counter part (adjusted for population). How high would you put that number, before it is worth discussing to you? How many people have to die, that you are willing to discuss this issue?
The best way to not got shot by the police is don’t brandish a weapon and don’t try to escape arrest. If you don’t do either of those things, you have a < 0.000001% chance of getting shot. Absolutely microscopic amounts relative to the total population.
Turn it around: He knew the police in his small town, do you think he expected them to make this roadside stop to help a recently outed queer person that did questionable things like fantasizing about killing a woman that everyone in town knows and becoming her by transitioning or uploading memes in a similar context with pictures belonging to real people to a porn website? I mean he knew them personally, I guess he knew their standing on queer, he might have felt threatened for a reason. I am not saying they shot him, just that he might have expected them to be everything but helpful.
Y’all, it explicitly says in the article she was found by a student who did some 4 Chan level of detective work when she showed up in a different video on someone else’s page.
“I do have one question, though ― do you teach feminism? I mean, I believe in equality, but I am not a feminist, and I don’t want to teach it to my daughter.”
I take the approach I used in Missouri.
“What do you mean?” I ask her.
“Well, do you teach that women are better than men?”
“No, I teach all genders are equal and should be treated as such.”
This is the problem with the kind of disinformation the right wing media pushes. If you describe something in as objective truthful a way as possible, suddenly none of this shit is controversial.
I’ve seen people totally on board with a description of public health turn around and just rail against how Obama care is Communist.
So much of this just depends entirely on ignorance. Kinda why these people are homeschooling in the first place.
You mean “have I encountered other people who also do not know what feminism is”? Yes, I have encountered more than one person who doesn’t know what feminism is, and makes up their own definitions to support their personal cause which has nothing to do with feminism.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.