“History isn’t history anymore. Truth is not truth. Even facts are being replaced by alternative facts and driven by conspiracy theories and ugliness. In Florida, young students are taught that slaves developed skills which can be applied for their personal benefit.
The entertainment industry isn’t immune to this festering disease. The Duke, John Wayne, famously said of Native Americans, ‘I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.’
Lying has become just another tool in the charlatan’s arsenal. The former president lied to us more than 30,000 times during his four years in office, and he’s keeping up the pace in his current campaign of retribution. But with all his lies, he can’t hide his soul. He attacks the weak, destroys the gifts of nature, and shows disrespect, for example, by using ‘Pocahontas’ as a slur.”
Meanwhile:
The actor appeared onstage at the ceremony on Monday night for the presentation of the Gotham Historical Icon and Creator Tribute to Martin Scorsese’s Killers Of The Flower Moon, a film distributed by Apple that focuses on a series of murders targeting the Osage people in Oklahoma during the 1920s after oil was discovered on tribal land.
Came here to say this. I have assumed for at least the last 20 years that any Republican politician is a christian nationalist, and though I don’t have specific figures, I think I’ve probably been correct 99% of the time.
That 1% is just due to caution – I don’t have anyone in mind.
They approach young first term republicans in DC, and shower them with attention and bribes/donations. To play ball, you almost have to deal with them. Because everyone else in your party already did, you’ll never get preference over another member.
Yeah we all know how masculine the police in the US are. What’s more manly than a bunch of men compensating for their small penises by randomly killing civilians!
Dedmon then threatened to anally rape the two men, but when he moved toward Jenkins’ backside, the deputy stopped when he noticed that Jenkins had defecated on himself, according to the information.
I mean, it’s sexual assault obviously, but in this case, “using a sex toy on them” provides a bit more context than just generically labeling it as “sexual assault”. Sexual assault could be many different things.
The article also goes on to describe that they put the sex toys in the men’s mouth. I think the “used a sex toy on them” is just more descriptive in this situation, because if they used “sexual assault”, people would not be able to decipher what these POS officers actually did.
I do agree that the media can be terrible about minimizing sexual assault on men, but in this case I think the headline is more descriptive. Also , fuck these racist rapist cops.
I totally agree there. They should make it as graphic and specific as possible to really show how fucked up the situation is and show how terrible the perpetrators are, at least in my opinion.
I agree with the article only using the word rape to describe that they were threatened to be anally raped. I think calling everything rape dilutes the meaning of the word. Forcefully stuffing a plastic or silicon object in someone’s mouth doesnt quite fit the word. Cops are absolute vile pieces of shit and I’m annoyed I had to read the article to know what the misleading headline was talking about. The comments weren’t helping either.
I agree. I never said anything different either. I am just saying that this provides more context than sexual assault. If I was in charge of the headline it would probably be “rapist and racist cops torture and rape suspects mouth with sex toy.” But I’m not. As an observer, I felt more informed by the headline than if it just said sexual assault or rape, and you were more informed, too.
I still don’t see how it’s legal for an accredited university to have rules prohibiting sexual activity of their students
Want to be a religious school? That’s fine, but you won’t be accredited to teach any Gen Ed classes. Have your catholic pastor school, or your rabbinical school, that’s fine. But you won’t be making those into general education colleges.
If they don’t want to have rules that our society finds acceptable they don’t have any right to just exist. This isn’t a person were talking about they are an education institution. A school cannot by definition have a religion because it isn’t a person. I don’t particularly care if the people wo made the school are themselves religious; that should not give them the right to use their new founded institution to enforce those beliefs on other people. If you want to teach people I think you should be held to certain standards, and one of those standards is that you shouldn’t restrict the freedom of your students.
Having sexual morality rules is absolutely restricting their freedom. People have a right to privacy that such rules inherently violate.
The church robs your parents with intense pressure to donate too much with the expectation you'll just end up at BYU. Lots of people are there because it was their only realistic option
no need to do the whataboutisms here, just jump to the logical 'all religion is bad, m'kay'. it really is a nasty vestige of humanities upbringing... like slavery, but with more steps.
In “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” by Friederich Nietzsche, the “prophet” went into the forest to meditate on the death of god, and met a monk. He spoke to the monk, and only after leaving did he contemplate: “Has he not realized that god is dead?”
He never told the monk. He lets him believe what he wants, because god is dead, and religion will die soon enough without ruining the lives of those who depend on it - those who cannot accept the truth.
