So, wait a minute. This kid makes a private joke among friends, and his message is intercepted by security services and obviously taken out of context (in that they failed to realize he was privately joking among friends).
Seems to me that the security forces should eat the cost of this. This is the price you pay for spying on everyone and overreacting.
Then checked his location (since Snapchat likely asks users to turn on that permission, or it could’ve been found through photo/video metadata).
Then they informed the airport nearest to his GPS location.
And that’s probably why it got blown out of proportion.
Snapchat says “Hey airport, we found someone at your location who said they’re going to blow up a plane. Here’s a cropped picture of the guy’s face.”
Then the airport staff are looking through everyone who’s checked in, trying to match the Snapchat picture to the passport photos. By the time they found a match, the plan had already departed. (Let’s be real, they probably have some facial recognition, but it was likely double-checked by humans, plus all the communication back and forth, etc.)
So now the airport knows that the guy who said he’s going to blow up the plane is already on the plane, and the plane is in flight. What are your options at that point?
Probably doesn’t need facial recognition even. Snapchat has people’s phone numbers. Which are also used when booking tickets for most airlines. The airport could cross check phone record from Snapchat with their airlines’ passenger info.
What makes you think the Taliban is trying to hide? They're public. They have a Twitter account. They post memes. They're not trying to be cryptic, they're pretty out and open with their messaging these days.
Also what’s the goal of scrambling jets when the threat is a passenger inside said jet? Are they gonna ask the pilot to pipe the radio to the PA and say “you better not blow up that plane because we’re in charge and we said so?” Do they have a sniper on the wing ready to take out just one guy meanwhile depressurizing the whole fuselage, potentially explosively? Maybe Top Gun Tom Cruise can hit the guy with a burst of the 20mm? Seems like there’s no point whatsoever. Best case they can say “yep it blew up” or “nope it didn’t blow up.”
I mean, were there actually a terrorist onboard the plane, I imagine the logic would be “If they hijack it and decide to try to crash it into something 9/11 style, a fighter can at least blow it up in time to prevent more casualties on the ground”
This would make sense. Fighters were scrambled to take out Flight 93. The assumed target was the White House, so they were scrambled so fast they didn’t have time to arm them. Their plan was to literally crash into the hijacked plane. One into the tail, one into the cockpit.
By the time they arrived the plane had already been brought down by the passengers.
That’s surprising that they don’t keep at least a few jets armed in case they need to be scrambled for real. Guessing that’s since changed and they do now.
They'd shoot the plane down if they can't get the pilot to land safely. They'd rather one plane full of innocent passengers gets killed than a plane full of innocent passengers and a building full of even more innocents.
he was at the airport check in when he sent it. assuming 2 hours between check in and boarding… that’s actually a really fast time to figure out who sent a random snap, unless somebody overheard him and then followed him while reporting it.
Or if Snapchat flagged it and reported it to the airport (which they absolutely will do.)
I'm not sure what this changes. Do actual terrorists make their plans public? IANAT, but I'm pretty sure they discuss and plan their actions privately most of the time.
Besides, look at what he wrote:
"On my way to blow up the plane (I'm a member of the Taliban)."
If he somehow didn't expect that line of text to get his Snapchat auto-watchlisted, then he's even dumber than originally thought.
Do actual terrorists go around saying “lol I’m a terrorist”? Maybe a little business card with some finely embossed “Taliban Suicide Bomber” printed under their name to hand out to everyone.
That's really not far off from actual Taliban recruitment and propaganda tactics these days. They have a public Twitter account, if anybody's forgotten.
I mean yeah most people kinda assume that their private conversations are private, hopefully this will help more people aware that corporations and governments are spying on us all
Even if this was a real terrorist, this is the worst move security services could’ve done.
They could bar a suspected terrorist from entering the plane via a temporary arrest. If they’re wrong, just reimburse the travel costs. If correct, you didn’t let a terrorist possibly hijack a plane.
They could use the “randomly selected for a search” card as an excuse for detailed screening. A terrorist can’t blow up a plane without some sort of smuggled troublesome equipment anyway. If they’re wrong, you spent like 10 minutes searching a random dude. At least you didn’t gave a terrorist chance to hijack a plane.
They instead let a suspected terrorist enter the plane as usual; then tailed him with fighter jets. What the actual fuck was the plan if the suspected person was a terrorist? Blow up the fucking plane so all the civilians inside die?
Imagine the call done to the authorities
“This is airport, we’ve detected a suspicious individual that could be affiliated with a terrorist organization”
“Since you detected him, I assume you’ve detained him? We’ll be sending units”
Private enough to use as the primary communication method for my multi-million dollar drug empire? No. Private enough to make a dumb joke to a friend and not expect to become a terrorist? It should be but clearly not
The Satanic Temple makes it clear its members do not actually worship the devil or believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural.
But somehow conservative Christians believe that there are huge swaths of people who agree that their religion is 100% correct but worship the weak bad guy character.
(Which is not to mention that there are actually multiple bad guys who got combined, Satan and Lucifer and The Snake were originally different people)
I can’t comment on Lucifer and Satan but serpent reverence showed up in a lot of ancient matriarchal religions before they were displaced by modern patriarchal ones.
This doesn’t apply to only Abrahamic religions but shows up in Greek mythology too. Apollo slaying Gaia’s serpent messengers at the temple of Delphi for example.
Gnostic teachings, which are a form of Christianity, see the serpent as divine wisdom (Sophia) and the old testament God as the demiurge (Devil). Jesus as the good God. And Lucifer as the light of reason and not a villain.
But Gnosticism is basically a dead form of alternative Christian belief. So I have no idea what the modern church’s take is on these three entities.
It’s now thought the number of truly matriarchal beliefs in antiquity have been grossly overstated. Your comment belies a strong Judaeo-Christian ethos and historiography, which is all fine of course, but the feminists reinterpreting history isn’t divinely wise at all, but political.
