Many of the OT stories are horrifying. Book of Job is probably the worst, where a petty God destroys a good and pious man to win a wager with Satan.
Who would be interested in worshipping a God who would do such a thing to his own followers, and whose omnipotence is so limited that he can be tricked by Satan into performing evil acts?
“Prosperity theology” often goes hand in hand with neoliberalism.
If you’re not quite psychopathic enough for “I don’t care about the morality of using child slaves, only the profitability”, you can assuage that guilt with “If God didn’t want me to profit from child slavery, he would have stopped me doing it”.
that's kind of the funny thing about this story. do you know how much of a colossal dickbag you gotta be for a company to say no to making a billion dollars? they will put up with so much shit for that kind of money. but West was a dickbag of such monumental proportions that the company is like, 'nah, fuck it, it's not worth it', to a billion fucking dollars.
on top of that we see later in the article
Still, throughout all of this, the company’s C-suite consistently “sought not to rein him in but to appease him,” with an eye to their bottom line. After the slavery comment, for example, Kasper Rorsted, Adidas’ CEO at the time, brushed it off, saying “Kanye has helped us have a great comeback in the U.S.” He only doubled down months later, adding: “We’re not signing up to his statements; we’re signing up to what he brings to the brand and the products he’s bringing out.”
and we learn once again, ironically, that appeasement doesn't work.
im sure most people wanted him kicked out instantly it was probably just the goobers that didn’t have to deal with him that kicked him after profits dwindled (and a bunch of complaints i assume).
surely the average person doesnt care about the company they work for as to suffer for the ceos profit.
My guess: This guy, and all his rich friends have a ton of money invested in commercial real estate. He’s putting his own interest before the interest of his company. The more people work from home the better for Zoom, but the worse off he and his rich friends are.
People say that way of thinking is cynical, but I have worked in the system implementation and system consulting arms of EDS, IBM, and Accenture and that assumption (that the whole thing can be maintained by junior devs one the initial build is complete) is actually how middle managers within client companies have to budget their transition from “build” into “business as usual” stage so that senior managers approve the system implementation/migration.
While the concept that it takes specialized knowledge and experience is true, not having means to retain experience means that it will be chaos some six months down the road when some manager wants to do an enhancement as none of the juniors will understand why certain design choices were made and the implications on the rest of the architecture
Berkeleyside spoke to one landlord planning to attend the eviction moratorium party who was frustrated that they could not evict a tenant—except that they could evict the tenant, who was allegedly a danger to his roommates—but the landlord found the process of proving a health and safety violation too tedious and chose not to pursue it.
I feel like people should really read this part and fully absorb what it means.
It’s not that surprising, courts require specific hard evidence. Getting the roommates present to testify may or may not be enough, but it’s far more difficult than showing unpaid rent or a hoarding situation.
You seem to have this idea that landlords don’t work? I am a landlord and I have to work full time to help cover the cost of the mortgage. If I don’t, the tenant will get kicked out by the bank when they take back the house.
No, you are an investor who assumes risk of non-payment. Maybe you are a bad investor who shouldn’t be renting? In that case, you should sell the property to someone who is a better investor, possibly the actual occupants.
Do you always live life in fantasy land? Or do you at least occasionally try to take a vacation back to reality? Because I think you could do with one.
The tenant can’t afford to because rent seekers reduce the available supply of housing. If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage, and the profit you derive from that relationship is representative of what they could be saving for a down payment if you weren’t leaching off of them.
The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
So “If they can afford to pay you rent then they can afford to pay a mortgage” is stupid. Mortgage is literally double the cost of rent.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
Lol this is completely meaningless:
“average” home price is going to be far higher than “average” rental price, because the price distribution of houses doesn’t match the price distribution of rentals (a $500 mil home isn’t going to have a matching rental property)
a home and an apartment are priced differently, so “$600 per week … for same number of bedrooms” could mean anything, including a $5mil 4 bedroom home vs a 4 bedroom apartment in a 50 unit building.
Suffice it to say: I don’t fucking believe you. Even in NZ, straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs. There’s good reason for that, too: in a market where the home is worth more than what can be extracted in rent, you would definitionally make more money selling the property than renting it out (and nobody would be doing it)
Edit: The only exception to this would be if you purchased the house at the peak of a housing bubble, and are now renting the house out after the bubble has popped and so you are unable to sell without taking a loss.
straight comparisons between mortgage servicing costs of a house and rental pricing of the same house would show weekly rent is more expensive than the weekly mortgage servicing costs
you realize that after the mortgage is paid, you will have a fill house at your name and the tennants will still ahve nothing? Yeah you offer them a service but complaining that you have to work to pay the mortgage sounds SO entitled, to be honest. Of course you have to work to pay the mortgage, we all do! You might be a good landlord, but when people complain about landlords it’s usually about big landlords whho have several properties, not people that have a second house that they rent. People that say that “landlording” is their job.
If this is not you, this doesn’t apply to you and commenting as if you were one will only work against you,
I have a single second property that I am renting out.
Actually, I don’t even live in the first property that I co-own because prices are so high I had to buy an hours drive outside of the city where I work. I am renting in the city.
I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’
I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.” I have rented all my life, I have never lived in a house that I owned despite having my name on two houses,
I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing. There’s something to be said about having a system in place that incentivises those actions. Maybe it’s the system and not the actors that should be blamed? Hate the game, not the player.
You need to understand that context is important. It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house. I have already agreed with your arguments, I’m just saying that if you present yourself as the term that people have coined for “house-hoarders”, then you are going to have a bad time, even if technically that term is being misrepresented in the given context.
You shouldn’t tell them that they are wrong on blaming landlords, because what landlord is for you and them is different, you should tell them to find a better term, at most. The better way to approach this would be to ask for clarification of what they mean with landlords, and while for sure there will be extremists, people in general will agree that what they hate is house-hoarders and landlords that speculate with property, not people that own 2 houses and rent 1 of them to help a bit with finances in a fair way.