Nietzsche also said that many “should not read my books, if they can.” The realization of god’s non-credibility cannot be forced, one must come upon it on their own…
i am realizing now one of my favorite ideals (not sure where i heard it) seems derived from that; 'you cannot logic someone out of something they did not logic themselves into'
It doesn’t matter what religion you follow, I oppose this perceived ‘god given right’ for a religion to maintain its own little fief where their ‘honor code’ supersedes federal anti-discrimination law in its entirety
If a religion said black people are a sin and should be avoided… and then started a school with rules banning any contact with black folks, would you treat it the same? Religious grounds, private school, just don’t go there?
They certainly shouldn’t be receiving taxpayer money, but if people want to go to a place like that then they should be allowed to. If it teaches the material relevant to their discipline in a satisfactory way, I don’t see why accreditation agencies should look past that.
An accreditation agency shouldn’t be the ones who dictate what is done by colleges beyond academics. They’re not accrediting ‘social acceptance.’ They’re accrediting academic merit.
“Yeah they have a great x program, but we’re not going to accredit them because of their rules against same-sex PDA.”
This is just you being upset that everyone isn’t on board with censoring those you don’t like.
You’ve missed the point - the world is moving on and cretins like the administration at BYU need to get the point. These motherfuckers don’t believe in evolution…that alone indicates they aren’t fit to educate. Fuck BYU and the LDS
Ironically, the best lesson about evolution I ever had was the subject of a course I took at Brigham Young University-Idaho. I highly recommend "From Atoms to Humans" for any students there.
What is the difference between discriminating against blacks or Jews or women vs discriminating against gay people?
Being gay is not a choice. Someone liking people of the same sex is no more controllable than you liking members of the opposite sex. Do you actively choose to like women and dislike men (or vice versa if you’re a women)? Are you saying someone could tell you something and somehow convince you to find men attractive?
This isn’t censoring an opinion, this is basic human rights.
You brought up accreditation. I just asked if it should be allowed.
Here’s the theoretical: someone makes a religion based on Nazi values and makes a new school that teaches those values and enforces it too (so no Jews, Christians, gays, etc. and students and faculty cannot associate with said people).
Should that be allowed? I’m not asking if it should be accredited or not. Just should it be allowed. ie you are made ruler of the world and you get to decide if that should be accepted practices the the culture, values, and practices of the world you rule.
Should it be allowed, like, legally? Absolutely. As long as it isn’t receiving public money, they should be able to conduct their private business with who they want.
Do I like it? No. But just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be forbidden.
So if a private university teaches proper math classes, and also has a mandatory training class on war and tactics for establishing a non-white ethnostate, you’d be cool with people going there?
Shit with you in charge, the Nazis just needed to provide good education in the concentration camps and it’d be above board, wouldn’t it?
Hmm. I’m not sure if student aid should be counted there or not. Grants to the university itself should absolutely be forbidden, but if a student chooses to go there, should we deny them assistance? Maybe.
No, it is an organizational problem. It is functionally the reason that startups tend to stagnate when bought out… even if the host company ‘leaves them alone’.
A really simple example for transit: due to past corruption and or pay-to-play issues, most states (especially Democrat states) have pretty firm procurement guidelines. There are exceptions for emergencies, but the usually require the Governor’s office to chime in and aren’t intended for day-to-day items. A threshold of $100k isn’t unheard of for a forced sole-source procurement. I don’t want to waive that rule for government in general, but a transit agency that you want to actually meets service needs to not be waiting on the Governor to do so.
That specific issue is obviously solvable with a rule change… the meta issue is that State governments tends to create rules/laws without understanding how it breaks things
I think one must be very credulous of the motives of politicians to accept that self-imposed state paralysis was an attempt to fight corruption and not an attempt to make the case for privatization more compelling. Neoliberal dismantling of state capacity has been a bipartisan goal for the last 50 years.
You aren’t being very reasonable here. There is not a way to make everything public. At some point you need the private sector. Do you expect the state of Florida to start digging up silicon, to make ICs, to make cop walkie-talkies?
Where the lines are and how best to structure this stuff is always going to be a challenge. If nothing else because it doesn’t lend itself to a first principles approach but instead an empirical one. We don’t know which should be down inhouse and which should be outsourced until it is tried. We see huge successes and huge failures. I think you would agree that your sewage system in your area does work, I can assure you private sector built/designed/and does most of the maintenance for it.