The wiki article does a decent job. Basically the mentions of him in the texts describe different beings because they were written by different authors for different audiences with much different views. The serpent story has echos of other bronze age ones in that area and the text says as much that El put him there. The story in Job looks like a Cannite legend that got reimagined in Judaism. At some point the people of the region believed in desert spirits that would inhabit people causing them to go crazy and kill other people.
Due to the first exile Judaism started inventing an explanation for why they weren’t allowed to freely practice by imagining a being that was opposed to El. Because the pattern had broken. The pattern of the past was: everything fine, Jews sin, god punishs, jess repent, everything fine. However, this time they were trying to repent and weren’t able to. Which meant that something was blocking it. Hence Satan. The accuser.
By the time Paul came around the Book of Enoch was popular and to him Satan was a leader of a celestial army of angels. Which is why Paul said that had they known they were killing the son of God they still would have. That were not just following El. Off his writings we see things like Revelations and John where Greco-Roman celestial powers were merged with Satan and Lucifer together.
There was never an idea that someone had 2900 years ago and Christianity is following it. Like all myths it is a combination of different fables, attempts by people to explain their world, and thinkers continuing on a tradition.
Just curious, do you think she was part of one of the originals and not just a combo of some “heretical” Jewish texts and ideas of the Middle Ages? Legit asking.
I know that many of the modern misconceptions (according to Biblical canon anyway) about Hell came from Dante’s Inferno. So perhaps it’s also something like that?
Oh, it starts way before Dante. Hell is actually a sort of mismatch of different beliefs. Babylonian, Norse, Buddhist and Greco-Roman belief systems all had an underground afterlife with variable ideas of punishment for the wicked. The Bible just mentions “Gehenna” which was actually a real place on earth where trash was burned. Basically think of someone talking about the local dump. Thing about trash though is it doesn’t really burn eternally, it just burns away and it was likely being used as a metaphor. The usage of it also doesn’t really mention an eternity, links it with the devil or any of that. People really like rhe idea of someone getting their jist desserts after death so a idea of “bad people just stop existing” was probably kind of doomed to not be super popular. Basically that just leaves a door open for folk belief to stuff somebody else in the Hades/Hel/Ereshkigal role and carry on having a hell just like they did before.
All told Christianity and it’s family of belief systems is actually a fairly late adopter of the belief in something like a hell. It’s closest thematic relative is probably Buddhist Naraka which was first written about around the 400 BC but there’s not a lot of scriptural evidence that anything like that was intended for Christians. At best Judaism has an idea of an afterlife where one is consumed by shame but it sounds more like what happens when a kid is told their parent is disappointed in them and to go to their room.
God is omniscient and thus knew exactly what Lucifer would do. Angels don't have free will. Lucifer did exactly what God intended. God wanted Man to have free will. Free will requires the choice between good and evil. Man is the "bad guy" as well as the "good guy".
Did God know that if he put the tree there then the people would eat from it?
Did God have a choice to put that tree there?
Could God have made a world where they did not eat that fruit?
If he picked this possible world out of all possible worlds based on an outcome that he had in mind, then we’re just playing out the parts that he assigned for us.
How is that a choice. If they know exactly what’s going to happen I don’t have the power to do anything except for what is going to happen. If you only have an apple at home, you can’t get any other kind of food and your gonna die if you don’t eat the apple, did you really choose to eat the apple?
True, if somebody comes from the future and knows what you’re going to eat tomorrow morning, that doesn’t make it suddenly not your choice. But to add to the other comment, an important point is that he made us all as well. Because if a god creates you according to his grand plan—knowing full well every single decision you will ever make—it is no longer a choice. Every one of your decisions were predetermined from the start.
Something I like to think about is that it is impossible to go against the Christian god’s plan. If such a thing were possible, then this god would not be omnipotent nor omniscient. As such, everybody that has ever gone to hell did so because god designed them to.
God is supposedly all powerful and all knowing. God created the universe and everything in it. He did so with the full knowledge of everything that would happen in advance. He chose to do it anyway, despite knowing all the suffering it would cause. And then he chose to create a realm of eternal suffering (either by literal fire and brimstone, or by ‘absence of God’, it doesn’t really matter) for those fleetingly finite-lived humans that he created knowing they would screw up. Less than a hundred years of life in exchange for billions of years of torment. And he created them in a way that is fully capable of realizing how horrible a way to treat someone this is. It’s nothing but cruelty of an unimaginable scale. Part of the reason I don’t believe the Christian God exists is because I can’t accept something that evil. It’s too horrifying.
Most people that believe or even don’t believe don’t usually follow it to its logical conclusion like that, but I concur. The opening lines of Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion says something similarly.
My knowing what you shall do in no way invalidates your free will. That is invalidated by the futility of your choices. Totally man made and not to be confused with determinism.
I think its still possible that I could freely choose my actions and you knowing what they would be would not invalidate that it was an action I choose based on my own free will.
This is a great example of why I don’t believe free will is a coherent concept outside of religion. It’s basically a perk that negates God’s omniscience as it applies to you, but if you don’t believe in God, it’s meaningless.
The funny thing about the free will argument is that theoretically if you could build a galaxy powered “super” computer, you could potentially track every single movement of every single particle in the entirety of the universe, so that level or scientific inquiry nullifies free will.
If god is omniscient they would know exactly what everyone is going to choose, nullifying free will entirely
Yeah but if God knows every choice that’ll be made ahead of time, it doesn’t mean he’s taking the choice away from the person actually making the choice, they still go through the motion of making the actual choice, and hence, they have free will to make the choice. God just predicted it ahead of time.
Yeah but if God knows every choice that’ll be made ahead of time, it doesn’t mean he’s taking the choice away from the person actually making the choice
That argument would only make sense if god wasn’t the supposed creator of the universe and everything in it. If god created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient then at the moment of creation she would have known every single event and circumstance in that person’s life leading up to making a certain choice and she would have been able to create the universe differently so that a different choice would have been made.
