Is being a law enforcement officer a protected class?
Saying something like “I refuse to serve you in the basis of your race” is illegal because race is a protected class. Whereas “I refuse to serve you because your Lemmy hit-takes are dumb” is perfectly legal! Same as refusing to serve armed thugs masquerading as the good guys.
Of course it’s not a protected class. I was responding to the op who said anyone should be able to be turned away, no questions asked. The whole reason we have protected classes is to prevent that sort of broad stroke.
I just had a situation with this at work that I talked to my wife about. A customer wanted us to do something with an image that had full frontal nudity and my bosses had to have a discussion about whether or not to allow it. My wife said, “aren’t they required to?” I pointed out that if that was true, we wouldn’t be able to refuse Neo-Nazis.
…Yeah, do you realize how bad taste it is to compare not letting cops in to Jim Crow discrimination against Black folks? Y’know, the people cops kill a lot?
I see what you’re trying to do, but…can you please not.
Dude said legalize “no questions asked discrimination” and you referenced a very well known example of discrimination in recent history. Seemed like a logical response to me.
Yeah, but the issue is using that particular example in a post talking about police.
Also, as a Black American, it’s really tiring when we and discrimination against us get pulled out to use as examples. Like, just keep us out of it some times.
I don’t know what you’re not getting. Your post was about police specifically. The top comment of this chain days for any reason whatsoever, which could include, but is not limited to, race. The post isn’t wrong, the top level comment here is because some people would use the liberty of blocking anyone they want to ban people of color, which has happened in the past hence the example.
You’re telling me that if the conversation starts with cops, you agree with someone saying “they should be able to turn anyone away, no questions asked.”?
Dude didn’t say discriminating against cops is the same as discriminating against black people.
Everyone is misunderstanding your post. Add the words “your suggested policy could lead back to” before the sign you were referencing. I only finally got that context by reading the entire thread just now
Haven't drugs been used as an explanation for his mammoth missteps with Twitter? Because the way this guy is piloting the ship, he's going to crash it into Prince William Sound at any moment. They'll be scrubbing stupid posts off the seabirds for months.
But some drugs can affect your intelligence, and if he was intelligent enough to at least lay low and take credit for others’ work before, it appears he no longer has at least that baseline.
Constant praise by sycophants and people wanting to believe in a better future at the hand of high tech billionaires also does the trick. It works like a pump for inflatable egos.
It has absolutely nothing to do with drugs. Not even in the slightest. He acted this way before he bought Twitter. He acted this way when he wormed his way into Paypal. This is just his thing. The only difference is people give him attention now. Iron Man, Rick and Morty, and the general Internet praise made him too comfortable.
I think the Rick and Morty joke flew over people’s heads tbh. He’s kinda portrayed as a useless dick, I mean his character just did what he does in real life. Let others solve the problem while he tries to take some or all credit.
Would love to see the LGBTQ+ community arm them selves. Be hilarious to watch the right wingers scrambling over each other to quickly get gun restrictions in place
They are, and 99% of gun owners want them to be armed. A armed minority is harder to oppress. Check out the pink pistols and NAAGA. A ton of range owners who are white focus heavily on bringing in minorities to train them and get range time in. You antigun people are so damn brainwashed, that you think that only 55+ year old white males who love Jesus and busch beer own firearms.
There are more guns in the country than there are people. And only 32% of American adults own guns. So if only a 1/3 of adults, who make up 2/3 of the population, own guns and there more guns than people, then the average gun owner owns 5 guns.
I would say owning 5 guns is close to hoarding but maybe not quite there. However, that’s the average. I know many gun owners who only have 1 or 2 guns. That means there are a lot of people who own a lot more than 5 guns.
I don’t know what group you hang around, but I’m from the rural south and everyone I talk to is pro-gun for everyone. That’s the one thing they all agree on.
Bitch is going to commit suicide in jail and that’s way too good for her. She should live with it every day and be beaten daily. Even that’s too good for her. Makes my blood boil
I’m trying to understand the downvotes you have. Like yeah, what you’re saying is extreme. But murdering goddamn infants is pretty fucking extreme. If there was ever a time to wish someone pain, it would be now.
