Or they get lucky and it's an older person. My mum would probably fall for that and she's in her 50s and been on the internet for like 20+ years now. XD
50 year olds today were in their 20s during the 1990s, when the internet was the wild west and what you could do with a computer was limited by what you knew about computers and how much time you had;
I’m reasonably sure that today’s 50 year olds that had a computer in their teens and twenties is more likely to be more knowledgeable about computers and networks than the same age groups today.
The internet has been sanitised and made much more rigid and user friendly now.
That was my point. My mum isn't that old and she'd fall for it even with internet experience.
And if you're insulting my mum's intelligence, you're an asshole. She's smart, just not really that savvy when it comes to technology. Everyone has their weak points, even geniuses. She still calls me up asking how to log into netflix. So while she's smart, she's not tech savvy. And they're the kinds of people that these scams hope for.
Apologies, kind poster. I didn’t mean to insult your mom. But I can see how my comment may have looked like that, so I’ll humbly accept your indignation.
From my POV, it sounded like you were saying “50 year olds are dumb lol,” but that wasn’t the case. All good.
Communication isn't my strong point. I know what I mean but often putting what I mean into words fails to get my point across. No worries. :)
Nah, was merely stating she's in her 50s and would probably fall for something like that. My gran was worse. Oh my days, the amount of times I had to sort her laptop for her cause she'd click sketchy links. God rest her soul. But even she understood netflix. Lmfao. I'm not really that tech savvy, but since I'm the 90s kid, I'm designated tech support.
My mom is nearing 70. She would definitely fall for shit like this. But having been burnt a few times, today she had a zoom call and asked for tech support and I walked her through it and when it agreed for permission for zoom too make changes to her computer (to install) she was suspicious AF. I was proud of her. I mean if you’re going to be un-savvy on the internet, best to be overly skeptical than under.
Thankfully my mum doesn't really use her laptop much, mainly for going on Amazon or ordering her groceries. Stuff like that. She asks me questions about her phone a lot. I don't even remember what phone she has. I just have to take educated guesses by using mine as a baseline. I guess cause I'm the oldest by like 20 years and have like 4 computers and a lot of gaming tech, she just assumed I know what I'm doing. Haha.
Glad your mum is becoming sceptical of things online. Definitely better to be over sceptical with technology these days. I've shifted to Linux on everything, except my old ass MacBook which is almost dead. Too many companies out there trying to steal data and personal info now.
I actually just went all in on Linux a couple of weeks ago when I got my new SSD. I had planned to dual boot but I haven’t bothered cloning my old drive and haven’t needed it. I think it has arrived.
I was worried about switching, I'm not good with change. But I love Linux. It's so much better, and it looks simpler and easier to navigate. I'm lucky my partner knows what to do if anything goes funky though, cause that stuff confused me.
Defensive gun uses outnumber illegal gun uses. I should get shot? Wait for the police to never arrive because of my neighborhood? Wait for them to shoot me because they got confused and get a medal for it?
Y’all are really good (bad) at pointing out the problem but your solution always ends up being, “send armed goons into people’s houses to make sure they got rid of their property we don’t like.”
You know how many countries have a fuck load of guns and like almost no fascist death brigades? Fucking most of them. The fact that we have 1.1 guns instead of .6 per person does not, in fact, explain gun violence when the exact same percentage of the country owns guns.
There can be more than one problem with our nation at a time.
We have a gun problem, but we also have a fascist problem. There a different solutions to both, neither of which have to be as hyperbolic as you claim.
I’m a gun owner myself. I got my first gun when I was 13 and was taught how to properly care for it and use it.
I enjoy shooting guns as a hobby. I have taken dozens of friends shooting over the years and taught them how to properly enjoy firearms.
But we as a nation have a gun problem.
The solution isn’t some wild, absolute ban in all guns. There are plenty of simple, common sense solutions that can move us into a healthier place. There are plenty of loopholes that can be closed, better, mandatory background checks, removing weapons from those who commit domestic violence, cooling off periods, mandatory gun safes, etc…
I have seen so many wildly irresponsible gun owners on ranges and private property. I’ve seen people walk onto live ranges, loaded weapons pointed at other people, I’ve nearly been shot myself by a dumb kid with a .22.
When I say we have a gun problem, I don’t want to just strip everyone’s guns away. I want to look at the real problems and work to ensure that the easiest flaws are dealt with.
If gun safes were mandatory, it could save countless children who die playing with their parents firearms. If domestic abusers had to surrender firearms, countless partners and spouses would still be alive today.