It’s clear that they are not against people like you, and that as I stated, they are using the term Landlord more as a job title than as a status of owning a rented house.
Respectfully, I am one of these people and I absolutely include landlords of any size. Economic rent of all kinds are unethical and unproductive, and that includes any landlord that charges more than what a property costs to produce and maintain (still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property, i’m not sure how that’d even happen) by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership. The rent they extract is unproductive and exploitative, on top of the problem of them hoarding homes from the housing stock and artificially inflating home prices.
still unclear if @luthis is somehow underwater with his property
what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.
Also,
by nature of some arbitrary notion of ownership.
Idk, but if I bought a summer house with my savings and decided to rent it to gain a small extra income, that’s not an arbitrary notion of ownership, I bought that house with my savings.
In any case, if you are against anyone owning more than 1 house, then,
there will be extremists
If I didn’t rent the summer house, it would have been unavailable to the market because I would use it maybe 2 weeks a year. We did use it a lot more when we purchased it but life changes and now we don’t. In the end we sold it but I don’t see it as unfair to rent it for a completely reasonable price (different country so prices won’t make sense to you, but it’s low, lower than 1/4 of what I earn in my actual job). In any case, I was just trying to clarify him why people were downvoting him so hard, since most people are not really against any kind of renting.
what’s he’s stating is that he has to pay a part of the mortgage with his own money, which tbh to me is completely normal, giving all the mortgage cost to the tenant is exploitative.
To be even more accurate, if anyone charged more rent than what mortgage payments would be, no one would want to rent it because it would be more than double the price of other rental properties. There is a really big gap between rent and mortgage payments.
From what I’ve seen in my own neighborhood rent is way higher than the mortgage. The only people who do it are those who can’t afford a down payment and/or closing costs, though, of course, paying the extra in rent doesn’t help them.
Very different to the situation here. I ran some numbers earlier:
The average house price is now over 1 million. If you buy a house for 1 mil with a $200k deposit (unreachable for the vast majority including me) then your weekly payments are over $1200 excluding rates.
To rent a property it is very easy to find a multitude that sit at the $600 per week mark and some even lower for the same number of bedrooms.
Nope, not underwater at all. It is normal to be paying extra on top of rent to cover the mortgage unless your deposit was like 90% or something. There is a really big gap between mortgage payments and rent payments.
This is just such an obtuse view. A person should be fairly compensated for their property, regardless of kind.
If you don’t believe in property ownership at all… then these positions are fundamentally at odds.
Rent extracted for property should be proportional to the property and the value an individual gains from the use of the property. I think we can agree to that. I also believe that reasonable profit can be expected for reasonable work / value.
To say that economic rent of all kinds is unethical and unproductive doesn’t make sense to me.
If one person invests their capital into a house and someone else wants to make use of that property, they should pay rent. How is that transaction unethical? The rent is payment for use of the other persons capital.
There are arguments about housing specifically as a basic right / need that changes the dynamic… but in cases where these needs are exploited for financial gain, it’s the exploitation that is unethical, not the basic premise of rent.
To explore the notion that rent should only be proportional to the value that the property produces, and frankly how insane that sounds… it only takes startup costs of the property to consider that those costs should also be included in the computation… again exploitation is the thing that is unethical, not the exchange for use of property fundamentally.
You think you can just renovate the bathroom and bill the tenant for the work?? That’s not how reality works.
Rent can also only be increased once per year and the tenant is able to appeal to the Tribunal if it is too much and the Tribunal can order the rent to decrease.
In terms of risk: When building: unforeseen expenses like complex earthworks, no access to building supplies and environmental issues that can blow out construction times by months or even years (this actually happened recently with gib), and all the while having to pay the mortgage when there isn’t a house to live in.
When renting: property damage from tenants, meth labs (it will be illegal to rent a property soon with a certain level of meth contamination), things requiring repairs in the house (I recently had to buy a new heat pump because the old one died), changes to laws like the recent one that requires older homes be retrofitted with insulation at cost to the owner, tenants moving out leaving you with the mortgage to cover yourself, job loss myself leaving me with no way to cover the extra…
And nowadays, simply having someone paying your mortgage isn’t enough. Landlords need to be cashflow positive.
I showed earlier that mortgage payments are more than double rent payments.
I’m not complaining that I have to contribute to the mortgage, that’s just how it is. I am fully in agreement that house-hoarders are bad, but there’s a big distinction between that and a general ‘landlord.’
There is absolutely little to none. No matter what you serve the same function, and no matter how “good” of a person you are, a landlord will always be a social parasite.
I would argue that the tenants do have something, which is “not a life living on the streets because landlording was illegal and they couldn’t afford to buy construction materials and pay builders to build them a house.”
mf lives in the confines of capitalism 🙄🙄🙄
And not just capitalism, but for you a concept of “social housing” seems to be absolutely alien. Vienna is an example of a western city that is a prime “fuck you” to this “argument”.
I get where people are coming from, but their argument is “ban all landlords” without any consideration of actual reality that involves having capital and taking financial risk to construct housing.
What fucking risk huh? What risk that any other person living in their own home don’t take?
“Oh the property might burn down.”
Mine can too fucker and you don’t see me complaining. The problem here is, your mortgage is being paid off by your tenant and who’s keeping the property at the end of the day? Not him that’s for sure!
“Oh but I pay my part!”
So If you split the payment, split the property too fucker.
If anything, the tenant takes more risk by renting because if he loses his job or sustains an injury he’s fucked because he has no property of his own he’s guaranteed to live in.
Sincerely, fuck you. I hope your tenant finds a better deal and that both of your properties burn down you entitled ass.