Publicly-owned extractive industry is incredibly common. Publicly-owned utilities are incredibly common. Publicly-owned manufacturers used to be much more common, but still exist.
Student aid should count. That's money that could go to students seeking education in state schools, not religious schooling. This is just like bullshit voucher programs stealing tax payer funded school funds to be sent to religious schools.
If kids or their parents want to go to church school, they can pay for it themselves. Not the tax payer.
I have absolutely no problem with tax dollars going to towards the Pell Grant. Giving money to kids for an education is awesome.
I have a big problem when that money is for an education at a private religious school that openly and actively discriminates against protected classes.
This part is a slippery slope that I don’t have a pithy hot take for. I wish I did.
I mean, do I really want to wait from 1776 or 1791 until 2013¹ for the state to mandate that all marriage license-issuing court clerks be required to issue marriage licenses to any unmarried pair of adults, even if the pair was assigned the same gender at birth?
Lots of Americans still resent that those clerks are funded by their tax dollars.
marriage between those without matching birth-certificate sex was the only legal marriage in the United States during this period
Accrediting agencies in the US are privately operated, too. There’s a layer of independent oversight between the Department of Education and the schools themselves.
Whether that’s good or bad is far beyond my knowledge, but that’s how it’s legal. It’s just one private organization giving a thumbs up to another private organization.
I understand what your getting at, but the point of going to a university is getting an education. All other activities are secondary to this. If you have other goals, you can do those just as easy without going into debt, and taking a spot from someone else.
They don’t want kids coming of age. They’re a religion. That’s stupidly normal for religions, to keep children as innocent as literal children for as long as possible. The only coming of age is supposed to happen on the honeymoon, because you know, that’s not dangerously emotionally underdeveloped territory at all and totally never results in horribly incompatible people ending up forced together…
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on…shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.’”
The first time, the Conservatives on the Supreme Court stopped the vote counting when it looked like Bush would lose Florida. The legal justification used was "because we want Bush to win".
The second time was a combination of Swift Boating and the man who oversaw the Ohio part of the election, literally worked for the Bush Campaign. Which turned out like this.
It is pretty amazing that no matter how bad these Republican politicians are, the country seems to forgive and forget about it and is willing to give the next Republican another fair shot.
And this has been going on for decades now. We are now dealing with Trump, but before that was W and before that was Reagan and before that was Nixon. Each one was incredibly unpopular. Each one embroiled in controversy and corruption and incompetence. And yet it seems like the second these clowns step out of the White House, the American people are right back to willing to give the GOP another shot at running the show. It’s like we collectively have the memory of a goldfish, and we can’t process the idea that maybe, just maybe, the party that is always condemning the government, maybe isn’t well suited to actually running that same government.
You’re just stuck with your undemocratic electoral process 🤷
I would gladly see the US split in four or five countries just to grab a bowl of popcorn and watch the republican parts become the third world country they so dearly wish to become.
Yeah but it got memed a decade after he left office. Flubbing up one quote is much better than giving the press a sound clip of you saying “shame on me” while running for reelection after one of the most controversial presidencies.
“It’s becoming all too commonplace to see everyday citizens performing necessary functions for our democracy being targeted with violent threats by Trump-supporting extremists," Jones said. "The lack of political leadership on the right to denounce these threats — which serve to inspire real-world political violence— is shameful.”
And there’s also this:
Yesterday — after Trump posted on his social media website that authorities were going “after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!” — Advance Democracy noted that Trump supporters were “using the term ‘rigger’ in lieu of a racial slur” in posts online.
The instant I saw the word “RIGGERS” in his bitch ass post yesterday, I knew exactly what it actually meant. Just more dog whistling fog horn blasting racism from The Cheeto Mussolini. 😡
Jones said. "The lack of political leadership on the right to denounce these threats — which serve to inspire real-world political violence— is shameful.”
this is the worst part, the most disingenuous garbage, and what makes fighting agains this even harder.
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WANTS AND SUPPORTS THIS
the sooner we all acknowledge this and treat Republicans - collectively - as the FASCIST THREAT that they are, we all will lose.
Uh, I think those that are inclined have already acknowledged this. The others are very likely a lost cause, if this recent spate of reporting hasn’t convinced them that Trump is a freaking manipulator and crook. Where do we go from here? I don’t know how so many extremists could possibly just, you know, stop being so extreme. Naively, a civil war could fix the issue, but that is the last thing we need–war is never the answer.
