Every fracture, bruise and STABWOUND I've had as a 6ft1 230lbs dude, in my 45 years on this earth were caused by one 5ft2 woman.
That 18 year relationship left me with serious PTSD, constant anxiety I'll get a call she killed herself, constant anxiety she may seek contact again and severely aggravated my pre-existing dislike for any sort of physical contact.
It took well over a year before I was able to even hug the woman that is now my wife.
Hey man, I’m really hoping you have been able to get someone to speak to about your situation as well as medication to help manage your symptoms. I did not take those options, and it has taken me years to recover.
It sounds like you’re still carrying a lot of that weight, and I hope you can put it down.
Have you tried any of the new MDMA-enhanced psychotherapy techniques for PTSD?
Even when the waters have calmed down, and a person is functional again, the shit is still there. But the shit itself can be actually cleaned up, to make space for more of the good things.
I've been looking into that here and so far it's not accepted as valid (or legal to use MDMA) and while it looks promising, me being neurodivergent has my psychiatrist and psyhcologist a bit apprehensive to experiment with it.
These corporations spend tons more money fighting against stuff than they do paying it out. The woman wanted her hospital bills paid, that was it. Instead, they go to town spending so much money with the intent to misinform and spread propaganda than just paying it.
Many of these large employers do the same with unemployment cases and on-site work injuries. Spending more time and money doing fuck all than just paying it out like the greedy pigs they are.
This has little to do with capitalism, capitalism doesn’t dictate that the more powerful smear the weaker into submission and autocracies around the world show that it doesn’t need capitalism for the powerful to suppress the weak. This was a failure of the justice system. They could’ve ordered McDonalds to spend as much money as they spent on smearing the lady to fully admit guilt and apologize. It is the justice system that failed.
The folks who speak this way, if you asked them, “Was there any wrongdoing in the world before the first stock certificate was issued?”, would say “Of course there was!”
If you asked them, “Did pre-capitalist kings or judges ever favor the unjust over the just because the unjust gave them riches?”, they would say “Yes, they did!”
If you asked them, “In ancient times, were there rich and well-fed tribes, and poor and starveling tribes, and did the richer tribes lord over the poorer ones?”, they would say “Certainly.”
Which all goes to show, at some level they do know they’re not really talking about “capitalism” in the economic or historical sense. They’re not talking about an economic structure or a stage of Marxist history. They’re taking about wickedness, graft, injustice, abuse of power – things which are much, much older than capitalism.
They’re merely using their favorite snarl word instead of just saying “evil”.
Okay, maybe you really do think kings and warlords were more virtuous than shareholders or CEOs. Alas, it was not that way. They were buttholes too. Buttholery is not controlled by the economic system of the day.
There is no system of governance or economy among humans that you wouldn’t reject, if you reject every one in which wrongdoing takes place or people enrich themselves unjustly.
That’s my point. “I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it” is dopey, because that predicate is not unique to capitalism; in fact it’s universal. In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.
Therefore, the person who reasons this way would reject any conditions under which they might find themselves living.
Whatever “reject” means here, I’m not entirely sure.
And what makes capitalism superior to any other form of resource distribution that humanity has tried so far is not that it does or doesn’t allow greed, but it lets the greedy use their greed in a way that has at least the potential to benefit the many. And by having a legal avenue for greed to be used, capitalism forces greed to the surface and makes it legal for everyone to discuss.
You are missing the point. EU countries also have capitalism and they are far better off. It’s not capitalism that sets taxation laws or anti-trust laws, those are what has failed in the US. In the EU, while not perfect, those types of laws are more rigorous and in turn those countries suffer less from corruption and injustice.
Also capitalism is still ticking up the EU, there’s a reason they have to constantly fight against it just to ensure the most basic of freedoms for its citizens.
“I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it”
No, we oppose capitalism because it inherently ENCOURAGES people to benefit themselves by doing injustice. That’s a crucial difference.
In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.
It’s equally true that people can be violently bigoted against religious, racial and sexual minorities in every system, but only a few actively ENCOURAGE them to.
Regulation is still useful. You're basically arguing for anarchy with your naive take. When a system advances the idea to exploit people, the system is fundamentally flawed. Will all systems have abuse? Sure. But that doesn't mean "you will dislike all systems, so it's irrelevant if one is better or worse."