If you set up all the dominoes, you cannot claim the 100,00th domino falling over wasn’t your doing because you only tipped over the first one.
That argument would only make sense if god wasn’t the supposed creator of the universe and everything in it. If god created everything, is omnipotent and omniscient then at the moment of creation she would have known every single event and circumstance in that person’s life leading up to making a certain choice and she would have been able to create the universe differently so that a different choice would have been made.
This actually makes my point though.
God knowing everything doesn’t mean that God made you make that choice, God let you make that choice, but knew what that choice would be ahead of time.
You still had free will, you still were the one that had the neurons fire off in your brain, and you made the choice. God was able to predict that choice ahead of time with 100% accuracy.
On a side note, I love that you use ‘she’ for God.
God knowing everything doesn’t mean that God made you make that choice, God let you make that choice, but knew what that choice would be ahead of time.
If she intentionally chose those circumstances to happen so that the choice would be made that way, which she would have to have done being omniscient and omnipotent then that choice being made is 100% her responsibility.
If I put a child alone in a room with a powered on electric band saw, is it the child’s fault for getting their arm sawed off ? They had free will and could have chosen to not go near the saw. Or is it my fault for putting a child in that situation?
Why are you assuming she chose them, versus just letting them happen via free will, mapping them out ahead of time, precog style?
If I put a child alone in a room with a powered on electric band saw, is it the child’s fault for getting their arm sawed off ? They had free will and could have chosen to not go near the saw. Or is it my fault for putting a child in that situation?
Why are you assuming she chose them, versus just letting them happen via free will, mapping them out ahead of time, precog style?
Because she’s omniscient. That’s the problem with making up an all-powerful, all-knowing god. It comes with some inconvenient logical consequences. When she set up the initial state of the universe she already knew exactly how it would play out (because omniscient), she also could have chosen any other outcome (because omnipotent). It had to be a deliberate decision because as an omniscient being it’s simply not possible to claim ignorance of the outcome, and as an omnipotent being she could have chosen any outcome she desired.
The childs.
Do you really believe this or are you being disingenuous because it doesn’t fit your argument?
Do you really believe this or are you being disingenuous because it doesn’t fit your argument?
Truly believe it. The child’s neurons in the brain fired off, having them explore/examine the saw. You could say the same thing for any object in the room. A child will look at some of them, but not others.
Ah, but that is the point, until Man chose it hadn't happened, it is the precognition paradox. Until the event occurs, what is known is all the possibilities.
Then god isnt omnipotent, cause you know, it lacks the power of whats actually to come and is only good at knowing all the hypotheticals. Or may be lacks omnicience, but one could argue that knowing all the possibilities counts.
All that matters is that its lacking something, when it shouldnt
If there exists a being that experiences time the same way we experience space, do we have any less free will just because the being can continue knowing about it before it happened? The person is making the choice, not the being that knows about the choice.
From a more literary perspective, there’s nothing that directly connects the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the interlocutor in Job, and the later mentions of Satan in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures (and there’s not a lot of direct mentions in the Hebrew scriptures). You can kinda make it work if you read between the lines, but fundamentalists will be the first to say you’re not supposed to read between the lines of the bible. To them, you take the word as it is written and nothing else.
Naturally, this rigid reading of the bible doesn’t work out so well for their beliefs.
To take the Answers in Genesis article on the subject (just because they’re a prominent fundamentalist organization), their reasoning is that the bible shows that Satan can enter into a physical being and control them. Notice that they leave out any reasoning showing that Satan did so in that particular case. He could have, and therefore, he did.
So if Satan wanted to, for example, make it so everyone would fail to meet the entry requirements for heaven laid out in the old testament, and end up on hell… could he, theoretically of course, pretend to be the son of God and “change the rules” so that sin is totally ok as long as you say sorry before you die?
The rich are making money, but they’re just hoarding it
So amount of money in circulation keeps decreasing, and prices keep increasing because in capitalism if a company isnt increasing profit margins, the stock price isn’t going up. And they finally figured out calling corporate greed “inflation” means around 2/3s of the country will accept it
Either we drastically raise taxes soon, or shits about to get really really bad.
Very few people will just sit back and calmly starve to death
The 2/3 of the country can generally be fooled to believe anything.
However, just raising taxes in this case may have some similarity to extinguishing fire with a burnable substance.
You have to raise some taxes (say, on realty ownership, and some other possessions, and in general discourage possession of wealth without circulation) and lower some other taxes (say, anything taxing a transaction, I’m really not familiar with the way taxes work in USA, but in Russia plenty of taxes in hard numbers simply discourage economic activity). The goal should be increasing the actual inflation (not a good or bad thing per se). That’s if you are right about the cause, which I’m in doubt about TBF.
In the US income taxes are different at different income levels and corporate taxes are separate entirely. We can absolutely raise taxes without raising them on lower income people.
And yes several studies over the last couple decades have shown that US money is going up and not coming back down.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
That’s trickle down. You just described what we’ve been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that’s happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don’t create more jobs. They don’t pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven’t paid attention to a single word except for the “lowering taxes” parts.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage “hoarding”, which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For “the rich” as well.
“Tax breaks” are selective bullshit which shouldn’t ever happen.
Well then you’re just plain wrong. Because we’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren’t circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.
The actual history - yes, it doesn’t. The subjective picture in your head or mine - of course it does. And naturally I prefer my subjective picture, especially since you refused to read its description, arguing with your imagination instead.
Nobody fscking cares what you say to another person when it includes “you think this, and not what you are saying you think”, it’s nuts.
Totally unrelated, but I’ve been teaching my friends to shoot and how to handle weapons. Also how to homestead your backyard. I pray those remain hobbies but I think im gonna live too long for that to remain true.