There usually isn’t much that makes me literally speechless or at a loss for words, but after I read more specific details further down in this thread it actually happened to me. I also can’t remember the last time my eyes actually widened in horror at reading something.
Absolutely, people can down vote to oblivion but I stand by what I said. Days old babies, I cannot comprehend this. It’s that reason I may sound a smidge extreme, for a very laid back easy going person this has awoken a great anger in me.
And it should, but that anger should be directed not to further hurt this sick animal, but towards all the checks and balances that should have caught this earlier - administration that refused to look into it after her colleagues raised concerns, the implicit trust we put into people in these careers, and the lack of screening that lets people like this into these jobs in the first place.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
I disagree. I’m not talking about some group of people some other group doesn’t like, but somebody who’s universally despised, somebody who does things so against our nature it’s nuts. Some people deserve decency, some others do not.
I disagree, it is dangerous to dehumanise people no matter how disgusting we find them. People are still people man, we may never understand how they think or why they do the things that they do.
History has shown time and again where dehumanisation leads to.
Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
Youre gonna get downvoted for not validating the 2 minutes’ hate. There are an awful lot of people who are very excited to find someone they can get away with doing violence against.
That’s not how this works yo. The monster is in prison, she will stay in prison till she’s dead. No more need for extrajudicial punishments. No need to torture or to murder her.
There is nothing gained from hurting her further except a bunch of unwashed brainlets get hateboners; further it opens a whole can of worms of extrajudicial, punitive violence.
Some people aren’t mental and don’t wish to inflict pointless harm on others.
Those are the ones upvoting him.
If its wrong to harm people, its wrong to harm those who harm people too.
Alright, let me explain it to you as if you were a five year old:
No one thinks murdering babies is wrong because harming anyone is wrong.
They think it’s wrong because they’re babies.
It’s a specific case.
If harming others was always wrong, it would be impossible for her to be arrested and imprisoned.
Actually, the nurse wasn’t even using violence to kill the babies so trying to use nonviolence to shame others for wanting that vile bitch of a murderer beaten in prison doesn’t track either.
The fact that you think that’s the reason why I and many others (I am very clearly not alone in my thinking) believe what we do tells us all we need to know about you. You never even asked me the reason why I believe the way I do, you just constructed a stereotype of me and people like me you built in your head based off dumb things others told you and it’s completely warping your judgement. Learn some empathy.
That’s like saying we should be tolerant of republican’s fascism. Some things shouldn’t be allowed even if you sorta need to act like them towards them to get it to stop.
This isn’t to say that I’m arguing for torture as retribution, but this almost comes across as you arguing against actions having consequences, which is a wholly different argument, and I understand you probably don’t actually support that, but I’m just going off what’s written. I’m actually kind of with you in terms of the torture thing, like I’d probably just put her in solitary and leave it at that. But yeah, as with tolerance, a peaceful society has to have ways to deal with violence, lest it become a violent society.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. Not even slightly for one she’s been arrested, charged and given 14 life sentences and is going to spend her entire life in prison. So she has faces consequences for her actions.
and for two she is not a threat to tolerant society, shes a serial killer.
I dont think you actually know that the paradox of tolerance means.
Reddit would suspend your account for this comment even though it is perfectly reasonable. But I also think why waste time and money on this trash and just throw her into a furnace or something.
It revealed that “the vast majority” of the negative attitudes toward women serving in special operations “unfortunately did come from senior noncommissioned officers. So it does seem to indicate that it is generational,” Command Sgt. Maj. JoAnn Naumann, the most senior enlisted soldier in the command, said in a call with reporters Monday about the findings.
Well, that’s rather predictable and good news for the long run. Just retire these dinosaurs and replace them with younger soldiers. No more old boys’ club.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we get rid of the selective service system or force women to be join it? Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
Germany used to (I think used to) have a system where, for a year, you either joined the military or did a civilian service job like work in a hospital or nursing home. I’m by no means a warmonger or interested in a bloated military, but that doesn’t sound like a terrible idea to me.
Of course the burden of proof is with whoever disagrees with you, you never have to show any proof for your claims. If you don’t even know how to find their pay, why do you claim they are not underpaid?
