I wonder how much we’re going to hear about the poor person who got shot in the head right behind him, or if they’re just incidental margin notes in history, overshadowed by the big WWE media theater that is Trump. Reports are saying at least two crowd members have died.
edit: the family of the victim has given an update that Trump hasn’t even attempted to reach out to them. And also, the guy was an avid nutcase, nazi and racist. The world won’t be worse-off, we can sleep easy.
Oh Trump will absolutely bring them up at every single rally to froth up the crowd. Because he may be the martyr they care about the most, but the martyrs who actually died will be great ammunition (I can’t think of a more appropriate word, sorry) to rile up the crowd.
That is assuming there is another rally, and today’s incident wasn’t just the catalyst for a Jan 6 sequel. Knowing his supporters, I’m not holding my breath, unfortunately.
Considering the number of people here claiming this was Trump staging a false flag, I am absolutely certain there are a similarly large number of people on the right saying this was Biden trying to assassinate Trump and something must be done. So I hope not.
Unfortunately, the number is likely going to be a lot higher.
I’m pretty sure a lot of the people here are (or at least me) are being joking/sarcastic about the false flag conspiracy. For us Lemmings, there’s no emotional stake in these events, whereas his supporters will be angered over anyone even attempting to kill their fascist idol…
I’m pretty sure a lot of the people here are (or at least me) are being joking/sarcastic about the false flag conspiracy.
I’m not sure of that at all, especially when emotions are running high.
I’m not absolutely discounting the possibility they they somehow found some schlub to die in a fake assassination attempt, but I’m also not going to come up with conspiracy theories until there’s been some time to go over evidence and analyze the situation.
I’m also not going to come up with conspiracy theories until there’s been some time to go over evidence and analyze the situation.
Respect for that. It’s a reasonable and rational response to today’s series of events, despite the temptations of role-playing as a conspiracy theorist to escape from having to think about the hypothetical consequences of said events.
Republicans have blamed Joe Biden for the attempted assassination tonight, accusing the president of whipping up opposition to Donald Trump.
JD Vance, who is one of the frontrunners to be Trump’s running mate, said: “Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs.”
“That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination,” he added.
Mike Collins, a Republican congressman from Georgia, said: “The Republican District Attorney in Butler County, PA, should immediately file charges against Joseph R. Biden for inciting an assassination.”
All I’m hearing is that they think Biden told the truth and used the power the Heritage Foundation SCOTUS explicitly gave him, and now they’re inexplicably butthurt about it.
Would some variant of "snauk(t)" or "snaught" work for you? Your brain might be expecting ablaut in the style of "teach" / "taught" or "catch" / "caught" rather than that of "sing" / "sung".
How do you feel about "(p)reached"? "Snaked"?
A fun fact about "caught" is that it's a relative neologism. It uh, caught on after people decided they didn't like "catched" for whatever reason. (I guess it has something to do with tangibility / concreteness. Most other -atch words are used for objects.)
If only a very small handful of people make the same mistake, it doesn’t evolve the language, it’s just a mistake, plain and simple.
I know you’re just trying to make yourself feel a wee bit morally superior by saying that, but it’s the complete opposite of how language evolution works
People have varying degrees of ability to understand outside of what they know, what is “good enough” for you might be incomprehensible to someone else.
Fun fact, ‘cost’ is a regular verb in Canadian English. Infering from the lemmy.ca instance, the comment op might be a Canadian, which means the usage of ‘costed’ is correct.
I am Canadian, and I was taught Cost as past tense in school and university. I’ve never seen it written Costed for past tense in any government publication either.
LMAO AS FUCKING IF. Rich people aren’t capable of feeling any sort of empathy-adjacent emotions. If you’re rich and think you can feel empathy there are two possible scenarios at play;
a) You’re wrong about being rich
b) You’re wrong about feeling empathy
You can buy Bentley’s for a couple of thousand and if you’re a car guy can maintain them pretty ok. I’ve got a friend with one and I can assure you he’s not in the slightest bit considered “rich”
Good question. I haven’t got an answer for that. We could start off by pruning off the top; anyone with a net worth above a billion can’t possibly have earned that kind of money. 900 million is just as unlikely.
A modicum of luck obviously plays a part as well; Facebook for example started off as a fairly innocuous website for ranking the attractiveness of university students; poor in taste and judgement but hardly evil. That’s not exactly where we are today, is it? Have you read about how facebook treats its content moderation team? Ol’ Zucky is responsible for that and so much more.
There’s only so much you can earn through hard work and good luck before you’ll start having to make unethical and evil choices to keep raking in the cash. Rich people don’t need or deserve any empathy, because they won’t have any for you.
Lol you think people on the internet work with relative variables scales.it’s always extremist far reaching opposites and it’s always a binary choice from each end of the scale.
That’s some dehumanizing rhetoric you got going there bro. Poor are just as unempathetic, middle class the same. It’s not a money problem it’s a human problem.
Charity = | = to empathy. I live in an area where I can go 15 min either direction and meet up with poorer families. The hatred they spew for certain groups of people is mind boggling
Amazing how it’s all so easily wrapped up and explained away (lol, only in your own mind) when you simply completely ignore the circumstances and systems that create a situation like you describe…
You have to remember, in leftist culture it’s socially acceptable to be prejudiced and rude about rich people. I see this daily in online threads, people need something/someone to ralley against.
One example of this is you can’t be racist about Germans, french or Americans but god forbid you say similar things about an African nation.
You’re not missing anything it’s just pedantry regarding the wording of xenophobia/racism. They were used incorrectly but I think you knew exactly what I meant.
For example in western culture mocking a German accent will raise less eyebrows than mocking a Zimbabwe accent for example. Whether this is because of wealth or another reason is up for discussion though.