Capitalism opens an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many, whereas any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy. At that point it becomes the same kind of discussion as the prohibition discussion. Do you ban it or do you allow and regulate it. Banning greed won’t make it go away, it will only force it into hiding and to undermine the current system. Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.
an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many
Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.
any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy
First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.
Besides, if that was true, that would be a good thing! Being greedy isn’t some inescapable natural urge that must be satisfied or you explode. Making space for the most base parts of human nature isn’t good with cruelty, deceitfulness or (except in the ordered and consensual context of sports and even that is a bit iffy in many cases) violent tendencies, so why do you want to nurture and protect greed?
Banning greed won’t make it go away
Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.
Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.
Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…
Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.
Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.
Under capitalism, a greedy person can sate their greed by offering up something many people are willing to pay for. Elon Musk is a shit human being, but his companies revolutionized the EV market, the commercial rocket launch provider market and Star Link now allows for internet access anywhere. Capitalism has turned his greed, at least in part, into a benefit many can profit from. Similarly, with Elon now tanking Twitter, BluSky, Threads and Mastodon can compete for users that have stopped using Twitter.
First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.
I was talking about systems of resource distribution, the government concerns itself with the judicial system.
Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.
Just like the prohibition lessened the impact of alcohol on society? Just like the war against drugs lessened the impact of drugs on society? Just like, as evangelicals would claim it, banning contraception and abortions lessens, in their eyes, the negative impact on society. Historically, the greedy have been, through corruption and the like, just as damaging to society as they have been now.
Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…
With a bunch of them in jail and with Trump weakening the republican party for years?
Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.
Capitalism isn’t to blame for the suffering of the ones standing in the way of the big players, western european nations show that quite clearly. While not perfect, they have much stronger protections for the powerless against the powerful, yet they also employ capitalism. This lawsuit is a failure of the judicial system, it wouldn’t have happened in a country with stronger laws against abuse.
But capitalism specifically favors the greedy and individualistic. It’s no surprise that if you base your society on capitalism, people will get more greedy.
Ok, and we still create laws to combat it. I don't think "evil always existed, so let's not have the FDA because it's not that we're protecting citizens from bad food, but simply from evil."
This is such a weird "I'm 14 and this is deep" take.
Of course it needs laws to curtail the worst of the impacts capitalism has. Capitalism is a system that distributes a finite amount of resources between demand that outstrips supply. It doesn’t concern itself dishonest actors, that is what the judicial system is for. McDonalds was such a dishonest actor and that they got away with it is a failure of the judicial system.
You're confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.
Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn't concerned with anything as it's not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn't incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.
It might not be a DIRECT result of capitalism, but guess what screwed up the “justice” system? Underregulated capitalism!
It’s specifically designed to work for the rich and powerful and against everyone else, because that’s who make the laws and keep the lawmakers in somehow legal bribes.
Capitalism didn’t screw up the justice system, the justice system failed to be impartial. It failed just as much in the USSR. Western european nations also have capitalism and they are far better off than the US is. It is not capitalism that is to blame that bribery is all but legal in the US.
It’s literally capitalism. It’s not “smearing the weak”, it’s a company spending money to potentially save money later, regardless of the consequence to anyone else. That’s the point.
No, trying to do more with less is not capitalism. It’s material reality.
It’s power being the only criterion, which means there’s no working fallback criterion. There should be at least one (which is where left libertarians are), or the structure of power should be different (which is where right libertarians are). Neither thing can be made fact to full extent, which is why we need both.
And that still has nothing to do with capitalism. Unjustly exerting power happens under any system. It’s the justice system that allowed for this exertion of power to occur, if you want to blame anything, blame the weak laws protecting individuals against smear campaigns.
Only it’s the mass media system that failed rather. Which works in the way allowing to spend money on forming opinions with predictable outcomes. Which enables much worse things than dangerous customer service.
My mom broke her tooth on a small stone in some cereal while all that was swirling around the collective consciousness. She wouldn’t sue because she “didn’t want to be like the McDonald’s lady.” The dentist wasn’t even suggesting to sue for some kind of “pain and suffering” money, just literally the $1500 it cost to fix the tooth.
There’s no evidence to suggest that they paid to spread disinformation, that would be massively illegal and open them up to way more lawsuits. Ragebait has just always been popular.
It’s pretty scary how media can influence us so much, even when we think they aren’t, and even when we think “only dumb people fall for it.” No my friend, the majority fall for it. Not cause they’re dumb, but because they’ve scienced the hell out of human nature and know precisely how to do it right under our noses. It started with marketing and advertising that works well, unfortunately. They’ve cracked the psyche code. Media adopted it. Big tech improved it. Gah… this is turning into a rant about capitalism; I didn’t intend to go there. Eek.
