The money needs to come with contractual obligations and penalties for failing to deliver (for any reason) or government equity in exchange for funding.
And what if that promise is broken? It shouldn’t just have promises, there should be clear consequences attached as well. Else it’ll just be a broken contract or promise. That can end up in legal stuff for ages.
Isn’t that what being paid in stock is meant to do? Reward him for making decisions causing the company to do well? There’s usually vesting periods and someone that high can’t just sell all at once, so it should incent him to act in the long term best interest of the company. In particular, Musk was famous for negotiating a pay package with less salary, and very aggressive targets for the company, to get stock bonuses . It should be good that it succeeded, that he met those targets
This is what I don’t get since reality is so different from the above fable. Where did it all go so wrong?
As per his own words, he’s a whiner cause he’ll do it till it wins. Unsure how well that works in criminal court though. I’m hoping we get to find out the court’s limits sooner than later
There’s a bit of usefulness in whining. I “whine” at work all the time, but it’s about useful shit. Nothing seems to happen until I complain about something lol
The way I interpreted it is that your comment had a downvote when InternetUser2012 commented, not that they were downvoting you. I could be wrong though.
Headline is kind of funny, but I wanted to know what he shot at
In body cam footage shared across social media, the officer was seen jumping to the ground and shouted “shots fired” after the acorn strikes the roof of his car. He then turned and emptied every bullet from his gun, each aimed squarely at his squad car.
Funny again…
While Hernandez fired on the car, Marquis Jackson, who was accused of stealing his girlfriend’s car, was in the back of the police cruiser. Officers had searched, handcuffed and loaded the accused into the back of the police car and, despite being cuffed, it was Jackson that the officer thought was shooting at him.
Nope, he was trying to kill someone handcuffed in the back of his squad car and had already been searched for weapons.
Cop should at least be facing reckless endangerment, if not attempted murder.
I deal with PTSD vets every day so I understand the snap buuuuut… No one else gets to get away with a slap on the wrist because of their mental illness so fuckem
Yeah. The "having PTSD" part isn't what should be punished, it's the "and yet still carrying a gun while putting yourself in a position to have your PTSD triggered like this" part that's egregious.
Well, Philip Brailsford, the murderer who murdered Daniel Shaver, claimed PTSD for murdering Daniel so he could draw on his pension and retire early. Because he murdered someone and it hurt his fee-fees.
See I’m like, I don’t even think you could qualify most of the things you would do to this guy as being punishment. Preventing this guy from being a cop forever (pretty unlikely, but could happen), isn’t really a punishment. If he’s discharging his firearm into his own car, he’s obviously just unfit to be an officer and that’s a pretty clear safety concern. If you sent him to prison, that might be more of a “punishment”, but that’s also, you know, what cops do basically their whole careers, is send people to prison, and we still have all the same problems with the prison system as we’ve always had, so, you know, I’m like. I dunno. That doesn’t seem like a clear “win”, to me, both in terms of improving society and in terms of helping him out if he’s mentally ill which, you know, seems to clearly be the case, here.
You could also maybe think, hey, this guy goes to an asylum or something for mental illness, but that kind of has the same problems as sending someone to prison, it’s not usually a helpful system.
I am not saying he definitely wasn’t trying to kill Mr. Jackson intentionally. I’m saying that the other possibility is that he’s a stupid coward that empties his clip at his own car because he’s terrified and doesn’t think about and/or care that there’s a person in his car.
Was he intending to kill Mr. Jackson? Maybe. That’s definitely not an unlikely possibility. But I think stupid cowardice where the motive wasn’t murder is also not unlikely because cops are stupid cowards.
I got ya. I'm agreeing that he's a coward and an idiot, but disagreeing that he might not have been trying to murder a guy. He might not have believed it was murder, because of the idiot part...but the video convinced me he was intentionally trying to kill the unarmed man in the back of his car.
I went and watched it and you're right, it's plain as day lmfao. He falls over all dramatically "I'M HIT!" and shoots his gun sideways. I mean what the hell is this dude thinking?
“It hit my vest” and “I feel weird”. Them be signs that his fat ass has coronary artery disease. Fucking Okaloosa County. Good riddance. Don’t miss it.