The amount of money in circulation isn’t decreasing though. Wages have increased more than inflation, almost every month in the last year. Especially for median wage/salaries.
When they say strong economy they are talking about spending, jobs etc.
The recent increase in wages isn’t even a patch on the vacuum the wealthy are using. If that was even remotely true then we wouldn’t be seeing this article.
From the article - Food is up 25 percent along with rising rent and utilities.
I’m not sure you understand what economists mean by circulation. Money is going up and not coming back down. It has been doing this for decades. The more money that gets trapped at the top and put into the stock market means less money for the working class as a whole. While that sounds like some commie shit, it’s really not. Because the working class is the major demand generator in a capitalist economy. Economists want to see that money making the rounds through the entire economy because anyone left out of circulation will impact demand over the long term (and by the time it’s a short term problem you’re looking at a demand crisis which usually results in pitchforks).
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic. That’s why the two words are the same. But other necessities are often seen in history as well, including food and utilities as also mentioned in the article. This is relevant because the world recently figured out that the inflation of the last couple years was actually greed and not cost push. They literally just figured out they could use it as an excuse to raise prices well beyond what was necessary. Of course that’s not a surprise to anyone who listened to CEOs publicly telling their stockholders they were doing it.
So when you assert that it’s not a problem with circulation because rent went up. I have questions about you understanding the economic meaning of those words. The primary means of rent seeking behavior have gone up and wages already were not keeping up. Nobody cares if wages beat inflation last month. We need them to beat decades worth of inflation and stagnant wages. We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches who did nothing more than raise prices and pay their workers less.
Now we need to talk about rent in the economic way. That profit a monopoly extracts because the market is not competitive enough and it can charge more without providing more value. Land/house rent going up is the classic.
Just an FYI, you’re using all of these terms incorrectly.
We need 47 trillion dollars back from the wealthy leeches
And your lack of understanding is why you say silly things like this.
Perhaps don’t go on at length as if you know about a topic when your only exposure to said topic is internet forums.
Conservatives don’t want schools that teach how to think. They want schools that teach kids to obey.
The rules don’t really matter, if anything they want the rules to be as stupid and arbitrary as possible, that way they get adult workers willing to take “because I said so” as rationale for fucking anything.
Like how in boot camp they focus on the most inconsequential details. They don’t care how exact you can make a bed, theyre just teaching you how to follow orders
My kid is always amazed that despite violating the dress code she never gets in trouble. I told her that the rules aren't there to be enforced equally, they're there to give them an excuse to harass students and because she's one of the "good kids" she gets away with it.
Meanwhile I saw kids of any color hauled out of my school for wearing ANY red
Literally every other rule was flaunted daily but if you wore red they’d drag your ass to the admin office to take your shoelaces for the day (saw that one) or wear one of the embarrassing and huge and overused day use shirts (happened to a friend), didn’t matter who you were
Just a funny story about my weirdly strict in some ways high school
Thought it was a dumb question, but I couldn’t get my head around it. So Crips are all good at this school?! And who the hell wears purple? I’m old and out of touch.
Greg Poole, who has been district superintendent since 2006, said the policy is legal and teaches students to conform as a sacrifice benefitting everyone.
“When you are asked to conform … and give up something for the betterment of the whole, there is a psychological benefit,” Poole said. “We need more teaching (of) sacrifice.”
There is another quote from him saying it’s a rule that’s been on the books for 30 years. As if that’s a good enough reason to keep it rather than actually being a reason to reexamine it’s worth in today’s society.
Anyone who uses the excuse that “this is how it’s been done for x number of years so we’re going to keep doing it that way” should be punched in the face repeatedly until their teeth turn to fuckin dust because they should be able to speak anymore.
I mean, have you seen how they design schools these days? I’ve seen jails that looked less secure, and more comfy. They’re conditioning the kids knowing that 1/4 will end up in jail or on probation at some point in their lives. They don’t see them as children, they see them as potential “criminals” to wring every dollar they can out of.
Trust me, as someone who was military, they care about how exact you are when making the bed. It's not just about following orders, it's how well you follow them and your attention to detail.
Oddly, my military experience also focused on how to break rules, and how to know which ones to break. That and the knowledge that there was a waiver for everything.
Looks like the superintendent is all about following the rules to a T - that is unless it’s his kid - in which case he’ll gladly obstruct an investigation a likely DUI.
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year. Lots of people will read this millionaire’s tax and think it will apply to them when they are nearing retirement since they finally have a million dollars after saving all their life.
That’s what the campaign to quash the bill did. That, and tried to convince people that they might have a single multi-million-dollar transaction in their life (like selling a large successful business) and have to pay an extra 4% on it.
Always a push to get the “temporarily embarassed millionaire” to support the reach. “Yeah, yanno. My little lawmowing operation that makes me $20,000 coild sell for over a million and then I’m fucked”
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year.
We have them. The first is referred to as “Wealth” or “Worth” and the other is referred to as “Income”. Therefore what Mass instituted is called an Income Tax.
Authorities say that HOA members first summoned police due to reports of “children running an illegal lemonade stand on county right of way.”
When the sheriff’s deputies arrived, they “found that the children were not blocking the roadway but did ask them to move back from the road a few feet for their safety.”
Thinking the matter was resolved, the officers then moved on to other calls about parking issues in the area, only to head back to the scene of the stand when the “original reporting parties came out and began yelling at the children claiming they were on private property.”
As the refreshment row reached fever pitch, the officers discovered that the children running the stand themselves lived within the HOA and that the lemonade pushers “had a right to be there” on the association’s communally held property, leaving the wayward youths to continue their street war against scurvy.
Run for your local HOA to dismantle and disband it if you have one. Make it your platform and every person who’s ever gotten a petty ticket from a nosy nobody will vote for you.
