Fun fact. While I worked as a prison officer, an inmate was escorted to a back room of the medical area and beaten handcuffed while 9 people listened. I reported it and nothing happened. None of the 9 people besides myself corroborated the attack. Then my warden denied my transfer request and attempted to kill me by putting me back under the command of the person I had reported for abuse.
My mother after I quit tried to pressure me to go back repetitively. Or take a job at another facility. I told her to look me in the eye while I say this, I would rather kill myself than do that again. Only evil people can stay at a job like that.
You're right. I was considering adding more of the quote so it didn't look like I was leaving out context, but I wanted to highlight the phrase that confused me. It looks like I just ignored "for churches" mentally for some reason. I will edit.
Remember also in 1981 that the late Republican campaign consultant Lee Atwater explained in an interview with a Case Western Reserve University political scientist how Republicans could win the votes of racists without resorting to overt racism:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘[N-word, N-word, N-word].’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘[N-word]‘— that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. … ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘[N-word, N-word].'”
I was a white kid who was bussed in the 80s in Louisville KY. I was a minority white kid in my class and I fully believe I broke out of the racism cycle I was in because of it. Luckily it happened before all that crap was firmly instilled in my pre-racist little brain
I had the opposite experience but with the same good outcome as you. I was a white kid in the 80s who moved from an all-white school (I think there was one black kid in the entire school) to a suburban school that would have been all-white but it bussed in kids from the inner city. I know that added exposure helped me break out of the cycle of racism I realized later was so prevalent at my earlier school. It’s almost like having experience with something helps you understand it better… wild concept.
I was bullied relentlessly in school, but not by black kids. Maybe they understood being different, or the experiences of casual racism made them more empathetic, but it left a lasting mark.
The law he’s citing is a good law, but it also very clearly doesn’t apply here.
Coordinating an effort to protect advertisers from association with extremist content, like what Garm was doing, could very easily be seen as a boycott against Twitter, since it is a well established fact that Twitter doesn’t do much to protect advertisers from reputational damage related to extremist content.
The question is whether or not the boycott was illegal. If the companies who rely on Garm’s advice (World Federation of Advertisers and member companies CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars, who are in named in the lawsuit) collectively benefit in way that gives them a competitive advantage over Twitter or anyone not a member of Garm, the sure, that could be an issue, but that’s not really the case.
CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars largely don’t compete with each other in the same markets. Some even work in symbiosis (CVS sells what Unilever and Mars make / all three might use Orsted energy products). There’s no reason to believe that anyone not subscribing to Garm’s guidance is going to experience a disadvantage that can’t simply be explained by Garm giving good advice.
Advising that advertisers avoid sites that allow hate speech and extremism is definitely a form of organized boycotting against any named website, but it isn’t intended to harm those sites, it is only meant to protect advertisers from toxic association with hate and extremism.
I sincerely hope he loses this lawsuit. Putting Garm out of business is shitty, but setting the precedent that you’re not allowed to respond to hate speech and extremism is dangerous.
It blows my mind that somehow he thinks that he can just sue people because they don’t want to do business with him. This is purely frivolous and a bullying tactic.
She specifically enacted an absolutely financially disastrous tax cut that ballooned the national debt for extremely little gain in her extremely brief tenure.
It's worth repeating again that the middle class Trump tax cuts expire next year. The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy have no expiration date and are permanent.
Also, they're not "Trump" tax cuts but Republican tax cuts, but at this point the distinction doesn't really mean anything anymore since Trump has completely taken over the party.
I remember when this was signed. My jaw dropped when I read it while I knew it would get swept under the rug and forgotten about. I specifically said to myself, this is a ruthless attempt to set up the democrats to look bad after his first term.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. We should be taking a very hard look at why it is.
I just wish the exemption caps would also expire. While I never did the math, I think people like me paid more because of the stupid cap, regardless of the lower tax rate. It’s not just the wealthy who pay a ton of state and local taxes, but also many of us in high cost of living states. I’ve still been able to itemize, but now I can’t exempt state and local taxes so it doesn’t get me much. And I pay tax on the taxes I pay. Yay, double taxation /s
One thing that confounded me when I went to Starbucks for the first time. Asked them for a large black coffee. Since their coffee is way overbrewed so it can be mixed with stuff, it was super strong super hot garbage.
Someone later told me to order it with a little ice to make it drinkable and dilute the flavor.
My question was: why can’t I just buy coffee at a coffee place?
Have a stack of 5-10 year old Starbucks gift cards I’ve collected from various work functions that are still valid. I still haven’t gone back. They can’t even get me as a free customer.
Preface: I am not defending any action done, or the people that act on impulse or through desire.
If someone were to come to you and admit that they’re ashamed they like children in a sexually gratifying way, and stated that they never intend to act on those thoughts. How would you react?
he did not only find minors attractive; he tortured and raped a minor for days nonstop, and got out after 1 year only. I’d hate to be that young kid watching her rapist get paid and cheered representing her country.
I’m not asking nor defending that in any way. I am challenging the typical way people look at individuals who are attracted to minors. There are people out there who are ashamed and scared. They know it’s wrong. They don’t act, yet the impulse is there, and with it the anxiety. There is a stigma even against them, those who can find help in treatment, but are labeled right alongside those who commit atrocities and act on that desire.
It’s anger. Rightfully so. Often displaced.
Paraphilia is considered a disorder for a reason. It can be treated, and it is important to make the distinction.
You see the problem is you are posting this altogether by itself rational argument in an irrational place; under a post in regards to a convicted and known rapist, therein implying that you wish to excuse that rapists actions.
While it is correct that intrusive thoughts are simply human nature, acting on them is not. Harming children in any way is not acceptable and should not be excused. That distinction was already made here, as it wasn’t about intrusive thoughts at all.
Case in point, I believe that you are either very confused, very stupid, or rage baiting.
I do this on purpose. Calm and rational people will attend calm and rational debates. I don’t actually expect to receive rational responses in a thread like this. My only goal is to plant the potential for a rational response when the normal reaction is anger.
So if I had to choose one, I’ll go with very stupid. :) I’ve been called worse by those who claim I am in support of the act of pedophillia, when I am in support of treatment of those who have not taken action, and against the label and stigma produced by our society which stops these individuals from coming forward.
As a culture we equate action and desire without action as the same thing in these circumstances. People then who might seek help do not for a very real fear of their life, potentially literally, ending.
I’ll take very stupid in a semi-relevant thread if it helps even one person decide to seek treatment. Because that decision will stop harm for themselves, and importantly stop potential harm to a child in the future. Whether harm was maliciously intentioned or not.
People can’t choose who they’re attracted to, but they are responsible if they ever act on it.
If society wants to truly protect children, we need to ensure paedos don’t become abusers/rapists. That means creating an atmosphere where people can feel more comfortable going to get the help they need.
Yes, precisely. Thank you. This is a charged topic and because it’s so culturally brittle, I feel we must be more willing to have these discussions. Even if there is never a good time nor place to do so.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.