Same as when they think they’re doing on fentanyl…
After hearing the sound of the acorn, the deputy reported that he also felt a “tingliness” all along the side of his body. He then said his “legs just give out” and he fell to the ground, assuming that he had been seriously injured by something.
Because of this, the video also showed Hernandez complaining about feeling “weird” and shouting to his colleague that he’s been hit. It’s all very dramatic.
Cops are constantly terrified because of their training, so they panic and mistake a panic attack for something else.
Being a cop sucks so much (because of their own leadership and culture) that good qualified people do t want to be a cop. So we end up with these fragile snowflakes that shouldn’t be allowed to carry at all. Let alone be a cop
Yeah… I am sure there are some idiots who believe in the horrors of fentanyl.
The reality is it is a catch all to excuse all the other drugs in their systems. If someone notices a cop is clearly amped up on amphetamines then the reality is that someone in the tri-state area had a single particle of fentanyl on them and THAT is why the cop who just killed four people is alternating between growling and crying while looking even sweatier than alex jones.
That’s just because you don’t know how to make it, and they are selling it to you a few drops at a time. I believe the ingredients are actually pretty cheap. Chemistry students make it.
Yeah, right. I don't believe you. HOW would they do that? What steps could they possibly take!? What ingredients would they need and where would they even get them!?
I mean, step one: acquire the precursors. Step two: take organic chemistry 1; then organic chemistry 2; perhaps something strange like p chem, or environmental chem or chemical instrumentation; ask the professor between classes how to make it; take another class like drug discovery and design, or advanced organic chemistry…
I am not recommending that anyone do this but you don’t need anything more advanced than Orgo 2. The issue isn’t making the compound, at least once you have the precursors, it’s ensuring that it’s not contaminated with other products in a way that harms or kills you. It’s not enough to get any yield, you need a safe yield.
That was the joke. You technically don’t even need the ochems if you just ask the professor like I said. We’re trying to lead kids down the dark road of the chemistry cult.
More seriously, a friend of mine was a chem student, and he says pretty much every one of his classmates knows how to run off 2 liters of LSD. Which should be enough to send every horse on the planet straight to the moon.
Synthesizing the drug isn’t the issue, as long as you have the right equipment and knowledge. The difficult part is getting the correct precursor chemicals.
True, but fentanyl is generally not. They do make fentanyl patches, but casual exposure, like a cop touching a tiny bit of fentanyl, will not result in fentanyl being absorbed.
My goodness what a fucking snowflake. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the profession if you’re “scared shitless” 99% of the time. But we all know that’s a cover for them. They love killing people.
Cop should at least be facing reckless endangerment, if not attempted murder.
The review board found his conduct was not reasonable; so, it’ll be up to the prosecutor (which I’m sure in FL is an office eager to go after cops). The other officer, who began shooting after the officer wearing the bodycam in the OP began shooting, was found to have acted reasonably.
Essentially, you can’t think an acorn is a bullet and get away with shooting at a detained and secured civilian. But, if another officer on scene thinks, even unreasonably so, that an acorn is a bullet and starts shooting at a detained and secured civilian, you can too. If this doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, take that as reassurance that your critical thinking remains, at least partially, intact.
I can at least somewhat understand the other officer. If your partner is screaming “IM HIT” and shooting several rounds in broad daylight, why would you question if you’re in a real shootout? Just because you haven’t seen the alleged shooter yet doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
I’m not saying either should get away with anything. But officer 2 at least had a reason to believe he was in danger.
Essentially, you can’t think an acorn is a bullet and get away with shooting at a detained and secured civilian. But, if another officer on scene thinks, even unreasonably so, that an acorn is a bullet and starts shooting at a detained and secured civilian, you can too. If this doesn’t make a lot of sense to you, take that as reassurance that your critical thinking remains, at least partially, intact.
IIRC Sympathetic Fire seems to be insta-forgiveness (by other police and the courts) whenever it comes up.
As one example, I think it played a role in the Daniel Shaver case, but it’s been a long time since I read all those details and I really don’t want to dive into that pool of anger and sadness again to verify.
Remember, he’s not getting triggered by the acorn, he’s reacting to his coworker yelling that they’ve been shot and actual gunfire. That’s a justified reason to pull out your weapon IMO
Granted, he should’ve tried to take control of the situation and de-escalate so he could “save” his panicked coworker, but that kind of calmness “under fire” would take actual training
It does mean that the assisting officers aren’t required to actually confirm their target, though.