Oh and keep this in mind:
“The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry”
Sounds like you’re not cut out for this. I’m a landlord and I take pride in never working. My tenants pay my mortgages as well as most of my living expenses (the employees at the businesses I own pay for the rest of my expenses plus my retirement savings). I hope one day you become better at being a landlord and don’t have to work any more.
This is a joke, but he legitimately does sound like a bad investor. The problem is, you can become a property owner simply by buying and being lucky. There’s no skill required.
So there are a lot of people like that who say “it’s hard to own even one property”, as if collecting rent and mailing some checks is hard. I know someone who has like 6 properties, even commercial property. It’s not a “full time job” even with that many.
Updating properties to sell or rent for more money is work, but the actual act of owning property is mostly waiting for checks to come in. Honestly there should be a test on laws in the local area to rent out property. Lawyers need a test just to read and write contracts; real estate agents have a test.
Bad property owners shouldn’t be allowed to take their stupidity out on tenants. If you don’t live in the building, you should need to pass a basic test for a license that can be revoked.
Take a another look with an advisor in whatever country you are at. Its usually much easier to get a property second time around. Im not aware of your local laws and how banks can refinance you but there should be possibilities. Its good to spread risk. I used to have one property and it brought me stress knowing one single bad tenant could financially ruin me.
You’re a housing provider, not a landlord. If you aren’t making anything off of the houses you lease then you aren’t the subject of the ire of renters.
Ignore those goons saying you’re a bad investor. It’s noble of you to not leech off of the people who you rent to, and at the end of the day, the equity of the house is still yours.
Thanks buddy. I’m also (ironically?) a renter too. I’m grateful to have the ability to live close to work without having to take on the cost of buying a house in the city.
The issue here is that they self identified as a landlord, when they simply are renting their second/first house. it’s not the same situation, but the way they explain it sounds quite entitled and when people lack the whole context, it makes them look very bad. Furthermore, according to another comment of them it seems like they would like to be more like another commenter that is presenting as an actual, evil landlord (probably as a joke). Sooo… yeah.
Been a landlord for almost 20 years. I've rebuilt some of these houses myself from an auctioned off unlivable disaster to a safe, clean, maintained property. To imply landlords don't work is such a narrow sighted view of reality. I got a glimpse during covid of an eviction moratorium a tenant that had quite a bit of hardship and I worked with her for 5 years pre-covid. Heating oil run out she couldn't afford I filled it out of pocket for her and her family. If she needed flexibility on rent timing I worked with her. When she snuck an untrained dog classified as an emotion support dog that chewed up the house's 70 year old woodwork stairs and balusters. I worked with her. When covid hit and the moratorium was about to go live her lease was up1 month prior. She ceased paying rent and utilities, I was informed I'd have to cover all her expenses during the moratorium. If she hadn't had that lease end right before this moratorium she would've continued staying there for free while I covered her family's entire housing and utilities. In the end my thanks for covering her and enforcing the lease end date was an entire house abandoned and full of trash and pest. Took my wife and I almost 2 months and close to $5000 to clean, repaint, repair/replace that property on top of the maintenance costs. This isn't a black and white situation..
Tldr, I guess: Evictions are a last resort for people who have had an agreement no longer be met by the other party. Should never have mad a moratorium on that legal process imo, it needed to have flexibility to help both parties not just shoulder 1 party with all the responsibility. The party is in extremely poor taste but I can understand their relief if they have similar tenants they can hopefully divest of after years of what my example held. I wouldn't have been able to do it for 3 years financially or mentally.
The distinction is in the role of being the owner of the property versus the property manager and superintendent.
Landlords that also assume the role of property manager or superintendent for the land or buildings they lease do work.
But their role as owner and collector of rent is divorced from upkeep. The wealthier the landlord, the more removed and absentee they can be from their property. And the reality of that specific dynamic is just shining in the example of this kind of party.
What a shit article. All she did was support the Palestinian cause and now they’re putting shit in her mouth (no pun intended).
I don’t like how the narrative is being forced in this conflict. They are clearing the way for something very sinister. We’re about to witness a western sanctioned genocide. There’s no way Israel is letting this opportunity go.
Something is going to happen soon in the West Bank too, I call it.
I’m not sure how you consider the Uyghurs a western sanctioned genocide, if anything it’s only the western media that is drawing any attention to it whatsoever.
media reporting it I don’t really qualify as giving a damn.
I would also wager that if I go out on the street here in slovakia and start asking people about it most people would look at me like an idiot and say, WTF is “Uyghurs”?
“Evil wins when good men do nothing” or is that notbhow the saying goes?
I am not arguing semantics, it’s just my view that the lack of sanctions by the west for China for commiting genocide is about as good as sanctioning it.
I don’t think that’s a far fetched view, I think you are the one arguing semantics, or the exact meaning of words rather than realizing the lack of action against evil is about as good as an endorsement of it.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of education nowadays that I also initially assumed that you were dumb enough to not know the difference between “sanctioned genocide” and “applying sanctions”
I’ve had enough “well regulated militia” arguments that it’s scarred me
There’s a difference between just looking the other way and actively endorsing it.
The West is 100% backing Israel and they’re not letting this chance go. Palestininans are going to be killed and deported, including Israeli Arabs. I call it. Something will happen in the West Bank soon or even in Israel itself and then Israel will come up with its own “final solution”. We’ll definitely see mass expulsions. The propaganda machine is already clearing the road ahead.
And when we see what we were actually endorsing we’ll try to take back our support but it’ll be too late. Their blood will be in our hands.
To be fair to the US, Biden stopped any more arms export to Saudi because of the actions in Yemen. Although, one could argue that the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen is a magnum opus of a clown show for Saudi (until Russian invasion of Ukraineeclipsed it of course), so I think Biden thought there isn’t really any more point to bet on a losing horse then.
Good ol’ Dubya set the stage for this 20 years ago. Yer either fer us or yer agin us. Either you support every thing we do without question or you support terrorism.
Look man, you can support Palestine, but telling the soldiers to turn their phones horizontally for better execution videos of civilians is a bit much.