In this area there’s a HOA but most of the people who live here are renters and don’t get a say. This leads to strange regulations that are sometimes impossible to follow.
This right here is the answer. HOAs usually have fairly complicated rules, but they’re absolutely are and are required to be bylaws that dictate the operation of the HOA, how board members are elected, what responsibility is the HOA has to the residents, etc. A big part of why HOAs get out of control is because the only people who bother to serve on their boards are the busybodies you least want in charge of your HOA. So simple solution, run and get yourself and your friends elected. Then then when you have power over the HOA, push through a bylaw amendment that significantly restricts the HOA’s authority and makes it very difficult to get it back. IE, The HOA may not create any new rule or regulation or penalty governing what people do on their private property without an in-person vote at a meeting where at least 90% of the residents personally show up and vote yes, however the president or board may remove any such regulations or penalties at will.
Or if you have support, just push through a charter amendment that says the HOA ceases to exist on some specific date and releases all CC&Rs for all governed properties.
Figure out how to get elected. Get elected under the 'if you don’t like the way the HOA is run, vote for me, my friend, and their friend!’ platform, and then change the fucking rulebook to your liking.
Exactly. Busybody assholes always end up in charge of HOAs because they’re the only ones who bother to vote and go to meetings. HOA starts as a quiet little thing that just prevents the most egregious stuff, and ends up as intrusive because of it. Unless the majority of your neighborhood is that kind of people, or is buddy buddy with the people who take over, it’s real easy to take power back a lot of the time.
I’m on my local strata council and from the earliest meetings discovered my nemesis who is there for exactly the opposite purpose of me. I want a permissive atmosphere that doesn’t look for trouble and only responds to actual problems instead of nitpicking to create unnecessary trouble.
My nemesis, on the other hand, is somebody who I believe can only get an erection by covertly causing another human being frustration and torment. By getting myself on council he cannot get rid of me nor can he use his power to abuse me. I have a small but dedicated power base that hates this guy and they all give me their proxy votes at the AGM specifically because I am supposed to sit on him and keep him down as much as possible. If I ever move than someone else will need to take over the job of sitting on him so he doesn’t think he has power.
I can just hear the guy laughing his ass off while writing this story about the most petty individuals on the face of the fucking planet.
Honestly, if some dick cheese were harassing my kids about their lemonade stand, they would be unwittingly be subscribing to a life time supply of a burning paper bag full of dog shit on their doorstep.
added that his wife’s experience has helped give him the perspective that it’s “very hard” for working families in America.
She’s a lawyer who went to Yale. Her father was a mechanical engineer and her mother was a molecular biologist. They are a working family, but not the type of working family that should give you a new perspective on how hard it is for working families in America. This is the opposite of a working family that struggles for financial security.
Yes, but they have to keep associating “person of color” with “poor” and therefore “crime”. If they don’t keep lumping all non-white people in with other “undesirable” things, some of their followers might look around and realize that non-white people can achieve things on their own too, and that makes non-white folks start to resemble actual human beings a bit too much for their liking. If she was single, he wouldn’t be lauding any of her achievements. The unspoken belief is that women are as incapable as non-whites when there’s no husband involved. The dehumanizing and belittling narrative has to be constant with them or some of their followers might start thinking for themselves.
Especially for someone whose whole identity is based on growing up as a good ol’ Appalachian boy, it’s pretty weird to say he’s learned much of anything about the struggles of working families from his wife’s experiences. Unless --gasp-- perhaps he’s exaggerated the experiences of his childhood?
Mechanical engineer is surely some good money. But from experience there’s a big spectrum of pay depending on what her mother specifically did as a molecular biologist. Sounds really intense but biology pays pretty shit sometimes haha. I know molecular biologists with PhDs working for 16 an hour at a nonprofit near me.
The comment is criticizing the fact that Trump can seemingly say and do whatever he wants and gets away with it. While if anyone else does it they’re called out on it.
So you think the implication of the original post was “everyone should be able to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die and it’s ok”?
Or is the implication “it’s not ok for people to make disrespectful comments about people that almost die”?
This isn’t complicated, those are the only two interpretations of the original comment. Only one of them is a realistic interpretation, and it - along with a lot of comments in this thread - are overtly hypocritical.
Don’t think I’ll win over you or the hypocrite-hivemind, and I don’t particularly care. Later.
Dragging the whole US down into a landscape where political assassination is acceptable is exactly the right’s goal. As soon as it’s normalized even a little bit, that little tail which currently has a handful of right-wing nuts with pipe bombs and hammers who is actually acting on it is gonna grow to encompass a huge, MASSIVE number of Facebook uncles
And then I can guarantee that all the people who are celebrating this will no longer be celebrating
Your idea that the violence will wind up mainly directed against anyone other than the politicians working for good outcomes, and vulnerable ordinary people both in and out of the US, is unfounded.
I feel like this is one of those “output only, no input” conversations
I am suggesting that the people who will be “terrified” and “fear for their lives” will be working people trying to organize a better future, and politicians (such of them that even exist) that are aligned with working people. And that the people working on behalf of the shareholders will be A-ok, mostly speaking, because they’ll be the ones whose followers are doing most of the politician-shooting, and have plenty of money to organize good security for themselves.
You can read “How Democracies Die” or “On Tyranny” for a lot more in depth characterization of how it often plays out historically speaking. I get what you’re saying but I think it is a comically rosy picture of how violent revolutions against oppressive political movements turn out in reality.
Random political violence by the right just happened
The idea that that can be consistently relied upon to aim also at the right, and productive of some useful political output in terms of justice for working people, is what I am saying is unfounded
He consistently surprises me on how big a piece of shit he is. He could have just said it was because it was a better business environment but he had to go the shitty route and blame trans people.
Essentially lower taxes and politicians who are easier to bribe. Considering that Musk is also CEO of a company with big battery production and another one that does some solar panel production, I’m not sure a shitty power grid would be too much of an issue for SpaceX.