What if this was real. If a 3rd party shot at them. 1st officer fires, blindly assuming it’s the perp in cuffs in the car. 2nd cop shoots and kills perp in car because he saw that’s what his partner was shooting at. When, in this hypothetical scenario, it was really a 3rd party that wasn’t identified yet, which would be the only plausible source of a gun shot anyway since the perp was already searched and cuffed.
That doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s how they’re trained. Ride or die with their comrads. Once the first shot is fired, it’s shoot first and ask questions later for all additional officers.
That’s not good policy. That’s not good for civilians.
If “downtown” were a carless urban greenscape, it would be thriving, particularly if folks had control over their own busy schedules. Instead, this idiot presides over a traffic-jammed, smog-filled, noisy, ugly, colorless concrete jungle and he’s sad it’s dying? Yeah, because most cities are hideous blight zones.
At least one of the search warrants for Thursday’s raid seen by the Guardian authorized the FBI to confiscate dozens of items from the raided homes – including laptops, cellphones, “Defend the Atlanta Forest” stickers and posters and personal journals.
So, like, no bombs? No guns? Not even knives? How about nunchaku?
Not really seeing why these bastard cops had to do SWAT style raids. Unless, of course, they’re terrorists…
Love that they still do this with all their enemies. The left is simultaneously the most dangerous, and also comprised of effeminate weaklings. Biden is both an evil super genius, and a befuddled geezer. So refreshing to know they've at least remained consistent in one thing; being dumb asses.
Right out of Umberto Eco’s list of defining points of fascism.
The disciples of Fascism must feel humiliated by the enemy’s wealth and power, but feel nonetheless that they can defeat the enemy. The enemy is both too strong and too weak.
Like I suggested- they’re terrorists. People may not like it when I call them terrorists, but what else can you call them when they spend so much time using violence and intimidation to cause fear amongst the populace?
Even if they had guns, it’s a constitutional right. I’ve never understood the obsession with reporting when guns are found. Around 45% of US households have a gun, does that mean that 45% of Americans are criminals in the eyes of the law?! Actually probably.
Filing a nuisance suit against her former employer is a great way to boost her career, and teaming up with a scumbag like Musk helps clarify her ethics for anyone who’s unfamiliar with who she is. Outstanding move, Gina!
She no longer has a career with mainstream studios.
Fascist bullshit is her career now. I assume she has another wackadoodle movie coming out soon. Or maybe she's the next mother of Elon's soon to be estranged children.
On the subject of Sorbo, apparently he had two small strokes during his time on Hercules and that's part of why he went off the rails so damn abruptly.
In other words they're following a playbook written by the brain-damaged, literally. By all means, go on.
As much as I agree with you logically, and also disagree with what she did, we shouldn’t encourage people to avoid lawsuits to address injustice they perceived. That’s how we ended up with #metoo. So many on the entertainment industry not rocking the boat as it could damage their career. Some were blacklisted for speaking out, so it was a real fear.
If it was a real injustice the same logic would apply and we should take that into consideration when we consider damages for real injustices.
I agree completely. I had the same concern as I was writing my comment, which is why I was careful to specify that it’s a nuisance suit. (Side note: autocorrect saved my butt. I can never remember how to spell “nuisance”.)
You should check again cause I'm sure there are more than a few people who'd do whatever it took to get their hands on Muskys gold. Including rape and kidnapping.
No, he just felt entitled to no one knowing. There aren't a bunch of Republicans (or in his case Democrats) in government and unhinged MAGA-types (or a left equivalent) spreading conspiracies about how he's a government plant or part of some psyop or whatever. It doesn't even compare. People just don't like Musk and he has no skin. Nor do his fanboys for that matter.
Like this is a temporary state of affairs most likely. So I feel like as a good gesture the student could pause this until the election is over. But it sounds like you're just really concerned with some perceived hypocrisy over how people treated Musk.
She has enough money, I’m sure she could afford a pair of FA-18E Super Hornets to escort her. And once she’s on the ground, get driven around in a Leopard 2A5.
