So this article makes it seem like he’s got dementia and was under the spell of a delusion when shooting his partner & daughter. But it’s written so vaguely that it’s hard to know for sure. So I found another article that seems to be much more clear about what happened:
TL;DR: 66-year-old man is in rough shape; has Hepatitis B, Emphysema, and COPD, and needs an oxygen tank. His partner (a much younger woman), their daughter together (8 years old), and his son from a previous marriage (18) all came to his house. The article doesn’t say what happened in the conversation, but he apparently became enraged thinking they were trying to get him out of the house. My guess is that they were trying to get him to go into a care facility due to his many, many ailments.
Dude saw red, grabbed a gun, and started blasting. Shot his partner, then tried shooting his son, missed, and hit his 8-year-old daughter in the back as she was running away from him.
So it sounds much less like dementia (though that could still very well be a factor), and more like a miserable piece of shit reaching for a gun first to solve all of his problems.
I’m not saying it’s better or worse, just that it would be a different story. Dementia changes people. My grandmother went through it; she was an incredibly sweet person before Alzheimer’s, and then once she started sunsetting, she became vindictive and paranoid. Thought people were plotting against her or trying to poison her.
I posted this update because the original article was really badly written, and it was hard to figure out what actually happened.
I think a lot of people commenting have been fortunate enough to not have a loved one, or even someone they are close to succumb to these ailments. I’ve had a relative and two older ladies I grew up with pass away as completely different people than they were during the 30+ years I knew them. The hatred, vitriol, unhinged, and unprompted behavior was gut wrenching. Their sadly wasn’t much of a support system other than what they could get with Medicare and the community of people that only stuck around due to who they were rather than what they had become. It rocked my world and was life changing on my outlook on a great number of things to see in person how the most loving, sweet, caring people I could ever imagine knowing turn into monsters. Two of these women would start baking cookies for us kids growing up if we stopped by unannounced and loved nothing more than an unprompted visit turned to an evening of cards. Their last 3-5 years of life was not who they were, it was a disease, and it was scary.
I’ve been getting a lot of messages on LinkedIn from recruiters, a lot of these are asking me to be in the office 2 to 3 times a week. If I was to commute, I’d leave before my son is awake and arrive after he has gone to bed, working from home, I see him whenever I want.
Never saw my dad growing up unless it was the weekends and by then he was tired. He commuted a decent amount. Now he’s in his later years and unable to physically do much. I wonder what kind of relationship we would have had. I wish I knew him at his best.
I missed all my kids young years due to work and commute, I’ll be damned if I miss their middle/older years. work from home isn’t just a preference it is literally giving our family irreplaceable time back. your comment made me sad, I hope you have a good relationship now
I’m not suggesting that people should be forbidden to work in the office, just that they shouldn’t be forced to do it. My company has a completely liberal policy concerning home office, so you can work from home pretty much all the time, but I still come to the office regularly because I want to.
I like being in the office but the commute is so fucking dumb. Giant swarms of gridlocked cars blasting pollution into the air, wasting vast amounts of time/money/public resources… then you think about how you worked perfectly fine 100% remote for a year and yet these tech companies are all of a sudden herding everyone back into the office doing everything possible to piss away a valuable tool to reduce pollution, increase space for housing while reducing their own overhead, and build resiliency against future pandemics.
It’s almost certainly much more about commercial real estate and making sure they don’t lose out on the huge investments they have made there. It’s always always about money.
It’s just weak management. Some people work best from home. For some people, that doesn’t really work. For people like myself, I need to come into the office once per week and I’m good.
But it’s easier to manage via policy instead of managing individuals. So that’s what they do.
Yes it did have that effect too! My memory of the month is fuzzy at-best. So it would have been 25mg. It was the lowest dose. I remember halving it after the first day it was so strong. :/
I don’t understand what is supposed to be the offense here. It was a trivia question about world history. In the context it was clearly not an endorsement.
Maybe there are people in the audience who would rather not be reminded of the person who murdered their family members when they’re just trying to go to a game. Treating Hitler like a distant history factoid that couldn’t have impacted anyone alive is at minimum ignorant.
It’s not possible to mention or show Hitler without invoking the Holocaust, they’re inseparable in the public consciousness. It would be like asking trivia about another genocide.
There’s both a boatload of questions about Hitler that don’t involve the Holocaust and a lot of topics that would inherently do if you ignore that fact.
Every question regarding the Jewish people could be seen as linked to that genocide too, just like Armenians and Rwandese. Can there be questions about those people that don’t evolve the specifics of the particular genocide.
What’s with the Ben Shapiro jokes here? I know who he is and I’ve read some of his (often comically) idiotic takes on world events, but care to explain it as it relates to this topic?
He’s a right wing pundit who claims to only care about “facts” and “logic” to make himself seem more intelligent and credible to his base. Of course, none of his views hold up to much scrutiny, showing that he doesn’t actually care about facts and logic, meaning that really he’s just another bigot.
