I think there is a reasonable argument for “appropriate for young children,” “appropriate for older children” and “appropriate for adults” as ratings. They don’t have to be adhered to strictly or anything, but having had a young child, knowing if a film is G or PG can make a difference, not to mention PG or R.
Films should be thought provoking at times. “Whats that daddy/mommy?” Should often be a question asked after the movie ends. But it’s gotta be in doses, you can’t show a 6y/o kid all of the reasons a film is rated R all at once and expect them to process it enough to ask questions
I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution and I agree with you, I’m just saying we need a way for parents to know if their 6-year-old is going to be seeing people fucking and chopping each other’s heads off before showing them to the movie.
“I’m poor so I’m not responsible for stealing luxury goods and bear spraying minimum wage security guards.”
I grew up poor. I didn’t do this. Your comment is dripping with the implicit accusation that poor people are basically just animals. Incapable of controlling themselves when they see nice handbags.
Poverty doesn’t affect everyone the same. To try to discount the fact that poverty increases crime just because you aren’t a criminal is ignoring the complexity of humanity.
To say that this particular crime was caused by poverty also ignores the complexity of humanity.
We can all speculate until we’re blue in the face, but I agree that lessening poverty will lessen crime of most types.
Stealing from wealthy corporations is an extremely valid and morally acceptable form of protest. Hell, it’s a morally good thing to do even if it’s not meant as a protest.
I’m not going to defend assaulting the guards, though, except in the case of self-defense. Store security guards have no business using force against shoplifters, and most company policies align with that fact.
i feel bad for the employees who had to deal with it and clean up after and the guards that got assaulted. i dont feel bad for the above store level managers and execs who have to deal with this shit.
There was also needless destruction. I can see breaking a glass case to grab some watches, but it appears that there was also destruction for the sake of destruction (at least in the video I watched).
Some people dont seem to grasp how all of this works. They seem to think the insurance fairy will pay for the damages and not the businesses (and finally the customers).
You know, because obviously I'm a complete moron who has never had an intelligent thought in their life, in your estimation, I'd never thought about that...
Of course premiums will go up. Insurance agencies are predatory scumbags, too. But I still have a hard time feeling sorry for luxury brands having to pay slightly higher premiums than they were before. Shockingly, its still just things.
I know some people put the value of things over all else, but I find that to be a shortsighted and selfish way of thinking.
Who actually gives a fuck about corporate property being destroyed? These companies commit more theft from their workers than all other theft combined. They objectively deserve this.
You know someone is a shit person when they equate income with value as a human being.
Even if that were a valid take, almost every working poor person contributes more to society than nearly any rich person does, and would therefore still have more human worth.
Feel free to explain why it’s not objectively a good act to steal from the entities that themselves commit the overwhelming majority of theft, intentionally, systematically, and forcefully hold the majority of the worlds working population either in actual slavery, poverty, or at least unjustifiable and extreme financial insecurity that technically isn’t poverty because government definitions of poverty are patently absurd, and and who are actively and knowingly driving us towards towards the collapse of the environment and the greater part of biological life itself.
I’ll give you a hint: you’re actually just wrong by any standard that values human life in any way.
Everybody has different needs, but imo if you work as a security guard for a place like this AND take it seriously you not only signed up for violence but you deserve it. These companies are robbing us blind of good health, personal space and time on the planet- why defend that?
TFA even mentions that one of the getaway cars was a BMW. Undoubtedly, there were both impoverished people and people who jumped at an opportunity involved.
Making people respond like you just did is the only reason they included the BMW part. I’m in California and there are pages and pages of early to mid 2000s BMWs available near me for less than $5k, which is significantly less than I paid for my car that no one would ever look at and think I’m rich.
If poverty was driving crime rates, then most of the world (as most countries are much much poorer than the US) would be a crime infested shit hole. Somehow that’s not true at all. US crime is not related to poverty in any way.
All you have to do is look at the crime statistics and income statistics for cities across North America. Cities that have lower GDPs (less money, less opportunity) generally have higher crime rates. If despair is high, people will act out of desperation. What you are wilfully ignoring is the fact that “countries that are poorer than the US” also are drastically different culturally than the US. Almost nowhere else on Earth has the same kind of income disparity that the US has. You can’t take a developing nation where 50% of people live in poverty, and compare it to a developed nation where no one needs to live in poverty but are forced to do so by manipulated housing and job markets.