We ALL fall for it, just not all the same things at the same time.
That’s what’s so insidious. I’m sat here thinking “you rubes, I read into the details right away, and knew something was off about the story”. So then I have to ask myself, “ok, smartass, what are you falling for that you think you know”.
As Abramović described it later: “What I learned was that … if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you … I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”
I swear so many people are actual psychopaths and just good at hiding it.
The British have something similar at Buckingham palace. Theirs these guards that just stand around being motionless as possible which attracts people who want to do funny shit to them. They attempt funny shit and get arrested
We already have systems in place to funnel ask the sociopaths into positions where they can be monitored by everyone. It’s called capitalism and politics.
What would you even do? If I saw this as an advertised event, I wouldn’t go. Neither participating or spectating sounds very interesting. Only psychopaths are going to show up.
This sums it up for me. An invitation can be open to everyone, but the activity they’re being invited to will determine what sort of people show up. When I read, “Come and do whatever you like to an unresisting human who will sit still for six hours,” I immediately turn away–not just because I’m not interested in “doing whatever I like” to a person, but because I don’t want to be in a room with the crowd of people that I imagine would want to do whatever they like to a person.
It was real and loaded. The actor was commited to any outcome including being murdered on stage.
The audience first tested the waters and gradually escalated to more extreme forms of violence. When the violence started the audience factionalized into those who were committed to stopping her from being shot, arguing and shaming aggressors or physically stepping in.
While I don’t know if I can condone the piece ethically it certainly says more about human nature than most art pieces.
Weirdly I don’t know if I could class her as a “poor woman” ? She was the one who set up all the objects on the table which included ones that were potentially lethal and she specified the parameters of the piece and very specifically could have stopped the performance at any time by moving of her own volition and speaking. She went into it accepting her own murder as a potential outcome and was committed to carrying on regardless of what happened. It being an art peice would not have protected a participant from a murder charge while assult charges have to be made by the victim of the assault… So there was at least that.
While she may not have been able to account for the long term psychological effects and may have had some initial optimism that people would not choose the darker options made available… I think terming her a “poor woman” might actually be dismissive of the actual volition and personal grit she had in the construction and performance of the piece? While it may have been ballsy to the point bordering madness dangerous stunt performances where athletes risk death for their audiences are a thing and those performers go in with the same expectation of potential fatality.
Nah, blaming her is weaksauce. It’s not about the art show. It’s about the fact that people were hurting an innocent woman – and she is innocent regardless of her choices – and doing shit they’re not supposed to be doing regardless of what she says.
The people who made the choice to hurt her should have been recorded and exposed so we know who to trust and who we can’t.
The art show exposed a truth that humanity has to learn to accept if it’s to protect itself from evil.
Not saying that I am blaming her. The people who hurt her were definitely not good people… Just saying that I feel weird about her being called “poor woman” - like it minimizes the guts of what she did.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
Abuse victims who actively rebel or who try to help other victims jeopardize the system’s access to slaves, you see. So they have their spirits driven completely into the ground to stop others rising up against them.
Why do you think things like rape or domestic abuse are seldom punished? Or even murder to an extent? Especially since the government has had access to mass surveillance for over a decade and thus has the power to end such crimes completely?
The powers that be WANT this and NEED it for their system to survive.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
This is absolutely true. It may ring strange to the ears of some people because we’ve had Me Too since some years ago, but what did usually happen to a woman abused by someone in a position of power 20 years ago? How often would they have gotten justice? The same happens today if you’re victimized by a religious institution in a very religious community, by your boss in a workplace where everyone is scared of unionizing, or in a household in a community where most people would lean towards disbelieving you or ignoring the issue.
I’m going to go ahead and say that most people, when faced with very clear warning signs of someone else being abused, choose to do nothing about it because they’re cowards. We absolutely need better systems to deal with these situations, but given that they do not exist yet, individual acts of bravery save people from getting their lives broken. Please think about this next time you think someone close to you may be suffering.
It’s conspiracy bullshit to think that the government has nebulous access to all listening and recording devices, has an army of goons to review every second of every piece of footage, and when murders or rapes occur they actively ignore it because the division helps them profit.