Well, that’s your choice to side with her on that. A lot of people are interpreting it as 1) a terrible time to try to be funny and 2) can easily be interpreted as support for Hamas, until she got a ton of backlash and it started to cost her money and then she ‘totes didn’t mean it that way, just a prank, for realz!’
That was her mistake - the comment was too vague, so the media jumped on it, skewed the narrative, took that skewed narrative and grossly exaggerated it further, and denounced her as pro-Hamas. It’s obvious to see with even a little bit of reading and it’s both frightening and disgusting.
There is absolutely ambiguity, it just doesn’t suit your worldview (or similar) so you lie. It’s your right to lie, but just know that anyone who isn’t dogmatic knows you’re lying.
These comments are full of people spreading objectively false narrative. It’s concerning. Are people in Lemmy intentionally spreading misinformation or do they think what they’re saying is true? Either way, it’s concerning.
Lemmy is not so bad actually. It’s Reddit that is scary. You have people calling for genocide being upvoted to the sky consistently. If someone denounces the violent speech and dehumanization, hell even just asking for some cool heads, they’re downvoted to oblivion.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I think these dipshits need to get their asses beaten every time they do that shit. Maybe, if more of them got beaten or shot, then they would stop being ass fucks.
I shouldn’t have to be forced to figure out whether someone is a crazy, drug induced murderer, or just some stupid “prankster” every time I go out in public. Rule number 1 in a society is “don’t fuck with strangers”.
You can think that violence is abhorrent and also understand that it might be the quickest, simplest way to settle a matter. Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard all day. Congrats. I don't even have to point out how ironic it is for calling me dumb and then saying this. Bravo.
The original post was proposing a hypocritical view. I.e. saying violence as bad while also endorsing it.
Doublethink is hypocrisy. And as long as you acknowledge that, then fine. Whatever. Sometimes it's necessary to be a hypocrite. But if you're always a hypocrite, you're probably right-wing. Which was my point.
Holding contradictory views is not intelligence. It's a learned skill to discard the cognitive dissonance inherent in hypocrisy.
Violence is not preferable, but it’s the appropriate response at times.
In this case, it’s very understandable the guy reacted the way he did. Not preferable, but understandable. He was being harassed, and had stated that the person needed to stop. They didn’t. They actively pursued him. He also was approached from behind by someone else involved. He made an accurate non-lethal shot with a lethal weapon. Good on him. Maybe now he’ll carry some pepper spray, too, so he has more options.
That’s actually exactly what was said. I don’t condone violence except when I condone violence based on my definition of when I condone violence.
And you’re all lapping it up. Bravo.
Edit: and for the record my original comment didn’t even criticize the latter part (the condition or when its condoned). What I am very loudly questioning is the opening statement. Violence is being condoned. The OP is a proponent of violence. Just own it. Don’t be pussies.
Some people don't know when to stop. What boundaries are. The prankster here found this guy's boundaries. The victim felt fear, and reacted in his way. Do I get to draw the line in the sand where violence is the right answer? No. Judges, Juries, and lawmakers do.
Do I feel personally that this gentleman defended himself correctly? It's a thin line, but yes. As I said in another comment the guy probably ended up in high crime areas on a regular basis and a gun might have been necessary for those situations. So that's the defense he had on him. It's not like we all carry a selection of weapons and deterrents that we can choose from depending on where we are at any given time. We carry what works for the worst situation we encounter.
As a delivery driver myself I sympathize because I have a feeling this wasn't this guys first bad interaction with another individual. If he continues driving, it most certainly won't be his last.
I find it really interesting how quick Americans are to shoot. Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone. I understand self-defense, but shooting someone for something like this I find it so ridiculous. Especially when seeing comments in other news like the guy who killed a black guy for knocking on his door, or the guy who shot teenagers who were at the wrong house, then it’s all “we have such a gun problem” but here it’s a circlejerk of “he was coming at him WITH A PHONE and was TALLER THAN HIM, what was he supposed to do, NOT SHOOT HIM??”
Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone
That’s not even remotely how it is here, only how it is on the severely twisted cherry picked news you watch. The US is a very safe country. Don’t be stupid enough to believe everything you hear and blindly listen to politically influenced news sources. If it were really like that none of us would live or raise our children here.
I’m not taking about the news, I’m talking about the comments. the guy above said that America is a scary county. I’m talking about how when something like this happens ppl justify shooting instead of less deadly use of self defense.
Less than lethal force is used all the time, but nobody talks about that. Why do I care about comments from people that don’t live here, have zero experience of what this country is actually like, or their baseless opinion that it’s “Scary” here?
good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.
And I’m not sure why you’re coming at me for, I very clearly wrote that comments in this post are really pro use of deadly self defense, and how they try to justify it
good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.
Because it’s not in context, it never is. But tell ya what, since you (seem) to not be the standard troll that is the majority here, I’ll put it in context.
We have the right to use lethal force to defend ourselves when necessary if we “fear grave injury or death”. Feeling a “bit threatened” isn’t enough. In this case, that guy absolutely had that right. If a 5’2" 150lb guy was doing that to me, that’s a 5"10 220lb guy, I wouldn’t really have that excuse in most cases. But it totally depends on the context. The guy verbally yelled STOP, which is what any police officer or lawyer will tell you, you must make it clear they’ve been instructed to stop, he continued after him, that’s very much an attack at that point. People like to pretend that they know it’d all work out fine, until it doesn’t and it’s too late.
It’s not about being “pro” deadly self-defense, that’s the political mindset, it’s just about self defense. That moron put himself into this situation, that was incredibly stupid and dangerous, and it didn’t end well for him. Other countries and even our news when left leaning politically would have you think we live on cowboy times with shootouts in the street daily, do you think anybody would want to live here if that’s what it was really like? The overwhelming majority of the country is safe for the residents, tourists, and everybody else.