That would be pathetic enough, except that he’s kind of the king of self-burns. Like, shit the CIA couldn’t get out of most people. You should look up ‘ben shapiro WAP’. It’s fucking hilarious that he felt the need to commentate on the song in the first place, but the things he said solidified him as a meme. “Wet ass p-word” is a classic quote, and the fact that he admitted to his wife telling him that being that wet isn’t normal is hysterical.
One of the most amusing things about him is how he routinely “destroys” people with debate superiority and yet he does what he does now because he completely failed as a hollywood nepo baby screenwriter or some shit… so now he just complains all the time about inequality for white men and wokeness like a leaky helium balloon, telling women to stay in their lane and making bad related predictions, like saying the Barbie movie will burn out after a week or so from irrelevance, only to see it top a billion in sales. Dude can’t help punching himself in the nuts on the regular.
It actually explicitly doesn’t say you can’t relate churches.
“Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
If we’re going strictly by what the words say, as long as the people are still legally allowed and freely allowed to practice their religion, Congress technically has the right to regulate religious institutions to their hearts content.
It’s not like it says “shall make no law regulating an institution of religion.”
The Vermont Constitution has a much more explicit freedom from religion:
Article 3. [Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship]
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.
Everytime I hear of Vermont it feels like the only sane, progressive state in the US. It almost feels like a seperate country compared to everywhere else.
A few more brown folks here and there wouldn’t hurt.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
We’re the thinking of Vermont as a possible destination once my wife is eligible for her full retirement pension, and we can get out of this christo-conservative, handmaid’s-tale-wannabe, craphole of a state (Texas).
We’re not ‘brown’ but it would still be nice if Vermont had some more diversity by the time we get there.
“no law” is not literal it is aspirational. At least according to what I have heard. If it was literal there could be zero rules about speech which breaks the constitutional ideas of oath of office and treason charges.
The aspirational would be a government that doesn’t even know religion exists. It is taxed, regulated, and given the same respect as any other institution.
Can the argument not go both ways? I’m not saying I would trust the church to watch over the government or vice versa I’m simply making an observation that tyrannical government overreach etc is plausible and a potential cause for concern for any person that places a degree of their trust in the systems or bodies around them
That’s really more a bar on state religion, that again doesn’t really prevent our new speaker from say proposing a bill that donates Federal funds to his favorite church, so long as the government isn’t in control of said church.
That would be news to Madison, the man who wrote it. He specifically wrote it to stop a religious funding policy in Maryland. As he pointed out funding would have to pick and choose which religions to fund
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Specifically, I like this line here, that was present in the third paragraph I quoted from the Constitution:
no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that we specifically don’t care if God, Allah, Buddha, or whoever says they are supposed to be in power?
Edit: and since we both want to be dickheads, today, why don’t you show me where it says in the Constitution to base our laws around the bible?
None of that says that church and state must be separate, just that there can be no religious test. There’s nothing in there barring him from saying “I think God blesses the people here”
In fact, to really be edgy, that also doesn’t prevent the government from say donating $10B each year to some Christian church.
To your second point, I never suggested that the Constitution says we should base our laws around the Bible.
My only point is the oft quoted Separation of church and state is only an idea from the Jefferson papers. If you want to make sure church and state remain separate, and the new speaker doesn’t start using federal funds for his church, perhaps it’s time to actually put separation into the Constitution?
If no qualifying religious measure can be used to install a person into office, it stands to reason that religious belief shouldn’t come into play.
I would hope our (the US’) political system would be aware enough that writing private funding into any religious system would be seen as favoritism and the remaining belief systems would be righteously offended at the lack of consideration, or perhaps even the outright rejection of our beliefs.
This nation was built on immigrants (and the blood of natives, but that isn’t what we are discussing) from every walk of life, every religious circle. To disregard others in favor of your own belief SHOULD be political suicide. These elected officials, after all, supposed to be elected to help with the concerns of the WHOLE populous, after all, not just a specific subset.
Playing religious favoritism has a high potential to try to convert the country into a religious state, as funding continues to be funneled into these specific religions, and in turn the churches funnel money back into the candidates as lobbying.
Coming to that point, does anyone who wants to to fund the church with government money which would be better used to take homeless off the streets, feed homeless children, or making people’s lives in general, don’t have the people’s, or even God’s best interests at heart?
Do they tithe their first ten percent, as the Bible says? Surely it would be in their tax records as charitable donations? If not, that would make me even more suspect of their intentions.
I don’t think that’s fair. I’ve taken gun/hunting education classes from some volunteer instructors that seemed to me to be about the most serious, responsible people I’ve ever met.
Cool beans. Everyone considers themselves to be a “responsible gun owner” right up until the moment they shoot someone or themselves. It’s not a matter of if but when it’s going to happen.