Don’t want to lose your guns? Don’t beat your wife. It’s not complicated. I don’t trust someone who casually employs violence against loved ones to responsibly use a firearm.
Mandatory education to even use a firearm, just like a concealed carry, would go a long way to help out. We license people to drive cars, why can’t we expect at least that same, bare minimum for guns? CDs
no, you think they use knives instead because homicides are so much rarer there that knife attacks are much bigger news. The US has more knife violence than those countries too.
Think for a second how defensive gun use could possibly outnumber offensive use. What are they defending against if there isn't also offensive gun use? You pulled this stat completely out of thin air like all your opinions on guns.
Youve never heard anyone suggest to send in armed goons to get rid of property.
There's only one country with a fuck load of guns, the US, and it has a ton of police homicides.
“However, of the 86 countries where mass public shootings have been identified, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate”
Bruh where are these other 55 countries? Literal war zones in Africa?
I wonder whether the economic and human development indices were considered in this ranking, and which other first world countries were on that list, considering US is one of, if not, the most powerful country economically, and in the HDI.
“Over the 18 years from 1998 to 2015, our list contains 2,354 attacks and at least 4,880 shooters outside the United States and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.15% of the mass public shooters, 1.49% of their murders, and 2.20% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, but they are also much less deadly on average.”
Not sure if this is a good idea but as a european I found this American debate to be one of the most ideological and shocking from both sides. Of course guns alone don’t cause that, Swizerland and Finnland have tons of them in private hands but they have some kind of social system. It’s all of your insanity, from the mental health over total poverty to fucking easy access to really fucking dangerous guns, there is no easy answer because none of this is good and all of it causes violance!
Also Switzerland and Finland have strict control over ammunition, and also have compulsary military service to instill the discipline required to handle and use guns responsibly, unlike the US where you get a discount if you have a mental disorder diagnosis (exaggeration).
Also, socialised healthcare and mental health services.
Also, lesser paranoia and fear of law enforcement.
Yep, it’s a unholy coctail that causes the situation in the US and more dangerous weapons can definitely make it worse but blaiming guns for everything won’t solve the issue ether! :/
No one is blaming guns for “everything”, but holy christ you can’t acknowledge that there’s a massive mental health issue in America without maybe thinking that it shouldn’t be so fucking easy for those mentally unstable people to get guns.
The answer isn’t easy, but it surely isn’t more guns.
So what? Add another question to the background check “are you a Nazi?” because the “are you a terrorist?” question should already take care of that one, so it seems to be working really well.
What about how I can just gift a gun to a family member? Or maybe how no one has followed up on me since I’ve purchased a gun, maybe I’m a crackpot now. People change.
Responsible gun ownership is impossible to enforce, sure my shit is locked up in a safe, but no one knows that and it isn’t required. No one comes around to check that it is safely secured, no one comes around to check that I haven’t fallen down a QAnon conspiracy rabbit hole, no one comes around to check that I’m mentally sound and don’t have any anger problems.
Ammo sales aren’t tracked either, so sure I have a reasonable amount of ammo but I could have enough to cause serious problems as no one would know.
So really this comes down to two solutions right? Take away guns, or spend a fuck ton of money to regulate sales, registration, send therapists to people’s homes to evaluate their mental health periodically, track ammo sales, install biometrics on guns so that only the owner can fire it and as evidence of when the gun goes off who must have shot, install trackers and sensors on gun safes to feed information back to the government to know how often a gun is safely locked away and when it’s not where it is… Etc honestly.
Cool, one state. Certainly not federally, which just means you can go to another state and have it not tracked. It’s certainly not tracked in SC where I live, sure that’s across the country but pick a border state of California and have it not be a tracked sale. We’re back to the problem.
Take your “As a Veteran…” argument and cram it. I’ve seen more ignorant POGs running that line to get internet credit than I care to remember. Your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s and that most definitely includes regular civilians.
If you didn’t want to be insulted you shouldn’t have been insulting…Sir. Interfacing with the public should have been covered somewhere in your ROTC program.
Hey! Your stealing our illinois tax revenue. Man its a good thing we got the border states that we do. Stop those dummcrats wis, ind, iowa, misura, tennese, arkansaw or this horrible nightmare will happen to you!!!!
boy if I ever thought I did not need it. Im sorta jelly though as they are mostly about grow whereas illinois is all about tax and does not allow grow.
I’m sorry, but this is incredibly simplistic. How did they fuck her over? Lack of informed consent was certainly there, but was (unfortunately) not uncommon.