I guess what I’m saying is, Taylor Swift should be armed to the fucking teeth. Reaper drones, CIWS, tactical warheads, nuclear submarines, the whole nine.
Yeah, not like someone who puts on big productions where people travel to see her is unfamiliar with personal security. And if she wanted her travel plans to be private, she could fly commercial or charter. Last I checked, there are companies that keep who their passenger lists quiet.
It's a presidential election year; time for every single Republican to suddenly start talking about a "debt crisis" that for some reason didn't exist while they were running up record deficits to cut taxes for the wealthy.
It doesn’t change the fact that the US has an unsustainable growth in the national debt which continues every year. Broken clock right twice a day etc. The US spending more than it makes on a consistent basis is not good long-term. It’s a bipartisan issue, both parties regularly approve budgets well above what we can afford.
Jerome Powell is the fed chair, he was nominated to the post by President Barack Obama in 2012, he was subsequently elevated to chairman by President Donald Trump (succeeding Janet Yellen), and renominated to the position by President Joe Biden.
He could certainly make a suggestion. Congress is the one that has us on an unsustainable path and he has no problem pointing that out; so why not a solution?
I believe this is where it’s from. If you look up similar charts you’ll see similar data. Most debt is publicly owned in the form of bonds, treasury notes, etc econofact.org/why-is-the-u-s-debt-expected-to-kee…
You’re right. We can spend more than we make forever. There will be no consequences to such a fiscal plan. Don’t listen to Jerome Powell, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Seriously doubt this (and most polling these days). Gen Z is particularly unlikely to respond to polls or answer unknown callers in general. Until those issues in polling are solved, I take them with a grain of salt.
That is NOT what they are saying. They are suggesting that the methodology may have been wrong, which is a perfectly reasonable question that EVERY person should ask themselves EVERY SINGLE TIME they hear about a study releasing results.
Did you look at the questions? Half of them are basically, “Have you heard of Andrew Tate” (which of course younger people are more likely to have), “Do you agree with Andrew Tate”, “Is Andrew Tate Bad”, etc.
The polling is irrelevant if the universities questions suck shit.
The agreement questions were only posed to those who responded that they knew about him. It’s not like they were asking old people who had no idea who he was if they agreed with him.
Of course, I am only talking about likelihoods. If you do not know a person, but have a friend how shares your political views, it is more likely that your friend recommend to learn about that person, if the person’s view also coincides with yours. Kind of echo chamber effect.
That looks like a pretty standard battery of poll questions to me. If somebody says they have an opinion of Andrew Tate but you can’t confirm whether or not they have even heard of him, then the answer is near-useless unless you’re trying to make some sort of study about how people have opinions on things they don’t know about, which I highly doubt was the purpose of this poll.
Do you have experience developing polls? It’s OK if you don’t have any, but I’m looking for some reason why your attack is valid in the face of a respectable group like Ipsos. Do you have any sources for why this is bad? I feel like we are just getting your gut feelings here. You have to give us something more than “this sounds silly to me.”
Looks like this was an online poll where you get paid if randomly selected:
Ipsos UK interviewed online a representative sample of 3,716 adults aged 16+ across the United Kingdom between 17 and 23 August 2023. This data has been collected by Ipsos’s UK KnowledgePanel, an online random probability panel…
For what it’s worth, there’s a recent Gallup survey showing a similar trend that published a couple weeks ago:
…Since 2014, women between the ages of 18 and 29 have steadily become more liberal each year, while young men have not. Today, female Gen Zers are more likely than their male counterparts to vote, care more about political issues, and participate in social movements and protests.
Id say to make a group of people generally averse to participating in such polls, participate.
Why do people participate in any such polls? Because they think their opinion is important and want it heard, or because they get something. Market researchers usually give test groups their products for free or at a discount. Researchers pay people to participate in studies. Most humans don’t do things without motivation.
If you don’t pay people then you’re only going to get people who are really enthusiastic about it to respond. If you actually compensate them for their time then people will take time out of their day to talk about something they probably don’t care about.
No, I don't. You said you'd do whatever they want if they paid you, then immediately said you wouldn't do it truthfully if they paid you to answer truthfully. It's nonsensical.
LOL, this dude’s been lucky enough to never read a strategically worded political poll apparently.