That act is not racist or xenophobic but will probably be described as a noun which isn’t coming to me now. But that’s not necessarily important to the point I’m making
This is only tangibly related to your comment, but even before you get the unemphatic part, the regressive taxes alone set rich people apart from poor people. If you make enough money have to pay taxes at the lowest bracket in the US it’s 10% taxes with minimum $22k a year income. That is $2200 a year, which is a crazy amount for them to be able afford when someone in the highest tax bracket is paying 37% and it doesn’t start until $578k for a single filing. That’s about $214k in taxes with about $364k left over to be as empathetic as they want to be with it. It would take the person who is paying 10% in taxes 16.5 years just to make what the person who is making half a million a year makes AFTER TAXES!
It’s very hard for either group to be empathetic to the other, but for vastly different reasons.
I am very bad at public math if anyone sees a glaring issue.
I agree with your sentiment but that’s not how taxes work… Only the money after 578k is at taxed at 37%… So the first 22k is taxed as 10% even if you make a billion dollars.
How is that proving my point any less? You are absolutely right those fucking billionaires way more than $578k every day and yet the person who pays at 10% is going to feel that tax burden so much more than someone making a million dollars!
No I refuse to sink to that level of ignorance. That’s how you get Gazas happening, seeing people as not people. Any sweeping generalization of any group of people is inherently wrong. Saying all rich are unempathetic and not human is fucking wild and if you can’t see what wrong with that rhetoric then yikes
Mill very well expresses the essence of the matter in the form of a concept by characterising money as the medium of exchange. The essence of money is not, in the first place, that property is alienated in it, but that the mediating activity or movement, the human, social act by which man’s products mutually complement one another, is estranged from man and becomes the attribute of money, a material thing outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself, he is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised; the relation itself between things, man’s operation with them, becomes the operation of an entity outside man and above man. Owing to this alien mediator – instead of man himself being the mediator for man – man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator had value only insofar as it represented them. This reversal of the original relationship is inevitable. This mediator is therefore the lost, estranged essence of private property, private property which has become alienated, external to itself, just as it is the alienated species-activity of man, the externalised mediation between man’s production and man’s production. All the qualities which arise in the course of this activity are, therefore, transferred to this mediator. Hence man becomes the poorer as man, i.e., separated from this mediator, the richer this mediator becomes.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR; and “I don’t care what they say, I know that Mitch didn’t do that” isn’t exactly a solid argument to be basing things on.
Edit: I seem to have missed this on my first read:
Jennifer said she thinks somebody “didn’t like what he had to say” and wanted to “shut him up” without it coming back to anyone"…“That’s why they made it look like a suicide,”
I’m never surprised to hear something bad about Boeing, but this is just a woman convinced with, on the face of it, no other proof than what’s in her own head. Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
And he said, ‘No, I ain’t scared, but if anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.’
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Unless she’s got a recording or document, the article’s title could have been, “Family friend tells reporter a story”
Yeah, it won’t hold up in court, and neither would it if she had recorded this casual, intimate conversation between two old friends.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
I’m not any defender of corporations, by any means, but I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who “needed help one day” any more than some corporate HR;
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
He pretty much said “I think something may happen to me and they will make it look like a suicide.”
Did he state that somewhere else? Admittedly I haven’t been following the story too closely so I may have missed something there; but if he isn’t documented saying that somewhere credible, then all we have is her claiming that he “pretty much said” that. Is it likely he said it? I mean, I’d definitely be saying it if I was in his shoes, but one family friend’s claim isn’t enough to convince me that this should have been published as it was. I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact.
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
Here’s to hoping
You sure have a lot more faith in corporations than I do…
I probably don’t, I’m just trying to present an argument with throwing on more layers of personal bias
Maybe, though, it’s enough to get the coroner to take another look at his death.
He’s a high profile corporate whistleblower who allegedly committed suicide. Any coroner who isn’t already triple checking everything is way too corrupt or lazy to bother with another look.
The coroner is going to call it as suicide. This isn’t remotely a debate to me. If it is suicide it goes away. If it is murder it means work for the police and a small annoyance to the powers-that-be. The coroner knows this and knows that if they don’t writer suicide their career is over at best at worst they get Epsteined as well.
This isn’t “I know Mitch didn’t do that”, it’s “he literally told me the specific thing that happened and he wasn’t going to do it”. What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation? Boeing has billions of dollars of motivation, she knew him from family get togethers.
What motivation does she have to just fully make up a conversation?
That’s my point: we have no idea. We have no information other than that her and Barnett’s mothers are best friends and that he was a pallbearer at her father’s funeral. She could be a well educated individual that is doing her best to make a point and draw attention to something, or she could be someone who believes tons of stuff that is blatantly false and is telling her opinion to anyone who will listen. Either way, (copying from my other comment) I guess this is all more me just trying to voice frustration with the article. Not that it’s unprecedented (maybe even the norm) these days, but it’s always frustrating to see headlines with unsubstantiated claims and discussions ensuing as if it’s fact."
There is literally no other corroboration that could be given, it’s a personal conversation between friends or friendly acquaintances, reported as such. There’s nothing wrong with the article. This is the maximum amount of corroboration for a private conversation (none) and it’s reported as a conversation, with information about the speaker’s relationship and direct quotes. Just because people don’t record their lives in unalterable write-once media doesn’t mean personal conversations simply should never be the subject of reporting. We have headline news stories about US generals’ personal conversations with Trump and his denials, and no one thinks “well, that shouldn’t be reported because either side could be lying and without recording they’re both equally suspicious”.
I’m certain you don’t actually follow a philosophy of “nothing anyone says can ever be given any more credence than anyone else” because it’s an impossible way to live. And whatever high-minded “no one can ever know absolute truth” ideas you have, claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous. On one side you someone whose job is literally to say things to protect a billion dollar company and the other a family friend with nothing to gain talking about a pretty reasonable conversation one might have.
I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there’s a big difference between:
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
and
‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death
I know I’m being pedantic, that it’s just clickbait, and that’s the reality of today’s media; but I’ve spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.
claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.