I didn’t make the claim, you did. You said pay was abysmal. Now you’re refusing to back that up and trying to gaslight me into saying I was the one making the claim.
I’d think that you might have been aware of the current issues within the care sector because it was basically all over the news for a long time, especially in the beginning of the pandemic when the workers said that the applause didn’t pay their rent.
But then it would be shitty of me to judge someone who must’ve been trapped in the black forest for 2 to 3 years and still survived.
The pay has increased in May 2023 by 200€ per month. Additionally the care workers will receive up to 200€ per month until February 2024 as a compensation for inflation and a single inflation compansation payment of 1200€. Currently there are no strikes in sight so far, which could mean that the care workers can live off their wages or the raise came too late and they starved.
One of the problems left is that there are so few care workers within the industry so they’re still paid abysmally given how many people they have to take care of per person. Unfortunately i don’t have a hard number to go with but care workers often report burnouts happening which doesn’t happen in a slow job.
Lmao conscription service is far from “killing for your country”. Its amassing a reserve the size no other country wants to challenge. I went through my service like all other normal able bodied men of my country and it was mostly learning to walk and laying in a bush. Fucking fun it was.
And even if situation arose to killing, killing for your country is the most noble and always morally correct thing to do.
Kill to defend my home and family. And since I’m a Finn, the alternative is rus*ian authoritarianism, which is unacceptable my any means and I’d rather die than be a part of shitpeople.
It’s not worth it to argue with these tankies who are from NA mostly. They’re so disconnected from reality that their communist utopia sounds so good in their minds that everything not communist is bad. They have no clue what others have and are going through.
Being anti-conscription is not a tankie position - I certainly am not in favour of conscription, it’s one of the more authoritarian things a country can do, even if they aren’t as prone to invading other places a-la Vietnam as the US is, and I loathe tankies.
Generally speaking I’m of the opinion that if a war or fight is not something people would willingly join to take part in, it’s going to be unjustified (this doesn’t necessarily mean that something people join the military to take part in is justified, it often isn’t, but if you have to force people, it’s definitely going to be unjustified >.<).
I understand why in Finland it might be more popular cus of the behaviour of Russia in the past, but my opinion remains the same - offer the training as an option, and if people agree that the threat of Russia is large enough to prepare to fight, they can sign up (which I’d think lots would given the particular situation of Finland, and with this method, you avoid the coercion, resentment, and unwillingness that comes from conscription and from what I understand of modern militaries, those things make conscription more of a hindrance than a help anyhow)
I’ll leave my issues with States, military structure, and the MIC for another time ;p
And the funny thing is: Why do we die for the old cunts in the parliament? Guess what, it’s other old cunts sending soldiers!
Except that in case of war we wouldn’t die just for them but also the other people we protect from the soldiers of the other old cunts but nevertheless we die at the behest of old cunts.
It was a pretty big waste of money. You'd have massive numbers of people who'd have to be half-assedly trained for a lot of money just to leave service again right when they started to be somewhat employable. There are reasons why we don't do it like that anymore.
Fair enough, you know better than I would having lived through it. I don’t know about the practicalities of such a plan, I just think teaching people to serve the community when they’re young is a good idea.
I strongly believe that everyone should work a customer service job like retail or waiting tables early in their career. It would make a lot of people less of an asshole when interacting with employees.
There are lots of countries that have compulsory military service with alternatives for conscientious objectors (which is basically what you’re describing).
I agree that it’s a good idea. Moreover, it comes closer to the original meaning of that whole “well-regulated militia” thing. We should consider doing like the Swiss do: give (roughly) everybody mandatory firearms training, send them all home with an infantry standard-issue assault rifle, and then severely restrict access to ammunition except for legitimate purposes like practice at the firing range.
The problem is the Peace Corps is totally voluntary. There’s also AmeriCorps, which is similar, but domestic. What we need is to get kids who don’t understand what community means, and that’s a lot of them at this point, to learn what that means. It’s a way out of this libertarian capitalist hellhole.
