Am I the only one that thinks charging her as an adult is a little much? A 12 year old is probably still treatable. Incarceration in our criminal justice system will not accomplish that.
She’s about to spend a ton of time in the system either way. Whether that be juvi or somewhere else. This kid will not reemerge a rehabilitated individual. In the system you simply learn to be a better criminal, rehabilitation is myth
I definitely agree that whatever decision the courts make, this person is not going to be properly rehabilitated via the sentence.
I obviously have no expertise in the matter, but I really do wonder what the appropriate “consequence” would be for something like this. They’re still a child, basically at 12. But they committed to doing something VERY permanent. Do they have any understanding for what it is they’ve done? I would think they have a semblance of it. Emotions, hormones, and everything about a pre-pubescant can run hot at those ages, but this was an egregious failure for self control.
I’m very likely just being a fence sitter about it. Murdering someone over something petty like this would be an obvious charge for an assumed adult. Just hard to wrap my head around it when I see news like this I guess.
Few things would energize me more. Biden would have gotten a begrudging vote from me at most. If youre going to slot AOC into the VP pick, I will estatically take 4 years of Kamala. To me there are few if any better investments in the political health of the country than VP AOC.
Few things would energize me more. Biden would have gotten a begrudging vote from me at most.
same here except i vacillate daily on voting for biden due to his history and its impact on my life.
a candidate that doesn’t have a 4 decade long history of anti-gay, anti-feminist, pro-segregationists, pro-corporate, anti-student policies, actions and votes would easily convince me to vote democrat.
In part. There are even more bizarre types. I know strong union supporters who vote Republican, but have positive opinions on Bernie. I know liberal voters who voted Trump in 2016 to ‘shake things up’ (I am not very close with them, for obvious reasons). Many people in this country do not have a coherent ideology they vote by, and are swayed by many small factors.
You can want a very Progressive candidate and acknowledge that you need to win the middle of the electorate in first past the post voting systems at the same time
A charismatic younger candidate pushing progressive policy improves voter turnout, otherwise what did the Dems learn from Obama’s first election despite not being a big national name before running?
AOC has time. If I were writing the script, I would go with Harris/Whitmer, followed by Whitmer/AOC. Assuming each ticket wins two terms, AOC would be in her 50’s then and be one of the most qualified candidates in 2040.
Let Bernie in the oval office. Nobody deserves it more than him. He’s too old for pres, but God damn would he get shit done between inauguration as vp and his grave…
You could also view it as they’re the perfect way to get the conservative Dem votes and the progressive votes. And since the conservative Dem would be the presidential candidate, the owner class is more likely to permit it.
If it happened it would have a good chance to work. But I just don’t see someone as progressive as AOC ever getting picked to be the VP with someone as neoliberal as Harris
Yes, I do. Which is precisely how I know you are engaged in that behavior now. It is a very hard thing to accept that you are living in a country that is going to usher in fascism with thunderous applause. But regardless of how you feel about it, that is what is happening before your very eyes. It is important to be objective about that so you are able to evaluate what you can do to fight back once that becomes necessary.
Here, I’ll give you an example you can perhaps identify with. You spent multiple comments strawmaning my arguments, putting words in my mouth, and gaslighting me for saying Biden had absolutely no chance of victory two days ago.
You then attempted to suggest that I did not care about political violence, and that I was uneducated about important modern historical events in an attempt to delegitimize my points about removing Biden as the nominee.
This might be shocking to you, but when people comment on a vital event, it is usually because the vital event has caused some form of important change worth discussing. Radical, I know. But nice projection.
You will employ whatever coping mechanisms are at your disposal to accept the reality you are in. The only difference between us is that I am just a little further along in the process.
The comment in question contained a personal insult against another user and was removed for incivility. The mod log is public.
Please don’t repost removed comments. You can link to the comment or mod log if you have questions about a particular moderation action. All decisions may be appealed by DMing a mod for additional review.
I am not sure that you can link to an individual comment, but you can link to the community mod log or the user mod log depending on the circumstance. Or you can link to the individual comment in the thread, even if it has been removed.
It is preferred to reach out to a moderator(s) by direct message, in which case you could include a screen image of the mod log along with your question.
I understand why one may have an interest in asking questions publicly, although it makes is very difficult for mods to respond (unless you tag us). If you are interesting in getting a response, this is perhaps the least efficient way. We are assured to see report, and likely to see a DM in a much more reasonable time.