It’s conspiracy bullshit to say that the billionaires and corporations are coming together to crush the spirits of the working class to have subservient slaves and that their entire existence is dependant on this apparent cycle of slavery through breaking down the hopes and dreams of the working class.
And yes, it’s conspiracy bullshit to think they’re directly spending money on sowing division in people. The only corporations that benefit on division work as military contractors or reporters.
In reality, they just don’t give a fuck about us. Politicians want to be re-elected with the least possible work done, corporations want to make the most money with the least possible cost, and billionaires want to keep as much money as they can until the heat death of the universe. Overwhelmingly, most aren’t malicious, just apathetic and trying to ascribe malice to everything, to think everyone is in the shadows conspiring against you is what sane people call paranoia.
That’s a complete misrepresentation of what the other commenter was saying.
It’s conspiracy bullshit to think that the government has nebulous access to all listening and recording devices, has an army of goons to review every second of every piece of footage, and when murders or rapes occur they actively ignore it because the division helps them profit.
None of this was said or implied.
And yes, it’s conspiracy bullshit to think they’re directly spending money on sowing division in people.
Really? Then why mention mass surveillance like it matters then? If they can’t actually go through all the data it means fucking nothing.
Isn’t that the purpose of Rupert Murdoch’s?
Gee wizz what was one of the two industries I listed that actually do profit off of divi- OH YEAH The News!
I represented their arguments exactly as they were laid out and stipulated my position accurately. They’re a conspiracy nutcase that thinks everyone in power is out to get them and the only people who actually benefit off spending money to divide people are the guys making guns and the guys recording it. Period.
Okay, let me spell this out like you are a four year old then:
The claim is that the government has the power to stop abuse en masse and improve life for everyone, but doesn’t, because they benefit from it.
The NSA program (which has been well-known for over a decade) is an example of that.
I represented their arguments exactly as they were laid out and stipulated my position accurately.
LMFAO no you’re not; you’re going off on a completely different tangent about the system as a whole instead of addressing my main claim, specifically how domestic abuse is allowed in order to maintain it, and you’re doing it because you perceive any negative talk against the system as an existential threat to it.
You only address a claim literally everyone else on Lemmy makes: that corporations actively exploit and abuse their workers, and you label it as conspiracy shit.
And you do it because I’m right and you know it, people are realizing it, and that inconveniences and threatens you.
You are exactly the kind of motherfucker who keeps the slave racket going. Because fuck them kids. Fuck them abuse victims. You ordered your Big Mac five minutes ago and you want it NOW
There’s a dead dog in their yard! ON THE GROUND NOW Alright WE WARNED YOU! Hit’em with flashes I hope to god there’s a baby in there so these scumbags learn thier lesson
I was abused by my ex-wife for years. The treatment I received from government agencies was more damaging than most of what I got from her.
Certain organisations that are used to inform governments, from elected officials to social workers are based on the assumption that only men are ever abusive, that all men are abusive and the women can do no wrong. It started with the Duluth model and was followed in Australia by a study done by White Ribbon that specifically excluded straight men from participating. I know this is the case as I attempted to participate and that is exactly what I was told at the time.
Our bureau of Statistics has clearly shown that at least ⅓ of victims are men.
This is what is meant when people talk about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity hurting everyone. It’s not “all men are bad!” But rather the idea that men aren’t allowed by society to have feelings other than anger, or are unable to be raped, or need to just “man up” when they are suffering-It’s all bullshit, and so harmful to men and boys. I’m so sorry for what you went through, and I hope you were able to find peace.
Eh, no. A lot of this crap is also being pushed by the latest wave of feminists who are of the “all men are rapists” type. I recall seeing this video a few years back about a guy trying to get into a meeting for those left after male suicide. Guy’s brother committed suicide, he wanted, needed to talk about this and was denied entry by a bunch of feminists who literally cheered that his brother had killed himself.
Everybody deserves equal treatment, men, women, or whatever you identify as. In the past few years though, there had been a clear push against white men because they must all be racist or something? It’s weird.
Either way, this is not just “toxic masculinity”, way too easy to again push it on that.
I mean, there still is justice to be sought. It’s just that now what’s left is REALLY hard to change (women’s rights outside the first world, prejudices, internalized misogyny etc.), and so an increasingly big amount of feminists focus on bringing men down because that’s easier.
So the belief by neo-feminists that all men are rapists and undeserving of sympathy is due to all men’s toxic personality? Am I getting that right? Seems like victim blaming.