All polls are inherently biased in their wording. Almost no poll-makers are non-partisan, and the people most likely to complete polls are often the most biased.
Statistics baybeee! They’ll tell you whatever you want if you structure your intake datum properly!
It is impossible to have truly "objective" polling. There are the questions, there are the answers, and you assess within that context. We have standards and practices that help steer us towards higher quality input/output knowing that nothing is airtight.
This is a nonsense standard of your own making. News, history, doesn't matter. "Just the facts" and "true objectivity" are a noble dream at best (to borrow from Novick) and are unachievable. You do the best you can, account for biases/different narratives, and deliver the results. That's always how it has been. It doesn't make these fields totally arbitrary or worthless as you imply.
Look a lot of yall have some flippant remarks about polling methods, and while they are far from perfect, these are valid methods. Ipsos and Gallup (who showed similar results) are respectable groups. We can bicker about the specific numbers but the trend is clear and it’s something we need to address. Jeering and mocking pollsters doesn’t change that.
Good polling can be formated in a way to weed out people giving nonsense answers, it’s like the first thing you learn about polling in sociology or psychology, how to extract quality data.
“I’ve literally never participated in a nationwide poll nor have I ever made one outside of scheduling with friends but in my expert opinion these questions are terrible.”
and how many people will click on an ad or email saying you’ll get paid to take a poll?
is that a representative portion of the population or a very niche subgroup of desperate, gullible or extremely bored people?
how/where was it advertised?
…
polls don’t have to be bullshit, but they always are…
It’s hard to get random people’s emails and still be sure that the samling is good. This way seems more reliable. The few serious polls I have ever been sent by the National Bureau of Statistics has always been sent by snailmail (or technically digital snailmail which is connected to my digital ID)
No, it’s a free service you sign up for which delivers all the snailmail you get from governments and others to a digital mailbox instead. It’s like instant snailmail.
It functions using an app or website instead of email, so you login by verifying your ID and not a password. I think the service is fairly common where I live.
You can also get some receipts via that service.
The service automatically organises all your mail into folders for each sender and separately for receipts and payments. Sender folders wouldn’t work well for email because you get email for a lot of people and companies but with this service I have only collected 16 different senders over 3 years.
You can also share your digital mailbox with other people.
It’s very convenient and saves time and paper. So I highly recommend checking if anything similar exists where you live.
I don’t live in the UK so I don’t know if they have anything like it.
No, they send it through the service. Nothing ever gets printed.
The different companies and government organisations do have to support it though.
There are a few different companies that deliver the same service, the biggest (and first?) one is apparently used by almost half of the country’s population. Pretty much every service supports all the governmental organisations. Company support varies more.
One of the smaller (not small) service provider is owned by the goverment. I am thinking of switching to that one but I haven’t bother yet.
Apparently at least one of the smaller providers supports scanning of all physical mail but I have never had that.
That’s an interesting thing to note. If the people more likely to approve of Tate and his message are the ones looking for easy money then that could indicate a degree of selection bias.
The existence and popularity of people like Tate and toxic dating strategy shit might be an indication of how Gen Z is handling misogyny. It’s possible Gen Z hasn’t been exposed to misogyny in such heavy doses as the rest of us. Seeing your peers undervalued and objectified could sort of be an inoculation. There also might be a perquisite strong belief in equality component.
For things like feminism, the battle is never over. Insidious ideals like misogyny needs to be constantly kept in check.
Your first link disagrees with the article you posted…
And while younger people overall have a more favourable view of this phrase, there is a big gender divide in views among them: 37% of men aged 16 to 29 say “toxic masculinity” is an unhelpful phrase, roughly double the 19% of young women who feel this way. Correspondingly, young women (47%) are considerably more likely than young men (29%) – or any other age category – to find it a helpful term.
By contrast, views among older age groups vary less by gender – although older men are more likely than younger men to say “toxic masculinity” is an unhelpful term.
It sounds like the only change is you get women are more supportive of feminism than older women…
The first link is the study the article cites to. Also, I don’t think there’s a disagreement. The portion you cited refers specifically to “toxic masculinity,” whereas the article focuses on people’s reactions to “feminism.” Specifically, it mentions that 16% of Gen Z males felt feminism had done more harm than good, compared to 13% among those over 60, to support its claim.