My analysis isn’t based on extra-sensory perception. I am able to look at the facts as they are presented from a rational, unemotional perspective. It is how I knew Hillary was going to lose in 2016, and it is how I know Biden is going to lose in 2024.
No we won’t, because all you are doing is calling heads or tails. You have a 1:2 chance of being right regardless of why you are making your prediction.
I can appreciate where !Riccosuave is coming from.
I personally feel that 2008 was the tipping point for a lot of people and we’ve been reeling from it ever since.
While things may have been bad before, it really does feel like the intensity has increased dramatically ever since Trump was first elected. These people have become emboldened, and no longer keeping themselves in check. Any sense of decorum and decency are things of the past.
You are welcome to dismiss me as nothing more than an over dramatic doomer, but I have a feeling I’m not the only one who feels this way. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about being overwhelmed and mentally drained about being able to do anything positive about it.
Anecdotally, I would guess this is part of their motivation for the attempted assassination. They were likely so overwhelmed that they felt the only solution was to try to kill Trump.
And if that’s even remotely true, that’s a fault of society as a whole as much as it is the shooter’s fault.
One way or the other, we are at a pivotal moment in American history; and I’m not just being dramatic. There is a lot on the line for both sides no matter who wins in November.
You’re being down voted but you’re right. This is the absolute nail in the coffin to seal his win. his culties are going to be mobilised more than ever now.
The downvotes are a direct consequence of their fear and denial, which I absolutely understand. However, I feel it is my duty to speak the truth so that people can begin the process of accepting what is coming.
This event just shows that anything can happen at any moment. Nothing is a sure thing. Not a Trump win, not a Biden win, and not a win for any other candidate who may run.
A kind reminder from Germany: If anyone tells that they “didn’t know what they were getting into” and that “it didn’t seem as bad, they cant really mean it” and “time in power will pacify them and they won’t push through with their claims” - we already had this story and these excuses. I hope that we all can prevent the fascists from getting into power. I really don’t want stuff I’ve read in history books to repeat in my lifetime. The more people know about P2025, the better - but to be honest I fear that most will just ignore it and go on with their day.
It’s already being dismissed as a hoax. The articles about “gay furry activists” leaking the info have allowed people on the right to claim it’s just nonsense, and Trump would never do such things to them.
The worst part is, we already had this shitstain in power before. This would be like if Hitler had been appointed chancellor for 4 years and was still chosen again later.
He clearly abused his power while in office before and was only kept in check by his idiocy and by people around him who understood that there is/was limits to presidential power. With SCOTUS basically giving the president kingly powers to do fuck all, the gloves are off and that shit-stain can just do whatever the fuck he wants. It’s so aggravating the number of people in power enabling possibly the worst person in human history to behave even more irresponsibly and giving into even stupider ideas. And that it’s even this close in polling #s makes me think America will deserve whatever happens to it as a result.
America will deserve whatever happens to it as a result
I get why you’d think that, but only the ones who voted for him or didn’t vote for Biden will, because many millions more people will not vote for him - it just won’t matter because of our fucked up electoral system.
The issue is that a lot of the “mass shootings” are not terror incidents like the school shootings we’ve all heard about.
Take the Philly one, for instance. It was covered in my local media and I still don’t quite get what happened. It sounded like a fight miles away ended up in a gunfight in South Philly.
The type of gun violence that really reverberates in the USA is the school shooting type of incident. It’s a lone gunman who has no relation to the victims.
Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they’ve all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.
We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.
We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.
None of those things have anything to do with the type of violence or whether or not they know the victims.
So that really doesn’t explain anything.
This was not about whether or not a gun control discussion is worth having. This is about the relevance of the type of gun violence and whether or not the murderer and the victim new each other. What difference does it make?
So what’s your question then? Most gun violence is not random. Hell most violence is not random. That’s what the public perceives though. Which causes the gun control issue to be heavily viewed as something its not. Hence the incessant need to act like another AWB would do anything to curb the violence. When in reality it would do absolutely jack shit, because the majority of gun deaths are via handguns.
Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?
I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.
You have made your opinion that there should be absolutely no discussion of gun control known many times, so maybe you weren’t the person I wanted an answer from. Especially when you weren’t the one I asked.