Of course poor people aren’t “basically just animals”, the OP didn’t imply that. What the OP is saying is that when genuine opportunity doesn’t exist, some people will find their own opportunity and/or weigh the consequences of their actions differently.
Wealth and income disparity have consequences and this is one of them. Public unrest is another eventual outcome. Something needs to be done about it or something will be done about it.
ToS that enforces 16+ to post content of themselves as the main focus of their channel. Definitely not require any sort of ID. If they’re proven to be lying, or are clearly and visibly under 16, then ban.
Okay the age part doesn’t seem pragmatic at all since aging a kid based on only appearances is wildly inconsistent, and now you’ve banned someone so they just make another account.
I’m sorry, I’m confused. I asked how someone who wanted to ban child influencers would accomplish that, and you gave a small list of things you would do to do it, and then when it didn’t work you said that was the whole point?
Is your point that you can’t do it? And if so, why did you offer up something if you figured it wouldn’t even work?
If they’re ban evading, they’re just going to keep getting rebanned and isn’t an influencer at that point. Appearances is a difficult problem, and unless it’s very obvious they’re under 16, they shouldn’t be banned. The alternative is that you ask for IDs to guarantee this, which is horrible. It’d be much more preferable to let this small problem run rampant, since it’s significantly less harmful then requiring IDs which I hope I don’t need to explain why that’s extremely bad, privacy invasive, and a security nightmare.
I don't think it should be banned outright, but there definitely needs to be more regulation in this field. Child influencers are basically child actors, who have notoriously been taken advantage of by the entertainment industry for ages. While regulations have made things a lot better for child actors, it's still not perfect, but way better than before. There should be pushes for similar protections for child influencers, since they're basically doing the same thing, just on social media instead of in film.
Kansas state patrol needs to step in and take over this situation, hopefully ending with the prosecution of the police chief for abuse of power and manslaughter. If they don’t act soon, the FBI needs to investigate both organizations.
Yes. But sometimes the shitbirds make enough shit that the shit starts to run uphill, and the staties get involved so some politicians don’t have to deal with even more shit.
Not just the police chief. They need immediate investigation into magistrate who authorized this raid basically signed their name to a raid that blatantly violates constitutional rights and ignores over 100 years of legal precedence
They carry live weapons in some cities, but more often they carry pepper spray and tasers. They also work with the police to incarcerate people who threaten the profitability of the stores on the property. State violence is still violence, the most cowardly kind.
It’s been 8 hours since the MicroWave notified me that my HotPockets were ready. Maybe, for the first time ever, I won’t burn off the roof of my mouth on my second bite.
Weird, it was toggled on in my settings but I don’t remember checking it. I guess I thought it was for making bot accounts visible when I first signed up? Thanks for flagging.
The SW passed them through anyway, “with conditions” which likely include "just don’t give this couple any gay kids"
They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
We actually have no other information about what they said apart from they don’t like gay or trans kids
I think point 2 kinda invalidates the lawsuit, and point 4 is going to become extremely relevant when we find out they were fine with hitting kids who misbehaved or something.
This has been one delicious fucking disaster. He doesn’t stand a chance in a general. But he’s still managing to prevent the Rs from rebranding into something sane enough idiots can vote for.
No, he’s really not. He’s in how many court cases at the moment? His Russian funders are busy losing a land war they started. He’s already lost the general once. People had four years of him so he’s a known quantity.
No, that’s fucking stupid. He’s not more dangerous than ever. It’s idiotic to suggest so.
Should we we be cautious? Of course. But the best possible outcome for this election slcycle was a fracturing of the Republican part and that’s what has happened. They’re fucked because after 40 years of Republicanism, they don’t mean or stand for shit other than hate and oppression. Their entire policy back catalogue is bunk. They’ve got nothing and are on the wrong side of everything and everyone, even their voters, know it.
I would suggest the Russians have never had a greater interest in controlling a US president than right now. Given how disastrous a Trump win would be, this is not the time for positivism and certainties. Anything could happen.
That’s not true. He has 2 state indictments plus federal charges. If he were elected he could only pardon the federal charges. In fact he will probably be charged soon in a 3rd state so even more fucked.