Where do we go from here. Step 1. Name the problem. Fascism Step 2. Admit we have a problem. Weve allowed fascism to infect the united states Step 3. ??? Id suggest we look at history and start listening to brightest minds on this subject.
It is crazy that this isn’t a United States problem, either. All one has to do is look to Australia, Canada, and the UK to see that fascism is rampant. I’m looking for those brightest minds, because I’m certainly not one of them.
I think trumpism metasticized globally. I think “conservatives” were always waiting for a strongman cult of personality leader like a sleeper terrorist cell and trump provided a global roadmap.
The next step is breaking away from them completely and building an alternate economy they’re not allowed to participate in. Left only banks and stores and whatnot.
If you all don’t, the right will simply take over the institutions you think will serve everyone fairly and boot you out of it, just like they did the judiciary.
Not OP but I too wanted to know a source so I did a search on this cool new website I invented with Al Gore called google.fu and found this from Smithsonian Magazine:
The study examined 800 foodborne illness outbreaks reported by 25 state and local health departments between 2017 and 2019. Of the roughly 500 outbreaks linked to at least one known contributing factor, 205 of them, or 41 percent, involved ill workers.Jun 2, 202
/s about inventing that with Al Gore. It was actually Tom Landry.
What do you base that off of? Most food poisoning is due to bad storage of food resulting in bacterial toxins even after it's cooked. Only Norovirus has an oral route that I can think of (and that's usually based around projectile vomiting that then ends up on hands).
? That just says salmonella and norovirus and encourages hand hygiene. Masks wouldn't help there. To be clear, I want safe food handling, I'm just also a nurse and prefer reasonable approaches over theater. Foodborn illness generally doesn't benefit from droplet projections.
Yeah parent poster added the masks into the comment, but the study did not mention them, but as the study says, the improper hand hygiene is responsible for large number of food poisonings.
Why the study doesn't talk about masks? Likely because it was done before pandemic so no one wore masks in that setting. Second thing is that generally they are concerned about serious diseases and if somebody would report catching a cold from eating at restaurant will simply be ignored. People are also less likely to report because it's harder to be sure where cold came from.
Though if diseases transferred via dirty hands caused 41% of outbreaks, then I believe it's safe to say that air borne disease is more likely to transfer that way, it's just a kind of diseases that no one cared about until we had covid, and only in 2020.
What’s unreasonable about someone else choosing to wear a mask when they’re sick? Even if it’s not causing foodborne illnesses, it’s still spreading the illness to other staff and customers.
This “made up statistic” is the “unreasonable approach to safe food handling” that you referred to earlier? That doesn’t make sense as statistics are data not actions to follow when handling food.
Are you arguing that a stranger freely deciding to wear a mask when they’re sick is too unreasonable in your eyes and should be banned? That’s ridiculous.
No, I am not arguing that and I don't particularly know why you think I am since I never indicated it. I objected to the idea that masks would prevent half of food borne illnesses, when they would likely prevent none. If you base your actions off of something as ridiculous as that, you are not taking a reasonable approach to safe food handling.
If you think you're arguing with an anti masker, you're not. Like I said, I'm a nurse and provided direct patient care to people dying from COVID.
Correlation, not causation. Is my food poisoning orally contagious? A sick employee may care a lot less about the quality of food they’re preparing, causing more people to get sick from rotten food on average. There are too many variables to even consider in this.
Literally, officially, it’s now entirely legal under federal law for officials to accept and even solicit bribes for specific services rendered, just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.
They aren’t even pretending to be a legitimate court of law any more - they’re just a rubber-stamping service for the oligarchy.
Historically that’s not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It’s just that they do so much damage while they’re around.
And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.
Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it’s more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.
There’s also nothing stopping them from taking a bribe for something they’ve already done if they do something else. “Hey, I’ll pay you for the books you banned if you make hrt illegal”
Not to mention the part of the bill they were referring to was paying doctors for end of life counseling, like living wills, which help people die with comfort and dignity.
Why does everyone keep bring up my kid dating? In my day you could date kids and no one would bat an eye. Now the woke mob says it’s bad. Go woke go broke
Can’t expect him to think it’s wrong when I’m his world it isn’t. Even lovable celebrities like Guillermo del Toro signed petitions to pardon Polanski. All the rockstars of the 70s fucked kids. Savile got away with it because everyone who knew let him. The ex and likely next president is a rapist who wants to fuck his own daughter and people are defending him for it.