The problem is the major cities with terrible areas in them and gangs most of the time. Even then, selective reporting on that can make it look way different than it is in real life. Same goes with categorizing suicides as gun deaths, instead of gun suicides. A suicidal person is going to wind up dead, gun or not. Again, people have political gain from blaming the tool for the deed rather than the common sense of blaming the person for their actions.
The reason people are so pro, is because of the history of terrible things happening to people in states that heavily restrict gun use, and those people being killed probably because of that. Would a gun guarantee them being alive, no. Would it greatly improve that chance, yes. Even if assholes in a home invasion were also armed, I’ll take 50/50 odds over 100/0 any day.
Now if you go to a complete warzone shithole like L.A., Chicago, parts of NYC, ya, it’s not good. But show me a country with places people shouldn’t stay away from. Given our size, and that the overwhelming majority of the country is statically very safe, don’t believe what you read.
Americans are always going to be quick to get pissed off with this shit, because we’re relentlessly attacked from foreigners with no clue what it’s like here, and our wonderful America hating Americans that hate our constitution and are trying to eradicate it. That one doesn’t stop at guns either.
While I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, I take issue with this point:
A suicidal person is going to wind up dead, gun or not
I work with a lot of suicide survivors and I can tell you for a fact that a lot of people (I’d argue the vast majority) who attempt suicide but survive are not guaranteed to die by suicide later. Oftentimes an attempted suicide is in reaction to an event or circumstances, and once those are resolved the suicidality abates. Removing guns from the equation reduces the chances of completing a suicide, and therefore increases the chances of a suicidal person receiving the mental health care they need after an attempt.
okay, i was with you for the first couple of paragraphs. but it’s worth pointing out
a) people with access to guns are significantly more likely to find success in suicide attempts, and reducing access to lethal means does make a difference.
b) even big cities are, on the whole, safer than a lot of people imagine. i say this as an american in a massive city, in a state with very liberal gun laws. but when you have millions of people in one place, statistically speaking you are going to have more crime. i don’t think most american cities are some kind of purge-like shithole, they’re mostly comprised of ordinary people doing their thing.
a) people with access to guns are significantly more likely to find success in suicide attempts, and reducing access to lethal means does make a difference.
That’s completely ignoring that we’re talking about suicidal people, they’re irrelevant. Suicidal people have a million ways to kill themselves, and they if they’re serious, they will, gun or not. Which is why they need to be categorized separately.
By that logic we should put the law abiding in jail, because if we’re not in jail, we’re statistically more likely to commit a crime. See why that doesn’t work?
b) even big cities are, on the whole, safer than a lot of people imagine. i say this as an american in a massive city, in a state with very liberal gun laws. but when you have millions of people in one place, statistically speaking you are going to have more crime. i don’t think most american cities are some kind of purge-like shithole, they’re mostly comprised of ordinary people doing their thing.
I come from one with very strict gun laws, and last time I checked, every criminal that wants a gun has one. That’s because laws don’t stop the lawless from getting them, only the law-abiding that go through the process. As you said, mostly ordinary people doing their thing, as in not shooting other people.
The problem with statistics is they’re black and white, which has it’s place, but real life has nuance, and ignoring nuance can have very negative consequences.
that we’re talking about suicidal people is not irrelevant in considering that guns contribute to elevated rates of death. most people who make a suicide attempt do so within a relatively short time of the impulse to act. the accessibility of something which is likely to be very effective and quick in enabling them to complete the act with lower likelihood that they will be able to seek help if they have second thoughts means more success for those attempts. and while i’m not necessarily a “ban all guns” type it’s worth understanding that guns contribute measurably to mortality in this way.
as for rest, i’m a big fan of nuance, but data can illuminate our understanding of complex issues and things we might keep in mind when looking for solutions.
that we’re talking about suicidal people is not irrelevant in considering that guns contribute to elevated rates of death
They may, they may not. The only people that could answer that are dead. As I said, trying to blame the tool for an action defies logic. My neighbor killed herself by OD’ing on pain meds. Her husband owned gun. Clearly the idea of going to sleep permanently was more pleasant than blowing her brains out. As somebody with a lot of guns, I’d rather take a permanent nap every time.
most people who make a suicide attempt do so within a relatively short time of the impulse to act.
Says who? How many people just say “Im gonna kill myself” totally out of the blue and then do it? Most people suffer for a long time, battle depression, have mental illness etc. Could some? Sure. But lets not pretend tons of (suicidal) people would be alive just because they didn’t have a gun, that’s insane.
t’s worth understanding that guns contribute measurably to mortality in this way.
Nobody disputes people kill themselves with guns, but to circle back, are you for prohibition because of the 1% that get drunk and kill people with their cars? Banning cars? If you only took the car, they couldn’t drive through people with them right? As said, in no other circumstance do people assign blame to the tool, they blame the person. How much comes back to all the mental health issues nobody want to discuss or do anything about? Especially with the scumbag school shooters, in almost every case they were troubled, and people KNEW it! But hush hush, don’t want to say anything until it’s too late.
you’re putting words in my mouth. i didn’t say i am fully pro- or anti-gun (much less fully pro- or anti-alcohol). i was challenging your comment that suicides can be disregarded when examining lethality in connection to gun access.
yes, the tool matters. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34953923/“Results: Of 10,708 studies screened, 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the suicide acts that resulted in death or hospitalization, firearms were found to be the most lethal method (CFR:89.7%), followed by hanging/suffocation (84.5%), drowning (80.4%), gas poisoning (56.6%), jumping (46.7%), drug/liquid poisoning (8.0%) and cutting (4.0%). The rank of the lethality for different methods remained relatively stable across study setting, sex and age group. Method-specific CFRs for males and females were similar for most suicide methods, while method-CFRs were specifically higher in older adults.”
yes, we have a sense of what contributes to more or less successful suicide attempts. (lethal means being a big one). we can study what leads to suicide and to successful versus non-successful attempts by studying not only those who died, but those who attempted and survived, as well as those who are actively suicidal but who ultimately don’t act.
when i speak of impulse, i’m referencing the moment of decision. people can have suicidal ideation for a long time without choosing to act, as you implied - some people face depression for decades. but some just lost everything in a bad business decision or a freak accident. either one may act, and if they act with a gun they are more likely to end up dead than if they take a long drive to the nearest high bridge and walk out onto it.
i’m willing to talk about mental health. i work in mental health professionally.
i was challenging your comment that suicides can be disregarded when examining lethality in connection to gun access.