And not a slap to the wrist. They caused a lot more harm than Joe from the neighborhood who got caught with an ounce of weed before it was legalized, but they get away with it. Again and again.
It probably won’t flood the market as property/land is sort of like gold. Renting it is just extra money on top of land value rise. It only gets rarer. (In desirable locations)
The problem is basic. Everyone wants to live at A but A has finite amount of space. This is the core theme of property gold. Renting is just double dipping
The solution is complex. It isn’t to expand A but to make B equally attractive. If the small area in city was not the ultimate goal of whole country the price boom would rapidly crash overnight.
What is priced isn’t property but dreams and aspirations, prestige, bright future in the city of opportunity. Even love in a way because good luck finding someone in some rural mud hut.
Hence the inaction of government to invest in the rural areas adds to the housing bubble. And of course capitalism itself prays on individuality at the cost of community. Me get rich in the city vs Build community and improve what is around me for me and others. The second is not advisable to anyone to even attempt.
Everything is fuelled into those few acres of asphalt and concrete. The impossibly hot focus point of the nation.
So incredibly fierce that you can die out of heat even during winter. The speed limits on the arteries are rather minimums than maximum as the circulation of wealth cannot tolerate stopping for even the 20 seconds of red light. Every crossing is a race starting line but there is no end. Furious engines roar jolting towards the success.
The night is day and the day is madness.
Honestly I think it’s just because people are mean and want someone to bully and trans people aren’t quite as protected by society as other marginalized groups yet so they’re the easiest target. Plus probably from some people it’s fear that if other people are allowed to be who they are then they themselves might realize they aren’t the perfect little cis straight christian they want to be seen as.
My first thought in situations like this is that maybe he secretly wishes he were a she. It’s true just often enough that I think it’s worth considering as an option.
And honestly, I don’t care if it’s true or not. If, whenever a public figure publicly tries to humiliate or demonize some minority group, public discourse immediately starts talking about whether said public figure secretly is, or wants to be, a member of said minority group, then it serves as a deterrent for others wanting to humiliate or demonize minority groups.
A) You’re in the closet and don’t want people to know? Then don’t ridicule people who came out of the closet.
B) Oh, you’re not in the closet and don’t want people to think you are? What a coincidence. Also, don’t ridicule people who came out of the closet.
While what you’re saying comes from the right place, it can also be dangerous. That attitude/idea can lead to blaming the marginalized group for their own victimhood.
I do think it’s more common for gay than trans, and sometimes has a grain of truth. But much of the time people are just assholes looking for someone to bully and hate.
That attitude/idea can lead to blaming the marginalized group for their own victimhood.
Probably a dumb question, but how so?
I just see it as beating the bully with their own stick. I can’t imagine how anyone would see that and conclude that the bully’s victims are somehow to blame. Probably lack of imagination on my part, so help me out.
I think the way you applied it showed some nuance, as you talked about it in non-absolute terms. However, when applied broadly it can be harmful.
If we always assume that homophobes and transphobes are queer and trans, then we assume that queer and trans folx are the ones hurting themselves. It’s a small jump from there to say that closted lgbtq people are the source of lgbtq people’s trauma, which is both harmful and false.
Too many times some shitty person that blamed gays for everything and wanted to rule against them ended up “by mistake” in some party with a dick in his ass.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t actual bastards that hate anything they don’t understand.
Class warfare, basically. These “wedge issues” are used to distract and break solidarity within the working class so that the elites can continue to exploit them.
I can understand if older people are confused by trans issues. That seems fair. I mean, just a few decades ago, people hardly even mentioned them unless they were making a joke.
When it comes to hate, though, I’m with you. At the end of the day, these are still PEOPLE we’re talking about. If they’re doing something you don’t approve of, then just don’t do it yourself. It doesn’t get any easier than that. No hatred required.
Seriously. Like, okay, you think that the whole transgender thing is a fad, or “attention-seeking,” or any other nonsense. Everybody is entitled to opinions, even stupid ones. I guarantee I have some stupid opinions, myself, about things that have no relevance to me.
But feeling the need to express those opinions, and feeling so strongly about it, and wanting to make legislation for it, and pretending you give two shits about girls’ and womens’ sports when 5 years ago you were talking shit about the WNBA because they were a joke to you, when you will knowingly interact with a trans person once or twice in a year, maybe, in your little podunk town, and since you are talking to them you won’t have an opportunity to use a pronoun for them… well there’s obviously something else at work here.
It makes it clear it’s just an excuse to hate, because trans people don’t affect them in the slightest.
It’s funny. Every time I see someone going on a rant about trans women in women’s sports, I ask them when they started watching women’s sports. I don’t get a response, but I do get a bunch of downvotes. Even on Lemmy.
My son started playing hockey when we was 5. There were an essentially equal number of girls and boys across the teams in our league with many hundreds of players across all the teams in all of the associations in the league. As they got older the number of girls started to drop off. Through U13 and into U15 the boys went through puberty and on average got bigger, stronger, faster, and more aggressive. In U15 we were down to 3 girls on our team. Going in to U18 we will have one. Some of the girls lost interest in hockey. Some left because they couldn’t compete at the same level as the boys. Our best girls went on to play girl’s hockey where they would have a more even playing field playing against other girls.
No, I don’t, “throw a shitfit” when I see a male athlete playing against female athletes (and frankly, labeling anyone who doesn’t agree with you as, “throwing a shitfit” completely devalues your position) but I do understand why those female athletes who choose to play female sports because they want a more even playing field and to play against other female athletes might see it as unfair to be forced to compete against a male athlete.
I absolutely believe in social equality for everyone but identifying as a woman socially and being female are two very different things.
(I’m happy to discuss this but if you start hissing and spitting about my being a TERF or a transphobe I will ignore you and block you and never give you or your opinions another thought.)