You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, “I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a “close family friend” who agrees with my point of view than I am a “close family friend” who disagrees with my point of view” or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, “he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself” I’d still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn’t consider her any more credible just because she’s agreeing with me.
There’s a few accounts on these threads that are really determined to remain neutral and open minded about Boeing, I blocked a different one with the same speech pattern recently
Well, I for one think some rogue at Boeing is behind the Epsteining of this guy. The company is definitely run by psychopathic crooks and has been for a while and I hope these fuckers all go to jail and the company fixed before more people die.
Idk about these accounts you blocked… but I am always going to advocate for at least being self-aware of being loosey-goosey with one’s reasoning. Maybe it is compulsion, maybe it is the decades wasted being religious that have led me to detest careless epistemology that leads to specious conclusions. Then again … if COVID taught me nothing, it should have taught me that efforts in this area are probably pointless. I must like swimming upstream. I seem to do it all the time.
My pet theory: Some extra dirty psycho at Boeing probably had him killed. Probably to cover up specifics about themselves. It seems pretty clear Boeing is rotting at the head and has been for decades. All these issues that have come up since MAX are the result of deeply systemic problems, stemming from crooked, greedy psychopaths at the top.
But in the interests of being as rational and honest about this as possible, let’s also not forget that this article is based on her claim, and she’s the only one (so far) to make it. People have been known to seek attention with bullshit. It’s evidence, yeah, is it really unimpeachable? Well…
Think about it like this: if there was a dated and notarized statement in his handwriting saying the same thing that she claims he told her, that would be more trustworthy.
But again, pet theory, some Boeing sicko was covering their own ass by having him Epsteined. Totally plausible.
I don’t think this is the last we will be hearing about this.
Amazing how standards of evidence work. I am a Jesus Mythicist and pretty much all we have to “prove” Jesus was real is one guy saying he meet some unnamed person who had a dream. But here we have a direct eyewitness stating what they heard a week ago and that isn’t good enough.
I’m curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom’s friend’s daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?
I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, “it’s obvious” or “I know” to back it up
I feel the same about the response given that I’m agreeing with everyone’s sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.
Naw, you’re good. Change nothing about yourself. :) You are spot on and you have my upvotes.
Folks are in angry mob mode and can’t be bothered with even a hint of nuance or reason, apparently. Even if you are convinced Boeing totally killed the guy and state that clearly…
Anyway, peace out man. I hope for once corporate scum faces consequences.
I mean they were willing to knowingly keep producing unsafe air planes which lead to several crashes killing 100’s. So yeah, I really wouldn’t be surprised if they also do assassination to ensure their profit.
Friendly reminder that Boeing is not a plucky airline that can’t make safe airplanes, it’s an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions. If I you threaten that arrangement with slander like the truth and facts, they are good friends with people who kill for a living and completely unashamed in paying for their services.
Put another way: there are plenty of people who will eagerly issue death threats, stalk you, and swat you over minor differences in opinion. Think what they would do over serious money.
it’s an AMERICAN MILITARY DEFENSE CONTRACTOR worth billions
Probably one reason why the FAA isn’t immediately shutting Boeing’s shit down, you know when doors fall off their planes mid-flight, and investigations uncover more problems.
It is a corporations fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits over any other things. That obviously includes human lives.
Does a human life have a value to other humans? Yes.
Does a human have a value to a corporation? It has a value and a cost, if the cost is higher than the value of the human then it is a risk to the value of the company and can be liquidated.
Hint: it involves maximising profits while endangering people, to the extent that Boeing is literally assassinating witnesses so the extent of how recklessly they endangered lives for profit wouldn’t come out.
Did anybody honestly think they were gonna do something to them? There was a whole reason while there were marches for police accountability, BLM, and racism during covid.
Hey, give them a break! They work a dangerous job and just want to go home every day! Never mind that they’re not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs, or that they’ve willingly signed up to put their lives on the line. No, they just want to go home at night donchaknow!
When you’re a cop, you can be both persecuted and persecutor. If only we could harness the power of their flip flopping to generate electricity, the police would finally do more good than harm.
Didn’t you read their quote? They didn’t go in not because they were cowards who shirked their duty, it was because they didn’t have a bulletproof shield
Clearly we just need to keep arming the police until the protection trickles down
Although the general education classes like psychology and sociology are annoying, they’re all essential knowledge for being an educated human being. It’s a shame Florida wants their population to be ignorant conservatives.
Margaret Goldwater advocated for birth control and reproductive rights in the United States during the twentieth century. Goldwater was a socialite and philanthropist and was married to Barry Goldwater, US Senator from Arizona. She spent much of her life working to further the women’s reproductive rights movement, which sought to expand women’s legal, social, and physical access to reproductive healthcare, including contraception and abortions.
Barry Goldwater was considered the father of the modern conservative movement; his wife’s work would likely result in his excommunication from today’s Republican Party.
I feel like Conservatism USED to be “How can we save money and prepare for a better financial future as a country/state/etc.?”…
No, that’s always been nothing more than a lie conservatives tell to try to excuse their abhorrent policies.
What conservatism really used to be was defending the monarchy, and it still is. I was going to say “…and the only thing that’s changed is that they no longer try to use ‘divine right’ as a justification and prefer a different title for the autocrat in charge,” but nope!
Every conservative I know I have tricked into defending the British at the Boston Massacre and at the Boston Tea Party. Just don’t drop the name of the event and they will go nuts. Kids throwing snowballs at police? No wonder they got shot, they asked for it. A mob breaking into private property and destroying commercial goods? That’s not a protest that’s a riot, someone should have put the dogs down!
classes like psychology and sociology are annoying
It’s a bummer that you had that experience. Mine were absolutely fascinating. That said, my school had some flagship social science departments, so the people that instructed there were not the b-team.
If a university doesn’t have a good program in a particular discipline, good people don’t want to work there, and the current staff often don’t have the expertise to hire for it.