Calling it toxic masculinity isn’t victim blaming. Men are victims to toxic masculinity every day and it isn’t because they have a “toxic personality”, it’s because the “masculine” image and roles in society they are expected to uphold are toxic.
The opinions of “neo feminists” are not what is typically held true either. Very few people think that way.
“Toxic masculinity” is absolute dog shit as a name for it, and I’m sure the parent commenter is reacting to that.
People use the adjective in plenty of adjective-noun pairs as an intensifier all the time. The ones railing against “deviant homosexuals” are not distinguishing them from the vanilla ones, nor do people who decry “evil pedophiles” recognize and support a non-evil variety. Thus, a lot of people hear the name “toxic masculinity” the same way, as if it is denouncing masculinity as a whole.
“Toxic masculinity” doesn’t imply “masculinity is inherently toxic”, but rather it refers to behaviors that are generally considered masculine, and are being described as toxic. You can talk about toxic femininity as well. A lot of people do, in fact, they just call it “being Karens”.
… and that most men are guilty of. When we blame men’s suffering on toxic masculinity, we are referring to the toxic masculinity in the behavior of men, and therefore we are blaming men’s suffering on men’s behavior.
I think the toxic masculinity is another subject aside from domestic relationships involving man on man violence and how it’s given a pass (especially on tv) . Beavis butthead /jackass type stuff. At least that is more in context of what I’ve seen it meant to be towards.
Domestic abuse however should be considered regardless of gender. It would be better to drop the gender out of it entirely when discussing it. We should acknowledge anyone can be a victim or even an abuser. it’s actually very common that even both are abusers but that often doesn’t get addressed other than being ‘one cancels out the other’ or ‘you’re both bad for eachother’.
There is a problem here that your post is making obvious, but no one is seeing. Every form of discrimination against men is being described by feminists as “patriarchy.” It seems when all you have is a hammer, everything in front of you becomes a nail. The giant blowback feminism is getting is because of this one-word-fits-all aspect of their ideology. In this case, the dangerously deluded idea that if you just get rid of Patriarchy, male disposability will just go away and so will discrimination against men.
It won’t, because the common denominator is humans.
This is why you never hear feminists talk about the actual things that drive women to attack men without provocation. If they can’t pin it on the Patriarchy they don’t want to discuss it. Literally this excuses women from being held responsible for their actions… because when a woman does something like that, it’s just her, but when a man does it, it’s reflective of a bigger problem, aka “men as a class”. Women don’t have bigger influences that make them think they can get away with stuff unless you can blame it on the Patriarchy and not the simple fact that women can be just as evil as men and in fact can circle their wagons around an offender just like the Patriarchy can for miscreant men. Just look at how Sharon Osbourne and an entire crowd of women circled their wagons around Catherine Kieu. I can provide the video if you want. But that never matters to feminists - the idea that women have their own framework outside of “Patriarchy” by which they treat each other and men wrong is heresy to them. Patriarchy as the cause of all gender wrongs is as myopic as it is popular.
Yet it’s hard to even discuss this because talking about it draws the equally fascist elements of the men’s rights movement. And so myopia becomes the new 20/20.
Had a friend who called the police on his abusive girlfriend when she pulled a knife on him, they arrested HIM for abusing HER despite him having witnesses…
I’ve also knew a guy who had to leave home because of his abusive wife, and when he asked about Abuse Shelters for men, the office kept recommending him to Anger Management programs meant to rehabilitate abusers
I had the same issues with my first wife. At one point when we were separated she attacked me in public and tried to steal my keys so she could take my car, while I was holding my kid. I had scratches all down the arm that wasn’t holding my child, and I ended up retreating into a store, where she continued to attack me. When the cops showed up I was immediately cuffed, and she was treated as a victim, despite onlookers and even her telling them that she had attacked me. I would have definitely gotten booked except that a female officer was called to talk to her, realized what was going on, and made the male cops uncuff me and arrest her instead.
At the hearing for a restraining order the judge literally laughed, and gave her partial custody of the kid with no restraining order for either of us, and the local DA let her off with anger management courses and nothing on her permanent record.
Did you keep photographs of the scratches? Even if they don’t become useful for you, they can be useful for history books when describing this problem in the future.
I have a feeling that only scratches the surface of what is abuse. It’s a whole family dynamic. And I would prefer it if gender wasn’t part of the discussion It really slants it like you say.
I’ve seen people blame the victim of abuse simply because they aren’t the abuser and ‘should know to leave’ when it is actually a very dangerous situation they are in.