I did answer your question. It matters because it is used as a agenda to make the public feel like we have random mass shootings daily. It %100 matters.
This is why the GVA is bunk crap, because it twists the truth.
I’ve never said that there should be no discussion of gun control. I just point out how little logic is behind the gun control that’s proposed, because it’s not based in reality.
This is a civil comment pointing out that squid has mod on several instances and likes to goad people into arguments and then ban them. Sorry for being uncivilized before <3
I have no idea why you think those two are the same answers. However, the bigger issue was your attempting to shut down conversation before it started with your initial reply to my question:
Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they’ve all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.
We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.
We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.
That was a non-answer in response to my question:
Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?
I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.
What “we need to do” had nothing to do with what I asked, but it did attempt to shut down a conversation no one was having before it started.
I’m sure you’ll have some sort of lame excuse for why what you said really did somehow answer that question that didn’t ask about what we need to do or why something happened.
But isn’t the source of the problem the same for both? Or do you mean that people consuming the news just don’t sympathize with murders when it’s a gang war?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this because it gets brought up a lot when mass shootings happen and I guess to me, murder is murder.
The source of the problem is crime (often due to poverty/gang culture) and mental health issues. If the source of the problem was gun owners there would be far more deaths. Millions of people own guns without ever harming anyone. Fixing healthcare so it’s accessible to people who need it, expanding social services, and fixing income inequality is the real solution.
Then it’s weird that pretty much all the countries with high homicide rates, the U.S. included, tend to have legal guns and the ones with low homicide rates tend not to.
There are 1.2 guns for every person in the united states and the homicide rate is 6.383 for every 100,000 people. It doesn’t break out homicides by guns vs. other methods but even if every homicide was using a gun that isn’t much of a correlation between gun ownership and murdering people. There are always other factors. If just guns made people commit homicide there would be bodies piled in the streets.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean you should fight them for gun control instead of fighting them for the other things. You can instead advocate for those other things. Those other things are also easier tbh because they don’t require an amendment to the constitution to happen.
Or we can fight for both since no one needs the kind of hardware that’s out there right now.
Screw amendments, we can just argue that the second is referring to a person’s upper limbs. Besides, with the supreme court saying the president is above the law and states requiring the 10 commandments in schools, it’s pretty clear the Constitution doesn’t mean shit anyway.
It’s also associated with domestic violence. Yes that’s a crime but it’s not the crime people are thinking of. And unfortunately that one is going to be the tricky one to resolve
I think that would fall under expanding social services, either to give the abusee options to remove themselves from the situation or get the abuser into counseling early on before it gets more serious or a combination of the two. Personally I think a lot of violent assholes could be sorted out if everyone had to take counseling in high school and learn methods of dealing with their shit.
Right, it just doesn’t get media coverage because we don’t sympathize in those cases. And it doesn’t fit into people’s mental concept of “mass shooting” as a result. Someone elsewhere in these comments already tried to say this doesn’t count as a mass shooting
Because it’s a lot easier to tell yourself it’s ok when it’s related to crime, domestic violence, or some other form of intentionally targeted killing. That doesn’t make it ok, but people tell themselves they and their loved ones are safe.
All it does is turns bad decisions and bad situations into tragedies. I have gun owners I like and respect, but I keep finding the people most invested in their guns are the people I trust least to have them.
I always assumed that was a notice to people stealing cars from the lot.
You know. Make sure the car with the keys wasn’t left running cuz the kid was sleeping.
Definitely don’t want the 3 kinds of hell for stealing a car with a kid in it. (Cops gonna totally blame you aren’t they PIT lil’ Tommy into the ditch.)
Why leave the kid in the car at all? My kids go inside with me if the wife isn’t there wanting to stay in the car. Doesn’t matter if I’m going in a store for 2 minutes.
The crazy thing is that the news here in the Midwest tells people each year to put something important, like their phone, in the car seat to remember the kid.
Nobody INTENDS to leave their kid in the car to die.
Fatal Distraction is a Pulitzer Prize winning article that examines how the mind works and why this sort of incident keeps happening over and over again.
They are. The people who do this? They are you and me and your neighbor.
Check out this article: Fatal Distraction, it won a Pulitzer Prize. It’s about how the mind works and why this incident keeps happening over and over again.