They’re alright classes. I enjoyed the professors I had but I feel like the majority of people want to speed through the GEs and get going on their actual major classes.
I remember writing a research paper on roe v wade not to long ago. Thought it would be an easy paper that’s kind of socially acceptable and not at all controversial. Found out that conservatives do wild shit like kill doctors and harass rape victims. I hate society.
The quality of an overall department and the quality of classes taken by non-majors to fulfill degree requirements are two different things. For example, my university has a great architecture school, but that didn’t stop the “history of industrial design” class I took to fulfill my art requirement (as an engineering major) from being mostly an exercise in memorizing pictures of chairs.
English comp at RIT back when it was trimesters. I’ll never understand. Not a technical writing class or shutting that could really benefit a tech heavy student base. English comp freshman year. Miserable.
Thankfully I transferred in and didn’t have to take miserable English courses by a tech focused University. The technical writing course I had to take at RIT was easy mode. The guy gave us all of the homework for the entire quarter on the first day and as long as it was all turned in before then, that was ok. It was a required class that I personally did not need due to my previous education and I don’t think I spent more than a few hours total to get an A.
Yeah i desperately needed a technical writing course at that age. I was a hot mess. I most certainly didn’t need an English comp class where i was actually required to turn in one of those awful black and white composition pads at the end to pass. I hard noped and took it the next trimester with a bunch of upper class kids who needed it and it was a walk in the park.
It was a shame that a lot of classes at RIT could be really hit or miss depending on the professor. I graduated before they went to semesters, and you had no time to be sick, lost, or behind. I tried to sign up for an extra class every quarter so I could have the option to withdraw from one of them and still be full time. Knowing when to withdraw, especially not waiting until the last minute, was a lesson I wished I knew that first year I was there.
Technical writing is very much not the same as general English composition, and I always hated it when schools lump it together. To this day I still work with people who don’t even know where to start. Having a bunch of robotics engineers balk at having to write documentation about their own designs blew my mind. It wasn’t even the manuals, just general design and functional specifications. Less than 10 pages, half of them pictures. I was nice and made the skeleton for them with some notes on what information I needed in which sections. Hopefully, they learned from it.
Did your university have a good industrial design or product design department? Industrial design is very very different than architecture. (I went to school for industrial design and instructed university courses in the department)
Interesting. Bummer that you got a shit class. Mine GE history glass was pretty good, and it got into the different design movements, what drove them, and how they impacted industrialization, usability, accessibility, and other elements of contemporary life.
Sociology sure, I don’t know about the intro to psychology experience of ‘hey check out all these famous theories, paradigms, and experiments. At least half of which are largely disproven or under serious doubt but we wont say which.’
Depends on the school and professor I guess. My intro to psych class made it clear how much older paradigms are, basically, just flights of fancy, however there is a foundation of moving towards a system of discovery and diagnoses that was important, instead of literally super natural explanations. With new stuff they went over how difficult it is to create solid proofs and the reasons why. They also would do what they could to make sure we understood why they came to the conclusions they did and the short comings of those reasons and practices.
i would add to this that early conceptualizations of psychology have had massive cultural impacts. if you enjoy art, film, literature from the last century and change, it’s worth knowing about Freud and Jung.
their ideas represent an evolution of thinking about people, their minds, their relationships to others and to their environment or to god, but they also underpin so much we take for granted at present in popular culture and day-to-day conversation (at least in “the west”).
Yes, didn’t want a wall of text explaining all the context the course provided about the different times and now. The roots of it are clearly what we would now consider quackery. However the simple foundational idea that there is something identifiable, explainable, and maybe curable was revolutionary. This was in a time when explanations ran from miasma to demonic possession. So it is worth knowing about for the historical perspective, I totally agree. I was just more sorta shocked there are professors still telling people that our scientific body is the ultimate facts on the matter.
Yeah much better, ‘hey check out a half century of our field producing mostly bullshit, this is a good use of your time.’
My point being if you can’t put together a full 1 term curriculum of “here are the fundamentals of our field that we are sure or 99% sure about” then maybe its not a productive use of time to require every single college student spend a class on it.
If you want a history of pseudoscience class then have a history of pseudoscience class.
Well I am sorry that you see no value in understanding how the thing you are studying came to be. However, the majority of people do. Literally every subject I learned did this.
I don’t remember chemistry 101 being 70% about alchemy and phlogiston. This is almost exclusively a phenomenon with intro psychology classes.
If you want to study it fine whatever but there’s no reason it should be a standard GE requirement instead of something like philosophy of science, international relations, genocide studies, etc.
You went to a very different school than I did. We absolutely learned about the development of chemistry in introductory courses. Same with mathematics, physics, etc. This even included getting into how they co-developed. There was a deeper dive into in the liberal arts because it’s it is more important, as they are less mechanical, but STEM definitely got into the basic history of the subject.
yeah, honestly, if you zoom out summary level, the whole thing is so confusing.
I’ll admit I wasn’t paying attention, so high-level he seemed like a Tony Stark, liberal darling: investing in space, internet access, electric cars, and solar. I mean, the dude was set to be a left-wing mascot. Boy was I an idiot. But I admit I wasn’t paying close attention to any early flags.
Honestly, same. I liked him up till he called that dude a pedo for saving those kids before he could. He seemed cool up till then for the most part then holy shit did he nosedive.
Literally all he had to do was to shut the fuck up and let his companies make infinite money for him. But no, he’s got to have his own personal face in the news. Now here we are, Musk is one of the most hated people on the planet and every single one of his businesses are tanking into the lithosphere.
It would be a lesson on hubris if he was capable of self reflection.
Yeah, apparantly there was shit before the pedo thing but it wasn’t super widely known? To me, and many like me, he was just this shitposter running companies that seemed like they might really do cool shit like self driving cars and taking us to mars.
He was on track for that for sure. But he had two crippling flaws: anti union, and ego obsessed jackass.