And in some of the programs on the subject of addiction it’s actually more common that you’ll get both parents are actually abusive however our way of being programmed (like in the programs you’re saying) we might side more with who shares our gender. Or worse: start thinking the person who is being abused deserves it because they are somehow annoying others into abusing them. Or even wants to stay for the abuse and people lose respect for the victim for not leaving.
In Australia (more so in New Zealand) they are at least a decade behind on what is going on in America when it comes to addressing abuse dynamics. They still struggle a lot to get cops to take abuse seriously and very behind on the training. Lots of these programs even believe that abusers think victims have evolved to take a hit. I dunno, some sort of messed up biology involving whomever or whatever the gender is they believe is the more common and whatever the gender of victim is most common.
sure, ok in worst case scenario let’s say there might be some fucked up narratives like that out there amongst why an abuser abuses, I’d like to see that (or any idealogical bases for abuse) challenged towards the individual abuser rather than confirmed to the victim.
There was rape training at one of the unis I went to, including sexual violence against men and women stats. The rape stats were pretty bad as they are, but the one that really stuck out to me was that 1 in 10 men got raped. Really fucking high, much higher than expected. And you never hear much about it until a friend of a friend got held down by several people and raped. Refused to come forward to the police or even get tested for STDs because he was afraid of what society would think.
That feeling can help us understand where women were at about 50 years ago. That’s the thing feminism was fighting originally: the total societal blind eye, alone feeling.
Women today don’t even know what it feels like, to have no one care. Which is a testament to the success of second wave feminism, at least in this domain.
Lol. One thing I just thought of. Ignoring the extremely obvious fact that trickle down economics is something you tell stupid people to be okay with getting the shaft… can we name one time in history (golden shower jokes aside) where something trickling onto you is a good thing? The word carries questionable connotations. I don’t want anything trickling onto me…
Eventually there’s gotta be diminishing returns too given that every lane makes it a little harder to drive on. Can’t imagine the idiots swerving over 13 lanes of traffic because they didn’t realize they had to get off until the last minute
“Found guilty” is inaccurate, since he was not charged with it as a crime. Rather, it was a finding of fact in a civil case. The standards of evidence are different, and a criminal prosecution would still have to prove the charge to a higher standard. But for purposes of civil liability, yeah, he did it.
I thought about that, but since guilty isn’t only a legal term and commonly implies responsibility for wrongdoing in general and the judge is clarifying trump is responsible for raping carroll regardless of the legal term used, naming his guilt is appropriate and perfectly accurate.
People say I’m guilty, he’s guilty etc but it’s unlikely to hear “they were found guilty” outside of jurisprudence, and to say that when referring to a judicial trial and then say you meant a lay term when the professional term exists is a bit lax.
I wouldn’t say “WiFi” in place of “internet” while referring to an IT problem for example.
Less common outside of jurisprudence, sure. The term is purposefully in my personal TIL body text rather than the title where I kept things succinct and formal. Using a different term doesn’t change his guilt of rape, or that a jury legally found him liable for rape and a judge definitively found him guilty of rape.
It was found that he raped someone, he is guilty of rape, but a judge did not find him guilty of rape. Why do you insist so much on muddling the definitions of these things? It’s not good for democracy or the judicial process to use terms randomly and without definition.
The judge cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
Using the definition of the word rape, the judge declared trump guilty of rape.
Having used definitions, this “judge definitively found him guilty of rape”.
You may personally be more familiar with other uses of the words “definitively”, “judge”, “guilty”, “found” or “rape”, but their usage here is in no way inaccurate or untrue.
I haven’t been following this tbh since I’m not American but I did read another comment that said something about the statute of limitations so maybe criminal charges can’t be brought due to that weird part of the law where rape gets an expiry date.
Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.
It’s been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.
It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.
Because, again, he wasn’t convicted in criminal court. And again, there is a different burden of proof in civil cases (preponderance of evidence vs. “Beyond a reasonable doubt.”). There are many reasons why a case may be brought in civil court and not criminal.
One famous example is OJ Simpson. Ruled not guilty of murder in criminal court, but lost in civil court and had to pay Ron Goldman’s family a fuck ton of money, as well as giving up any profits he may have made, or ever will make, based on the murders (that ridiculous book, etc).
Not enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal trial, but more than enough for civil.
Do you guys use ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ as the standard of proof for civil cases in the US? In Australia we use ‘On the Balance of Probabilities’. I wonder if there’s a technical difference there.