Skip calling the cops, if it’s hot break the window THEN call the cops, same for pets. In many places this is now the fully legal thing to do. If you wait even a little bit that can be the difference, you never know how close to death they are even if moving
You can buy keychain tools for breaking windows easily, the trick is something hard and POINTY, really concentrated the force applied
The reason to call the cops right off is so they get there faster.
If the kid is going to die in the seconds it takes to make get them rolling, they’re probably going to die outside the car, too. On the other hand, the sooner they get there, the faster they get advanced care.
Additionally, it provides a bit of legal protection, having dispatch on the phone.
Also, not even animal control will break into a car- they let the cops do that. The last time I dealt with it the cops waited for them to make the call that it was necessary.
There was a puppy in the back of an suv. The window was cracked but the puppy was in a dog crate covered in blankets. The car interior was just under the threshold at like 90 or something, but the crate when they did open it was at like 105. It was a little cocker spaniel that was the sweetest little cuddle-bug.
The assholes left the dog in the back in 90-degree weather to go to a baseball game. The worst part is that they could go pick up the dog after paying a fine. That dog deserved better humans.
I thought that one was about letting the baby drive the car. Did they mention the ambient air temperature or any locally posted heat warnings in that one? Can’t remember all the lyrics.
Agreed, but in my experience people in their early twenties can be surprisingly experienced and conscious kinksters, able to voice consent and negotiate intense situations. While people in their fourties can be incredibly insecure, unable to communicate their needs and insecurities, while still wanting to play.
It’s a matter of experience, self-awareness and skills, and those don’t come with age, but with work on yourself and education. We need so much more sex education and communication about these things.
The woman in question doesn’t seem to be an experienced kinkster though, and she should totally be heard in any case. But the age argument distracts from the real issues, I believe.
Oh, I’m sorry that was unclear. The age/maturity dynamic is as important here as the employer/employee one. I didn’t mean the two parties are on equal footing.
Yes, absolutely. That’s what I was trying to say. Also, because of another reply in this thread: I didn’t mean him, or him being insecure, in my example of the fourty year old… I meant a 40 year old at the bottom of the power dynamics. As compared to a 20 year old.
I think under 25 is still not a full adult. There’s research that the brain isn’t fully developed. And personality is still in flux as well. I couldn’t care less about huge age differences, but only when older than 25-30.
No they still need to be a part of our society and this should have the right to control it. I’m just talking about consent. People under 25 generally are more easily manipulated due to both physiological and sociological characteristics. And there’s not a specific age, everyone is different of course, but as a general rule I find it unethical for someone over 40 to date someone under 25. But I wouldn’t find it unethical for someone over 60 to date someone in their 30s or 40s for example.
Hmm seems that’s leaving a lot of room for disparity, have you considered establishing a testing centre where people go to check their compatibility and permission to date is only given if both are intellectually and emotionally within a set margin of each other.
And I really don’t think we can allow people incapable of deciding their own romantic and sexual partners to make important choices that affect the nation. How can you say someone is too silly to decide who to spend time with but should be able to choose the longterm future of millions of people?
I never said anything like that. I said a person in that phase of life should not date someone in a different phase of life just like a 10 year old should not date a 15 year old, a 20 year old should not date a 15 year old, but a 35 year old dating a 40 year old is not a big deal at all. They are still only 5 years differences, but is it not obvious that the younger of the 10/15 or 15/20 pairs would be at a huge disadvantage in the relationship and so is likely to be taken advantage of even if not intentionally? Now if sex education and relationship education was more common in our society, it might not be as big of a problem for the 20 yo/40 yo couple like it’s not a big deal for a 40/60 couple, but that’s not reality. And there’s still the problem that it’s easier to manipulate a 20 yo than a 40 yo because of physical brain development (again, not everyone but in general).
As for voting, I believe anyone who has to survive in the society on their own should vote. That includes under 18 if they are emancipated for example, IMHO.
There is a distinct imbalance between someone in their 60’s and someone in their early 20’s. I’m not saying it can’t be carefully and respectfully navigated, but it has to be acknowledged and accounted for.
It doesn’t sound like that happened here.
Then we have the power dynamic of a celebrity who is also your employer. Add in a healthy dose of fictive kinship due to the live-in nature of a nanny and you’re in a situation rife with the potential for abuse.
IIRC, that study didn’t conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it’s just that what was measured wasn’t really development, but “change”.