The first is obvious how it went down. We like unions, he’s deep in the Californian ideology that caused conflict and he rejected the left aspects of that ideology because of what appears to be a lack of emotional regulation. And that’s where the second comes into play here. It’s also partly because the left is vicious. We kill our heroes to an unhealthy degree.
All that aside, they’ve also been floundering lately and lacking in any substantial new developments. Self driving isn’t really progressing, their line-up hasn’t seen any refreshes, no new features, and all they have to show for it is a Cybertruck with a bunch of issues and delays that probably wasn’t going to sell well to begin with.
A fallible state institution that has made many documented mistakes in the past is still given the power to murder prisoners who are in its custody and under its protection. It’s barbarous.
America is hellbent on the concept of punishing criminals over rehabilitation while also having an objectively unfair justice system. The cruelty is the point sometimes, and it’s very unfortunate that people still think this way.
The Lethal Injection idea was from interviewing a veterinarian who of course refused to implement it, as did every Medical Doctor in the USA because of fucking course nobody would touch breaking the oath in such a way with a ten foot pole. The result is a bunch of untrained amateurs carrying out the procedures and an extremely low success rate leading to unjust and unnecessary pain and trauma.
I imagine all the other methods they come up with to follow a similar series of events.
Idk if so many people remember this now, but watching him on Crossfire absolutely shut them down was so satisfying. Then the show just happens to get cancelled not long after for ‘unrelated reasons’, like they didn’t get destroyed and quit in shame.
Oh yes I remember that fondly. Crazy to think that bumbling bow-tie dipshit would go on to have one of the biggest conservative followings and basically be a Kremlin mouthpiece. Fuck Carlson.
I don’t think Zelensky is a good example of anything lol his government has been the most right-wing and authoritarian government in Ukraine in recent memory. They banned all left-wing parties for goodness sake….
Those of us who remember the Orange Revolution understand the incredible political attack that Ukraine has been under for decades. Russia has expended unprecedented expenditure understanding democracy in order to develop mechanisms to undermine it.
It’s extremely unfortunate the reality in which former Soviet states exist. While it’s distasteful, it’s certainly necessary given a reality that westerners barely understand… Which is kind of shocking to me given the outcome of Jan 6.
I think when the war is over, it would be appropriate for him to not even run. Hard men make hard decisions when under existential threat. I’m glad Ukraine had a Churchill when Ukraine needed a Churchill… But when that time comes for a peacetime leader, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t the right man in the right place at the right time.
It is from a position of privilege and ignorance that we criticize the necessary actions of wartime leaders.
You think necessary actions is absorbing and legitimising far-right and Nazi militias? Literally banning and arresting left-wing activists? Kidnapping men in the middle of the night to conscript them? Bombing indiscriminately civilians on the East? Bro fuck off.
Churchill was a genocidal racist maniac btw, if he’s your idea of a hero, I understand where you’re coming from. And again, bro fuck right the fuck off.
I think there’s room for “Churchill was instrumental in the fight against fascism” and “Churchill was himself racist and enacted racist policies that lead to genocide” to coexist.
In the context of a good faith conversation, I agree.
When people are bending over backwards to intentionally push well-defined buttons to drive state-level propaganda, I do not.
It’s so incredibly well crafted, this doofuses original post. He argues that Zelenski is a nightmare to the Left-wing.
Why? Because it’s a position and delivery crafted to the general Lemmy populace. “I’m left wing! Is Zelensky against me? Should I be reconsidering my position? Am I against Ukraine, because I’m certainly for left-wing stuff”
It’s nausiatingly transparent propaganda. Ever meter of Ukraine under Russian occupation, it is illegal to even SUGGEST that LGBT is good, it’s ILLEGAL to merely express POSITIVE SENTIMENT. While we can agree in Ukraine it isn’t perfect, it’s NOT EVEN CLOSE to the oppression in Russia.
There is nuance that adults in good faith can examine. The FBI investigation into Russian interference in US elections pointed out that the EXACT vulnerability in western sensibilities that their propeganda exploits is the concept that every assertion warrants a discussion. Just cycle wedge issues. Drop in, drop a bomb, fuck off.
It’s entirely appropriate to just say “No, you’re clearly a bad faith actor and I’m not going to give the illusion of legitimacy of your claims by digging into the nuances with you”
You really seem misinformed. Wagner has more association with nazism. Even Putin’s right-hand man, his modern Rasputin if you will, is a literal dyed-in-the-wool neo-nazi who wrote the plans Putin is literally carrying out.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is of no difference than Hitler’s justification to invade Poland “for ethnic Germans.”
At the end of the day, the Jewish leader Zelenskyy who lost family in the Holocaust, disrupted the sockpuppetry that was originally taking place in Ukraine. As the war continued, the remnants of corruption have continued to be weeded out, though still some remain.
You really seem misinformed. There are Nazis in Russia, nobody said there weren’t. But Russia didn’t absorb the Nazis into their government and state apparatus, gave them leadership positions in ministries etc.
And Nazi Germany invaded Poland because of Lebensraum, basically German Manifest Destiny. Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO and the color revolution in 2014.
Yes Russia did, what are you smoking? I just told you Putin’s right-hand man is a nazi. You just ignored that conveniently lol. RT, the Kremlin mouthpiece, spouts nazi propaganda on the daily.
What absorption of nazism in Ukraine are you talking about and when, specifically?
No, Russia didn’t even Ukraine “because NATO,” considering Ukraine wasn’t in NATO and intentionally didn’t join to stop Russian aggression. Yet Russia did so anyway.
Ironically the DEFENSIVE Alliance that is NATO would’ve saved many lives of women and children from the brutal Russian invasion because Russia knows they’d get demolished by NATO.
You are clearly drinking far too much Russian vodka, my friend.
Finally, please learn your history regarding WWII:
Hitler sought to use this as casus belli, a reason for war, reverse the post-1918 territorial losses, and on many occasions had appealed to German nationalism, promising to “liberate” the German minority still in the Corridor, as well as Danzig.