I never said they should be disregarded, or not tracked, playing the game of “gun deaths” vs gun homicide or suicide is just that. A game, a game to twist numbers to justify an agenda. If you’re going to assign blame to the tool, again, I hope you’re OK with losing your drivers license because of some drunk moron out there, which far outnumber suicidal people at any given time. So justified right? Somebody ELSE is stupid, so you’re walking or on a bus.
this particular slippery slope argument is ridiculous to me. no, i don’t think considering suicide-by-gun a part of a larger conversation about gun lethality means i’m going to lose my driver’s license.
lol
to be clear, my only agenda in this conversation was pointing out that widespread access to firearms does, in fact, contribute to more deaths (via suicide) than there would be otherwise, even considering that other means of suicide would remain without gun access. that’s it. whatever agenda you’re on? well, i don’t think you’re much interested in considering data, so i will leave it there.
this particular slippery slope argument is ridiculous to me. no, i don’t think considering suicide-by-gun a part of a larger conversation about gun lethality means i’m going to lose my driver’s license.
I never said it was “LOL”. What I’ve said multiple times now, is if youre OK taking guns from law abiding people who have done nothing to deserve being stripped of a constitutional right, that I hope youre OK losing your drivers license becuase the 1% drives drunk and hurts people. Not sure whats so difficult about comprehending YOU being punished for the wrong acts of people who aren’t you.
The agenda is removing guns from people, Thats it. Using mentaly I’ll, suicidial peolple and children is the way to virtue signal that into being possible.
@sholomo@Lightor I think you're wrong but It's an interesting argument. Why is this shooting seen by many as more reasonable than the guy who show the kid knocking on his door. For my money it's the justifiable confusion. A kid knocks on your door and your first response is to shoot doesn't make sense. You had room and barriers to make decisions. In this case the dude was in his face and wouldn't back off. IMO they're incomparably different. But yeah guns are a problem in both cases.
@sholomo That's a perfectly fair point. Now while I do not support how he reacted and it's one of the many reasons, I don't think people should be allowed to have guns willy-nilly, I will maintain that. There is a huge difference between something unexpected showing up in your doorstep and a man intensely yelling at you in your personal space. Extremely close doing things you are not able to comprehend who refuses to back away after repeated attempts to step back.
@sholomo in my opinion his reaction was correct. It's his owning a gun that was wrong. The problem is when you have a gun you're supposed to use it. And I mean that in the prescriptive sense, not a descriptive sense. There's no point in having a gun and then still resorting to fists. If you're in danger and you do not know what's going on, you reach for the strongest weapon you have around you and you use it to defend yourself. Govt should prevent that weapon frm being 2 deadly. Guns r 2 deadly.
What’s scary is you thinking people in whatever your country is don’t have them! There’s not a country on the planet where criminals that want guns don’t have them.
Nah. You can be anti-violence, pro-violence, or understand that violence is acceptable only as a means to achieving a desired result, oftentimes as a last resort.
Both the first and third options are not proponents of violence, but the third understands it is a necessity to achieve their goals at times. This is literally heavily discussed now as fascists try to paint anti-fascists as the violent ones when anti-fascists merely understand violence as the means to a goal in this case and not their normal path to a goal.
Hey, this is skirting pretty close to actually being a proponent of violence. Yeah, we all hate internet pranksters who annoy people for views, but that’s not a crime that deserves a death sentence.
The dumbass didn’t die. Shoving a phone that’s playing some dumbass confusing phrase, 6 inches from someone’s face, who is just trying to do his job, is assault. Most counties allow you to defend yourself if someone is assaulting you. Most states provide worker protections that provide extra penalties for harassing or assaulting employees. But I guess Uber Eats drivers don’t get those protections since they’re technically not employees. Weeee.
You’re right, he didn’t die. But if “more of them got beaten or shot” someone would. There has to be a better way to force asshole pranksters to stop besides shooting them.
Look, I’m not defending this idiot, he makes a living out of being a complete wanker to strangers, and this was a predictable outcome. I just don’t wish him dead for it. Much rather see him taken to court and deprived of his ability to make a living doing this shit.
This has come up a lot for me when talking to Americans about murder via gun. They (in these instances) have asked me things like “so someone breaks into your house and takes your TV, you just let them?” And they seem apoplectic when I say “yes, and I phone the cops.”
There’s a cultural inclination towards shooting people for crime, regardless of severity.
The difference here is this isn’t someone stealing a TV, and this isn’t someone being shot / almost killed just for a prank. You have the order of operations and perspective wrong. Colie and what he intended literally doesn’t matter.
What matters is this was someone who felt threatened by a 6’5" menace who approached him, engaged him in an aggressive manner, who didn’t stop when asked, and who continued to pursue when backed away from. Result: the threatened person did what they needed to eliminate the threat. If they intended to kill they could have shot again, but didn’t. If they didn’t have a gun they would have been equally justified in beating the shit out of the attacker until they felt safe. How easy that might be for most of the “prank” victims against a 6’5" male is an open question.
Someone stealing my TV isn’t a direct threat, and so no of course I wouldn’t shot them for that. Take the TV and leave. But that’s a false narrative. It isn’t someone stealing my TV. It’s someone who has broken into my house, is in the act of committing a crime, and who I have no idea how they are going to react now that they’ve been caught. They may very well see me as a juicier target. And for that reason I would feel the need to neutralize the threat by whatever means necessary.