Philosophically it’s a horrible idea to me, being from the US. First, it’s pretty against ideas of freedom and self determination. Secondly, and worse, is that conscripts often are basically an internal sabotage threat. Work to rule, no interest in anything but getting out, actively tend to hurt morale given their resentment, etc. Oh, and 1 year of training / 1 year of service is basically a little past basic training, so not really well trained for modern combat. See what Russia is getting with conscripts for instance. I suppose if you just want bodies to throw into a meat grinder it might work, but unless you have enough to take staggering losses to overwhelm better trained and higher morale troops - and you’re willing to take those sorts of losses… the conscripts are just mostly a drain on resources IMO.
If you’d spent any time around young military guys you’d know it’s not just the old ones. The vast majority of the US military (especially once you get outside the ones the pluck with testing for technical schools, officer fast track etc) fighting force is from low income, low education republican areas. The US military is trailer park socialism. Jobs and benefits for Jimbob. Jimbob has some super dated ideas about how women should act.
Grew up in San Diego, which is surrounded by military bases (mostly marine corp and navy). This is absolutely the truth. There is also the whole never experiencing anything outside their bubble factor too. I've met a few pretty intelligent enlisted "grunts" who just never saw anything but their one stop sign town, that has NO diversity, and some really assbackwards ideas.
Was in Arkansas recently hiking/camping around the Ozarks. It’s freaking wild out there. Heard a dude who talked like boomhower. Saw one non-white person in a week traveling around the northern side of the state. Weirdly the state that founded Walmart has a ton of independent/employee owned grocery stores. That the one I went into carried a lot of smaller brand names I’d never heard of.
Really made me realize a lot of the reasons I would never vote republican those people are never even exposed to. The state went like 65-30 for trump. When you live in a bizarre little bubble and neither party really does anything to help you, it’s easier to fall into the rabbit hole of blame and hate. Those small towns are only getting poorer and shrinking. Abandoned falling down houses and barns everywhere. Aging population. They feel abandoned and will just fall in line behind some good finger pointing.
If love is code for being forced to by horrible corporations that can do whatever they want because we have no consumer protections at all. Yup. If you mean buying cars, we kind of have to. Public transit is a joke outside like 3-4 major cities. I remember my first job out of college, had a light rail stop within biking distance from home and one right outside the office. Looked into riding it. Near 2 hours each way, multiple transfers. 20 minute car drive.
I feel like you don’t understand that, in addition to the transportation shortfalls from the comment above, people are also stuck buying whatever vehicle they can afford, which oftentimes are the tanks you describe, which unfortunately have the aftermarket values that fall into lower earners’ price range.
Short of that, I challenge you to get a popular rapper to talk about their pimped out Prius.
I have an 02 VW Golf diesel. My coworkers are constantly asking why I don’t get a new car. My TDi will still be running when I’m six feet under, I’ll never give it up.
There is some truth to this but small cars have been selling poorly for years now. I’m sure marketing campaigns are at play here but surely some people are capable of seeing through those. Why does no one buy small, affordable, efficient cars anymore? It’s baffling to me.
Honestly it’s becoming increasingly hard to drive smaller cars in the sea of tank sized ones for a couple of reasons.
First, it can be really hard to see in situations where an SUV is blocking your view of the oncoming traffic or you need to pull out between two tanks. Also, I find it really difficult to drive my small car at night because I have astigmatism and the oncoming trucks and suvs are shining directly at my face the whole time. Last, even small cars with good safety ratings fair poorly in impacts with higher and heavier cars, especially if I had kids I think this would be a significant motivation to not have the smallest car on the road.
It’s an infuriating situation as someone who doesn’t want to buy a land boat just to go to the grocery store, but I don’t really think the blame can solely be placed on consumers. What we really need is to close the loopholes in emission standards for SUVs, implement a tax on heavy vehicles, and start taxing gasoline at sustainable rate. Unfortunately there isn’t much desire to do any of those things right now :(
The fuel economy regulations are more forgiving for larger vehicles. Since the manufacturers fail at making efficient engines, they just make larger vehicles to get a passing rating. This is why small trucks no longer exist and an F150 is now the size of an elephant.
Barely offer sedans? Only if you specifically mean American manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and Honda all offer multiple sedan models. Claiming there aren’t any sedan models out there is just pure nonsense.