But you’re right: this was just a convenient excuse. Just as Russia is using it as a convenient excuse for their own sort of Lebensraum, basically Russian Manifest Destiny. Or wait – did you not read Putin’s 5,000 word essay where he spells this out…?
In America we have an arguably bigger base of right-wing nazi extremists. The Base, Oathkeepers, 3%ers, Proud Boys, etc.
… And you know what? If someone invaded our country that may actually be the only time my bleeding heart leftist would share a fox hole with them out of common goals.
That doesn’t make USA a nazi state lol. But of course, let’s not pretend this was ever a legitimate argument by Russia in the first place.
Assuming you’re talking about the Azov Batallion, if you are fighting a war for your country’s survival and you have a rabid band of ethnonationalists, who clearly suck in terms of their views and beliefs, but are otherwise willing to die to protect your country, why wouldn’t you let them?
… I’m talking about right-sector, azov, national corps etc. They were brought into leadership and legitimized as part of the national guard and army. That is inexcusable. You would really side with Nazis to defend “your country”? After the war is over, Ukraine will become an ultra-right wing state. The state apparatus will have been completely overtaken by these militias and groups.
That’s like saying the UK should’ve legitimized and absorbed the British Fascist Party during WW2, made Oswald Mosley the minister of defense (which was done in Ukraine…) etc. That’s insane, but it does show how you liberals see the world. Scratch a liberal etc etc
Azov et. al., literally make up <1% of the total UAF. lol what are you talking about? These people just have a common enemy and it’s all-hands-on-deck to oust the foreign invader. The same thing even happened in WWII America when pro-Nazi sects of our society took up arms against Japan.
Yeah it’s no way the timing of Trump was an accident. He literally ran before when Jon was still working and was laughed off the stage. Then Jon retired…
I think Jon would be great as president. Definitely better than our current options. But if he was done with the Daily Show (and even if he never left) I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he didn’t want the actual job of being president.
It’s not that cruel. I get what you’re saying and agree a little. But if drafted into the job, I think he’d be proud to serve his country and the world.
I think it’s not just the main part of the job he doesn’t want. He doesn’t want to be the center of the media storm. He doesn’t want his years of testicle jokes to end up harming the country. He doesn’t want the job of begging for the job.
And the main job would be a duty he’d serve, not a fulfillment of a lifelong dream.
If the circumstances are right, I’d consider writing him in. If there wasn’t a more important vote. Honestly I should have done it when I lived in Maryland.
What Zelenskyy did, his career trajectory I mean, is nothing short of… well, the sitcom fiction he wrote himself. A good one, btw— it’s called Servant of the People. It’s on Netflix. He’s hilarious. And that may be the most fucked up part: he seemingly predicted all of this (to some degree) in the form of, honestly, a pretty hilarious sitcom that got cancelled before the 3rd season started production because it fucking came true.
It’s not a direct A:B comparison of reality, but it’s uncannily close— also, proof that Ukraine is perfectly capable of making a delightfully funny politically-oriented sitcom for streaming. Well, until the guy became president and globally-beloved war daddy. Nonetheless, it’s bizarre how it coincided with, or perhaps provoked, real-word events that led to him becoming a popularly-elected anti-corruption president against all of the “influence” Russia could throw at the elections.
And he’s lived up to all of his promises. He spent the first pert of his presidency cleaning house, something he’s kept doing, even after meeting deep parliamentary resistance. Fucker has stood up to Trump’s attempts to extort him, over which Trump got impeached, btw. Like… holy shit! World leaders from far greater nations have melted in front of US presidents. Not this guy. After the Russians invaded, something nobody expected a comedian to have the temerity to face, he, in no uncertain terms - with a raised middle finger to Putin - has become one of the most inspiring world leaders of the 21st-century.  not only his people, but people all over the world fucking love him.  More importantly, they respect him. 
Maybe it’s time for a state to start a nonprofit insurance fund? Insurance companies exist only for profit, which is antithetical to the point of insurance.
Well some states already have that for example Citizens in FL. Everyone who buys property insurance has to pay into it to cover people who own property in places that nobody in their right mind would insure for wind. Some states only allow work comp through the state or the state competes with private insurers as well. But given the political climate in like half of states I’m not sure how you expect that will really be better. Private insurers are definitely looking for profit but when the state steps in it’s not like rates are going to be dirt cheap, or if they are just just going to be paid by tax increases instead. Home and property insurance is hella expensive in some areas because it costs a lot of money to constantly rebuild people’s buildings and auto insurance is hella expensive because people buy hella expensive cars then drive like fuckin maniacs, and medical costs are outrageous. If they state handles the insurance you’re still gonna have to pay for your insurance and you’re still gonna have to subsidizebstupid people who drive like idiots and whatnot, but you have Ron DeSantis siphoning funds instead of CEO bonuses and golden parachutes.
This doesn't address the core issue, that the math simply doesn't work in several places. Even ignoring profit, at the very least, you have to balance your payouts with your premium revenue, and if your payouts are so high that premiums must be higher than what people can afford, then you're toast.
Or you invoke government subsidies, in which case it's essentially a tax to subsidize people's poor decision making. At the end of the day, living in an area extremely prone to fires or flooding has real costs, and either somebody pays them, whether that be the individual, an insurance pool, or the government, or you simply stop incurring the cost by moving somewhere else (there's a strong argument for some amount of government assistance here)
I’m not suggesting we stop at nonprofit insurance. We can use the data so states can determine regions that are unfit for human habitation, which will become necessary due to climate change. A state-ran insurance could still have risk pools as well for matters like house and car insurance, without nonsense like charging charging more for owners of red cars.
I mean, there's no mystery here. You can literally just look at the regions that home insurers have been pulling out of to get a pretty good start. This data already exists. Collecting and processing that data is literally the primary thing that insurance companies do.