The public think the oldest group of men are most likely to believe equal opportunities for women have gone too far – but it is actually men aged 30 to 59 men who are more likely to feel this way47% of the public think older men aged 60+ are most likely to believe attempts to give women equal opportunities have gone too far – the top answer given. But in reality, 20% of men aged 30 to 59 hold this view, compared with 13% of men aged 60+.
For 16-29, it’s 5%
So yeah, still not sure why you’re using a string of different articles, but they don’t agree with you main post bud…
I’m not sure what you’re arguing anymore. I said the article focuses on the “feminism” portion of the study. This new portion you cited to is about “equal opportunities.” Look at page 15 of the PDF where it specifically shows 16% for men aged 16-29 vs. 13% for men aged 60+ with respect to “feminism” (the point of the article).
The school (for some reason) gave UK Tabloid The Daily Mail an interview.
They said the father cheated on the mother and forced the daughter to move in with the mistress, that the victim was a drug dealer and was beaten for selling laced marijuana to her attackers, so the victim killed herself because of her unstable home life and drug addiction, not the beating the school ignored.
So they’re not just being sued for not doing anything after the beating, they’re being sued for slander as well.
Edit:
Since OPs link doesn’t go into all that, here’s the article I read the other day so you don’t have to take my word on it
I also forgot the school brought up the victims mom died of suicide as well… Implying it would have happened anyways.
“The mom killed herself two years ago. The girls that assaulted her were friends with her but thought she had laced the marijuana they had smoked together. The father is very upset and lost his only child so sometimes you just have to eat the s— sandwich,” an email from Parlapanides stated, according to the lawsuit.
Bad schools tend to burn teachers and administrators out. The only ones who don’t are either hyper dedicated , or sociopathic. This concentrates them into problematic schools. The sociopathic ones also tend to get the most headlines, so we hear about them a lot more.
I like how Abbott Elementary actually shows this aspect, but it handles the problem too lightly, but the principal is basically the villain of the show.
My friend was a teacher for a bit. He ended up leaving for multiple reasons, but one stand out story was when he stuck up for a student that needed to carry an epipen, but the school wouldn’t let them per their Zero Tolerance policy. The Gym Teacher turned Principle said he wasn’t worried about getting sued if the child was hurt, as he’s been sued before.
The superintendent at my high school admitted that I “Fell through the cracks”, but refused to do anything about it when I confronted him about my difficulties getting out of the remedial classes. This will be a bit of a brag, but most people assume that I’m some engineering graduate instead of a drop out. This includes state university professors.
There’s just too many bad administrators and teachers out there, just like in the private sector there’s too much bad management, we need to trim the fat and figure out what works and what doesn’t while also putting compassionate people in charge of students and people in general.
We’re really just going to lay a blanket statement down like this? Every single one, everywhere, run by sociopaths? No room for nuance here at all?
Reminder that schools are often run by former teachers. You know, those severally underpaid and overworked people that do one of the hardest and most important jobs there is.
Yes, sure why not? It’s not like what we say here has any effect on the situation. I’ve been trying to fix my issues since I left. I’m allowed to be bitter.
Reminder that schools are often run by former teachers.
From my experience, primarily gym and civics teachers. I’ve have so many little anecdotes about how my high school civics/history teachers pushed conservative ideology. Complaining about “welfare queens”, complaining about unions(even saying teacher’s unions were the only ones needed anymore). There’s a selection bias for the types of people that become administrators and it’s the same bias for why CEOs are mainly made up of sociopaths.
Got it, so you justify your ridiculous statement with even more ridiculous rhetoric, anecdote and not a shred of real evidence. Let’s say everything you said was true - you’re one person, how many schools could you have possibly experienced in ways that are meaningful to this conversation? You only mention one and that was as a student and that example is about fucking civics teachers not those who ran the school.
Honestly, the stuff that people say here to justify stupid statements is hilariously inept. Just take a moment and stop to read what you write and really think about how it reads - it’s childish lying and only likeminded fools agree with it.
All you have to do is look at the end results. Holistically, sociopathy is the norm and the school system is a corner stone in supporting that. It’s just hard to see because of normalized it is.