People with a long-going abundance of money lacking brainjuice can rarely imagine the way to spend them, and they want the most exclusive and unavailable thing there is. For some reason it’s a trend within their circles that pedophilia is Sex 2.0 exclusive to elites, and nothing in their head rings an alarm, or just a bullshit detector. Besides obvious anger about what they do, why do they choose that of all things? There’s so much more gated behind the paywall that they can get, like extreme(ly expensive) sports, property design and management, investing into start ups and following them, top tier education and getting acclaimed in scientifical\professional fields, traveling to a new place every other week or just riding in an MBT for groceries shopping. Is there some street cred coming with that or what? It’s just stupid.
I think it’s more that not giving a fuck about hurting someone makes you more likely to become rich, and being rich makes it easier to get away with things.
increased money and power correlate negatively with the portion of your brain responsible for empathizing with others. The more money/power you have, the smaller that portion of your brain is. Here’s a landmark study that’s since been cited over 200 times
I’m gonna go with like an alternative viewpoint here and say that, rather than it being kind of like, a inevitability of human behavior once you reach a certain point of like, not giving a shit about consequences, or like, having enough power, you just lose touch with reality and become a pedo like, automatically (which is kind of a weird self-report). I’m gonna say that instead, it’s probably because of that kind of mentality. Because it’s seen as a sort of inevitable thing, once you reach a high enough status. Because of the mentality of like, women at younger and younger ages being seen as more desirable sexually, because of like this weird collective cultural fetish around female innocence and beauty, and even naivety, to some degree. You ever notice that weird like, “born yesterday” movie trope, where some chick has like, amnesia, or is a robot, or whatever, and so is a kid, but is also supposed to be like, smokin’? Like the fifth element. That movie’s still pretty good, but that shit’s weird af as a trope, probably evidence of cultural baggage, it’s like the western version of the thousand year old loli.
Probably all wrapped up in like some old timey patriarchy shit I need to read up on. Maybe due to the prevalence of child brides in sort of like, societies in which inheritance is a thing? Like, patrilineal societies, maybe, where marriage asap at the capacity of childbirth is seen as a thing which sort of, preserves patrilineal inheritance. Then something to do with like, the western nuclear family’s imposition on history, to sort of, retroactively frame history along the lines that it provides, while also unconsciously adopting, nonsensically, some of the same historical, cultural narratives that were propagated around patrilineal inheritance in order to attempt to justify it.
There’s some through-line there, probably. Something along those lines.
I think it’s pretty inarguable that sexual attraction in some way is affected by the standards of the society in which you’re raised on a pretty fundamental level, so, probably it’s due to like an extremely depressing and fucked up societal standard, I would think, more than just like. Ahh, they’re rich, so, the pedo switch flipped in their head. Like, once they realized they could, they just did, kinda thing, and then it all ends there and nobody asks any questions as to why that switch was there in the first place.
No, the records of families at the impoverished school I work at suggest money has nothing to do with it. You wouldn’t want to hear what some of these kids experience.
I mean he’s a movie director, I think “all style” is kind of a good appeal for those to generally have, especially for popcorn bucket kind of movies, right? Substance is generally something people actually hate in movies, in my experience.
While I’m glad he was awarded the judgement, it’s wild that an undercover cop gets 23.5 million, while tons of civilians are also beaten by police and receive much lesser judgements, if they’re lucky enough to get anything at all…
Didn’t you hear? NOT bringing your phone to a protest proves that you had malicious intent.
…Or, that’s the argument of the prosecution in the Stop Cop City RICO cases in Atlanta. (Which, BTW, is being prosecuted by the state, since the Atlanta DA refused to press the case.)
Yes because not wanting a valuable piece of equipment that is all but essential in modern society to get broken and leaving it elsewhere while you attend a gathering is just impossible.
Do these people even think before they speak, or do they actually think that’s a valid argument?
I left my phone at home last time I went to a water park. I am a criminal who had bad intentions, better lock me up
It doesn’t have to valid, it just has to give them a flimsy excuse to violate your rights. It’s not about justice it’s about punishing people who speak up.
Nah. They just want to cut funding, not cut it completely. They need the dumb kids to grow up to be dumb workers and dumb voters. And to keep their own children in private schools to continue to rule over the poors.
You must live in a state where charter schools aren’t part of normal political discourse. It is happening, and it is what they’re striving for. They want the private schools, yes, but the mostly want unregulated for-profit religious charter schools where there is no oversight in what kids are taught (or if they’re taught)
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.