If a company whose sole purpose is extracting every bit of profit they can is deciding that insuring an area is not feasible, that probably says something. The inevitable, but obviously unpopular, answer is that there are some places where people moving there need to do so at their own risk, because it's not fair for them to throw these fundamentally unnecessary high costs on other people. Minus a small adjustment to account for how state insurance doesn't need profit and so can operate at zero margin, the structure of the insurance doesn't really make a difference here.
I don’t think that there is an inherent link between profit and safety, so I’m hesitant to call their data useful for determining where a place is safe to live. Maybe useful for determining risk pools, but not for determining safety. There are places that should not be habitated, but it shouldn’t be determined by capital interests.
This isn't about safety - those places are safe to live most of the time, and the weather predictions are very good at giving you a week notice to get out before the exceptions.
It is just too expensive to have buildings in those areas. Nobody builds a house that can be moved away from those areas in a week. Thus if you live there you need to account for the costs of rebuilding your house every few years when the weather destroys it. Or you need to build a house that can survive the weather - I don't know how expensive that would be.
I don't care if you want to live in those places, but I do not want to subsidize your housing if you choose to live there. Come move closer to me if you don't like it. (note that there are other risks living close to me)
What you’re describing is the reason risk pools exist. Someone in a high risk pool pays a higher premium, and there is no reason that couldn’t exist with gov run insurance. Personally, I imagine something like 3 major natural disaster claims in 5 years before a higher premium, and 10 natural disaster claims in 10 years to be declared unfit for habitation. After the 3rd claim in 5 years, claimants can accept a payout equivalent to average cost of a safer regional house under the condition to vacate the area
Good actuary science needs to figure out people who while they haven't yet had a claim still belong in the ultra high risk group. There are houses all over in hurricane areas that have never been hit in 150 years, while not too far away some other land was hit several times - this is random chance.
Sorry, but I’m not willing to formulate a major piece of legislation for a discussion on the Internet. I’m aware that something like what I’m describing requires a lot of detail and needs to handle edge cases that I don’t even know exist at the moment
I'm not talking about raw safety. I'm referring to the situation where the average costs a resident of the area will incur due to environmental damage surpasses the amount an average person is willing to pay in insurance premiums. In these kinds of areas, insurance in inherently unworkable, regardless of profit seeking or not (again, minus a minor adjustment in margins)
In these places, you can either add in external subsidies to make the numbers work, which is bound to be unpopular with the people having to pay extra money to support people choosing to incur unnecessary costs, or you can accept that there is no workable insurance scheme in the area that and residents must take account of their own risks. There's no real way around this basic reality.
People moving into areas of high risk are only a tiny portion of the problem. The existing owners, and their kids, are already too much risk for a lot of places. Hundreds of thousands of retiree’s already live in beach front condos that have been there for 30 years or more, and they have no way to move. There are millions more in similar places, that just have to accept whatever happens to them, because they have no resources to move, and a fixed or non existent income.
That problem is going to be the biggest one when dealing with climate change as a species. Moving hundreds of millions of people, who can’t afford to move, to places that don’t want them to move there. Interspersed with random natural catastrophes causing horrible loss of lives and resources.
You're absolutely right. This is a problem that requires some amount of direct government assistance. Beachfront housing is significantly more costly than people think it is and than it used to be, and it's only going to get worse. If you can't afford regular repairs after storms (or if a collectively relevant insurance pool can't), you can't afford to live there, and for people who are already there and can't afford to easily get out, some government assistance is more than warranted.
Replace climate with war and this is how refugee groups have lived for centuries. Life doesn’t always work out, bad choices can have very long timelines and there’s likely zero way to bail everyone out, even with the most altruistic of motives.
Bailing them out might not work at scale but ensuring they have somewhere to live when things get too hot, literally and metaphorically speaking, is feasible and will prevent the negative consequences of millions of displaced people.
I have always thought that the people you are talking about should be able to get insurance, maybe even at a reasonable rate, but if/when a natural disaster occurs the insurance payout should be for a property/place not in a high risk zone rather than rebuilding, and that land should then be disallowed for human habitation.
Basically a compromise of sorts. I’m sure someone will tell me why I’m wrong though, lol.
In some places that’s exactly what has been done. Usually the government uses eminent domain on the land rather than allow reconstruction. The problem being the cost. Most cities and states would have nowhere near enough money to move a fraction of the homes in danger, or even pay for their relocation when they’re destroyed.
without nonsense like charging charging more for owners of red cars.
You understand that there’s nothing about the paint that makes red cars more prone to claims, but rather the drivers predominately that select red cars statistically have higher claims. If you’re a generally safe driver, is there a reason that you would want to subsidize someone who is statistically a less safe driver?
For a few reasons. It’s not easy to determine the difference between a streak of bad luck and a bad driver. I also don’t think that people should go bankrupt because of an accident, regardless of fault. I believe that people will feel more responsible if they have a sense of collective responsibility through mutual funding.
It’s not easy to determine the difference between a streak of bad luck and a bad driver.
You seem to be arguing that drivers of red cars statistically have worse luck. Statistics doesn’t deal in luck, only results. If red cars cost more to insure (and we both acknowledge there nothing in paint pigment that can cause this) then it is a behavior of the drivers that choose these cars. That does seem like a good reason to not penalize safer drivers that don’t drive red cars. Also, realistically we’re talking about one tiny input into the actuarial tables that go into pricing insurance premiums for drivers. Red paint is probably way lower than other more important factors such as the complexity of repairs necessary for like accidents or the individual driver’s previous driving history.
I also don’t think that people should go bankrupt because of an accident, regardless of fault.
How is a person going bankrupt is if they’re insured? Their future premiums will can certainly go up, but that’s not a bankruptcy event.
I believe that people will feel more responsible if they have a sense of collective responsibility through mutual funding.
Perhaps in some cultures, but certainly not in the USA. If anything socializing the losses creates less feeling of responsibility because the person committing the act only suffers a tiny fraction of the consequences.