Okay, source it if you’ve got it, because the idea that a single study ran out of funding at 25 and that’s where the number comes from is such an odd suggestion, as though no one else has studied the brain’s development and neuroscientists everywhere just shrugged and thought, “if only the funding were there.”
Here’s a well-sourced article that concludes the brain continues to develop well into the mid-20’s.
While the brain will always continue to develop and grow, due to neuroplasticity, the concern is whether or not the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for long-term decision making, is properly developed. This development continues into the mid-20’s and is well-documented.
Here’s a 2022 study where they looked at over 100,000 brain scans from people 110 days old to over 100 years old used to draw and affirm similar conclusions.
While 25 isn’t magic number, as everyone’s brains develop on different timelines, it is a rational and reasonable landmark that can be reliably used for broad discussions.
Looking through it now, I believe the conversation I was in was referencing this: www.nature.com/articles/npp2014236 , specifically because it’s not a random group of scans. It’s a rather ambitious study, from 1989, and is, as it was told to me, where the journos got ahold of the “25” number. In fact, the first article you link’s sources seem to all have the 1999 version as their first reference, probably because they’re all pre-2014. No mention of money in the paper, obviously, but it does talk of the study as “ongoing”, and I couldn’t find a newer followup, so, uh, yeah.
As I was digging, though, I ran into this: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8 , so the number you go with, if it even makes sense to go with a number, is still a matter of what you want to measure, I’d say.
Not sure how exactly your sources are measuring “development”, but at the age of 41 I know for a fact I still have prefrontal neurogenesis happening. I still have neuroplasticity, etc. My brain’s not going to stop developing until I’m dead.
“I don’t want them to advertise,” Musk said. “If someone is going to blackmail me with advertising or money go f*** yourself. Go. F***. Yourself,” he said. “Is that clear? Hey Bob [Iger, CEO of Disney], if you’re in the audience, that’s how I feel."
the guy who bought the website for 40+ billion dollars.
Yeah but he looks stupid. Whatever happens, I don't think he's ever going to have to worry about finances, like worry if he can afford something he actually needs, like food or housing or vehicles or anything. So I don't think the bonus will really make any difference; although I'm sure it is nice and he can buy himself some vanity project with it.
He could still today have been the boy genius billionaire who invented going to Mars, in the public perception, and now he's a fat thin-skinned laughingstock who has to go on his own social network and puff himself up through fake accounts and whose kids don't want to deal with him. There's not a bonus in the world that'll make that feel better.
Honestly, I think the issue was being insulated from consequences for too long. If you go a sufficient length of time with enough advantages that whatever you do, nothing really all that bad can happen, you start to forget that it's possible, and you start doing and saying bonehead things because your brain has lost track of the concept that it might not work out great. It is a tough place to be, and I wish for him that soon is the redemption arc where he posts his big apology for being a moron and takes his hands off Twitter and starts investing in work on climate change.
Yeah, but they’re just doing it because they know that Tesla is grossly overvalued, and as soon as he leaves the post the reality distortion bubble bursts and their precious stock will overcorrect into loses. They want some more time to put through the correct paperwork so when they sell right before the bubble burst it doesn’t look like insider trading.
"Guys, it'll be okay this time. We've had decades to train our cops to more effectively treat civilians as enemy combatants and to stock up on surplus military gear. This time we've got the weaponry to keep the rabble in hand."
According to the affidavit, Prieto said: “The reason I say Atlanta. Why, why is Georgia such a f------up state now? When I was a kid that was one of the most conservative states in the country. Why is it not now? Because as the crime got worse in L.A., St. Louis, and all these other cities, all the [N-words] moved out of those [places] and moved to Atlanta. That’s why it isn’t so great anymore. And they’ve been there for a couple, several years.”
Yes, black people have only been around in significant numbers in Atlanta for a couple years.
What’s even funnier is that most people have even forgotten what she was trying to hide. Like, it was just some stupid photo of her house. People care so little about it that they forget even though the effect is named for her trying to hide it.
Like if we were to try to imagine a world where she didn’t try to have the image removed from the report, literally nobody would have ever cared. How many other famous houses are in random government reports about coastal erosion? It’s probably a lot, considering where rich people like to put their houses.
She failed so spectacularly at keeping it hidden that it will live on in infamy forever.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.