(Tiny pedantic note but the Burden of Proof is about who has to produce the evidence, not the level of evidence required to make a finding - that’s the Standard of Proof)
There is also the notion that is not all or nothing depending on the proof for and against a defendant. You can ask for X amount, but only get X-Y because the proof against the defendant weren’t enough to grant all the X amount.
In criminal court, you are either guilty or not and then, if you are guilty, you can have factors that reduces or lengthen the sentence.
See also Martin Luther King Jr’s family bringing a preponderance of evidence to a civil trial alleging the FBI and CIA were behind the assassination and winning $100 and a footnote in history books.
The very fact that she said she could not tell if he used a finger or his penis kinda proves shes not lying… if she was set out to make money off him by lying Im pretty sure part of that lie would be “yeah his penus was def inside me bro”
Bankruptcy isn’t a bad option if you don’t have any credit or have bad credit already. You can turn things around in a couple of months. Also I am unaware of employers performing a credit check as a basis for employment.
Depends on the company. Background checks can include credit checks. Any job with money or security clearance will check credit and large employers sometimes do as well.
IT has a level of access to systems that makes management nervous. The fear is that an IT person in financial trouble could use that to embezzle, or be pressured to sell access to a malicious third party.
@Trollception@aodhsishaj they do if there's a gov't clearance or you're touching corp money involved. But in most cases they'll let you explain what happened.
I’m saying it shouldn’t be necessary in the first place. You’re supposed to have paid your debt to society by being in there. Federal amd state tax money pay for you to be there, charging room and board is predatory.
Just declare bankruptcy bro! Is a very tone deaf response to what is essentially bonded labor.
I interned at a bank and they do a credit check as a standard step for hiring someone. I also overheard HR at that bank talking about how they should stop running credit checks before hiring people because they can’t use the info from that for anything and it just costs money to run the credit check
@aodhsishaj@metaStatic bankruptcy is by far not the worse thing you can do. Often trying to unbury yourself will take longer to get back to solvency.
We had to medical B out. Get cancer these days, particularly with a $6K+ deductible for a PPO and you're toast. We managed to switch to a HMO before surgery and we were still toast. And I had a Good Job.
File, get a pre-paid card then some high-interest you barely use, then some "normal" credit and it builds faster than you know
Rich people never pay what they owe, especially if they owe it to the gov’t. Unlike poor people, the police doesn’t knock on their door to get the money.
Did Donald file for personal bankruptcy or did a Donald business file for bankruptcy? It might be like stealing: legal and cool if you are a corporation and the victims are poors.
Bankruptcy without a lawyer, a permanent address and transportation to the courts is a serious hurdle. People rotating out of prison are already at a disadvantage. My point is they shouldn’t be in debt when they leave prison in the first place. The whole point is that they paid their debt to society.
This isn’t, oh shit I’m in over my head in a cornerstore, restaurant, family warehouse, what have you. It’s very tone-deaf to not address the elephant in the room of these people entering society at a grave disadvantage.
The services below should not be necessary for every person incarcerated by the state. The system is broken.
Yeah, I think that’s what it is. Take climate change for example. These days, even denier of climate change aren’t usually denying that it exists, but rather that humans are causing it, that we can do anything about it, or that it matters. For those deniers, climate change isn’t stressful or depressing at all. If anything, to them it’s just an annoyance that people are trying to get them to make changes.
But to people who don’t bury their head in the sand, climate change is terrifying. The idea that we’re making the world less hospitable to ourselves and our children is horrible enough, but it’s made worse by the fact that we could be taking action to reduce it… but don’t.
And then there’s dozens of similar issues besides climate change, like access to healthcare, LGBT rights, genocides occuring around the world, the growing wealth inequality, police violence, etc etc etc.
On top of that Americans pay more healthcare related income taxes than anyone else! Those could well be used to cover the expenses of a socialized system. It’s absolutely amazing that people think they don’t need it.
The drag story hour thing (and pretty much all other culture wars) are designed to keep people outraged at the people trying to fix the country so that the few at the top can continue to other the one’s trying to fix the problems. Cause enough outrage to your political rivals trying to end your honey pot. Keeps the ones who fall for it from seeing past the curtain and the ones you target from being trusted/gaining momentum.
It’s funny… I could’ve sworn I remember a guy from Austria doing something really similar sometime around 1937…
Just so it’s very clear how ridiculous the situation truly is.