He's going to have to work to be elected during the court cases. He's already incredibly unpopular as is, and he'll have constant news dripping out about how big of a traitor he is and how he attempted a self coup. That's not going to help his poll numbers with anyone who wasn't already a MAGAt.
That doesn't matter at all in today's political climate. Tribalism has taken over and they don't care if he's a criminal, Republicans will all vote for him simply because he's the nominee. The ONLY thing that matters is if the Dems can turn out enough of their people to beat him in the general.
That doesn't matter at all in today's political climate. Tribalism has taken over and they don't care if he's a criminal, Republicans will all vote for him simply because he's the nominee.
Wow, that's a really bad take considering that independents are what wins a candidate the election, since as you say, tribalists are going to vote for their tribe.
Independents aren't going to gargle trump's marbles in the face of overwhelming evidence of his incompetence, open fascism, and disdain for the electoral process, and there aren't nearly enough brain dead republicans to carry him in the general alone.
TLDR: Political scientist did a study and wrote a book on independents. Most people who identify as independent actually lean towards one party and actually act MORE partisan than a party member. The "true" independents/undecideds completely withdraw from politics and just don't vote at all.
I like your positivity, I just hope it happens like that as well. I still remember he had almost no chance to win in 2016 and somehow won, he’ll even Trump was surprised he won.
You mean when Trump was an unknown quantity, when he was going up against another unpopular candidate who was attacked constantly for decades and had the FBI release damning evidence but keep the evidence on Donny secret?
2024 is a vastly different race, because none of the above is true, and trump is going to have to try to get elected while he's on trial for stealing documents and trying to start a coup. Plus, the worst they've got on Biden is Hunter, and that's such a nothingburger that they're now mad that they got what they wanted.
Trump was not an unknown quantity. He was elected back then precisely because he is exactly what the fascist republican party wanted then and continues to want now. And because people underestimated his chances.
Ignoring the danger he poses now because “people surely know better” is insane. January 6th and everything that lead to it happened after 4 years of that man’s bungling administration and you want to believe that everything is going to be fine?
Be optimistic if he loses. If he wins, the country is fucked. And until we know which way things go, anyone left leaning should treat this election as if we’re losing because letting our gaurd down has the potential of resulting in a Trump presidency with no brakes.
This has been one delicious fucking disaster. He doesn’t stand a chance in a general.
This mindset is what let him win in 2016. I don’t know about you, but I generally try not to make the same mistake twice. Yes, he has numerous indictments against him, some federal, some state. However, there is no constitutional or legal precedent preventing a felon from becoming president.
This is important to repeat:
There is no constitutional or legal precedent preventing a felon from becoming president.
No, it doesn’t matter if the indictments are federal or state. There is nothing disqualifing a felon from holding office. Furthermore, neither the states nor federal government can add a disqualifing condition without a constitutional amendment. I highly doubt a constitutional amendment will be written in those regards either, because I imagine there are many politicians at the state and local level who’d instantly lose their positions.
No its not. In 2016 the Democratic party thought they could win without progressives or leftists and they said fuckem’ along with the upper midwest. Democrats tried courting the center in 2016 and it failed.
… Yeah. Underestimating him and believing him to not be a threat is what lead him to win the election. The Democrats underestimated him and didn’t do their due diligence in reaching out to everyone and encouraging people to actually vote. That’s what I was trying to say.
If convincted he’s ineligible under the 14th amendment, which is technically binding without further actions. Of course he will still be allowed to run and it will be up to SCOTUs Imo they are not as sympathetic toward trump as most people here would believe.
This is above my pay grade, but I think it is ultimately up to SCOTUS to decide, in the sense that the constitution can disqualify you from something even if you weren’t charged with the relevant laws. In other words, even if insurrection wasn’t a crime, and even if trump was not charged with any crime, I think SCOTUS still get to decide what is an insurrection and what isn’t. I am just speculating I am not a lawyer.
While that is true, I think you’re putting too much faith in the system. It requires a lot of people to put the US before their own safety (because almost guaranteed, any state that leaves trump off the ballot will have nutjobs trying to take potshots at government officials). Additionally, if he isn’t elected, there will likely be another riot, especially if he was left off the ballot; and if he is elected and then forcefully removed from office, there will likely be an even bigger, bloodier one. I’m not totally convinced that the government won’t take the easy path, and, if he’s elected, make a big huff and fuss about it while avoiding anything tangible because they’re too afraid of trumpites.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.