Edit: Gun nuts and apologists line up here to get blocked.
I’m not a fan of guns myself, but this is quite a reach.
There are certainly many, MANY more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones out there. But to say that there are none is just objectively false.
Do accidents happen? Yes, and they can happen to anyone. The difference is that a responsible owner’s accident isn’t going to end up with a person getting shot.
No, there are far more responsible gun owners than irresponsible ones. There are roughly 100 million gun owners in the USA. If “most” of those people were irresponsible then there wouldn’t be 100 million of them left. We only hear about the irresponsible ones having accidents or committing crimes, which is a tiny percentage of the overall 100 million.
Well considering that car accidents and other accidents not involving cars are typically the 4th or 5th leading cause of death in the USA, versus homicides of any kind being farther down than 10th to 15th place (varying by year)… it would be even More Responsible of you all to not drive or be a passenger in any motor vehicle, and to wear impact-resistant personal armor at all times to prevent injuries from falling. You could wear your protective suit and stay indoors at all times to be Even More Responsible.
Also considering that heart disease and cancer are the permanent top causes of death in the USA, to be Most Responsible you should do all of the above (never travel and always wear your protective suit and stay indoors) and eat only a healthy diet with plenty of cancer fighting vitamins for every meal.
I have some friends who are adamant anti gun folk and I get that. It’s what the numbers say is ideal. I used to be pro gun (grew up in a very conservative cult), then anti gun, now I’m somewhere in the middle with “yeah it would be better to reduce the amount of guns but this is kind of where we’re at” and feel like a more pragmatic approach to getting us towards a gun free utopia (read: idealized society that can never be achieved) is probably best. Unfortunately it requires national cooperation and my country, uh, that is not what they do. On a personal level tho I somehow have become the person who gets to inherit all the guns in the family and except for the cool, inoperable civil war rifle we’ve had them all destroyed. That thing’s a show piece though. It’s a historical paperweight. It’s more dangerous as a club (even the bayonette is dull) than as a gun.
For the lazy if people want to report his videos. He literally has shit like “Taking people’s groceries”, “Aggressively X”, “Accusing people of stealing pets”, etc. in the titles,
Their tactics are pretty good and could get a lot of people, really. They do what’s called “love bombing”. One of them will befriend you, and invite you somewhere. You won’t realize you’re being targeted for recruitment. For that outing, the goal of nearly everyone there will be to make sure YOU are having a good time and feel accepted.
They’ll try to draw you in deeper, maybe try to get you to go to a Bible study (even if you aren’t religious.) If you have other friends, they’ll either try to draw them in with you, or they’ll do what they can to distance you from them. Even something as simple as hearing you have plans and then inviting you somewhere else on that day.
Eventually they’ll push a little harder on trying to get you to conform. If that goes well, they’ll try to get you to move in. At that point it’s a lot harder to extract yourself. They’ll try to keep you so busy with activities that you don’t have time for anything else.
During all this, they’ll try to get you to share personal things. It’s okay to talk about your sins, that’s how you get past them.
Past that point, if you try to extract they’ll start to use those things against you. Did you tell them about child abuse or pictures or something about a boyfriend/girlfriend? As discouragement from dissidence, they’ll hold meetings where they discuss those things as a topic. They have spyware on your phone at this point, so they may share anything embarrassing there they can find. They’ll threaten to tell your parents all the sins you’ve admitted.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
and thats everything thats wrong with society right here.
Him getting shot is just giving him more fame, more money and more excuses to continue doing this shit.
That could be short term. Oftentimes I hear about these people getting more followers, but then I don’t hear about them ever again. There are exceptions to that obviously, but I’m not entirely certain on how many retain that fame.
Subscribers is a big number for YouTubers, but if I’m not mistaken, views for videos is still more important. And I wonder how easy it will be to continue making this kind of content a) after suffering an injury like this which will put him out of commission for a while and likely prevent him from doing particular stunts, and b) with the general hesitancy to approach people that this altercation will hopefully instill. So he could be looking at paying actors (would go poorly) or making his pranks more tame (would go poorly).
I’m not really addressing that facet of the topic, I was addressing whether those subs would be enough to keep his career afloat. But for the record, I’m not going to be subscribing as I also do not appreciate his behavior.
Witnesses told police they saw a man, identified as Clinton Collins, “charge at the victim and stab him with the flagpole through his head,” the release said. “That’s what he gets,” Collins said, witnesses told police. “He deserved it.” Collins was taken into custody immediately, police said. It took longer to help the victim, whose injuries put firefighters in a delicate predicament, according to police. “The pole entered the victim’s head beneath his jaw and exited the other side of his head near his right temple area,” the release said. “The American Flag was still attached (to) the pole at the time.” Due to the size of the pole, firefighters had to cut part of it off for the victim to fit into an ambulance, police said.
nottheonion
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.