They still have to be driven by basic math. You slim the margins a bit by not needing to generate profit, but the situation hasn't fundamentally changed.
Being from BC the basic car insurance is a non profit Provincial run scheme. All vehicles on the road need this basic insurance. They also manage rules, regulations, and other safety requirements for the Province.
Then extra coverage can be bought from the government agency or from private providers. The government is covering for all the bad drivers and then dealing with all the scammers while the private providers then cherry pick the best drivers for the extra coverage.
Insurance is expensive and there are the usual cries to make it private so it will be much cheaper!
I’ve lived in other Provinces where it’s a private scheme. They are very expensive for new drivers, and those that have problematic issues can’t afford to get insurance making it harder on those that have it and become tangled up with these uninsured drivers. This affects the good drivers eventually too. Most insurance works this way as it is.
Does it actually cover anything? I haven’t looked into it but my knee-jerk reaction is that it’s very simple and doesn’t cover anything important, especially anything having to do with climate change.
Florida here. They have adequate coverage, but there are caps in some extra options or high-end tell estate. The bigger issue is that all the other instance agencies are pulling out of the state so Citizens (the state insurance) is having to cover more and more to the point that the state is just one direct hurricane hit away from insolvency.
Insurance companies are required to pay out all but 15% as it is, so really, that’s the most it could save, and since a new governing body to handle claims would have to exist, it would require at least 5% to pay staff, so that cuts it down to saving maybe 10 at best over an insurance company.
Right now the nation is supplementing states that have higher storm damage. People living at those rich coastal states that get hit by these storms are paying less than their risk and causing the rest of the nation to pay higher rates because the insurance companies aren’t allowed to charge places like Florida more.
In other words, if insurance went state to state, places like Oklahoma and Missouri would save money due to the lower risk, but places like Florida would have to pay out more than they currently are or the state would lose money in payouts.
So insurance companies wanting to charge Florida and California more isn’t really going to make the insurance companies more money a year. They’re still locked at having to pay out 85% of what they take in to their insured customers. It would actually mean that the insurance company wouldn’t have to inflate prices they charge to all the rest of the country in order to supplement the customer’s they have in the states in high damage areas. I’d be all for it, since I don’t live in a warm state with a beach. It’s not right that I don’t get a day trip to the ocean, but I have to pay the higher insurance rates for the people who do.
That isn’t even the problem here, IMO. The teacher is entitled to that very stupid opinion. I had, and I’m sure you had, plenty of teachers with very stupid opinions. In general, that’s allowed.
What they are not allowed to do is threaten a student.
We realize that, but in America you become a police officer for one of two reasons: you actually believe they are the good guys (lmao) or you want to abuse power over people and fuck around in a fast car.
I’m sure you can guess who 90% of the applicants are.
Northern Europe meanwhile actually has a problem where no one wants to become a cop. Mostly because you’re not allowed to do these things and you get paid more in McDonald’s anyway.
Of course there is still the option of becoming a politician.
My guess is Scandinavians also find ready access to public urinals. In Mississippi this would be a wholly unthinkable expenditure of govt tax funds which are already allocated to a for-profit prison, probably. Mississippi is a third-world state.
Last year I took my daughter to her therapist. She goes after hours. I really had to pee. There was no bathroom in the waiting room and all the other places in the building were closed, so I ran out and peed behind the dumpster. Sometimes you just have to pee.
The party of “patriotism” everyone. This is their guy… the same guy whose defense for trying to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator is “I never said I swore an oath to uphold the constitution”
Not just that, but the ones for whom the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are the beginning, middle, and end of their entire personal identity. They have a section of the Constitution tatooed on their fucking bodies, and they still support a man who would just as soon use the damned thing as toilet paper.
The Second Amendment is so awkwardly worded. You can tell it was initially drafted, then the middle part of the sentence (third line on that guy’s back) added in later.
Anyone who makes one thing^TM^ their entire raison d’etre is always a little… let’s go with off for politeness. But the 2^nd^ Amendment ones are just walking red flags.
If Trump can argue the technicality that he never specifically said “support”, we can argue ths technicality that the 2nd doesn’t specifically say “guns”.
It says the right to “bear arms.” So if I want to graft a pair of cybernetically enhanced black bear arms to my body, I should have the right to do so! (As part of a well organized Bear Arm Militia, of course.)
Except this time, the postal service is involved and it’s illegal to interfere with the mail. It’s a federal offense. State laws do not affect that. So any woman in, say, Texas who gets these pills will be doing so without risk to herself. And now there’s no risk to the doctor either if she gets it from one in California.
“Friend” or family member tipping off police and/or subpoenas for electronic messages are two ways that spring to mind, but those can be prevented if people are vigilant
Exactly, it’s a complete disgrace that people will have to be mindful of this crap just to get the reproductive healthcare they need, but if the government can’t stop a people from transporting big old stinky plants on a regular basis good luck stopping people from delivering a few pills on the occasions when they’re needed
Exactly, and if you have a fundamentalist Christian friend who seems like a nice person (if you volunteer in animal shelters or food banks or the like you run into a lot of these), know that they will get you arrested without a moment’s doubt and just pray extra hard for you while you’re sitting in a jail cell
True, and I am not a lawyer, but I think a judge would be able to issue a warrant if there was reasonable suspicion of a “crime” being committed in that local jurisdiction. Or would something I am overlooking prevent such a warrant? It seems like the woman could be legally vulnerable in such a case.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I think you’re absolutely right about potential legal vulnerability, but that probable cause isn’t going to be an easy thing for the prosecution to get. Like, miscarriages just happen all the time, and (theoretically) the strength of probable cause a judge would want to ok a “we’re taking some of your bodily fluids” warrant is going to be about as high as it gets.
There’s still the wrinkle of sending prescription drugs through the mail is heavily regulated, the average doctor or pharmacist isn’t allowed to just put the pill in an envelope without committing mail fraud.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.