The US government pays per capita about double what other developed countries do for healthcare AND Americans still need to pay for private insurance over that, which on average is also more than what other countries spend per capita for the same services…
Even with all that money spent, life expectancy in the USA is closer to some Latin American countries than it is to Canada’s and infant mortality is the highest of all Occidental rich countries and is pretty much equal to China’s.
And yet I’ve seen lower class Americans argue that they don’t want to see USA’s healthcare become public because there needs to be at least one country that provides the option to live in such system… The fact that it went directly against their own interest completely escaped them…
The amount of propaganda US citizens are exposed to would make any totalitarian regime in history proud. And then people will go on about how CNN is somehow “left wing”.
In my country, the most popular candidate is a right-winger who announced publically that we wants to eliminate the ministry of Education, the main institute to fund scientific research, public health, the national bank and he wants to make the US dollar the national currency. It’s suicide, but people are celebrating the nonsense.
We do have socialized medicine. We socialize the research and innovations and give it to corporations and insurance companies for them to have profits.
Specifically, those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons.
These terms were popular in psychology as associated with intelligence on an IQ test until around the 1960s.
Idk about others, but Singapore doesn’t really have socialized healthcare.
We pay for it with our salaries into an account and the hospitals use that when necessary.
But we have all the luxury to have personal insurance and it doesn’t really cost too much if you have a proper job and all. Coverage is pretty decent too.
That’s not true at all. While Medishield is the basic healthcare insurance solutions and Medisave comes from your CPF, Medifund is an endowment fund that works like a financial safety net to help needy Singaporeans who cannot afford hospital expenses despite Medisave and MediShield.
The woman’s scalds were almost enough to kill her. She spent weeks in hospital and needed skin grafts. To make it worse, McDonald’s had received multiple complaints about the temperature of their coffee.
Her lawsuit was just to help cover the medical expenses. McDonald’s didn’t want a precedence of being sued so their PR cooked up a narrative of greedy frivolous lawsuits and America bought this story hook line and sinker.
She even started out planning to accept the $800 oopsie poopsie money McDonald’s offered her until her family was like “um. No? You’ve gone from independent living senior to permanently disabled. You deserve for them to pay the full medical bills”
but water only goes to 100 degrees, even with other stuff dissolved i can’t imagine a water-based liquid going much higher than like 120 degrees at most…
200 Fahrenheit. That’s 93.3C. Just below literal boiling.
Edit for more information, an adult human will suffer 3rd degree burns if exposed to 150F (65.5C) liquid for two seconds. This was 133% hotter than liquid that will cause 3rd degree burns. And it was poured directly in her lap, soaked into cloth that she could not easily remove. This was straight up evil levels of negligent.
Just a quick note but neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit degrees can be used the way you’ve described - 200°F isn’t 133% of the temperature of 150°C and neither is 93.3°C 133% hotter than 65.5°C because the ‘zero’ point on both of those scales are entirely arbitrary.
The two temperatures you’re talking about are ~366.45 K and ~338.65 K, as kelvin is the only true SI measurement for temperature whose zero point describes a natural or true zero, meaning that the higher temperature is roughly ~8% hotter.
Brought to you by the National Department of Pedantry
I was a bit annoyed at the nitpickiness of this comment until I saw that you’re from the NDP. I salute your good work and consider myself more educated.
To add on, even when something isn’t boiling, it’ll generate an appreciable amount of vapor. The boiling point is just the temperature at which bubbles form within the liquid. The top surface is still going to give off hot steam. I honestly don’t know if near boiling vs boiling is a meaningful distinction in terms of how dangerous it is.
I wonder actually if a boiling liquid would be slightly safer because there’s more vapor and less liquid.
And now imagine giving that to a person in a moving vehicle without a lid.
There’s so much fucked up here it’s almost unbelievable. This is legitimately a bigger safety risk, after all is said and done, than many risks in an industrial chemical plant.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. It seemed like you were saying she was weak and fragile for getting burned. I read it as she should have “rubbed some dirt on it and walked it off”.
In 2012, the parody national anthem from the film's soundtrack, which acclaims Kazakhstan for its high-quality potassium exports and having the second-cleanest prostitutes in the region, was mistakenly played at the medal ceremony of Mariya Dmitriyenko at the Emir of Kuwait International Shooting Grand Prix. The incident apparently resulted from the wrong song being downloaded from the Internet.
til
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.