It was almost comical the way they all rode the inflation train. Like they all went to same business school and learned exactly the same thing about pricing strength .
Bullshit. Corpo’s build a system that users figure out and use? Sounds like they got caught with their pants down and have to make an example. Fucking trolls.
But flight data is available - this guy just labels her N number and filters the data in a creepy way. I get that it’s probably causing her danger to have stalkers waiting at the destination for her - but those stalkers always had access to this flight data.
Seems like a workaround for Taylor would be to not own a plane and charter a different one every time. (Or do something actually environmentally minded :/)
There’s a difference between the data being available and it being broadcasted, which is probably what her argument would attempt to stand on if it went to court
There is also a difference between paywalling info behind a company that only three letter agencies and targeting advertising firms will even know the name of most of the time, and broadcasting that information on social media.
They shouldn’t, but they also use a method that’s a lot more tedious and annoying for a rando to use than just being able to see it on Twitter, which is like, 99% of the definition of “more secure”
But flight data is available - this guy just labels her N number and filters the data in a creepy way. I get that it’s probably causing her danger to have stalkers waiting at the destination for her - but those stalkers always had access to this flight data.
Well, yes, but I think we can at least acknowledge when public information is used to harass. Home addresses are identifiable via public tax records, but it would obviously be different if someone posted your home address and reported in real time whether or not you’re inside. We all know people actively want to stalk and harass her, and anyone making it easier to do so maybe shouldn’t, even though it’s technically legal. If someone drove around and picked up everyone who has explicitly said they’d like to rape or kill her, and dropped them off at her doorstep with knives and guns, I hope we’d all agree that’s pretty fucked up and shouldn’t be condoned.
It’s a bit like the difference between having a gun stolen out of a safe and having a gun stolen out of an unlocked car that was left parked overnight in a crowded shopping mall. Yeah, the direct culprit might have stolen it one way or another, but there’s also at least some culpability for the person who made it easy for them to steal it, and potentially later inflict harm. I’m not saying Sweeney should be charged with a crime, of course, but doxxing is poor form for a very good reason, and civil suits can be brought for all kinds of harm (direct or indirect) which are caused by actions that are otherwise legal. In the age of worldwide social media, these are boundaries that we can discuss with nuance, rather than dismissing them out of hand because the rules currently allow unfettered abuse.
The federal government will take publicly available information and if it is bundled up with enough other information it is still considered classified and you can still (if you hold any sort of clearance) be in trouble for sharing that classified bundle.
Which is just to say there is legal precedent agreeing with your point, although AFAIK that responsibility only applies to folks who have already agreed to responsibly handle confidential information.
Yeah I don’t think it’s unreasonable to discuss harm avoidance here. There are likely workarounds she can employ, but it’s sad that people seem to be taking the stance that “fuck her, it’s public” is the end of the conversation. Maybe her lawyers know something we don’t about what kind of harm this is actually causing. It’s easy to cheer for Sweeney when he’s giving the middle finger to a jackass like Elon Musk, but I find it harder to stand in his “I do it because fuck you” corner when he’s weaponizing information against others who aren’t huge assholes.
Speech is protected, but threats are not. Online shit talking is protected, but cyberbullying is widely condemned. As a society we need to figure out where the line is between what’s allowable and what’s highly discouraged. “It’s legal” isn’t a useful cut off for these kinds of discussions, because we’ve recently come up with all kinds of state laws to punish stalkers when their behavior crosses the line from benign to unwelcome to harmful. Stalkers can be held criminally liable for using telephone calls, letters, telegraphs, delivery of packages or engaging in any conduct which interferes or intrudes on another’s privacy or liberty, all of which are completely legal and acceptable behaviors except when they’re employed to threaten or harass.
I always figured the point of tracking her, just like Musk, was commentary on the incredible waste that is the private jet industry. The politics of the person matter far less than the environmental consequences of their actions.
I don’t disagree, but if obsessed incels are using this to assist in stalking and harassing her and it poses an immediate risk to her safety, then it obviously takes on a more immediate meaning than whether or not people can use it to shame her for being environmentally reckless.
If someone drove around and picked up everyone who has explicitly said they’d like to rape or kill her, and dropped them off at her doorstep with knives and guns, I hope we’d all agree that’s pretty fucked up and shouldn’t be condoned.
We have legal ramifications for that already. That's being an accomplice in the commission of attempted murder. And the rest of your comment is mostly the exact same thing, we have laws for when we cross a particular line.
The thing is the publishing flight information on a social media site isn't technically crossing a line. Now I'll tell everyone here the same thing I said with Musk's whole thing. As citizens, we have to lobby for any of those lines to be redrawn. That's the same thing here. Should we place that line elsewhere? Maybe, maybe not. But that's for us to dictate.
But as it stands, we can extrapolate all kinds of bad things that could come to pass and a lot of those are very illegal. But at the moment, what the person is doing is distinctly not illegal. Should it be? Maybe. But it is currently not. Can it lead to bad things? Yes. That's kind of with anything in terms of public information.
The balance that is traditionally struck, is a balance between the public's need to know and an individual's right to privacy. There's not hard and fast rules on where we put the line on that and finding the right spot today for that line, doesn't mean that it's the right spot for it tomorrow. Society changes and sometimes our laws must change with it. Sometimes it shouldn't change. But that's for us the Citizens to direct.
In the age of worldwide social media
And I'm just going to say this is with a LOT of things. At the moment our laws woefully handle social media because it's just so new and law takes so long to catch up. But that's what I was getting at with Elon Tracker back in the day. Musk can go to the Government to ask for laws to be updated, not get petty and ban folks off his social media site. Now Musk has every right to ban who he deems fit to be banned. It is absolutely his ship to wreck here. But it was pretty petty when Musk could have channeled a lot of that energy into getting new laws enacted and we could have avoided this whole thing with Swift. And Swift seems to be mulling litigation rather than actually reforming laws, which means this will inevitably happen again and again and again.