For the record, I do NOT own a gun, and I do believe in gun control. So let’s not bring up any gun-fetish/revenge-fantasy retorts. I’m not saying there aren’t people that have those, but right here right now they are a distraction from an honest assessment of what is going on when a person feels legitimately threatened to a “reasonable person” standard. Also, no, someone turning around in my driveway isn’t a reasonable reason to feel threatened either.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I am a proponent of violence toward “these dipshits”
I’m not really interested in taking a side here, but if you can’t at least recognize the cognitive dissonance in this statement, there’s nothing anybody can say to you.
Many I’m sure likely do and I’m quite certain (me living in North Carolina) that most conservatives would take offense to being called a nazi, or even prejudice at all.
Then,… they’ll immediately turn around and do it anyway a day later.
The big problem is that most conservatives will never even know this happened to even consider it.
One thing in advance: Leah Williams was not forced to buy all packages of peanuts on board – on the contrary, our purser tried to offer her an alternative solution by informing all passengers sitting around her about Leah’s allergy. She agreed at first but then decided to still buy all the packages.
The airline says it is “unable to guarantee that the aircraft is free of foodstuffs that may trigger an allergic reaction, such as peanuts”, because passengers are allowed to bring their own food onboard.
I feel bad for her but I have to wonder, how does this person function on a day to day basis? If their allergy is so severe that other people eating peanuts around her would harm her, how does she leave the house? How did she navigate the airport?
Yeah exactly, if her allergy was that severe - which it evidently was not, see the comment by Eurowings about a general buildup due to the nature of airplane flight and airplane in-air circulation and she survivedt hat - then she would naturally not be flying commercial. There’d be no way to do that without immediately triggering her allergy.
obviously there is a way to do that without immediately triggering an allergy, and she found one of those ways. not being someone with a peanut allergy you have no idea about "buildup" levels, but she does
Not only that, but did she handle the packages of nuts after purchase? Because if she did, she came into contact with an absolute shit ton of nut particles, and would have had a reaction.
I’ve known people with severe food allergies, so I empathize with the caution needed in their everyday lives, but I’m pretty sure this woman went overboard. Which is a bit odd, considering she was 27 years old, which makes me suspect she’s dealt with this allergy for many years and should be used to having to deal with non-allergic people around her.
"i'm pretty sure she went overboard" said by neither a peanut allergy sufferer, doctor or sicentist. the guy from lemmy said he's pretty sure, folks, case closed
Take it easy, man. Clearly they’re wrong, and I don’t know better either, would you like to contribute something that’ll inform us or just get mad on the internet?
In the real world, where the rest of us live, if she’s able to fly without any issues, she can handle people eating nuts around her.
If her allergy was severe enough that just breathing peanut particulates would trigger a reaction, she’d be suffering from an allergic reaction the entire time she was on a plane, every time she was on a plane.
This child overreacted like a typical Karen. And if she actually handled all the packages of nuts she bought, hate to break it to ya, but she would have had a reaction from the peanut oil that’s inherently found on bags of, you know, peanuts.
A quick bit of googling indicates this was probably an Airbus 320 which another Google shows is about 123 feet long. Being generous and allowing 20 foot for cabin, loos, etc, does this mean her whole life she’s never been within 100 foot of any nut?
I guess I sort of understand, this is an enclosed space with recycled AC, but it just seems unlikely that if it was this severe she’d take a life threatening risk like this. Right?
Peanuts are not ubiquitous in public. Being near several people eating them in a fairly enclosed space is very different than walking through and airport and someone 25 feet away has a bag of peanuts.
Yeah I had that thought too but if this were the case, would you take a life threatening risk that no one else on the plane has peanuts? Wouldn’t you drive instead? Or take a means of public transportation where they don’t regularly sell your allergen?
That's not necessarily feasible. Maybe she has a schedule? Doesn't have a car? Doesn't have a license?
Also, some reactions are uncomfortable but not deadly. I have an anaphylactic allergy to tree nuts, as in, all true nuts (as peanuts are a legume, i'm fine with them). However, I've never had an anaphylactic reaction, though I was prescribed an EpiPen and told it could become worse with no warning. I get oral itchiness, stinging lips and mouth, heartburn, acid reflux, and diarrhea from actually eating nuts. I'm not sure what it is like for people who are sensitive to the airborne level. It might just resemb le environmental allergies like sneezing, red eyes and so forth. And if you do have to use an EpiPen, it's painful to inject and then you have to go to the hospital afterwards. Not certain death, again, but uncomfortable and inconvenient.
The air within an airplane cabin is recirculated every five or ten minutes. A real severe peanut allergy would be triggered by anyone on the plane eating peanuts.
are planes cleansed that thoroughly between flights? I assume one would have to worry about who was eating what in the area from a previous flight with an allergy that severe
The majority of airplanes are equipped with HEPA filters. As in, removing 99,97% of particles over 0.3 micron in size. The unfiltered air is fed in from the outside. It’s pretty clean and not a consideration for allergens like peanut particles.
As in, removing 99,97% of particles over 0.3 micron in size.
HEPA filters remove 99.97% of particles that are 0.3 micron in size. (That is the size of particles they’re tested with, as it’s the most difficult to filter.) They remove over 99.97% of particles larger or smaller than 0.3 microns.
Living with allergies such as a severe peanut allergy is all about mitigating risk
In most open areas you can be cautious about what you touch and who you stand near to. In enclosed spaces such as airplanes, the risk is substantial and mitigating it requires as close to an absence of peanuts as possible
And peanuts are special in how easily they trigger severe reactions. Of all my son’s allergies, peanuts are the one that scare us
It’s sort of is. But mostly they just mix it with a bit of outside air bumped up to pressure and release the difference, but it’s not really filtered, except in the sense that over time it will be filtered because the contaminated air will eventually all leave.