Lololol just blame everyone but they market! I can walk into a Subaru or Nissan dealership today and buy a no frills car for under 20k (despite the false headline). People willfully choose to spend more on features.
I live in a car manufacturing city. I don't work in the industry but have plenty of friends and acquaintances who do. Have 2nd hand stories of high level managers giving speeches where they literally say they are focusing on trucks and SUVs because the margins are better.
Oh don’t get me wrong, trucks and SUVs ARE the focus. They just aren’t the only option. I can point out like 5 sedans under 20k with availability. People matter the choice to buy bigger and with more features. There market represents it by making more of them. But you still have plenty of choices.
These, not ironically at all, are not desirable cars and sit on the lot. So while a nicer more popular car at 50k may still be hard to find, the poverty trims are very much available.
You are delusional. All you have to do is go somewhere like cars.com to see how wrong you are. Search new, all vehicles under $20,000. There’s a couple, all of them would be over $20,000 after tax, title and license fees. There are barely any cars that cheap now. Car manufacturers are intentionally not offering budget vehicles now. That’s the whole point.
But is it? Even the few small models available aren’t selling. If this were being forced on us, the few economy models would be in high demand but it seems to be the opposite. What is going on in the American psyche? I don’t understand it.
In many places, small communities will pay the state police to handle all police related business in the town as getting proper police coverage can be difficult otherwise.
Not here. State police only come out for really big shit, otherwise they stick to interstates. Highways and interstates also have highway patrol, but they focus on 18-wheelers. What you are describing is county here. They cover a handful of small towns and unincorporated land, but response times are DREADFUL.
I hear ya but it does take a bit more than that. People get sick or go on vacation plus they can get called out any time day or night. They had 3 Full timers and 2 part timers and it looks like they were doing Code Enforcement and Animal Control as well.
Given that CA has a population of approximately 40,000,000, and that the title mentions 10,000 without power, I’m sure one of the 99.975% of Californians that did not lose power is capable of confirming if you’re willing to finish your question.
3 companies were found liable for having knowingly dumped toxic PFAS into our drinking water supply. Chemours, Dupont, and Corteva. They admitted no wrong doing, but settled out of court for a total of 1.19 billion, half of which was paid by Chemours, the main contributor, and the other half paid by Dupont and Corteva. This happened in June 2023.
Failing implies an attempt. The government deliberately chose to lift restrictions prematurely, knowing it would result in the deaths of millions of people, just to make billionaires richer.
Likely, but keep in mind, generally overtime, viruses become less* lethal as its the non lethal ones that survive to spread(as lethal ones kill host, and killing the host is detrimental for the spread of a virus)
While that is normally true, covid spreads before symptoms show. So it doesn’t select as well for non-lethality since lethal variants have plenty of time to spread before it kills the host.
True it just sucks that it’s yet another thing I have to worry about just to live and perform my job correctly. I hate getting sick regardless of lethality.
I promise I’m fun at parties, but you’re a decade late to that request. Again, I’m not defending Totally A Human Ted Cruz, just pointing out the facts.
I’m pretty sure they are the same entity. Local Fox affiliate channels are different entities that can be all over the political and quality map, but Fox Business is within the Fox News corporation. They are in the same political area but with higher journalistic standards for research.
OK, so the “Current” member of the armed forces is only current because in the military you need to be active duty in order to be in detention.
I’m a little confused as to the wording here. Typically detention is in the brig and if they are in the brig regardless of what rank they went in as they are busted down to private.
I understand artistic liberty but it seems they are intentionally stretching this. And i while heartedly understand that there could be some active duty Marines that are neo nazi’s. The examples given are a stretch to me.
I think he means that they’re only ‘active’ because they’re in detention, but they’re not ‘active’ in the sense that we normally think of it as in actively serving in a role.
Sort of like saying that residents of a town are gang affiliated when they’re only there because that’s where the prison is located.
It says further down in the article that he was busted down to private and is in the brig for 11 months. I suspect that most people don’t understand how the military ranking systems work anyhow, so it really means very little to most people, until you throw around words like general or commandant.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.