As far as proving it, I’m not going to dox myself and if I did, it wouldn’t be good enough for you. I’ve had enough experience with the education system at various levels and know enough of the good educators to know how it works.
Remember what ACAB, landlord hating, anybody that’s not communist or fixing every world problem with the snap of a finger platform you’re on.
Not only that, but there’s far fewer to literally no mod tools, bot detection, and vote manipulation detection either.
It makes things make a lot more sense when you realize half your politics and news threads are about as extreme as you can get short of being straight up 8chan.
Jesus, that's just pure malice on the school's part. Not even through incompetence, it seems downright deliberate. Absolute sociopaths, I hope the family takes them to the fuckin' cleaners.
What does that even mean in this context? I’m pretty sure that dad has been eating shit sandwiches for a couple of years now. Why does he have to eat more? Sounds like an insensitive halfwit wrote that email.
I can only interpret it as “fuck you, deal with it”. My sister committed suicide over 20 years ago and if anyone talked like this to me today I don’t know that I would handle it legally. It’s so fucked up.
Look. Execution is inhumane. You can’t make it gentle, peaceful, or nice. All you can do is make it quick, which it sounds like they failed to do here. But if the good people of Alabama aren’t comfortable with someone struggling for half an hour and then dying, they shouldn’t execute people at all.
That said, the person quoted in this article is the executed’s spiritual advisor. If I was Smith’s spiritual advisor, I’d also be claiming the method was inhumane, violent, and awful. The reality is that it’s a lot more cruel that Smith went back into the execution chamber despite them botching the job the first time than that they half-assed the nitrogen asphyxiation. It was an untested method, but every method of execution has a first person to be executed with it.
If your society is bickering over which way it should kill the condemned, you’ve already ceded the moral high ground. We have already solved execution, and we’ve had it solved for decades, even centuries arguably. Hanging, firing squad, electrocution, beheading, lethal injection–every method has its proponents and detractors, but every method is to the same end. If you’re too squeamish for what happened in Alabama, an alternative method of killing people isn’t going to fix that for you. The solution is staring you right in the face, and it’s life without parole.
That said, the person quoted in this article is the executed’s spiritual advisor. If I was Smith’s spiritual advisor, I’d also be claiming the method was inhumane, violent, and awful.
Yes, the person who actually cares about the person being killed speaks up for the person being killed. Does that make their opinion less valid than all the liars who said he was going to just pass peacefully, which of course did not happen?
… Yes. Yes it does. It’s literally his job. It doesn’t make the opinion invalid, but it absolutely makes it less valid than the opinion of a neutral observer. That’s just what bias is.
“She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he said, later adding: “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”
You sexually assaulted her in 1996 you dumb sack of shit. It was two full decades before you fell ass backwards into the Oval office. This has nothing to do with the presidency. It’s about you and your crimes.
Edit: The defamation claim is absolutely about the sexual assault taking place. That’s what he was referring to when he said “something I consider to be a false accusation”. Anyone trying to tell you this trial has nothing to do with the sexual assault is an idiot.
This trial isn’t about the sexual assault. That was already established in a previous case, where he was ordered to pay $5M in damages.
This trial is about him repeatedly calling her a liar, and other worse things when the memoir she had published in 2019 described the sexual assault. He’s unsuccessfully attempting to argue that since he was president at the time, his actions as president should be immune from civil and criminal litigation.
I think that even if he and his attorneys weren’t some of the dumbest people in the world, it would still be a very difficult position to prove. As it turns out, though, they are some of the dumbest people in the world, so there’s no shot that that defense will work. And he doesn’t exactly help his case by repeatedly claiming that Carroll was lying about the sexual assault, since that has already been established as fact by the court.
Edit: Very confused about the downvotes here. What am I missing?
What am I missing? I figure it’s because people don’t know the intricacies of the two trials. He’s already been found liable for the sexual assault in the first completed case. This current case has the same basic facts so the judge ruled that there is no re-litigation to be done on liability, only on damages.
I presume your downvotes are most likely related to the first sentence in your post. They get that far and likely assume that you’re denying the first case’s conclusions without catching the subtle nature of the two cases.
As someone else noted, Bieber was young and naive. I don’t think he said it to boost his ego; rather, it was just a poor choice of words. Now, Musk, on the other hand…
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.