I’m sure they have filters like cars have filters but they’re not going to remove micro particles.
I imagine she navigated those things with great difficulty and made the best decisions she could. She, like any other person with a medical condition or disability, exists in a world that usually will be hostile to her survival. Yet she must still exist within it. Sometimes people have to do things like take flights and rarely can someone afford to take measures that would best protect them (like a private flight or something in this case). Sounds like she didn't want to announce her private medical information to everyone around her so she did what she could to keep safe, buy all the peanuts. Ideally she wouldn't have to, peanut allergies are pretty well known and if we cared about increasing access for people not having peanuts for sale on planes is a pretty simple step. Until then people will keep being put into scenarios like this then scrutinized for the choices they make.
She did actually agree to have that information shared with the other passengers and then still bought all the peanuts. I’m not saying she’s faking her allergy or something, I’m trying to wrap my head around her train of thought here. You can also take a car, a train, a bus, all means of transportation where the transport company doesn’t sell you peanuts. Yeah it’s less convenient but shit man, it won’t kill you.
Ideally she wouldn’t have to, peanut allergies are pretty well known and if we cared about increasing access for people not having peanuts for sale on planes is a pretty simple step
She claims she offered to tell the people around her not to buy them but the airline refused. The airline says they had agreed to do that but she decided to buy them all anyway. So it wasn’t about giving up private medical information (which wouldn’t make much sense anyway since she announced it to the world through this article). There’s also the fact that you’re very rarely “forced” to fly anywhere, especially in Europe. I just checked Google Maps and a flight from London to Düsseldorf is a little over an hour. There are train options for about 5 and half hours. That’s obviously a pretty big difference, but definitely workable if the allergy is really that severe. There’s also the fact she could’ve called ahead of time and asked about options instead of trying to strongarm the flight attendants into doing what she wanted.
And yeah, it wouldn’t be that difficult to not sell peanuts but that’s not the only thing people are allergic too. Unless they were going to not sell any snacks and not allow any outside food, it’d be impossible to prevent all allergens. That’s one of those things that the only possible solution is the person with the disorder to do their best to mitigate exposure, which means making sacrifices like taken a few trains for 6 hours instead of a convenient flight. There’s lots of people that due to various restrictions can’t always take the most convenient option.
This is so American. From the availability of firearms, to their immediate use upon a perceived threat, to the economic situation that would have him evicted, to the insane sentence of 100 years for a 66 year old who needs an oxygen tank. Just sad all around.
I don’t think 100 years is insane, it’s life without parol without actually saying it. He shot two people tried to shoot another and actually killed the youngest.
Other countries don’t follow the punitive approach to criminal law, but rather a reformative. With the facts we are presented with it actually seems more like a failure of society instead of just one man. The sentence is absolutely ridiculous.
What the hell are you going to reform in a 66 year old man who needs an oxygen tank? Who made the choice to kill children?
I don’t want to reform someone like that, I want them removed from society and if you cared you’d feel the same way. If you kill children, you lose your membership in society, period. Just throw the key away on him, and if you want to argue about it, go be his bunkmate.
Hypocritical Christians. While we are told we have to respect their beliefs they simultaneously try to force their beliefs on everyone else. They want to punish people, not reform them. These are Sadists hiding behind religion while they rape children and hate anyone brave enough to be openly different.
Well an arguement could be made that he’s not going to do it again.
Think about the distinction between a contract killer and somebody who committed a crime of passion. Are both of those people equally likely to reoffend?
If the objective is to either reform someone or simply remove a threat from society then both cases require different approaches.
An argument could be made, sure, but I don’t think it would be effective. If a person has the capacity to willingly murder their family members over an issue of eviction, then I don’t know how much capacity for reform they have. They pose an imminent and ongoing danger to anyone near them; an unacceptable level of risk in a tolerant society.
Beyond that concept, there’s very little (if any) benefit to society to reforming and releasing this man. Any work that would need to be done to ensure this man could never kill again would take a considerable amount of time. He’s already 66 - let’s say it only takes four years (somehow), then he’ll be released when he’s 70. He already has health complications which likely put his life expectancy well below average, meaning his death is probably impending in the next decade - probably sooner based on substandard penal medical care.
Trying to reform this man is like trying to keep a 21 year old dog alive - sure you can do it, and you’ll probably feel better about yourself if you do, but there’s no real benefit to the dog or society at large. He should have just been handed life without parole instead of 100 years - that seems like a sentence that could be appealed due to the silly nature of how long it is.
Just want to point out that in Canada the stats are extremely clear, murderers are the convicts that are the least likely to commit the same crime that got them convicted again if they get released. Obviously there’s a panel to decide if they’re ready to come out and some of them never will, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given the tools to reform themselves.
I’ve never thought anything over 10 years was appropriate to a once-in-a-lifetime type of crime of passion. It’s enough time for a decent remediation process to prevent a repeat offense OR prove a certainty that the person cannot be trusted free due to mental issues and put them in a permanent non-punitive form of imprisonment.
In his case, if he didn’t have access to firearms, he wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. Sounds like he needs specialized assisted living, like the old guy who held himself hostage with a shotgun the next town over from me
Nobody can mistake that the 100 years isn’t for the good of society, but to punish him for taking a life.
Europe has lower crime rates because of fewer guns, not because of some enlightened prison system. Crime is created by need and opportunity. Punishment barely does anything and rehabilitation doesn’t solve the root cause of crime.
My first thought upon seeing that mugshot was that a lawyer might be playing up health issues for sympathy. That’s how American this is. Source: American. Sorry, USA. The rest of the continents do not deserve our shit reputation, problems aside.
As a lefty I just drink and get depressed when the GOP continuously assaulted our freedoms and dares climate change to wipe us out. Maybe I should be picking up a flag?
nottheonion
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.