The solution is to get our laws up to speed with our society. And thus far from Musk and Swift there's been every indication that people with the means to actually get a face-to-face with members of select committees in the House and Senate, are opting to take the whole thing personally than an opportunity to do good for the Nation at large. That's my issue with the Rich on this. All of these folks thus far have taken these things personally, and rightly so because crazy people hunting you down can absolutely trigger that self preservation instinct, but there's also a chance for them to look past how this affects just them. But we have yet to see any move in that direction without it being like Musk in the first bits of it before he banned Elon Tracker, calling for the FAA to just be completely done away with. That's clearly not a solution that the public at large should be okay with. So for Musk, there's likely a middle ground he could reach between where we are and a complete dismantling of Government regulations.
And for the public discourse on this, that's my issue because it seems that public discussion on the matters related to this, start veering off into maximums and ignoring any kind of slight changes in current regulatory power. It starts becoming discussions of "oh my god so and so could be killed and here's a what if indicating the path one COULD take to cause harm." And yeah, those are interesting to say the least thought experiments, but they are not addressing the issue of widely disseminating that information. Something that could be resolved with new rules indicating that FAA transponder information and matchup databases operate under a limited distribution model. So one can reproduce the data for personal consumption, but cannot reproduce the data wide consumption. Much like the same way the NFL (because we're talking Swift here so apt entity to pull in) says you can have a Super Bowl party but you cannot have a projector for your entire neighborhood. There's a middle somewhere and I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers, but just running the extremes doesn't talk about that middle. That's my issue with the Public on this.
We have legal ramifications for that already. That’s being an accomplice in the commission of attempted murder.
Well yes, but only if the person attempts murder. If no attempt is made, there’s no crime for which the other is serving as an accomplice.
Should we place that line elsewhere? Maybe, maybe not. But that’s for us to dictate.
100% agree with this and the other two paragraphs. That’s why I’m asking these questions and trying to have a more in depth conversation than the rest of the people in this thread. I don’t know where the line is, but I’m not comfortable completely washing our hands of this until violence actually erupts. The threat alone should be enough for us to discuss the problem. Just as the threat of violence from Trump’s words is enough for us to discuss the problem, and we need not wait for his followers to break a law to condemn his rhetoric. Same kind of deal here. I don’t have to wait until someone tries to kill Taylor Swift to say that there might be a problem with streaming her location in real time.
But it was pretty petty when Musk could have channeled a lot of that energy into getting new laws enacted and we could have avoided this whole thing with Swift. And Swift seems to be mulling litigation rather than actually reforming laws, which means this will inevitably happen again and again and again.
Actually hadn’t thought of this. On second thought, I do think there’s a more constructive way to do this, and I wish high profile figures would do more to participate constructively in the political process so we don’t keep having to fight this based on personality type and affiliation.
Something that could be resolved with new rules indicating that FAA transponder information and matchup databases operate under a limited distribution model. So one can reproduce the data for personal consumption, but cannot reproduce the data wide consumption. Much like the same way the NFL (because we’re talking Swift here so apt entity to pull in) says you can have a Super Bowl party but you cannot have a projector for your entire neighborhood. There’s a middle somewhere and I’m not going to pretend I have all the answers, but just running the extremes doesn’t talk about that middle. That’s my issue with the Public on this.
I hear that loud and clear, and can’t say I disagree with any of it. Thanks for engaging respectfully and helping me understand a different perspective.
I agree, I think you’re being down voted by the people who cheered on the Elon musk tracking kid. Sure it might be legal but I think everyone can all agree they wouldn’t want this done to themselves.
99.999 percent of us here would never have this problem because we will never be close to owning a private jet, even if we wanted to for some reason. I also think most of us here agree that owning a private jet is selfish, and since its kind of a problem brought on by her own selfishness, it’s kind of hard to feel bad for her.
People who don’t have private jets get doxxed and harassed all the time because this story or that went viral. If you made a boneheaded comment to someone on the street that was recorded and uploaded, and the internet mob came for your blood, and someone made it their own personal mission to track your every move 24 hours a day, some of us would come to your defense and suggest that they might should stop for your safety. The rest of the mob would take the, “fuck you, it’s public” line you’re taking, and you’d probably have a hard time convincing them to give a shit.
If it’s not safe for people to use publicly available information then it shouldn’t be publicly available. No one was worried about it when it was used to call Musk out. Or the 1000s of people dealing with stalkers that aren’t famous enough for anyone to give a fuck about. Either protect everyone or don’t. You can’t just single out the rich white girls.
My point is just going after this guy isn’t going to fix the root of the problem. If him being able to do this is an issue then the information he is accessing should be restricted. Just making him stop won’t prevent the next person from doing it to someone else.
I don’t disagree. He’s already had his Swift-specific accounts booted from Facebook, Instagram, and Xitter and started posting instead to his “Celeb Jets” FB and IG accounts, so it’s clear he’s going to play the cat-and-mouse game indefinitely.
But again, I didn’t say a single thing about singling out rich white girls. That was a strawman you made up out of whole cloth.
That was meant more as a general statement to all the people who are up in arms about this but were jerking themselves off when it happened to musk a while back.
I guess a workaround for the guy posting the data (if he is forced to stop) would be to instead just post the distance traveled and CO2 emissions for every flight. That’s still shaming her for being an environmental asshole while avoiding issues with stalkers or whatever their defense is.
As an activist tool, a simple ‘miles flown’ counter would do it without the ‘creepy’ facet of knowing her general whereabouts at all times.
Of course, as a more mundane person without a private plane or cash to fly much, anyone who cares to know what airport I’m closest to just knows the answer is almost always the one nearest my home city… So in a sense I have no more privacy than Swift, since this only lets you know what airport she last left from and presumably is closest to, which is vague enough to describe 99% of my time just by sitting still.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.