I would say the lack of informed consent would be exactly it. I’m not sure why it not being uncommon makes a difference to whether or not it was an injustice.
Having not RTFA, did they take cells from other people without adequate consent? If yes it doesn’t matter that they weren’t as valuable, the same offense happened.
Of course it matters. That’s like saying it doesn’t matter that George Floyd was black because other non-black people have been killed by police. This was the exploitation of a black woman’s body for profit and her family was never compensated. Why you think that’s acceptable is beyond me.
I don’t think that’s acceptable. What I’m hearing from you is that the exploitation of a black women trumps the exploitation of everyone else for the same offense.
At least I am a jerk that can read and understand points about systemic racism without trying to dismiss it as happening to other people in a floundering display of whataboutism
Lacks was only selected at all because of race. Hopkins was the only hospital in the area that treated black people (in a segregated ward) and also poor people, which she was both. And in exchange, they used them for experiments. It absolutely was racial injustice because she would not even have been in the position to have her immortal cell line preserved had she been white.
And let's not forget her cells are the foundation of modern vaccine research, without them we'd still have waves of Polio and who knows what else. Even outside of the financial aspect we owe a lot to Henrietta Lacks as a species.
And it is beyond cruel that she was used like a lab rat, like many Black Americans have been through the country's history. It's not about the degree of harm, IMO, sure they didn't cut off her arms, but she was a systematic victim of our medical industry and given no compensation or credit for the advancements in global medicine during her time.
I’m not sure what to make of the argument- on one hand I get your point for sure, no one wants to be profited off of. That said, she could not have possibly been credited in her time as she passed in the same year to biopsy was performed. Furthermore, the cell line was taken from the remaining tissue for her biopsy, which was destined to be destroyed or discarded. I think this argues against the idea that she was uniquely victimized.
This is certainly not to discount her contribution, it’s just that the harm here (lack of informed consent) was pervasive and widespread. If there’s another another harm committed, please enlighten.
Affirmative Action helped get rid of all white classrooms and workplaces, it worked. Taking it away means we’re just going to go back to an all white America. I’m sorry to tell you this but people are not inherently good or bad, we have to make laws like AA otherwise things would never change. We had to force the South to desegregate at gun point
A deeply racist state like Texas is never going to have racial equality without being forced to, just like the South was never going to desegregate unless forced to
And in California where they got rid of AA in 1996, Black attendance in higher education immediately dropped and it hasn’t even recovered yet to what it was before 1996
I think there is a way to do a form of economic AA that factors in the applicant’s background in a way that doesn’t bucket them by race. It could still help historically marginalized groups without having to codify anything by race. Not saying I’m against AA, it was an important tool in partially fixing the systemic racism in America, but maybe there’s a different way of doing it?
AA worked by acknowledging systemic racism separately from economic issues, which is important when the racism is also a primary cause of economic issues when the government repeatedly destroyed black communities when they became successful.
You can't replace something that addresses racism by shifting it to economics. All that does is let the focus change to poor white people who also need help, but with a different solution because their economic hardships are not primarily caused by racism.
Wouldn’t the black communities that suffered the most economic injustice from racist policy benefit from an economic AA while limiting the benefit an affluent black applicant would have previously gotten over a poor Asian person, for example?
Wouldn't directly working to address the outcomes of racism as a whole be better than trying to make it about something else and trying to focus on the exceptions?
I mean the real solution here (putting some real fucking consequences on racist people in power) simply isn't going to happen in our lifetime so as much as I can see the flaws in AA, it isn't the worst equaliser either.
I’m not sure. I feel like it could address the outcomes of said historic racism without having rules codified by race. I admit this would benefit kids of other races that are poor through factors other than racism. Economic AA would also benefit another marginalized group, Native Americans, although I will admit that I’m ignorant to what extent AA had already benefited Native Americans.
The thing is, the white supremacists have had their thumb on the economic scales since the beginning of the country.
Rich white conservatives will actually spend more money making sure minorities fail, than they would earn if they worked with minorities for the common good.
The saying is, a raising tide lifts all boats, but the conservative addition is punching a hole in the minority boat, even if it stops the overall tide, just so their boat can be higher.
Do yall honestly have a problem with outlawing systemic racism?
Yes. They do. The specific problem is that some people in power really really want to be racist, and will try to find any possible way of enacting racist policies without being openly racist.
Want more black people picking cotton but can't because non-prisoner slave labour is illegal? Simple! Just quietly defund all public services from a majority-black area (except the police of course), and then start making arrests when people gotta commit crimes just to survive. Now you have your black people under ball and chain but it's okay, because he committed a crime!
Part of the reason why AA is so effective is because it partially defangs these more covert attempts at systemic racism. Because even if you do have these stealth-racism tactics, you can't stop, say 30% of university undergraduates from being African American
Conservatives are opposed to education and should be prohibited from participating in the administration of higher education. If we are allowed to make laws probibiting inclusion of vulnerable groups of people, we need laws probibiting the inclusion of conservatives as well.
Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia in history has been committed by conservatives. Conservatism should be excluded from polite society and completely shunned by the intelligent among us. Do your part in your daily life by excluding conservatives. It is inappropriate and grotesque to do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives.
There’s a professor in another university who literally used to tweet about black people being subhuman and asian people too and routinely would tell them to go back to their countries on twitter, but she was never fired because SHE had tenure at a pretty well known law school
Brain fog is a common symptom of hypothyroidism and dysautonomia. I always wonder if the things that helped me with brain fog from those two things help people with long covid. Granted, I also take thyroid hormones at a replacement dose (meaning, my thyroid doesn't have to produce any of it's own hormones), but the biggest immediate help before I got on those hormones was a handful of vitamins. Specifically D3+K, methylated B-complex, magnesium. I dunno I just always feel like those are so accessible it's worth looking into. Interested in the study's findings.
Don’t let them tell you they care about “families,” that’s clearly bullshit. Your kid has a rash? None of my fucking business. My kid has gender dysphoria? None of your fucking business.
These bigots need to think hard about why they care so much about random kids private bits. It’s creepy.
The thing is, they don’t believe in gender dysphoria or a healthy way of being trans. In their (wrong) world view, a minor transitioning is being sexually abused by their parents for a fetish or a political belief. They believe they are protecting these kids from being mutilated and mentally groomed into being sex deviants by abusive parents who want to ban their kids being straight or cis for political brownie points. They think that being trans is a cross-dressing and humiliation fetish forced upon children due to the parents’ ideology.
Of course that point of view is utterly wrong, but it’s hard to argue privacy with them if, in their world view, it’s kids being mutilated and scarred for life.
This is simply to say that if the base assumptions are different, these arguments can lead nowhere. If their world view was correct (it isn’t), it would be entirely reasonable to ban such a cruel grooming and sexual abuse practice, and it would probably also justify all the hate and vitriol - we would probably do the same if the base assumption was correct, and it would be infuriating if the other side would excuse it with “none of your business I am abusing these children”.
The only difference is that their world view is ostensibly not correct, and being trans is not what they have been convinced it is.
That’s a very good point, and one that my own echo chamber makes it difficult to wrap my head around. There are so many little rebuttals that come to mind, like “you trust your doctor when they say your kid needs glasses, but not when they say puberty blockers might save their life?” But you’re totally right, if the base assumptions are so out of whack, then the argument itself won’t go anywhere. So what do we do?? I find that maaany (most?) folks who know a trans person quickly realize that it doesn’t cost them anything to be kind and tolerant. All this hatred must be so exhausting…
I think the best thing to do would simply be to bring the debate constantly back to challenging their base assumptions, not to moral arguments that assume your own world view. Anything that builds on both people having the same world view on the subject matter will fail automatically because that’s just not the case.
In the abortion debate for example, no person who is convinced that an abortion literally kills a living, conscious baby is ever going to accept the “my body my choice” argument or the “you just want to control women” one, because obviously bodily autonomy ends at murder, and they believe that these women willfully commit murder. That’s why that argument won’t go anywhere - no reasonable person would believe that anyone has the right to murder someone else on a whim due to their own “bad decisions”, let alone a baby.
That’s why, to truly convince people, you need to show or demonstrate how their base world view is wrong. This is very hard and nigh-impossible, but there is no other way. Someone who is convinced that trans people groom children to participate in their crossdressing fetish will never accept any arguments that are built on the view that trans people are ordinary people who just want to live their lives - because sexual abuse are crimes with victims.
They’re simply not talking with each other on similar grounds.
This is all not to say that you should tolerate or feel pity for these opinions - you shouldn’t - but if someone is actually set on convincing their political enemies of their side, they need to begin at the very base assumptions because they differ wildly.
First of all, this doesn't just happen in Australia, and there are plenty of examples of the same thing happening literally everywhere.
Second, child rapists generally get caught when a child finally tells an adult who believes them and reports it. After that, the flood gates usually open and more come forward. If you institute the death penalty for rape at all, but especially rape of a child, then the rapist has no reason (beyond continued access) to keep the kid alive after they've abused them.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.