It’s genuinely surprising that West managed to shove his head so far up his own ass that he couldn’t see himself reflected in Milo’s face; a token minority kept around for plausible deniability, whose pedestal will be kicked out from under them the moment they’re no longer useful to the far right.
@EdibleFriend sorry but no. There's a history in my country of locking mentally ill people up in asylums and beating them up. I have seen the results, it's not a good thing, it solves nothing.
The people that do need the crap kicked out of them are the producers etc who exploit the racist hate-filled ramblings of Mr West in order to make money for themselves. And those among the consumers who lap it up.
And the above poster who says they need treatment should read this. We are out here. We are mentally ill. Our mental illness, even at its most untreated, doesn't make us fucking nazis so trying to be "kind" to nazis who happen to be mentally ill makes you an apologist.
Dude does need treatment. He also deserves a punch for the nazi bullshit. The one doesn't absolve the other.
I don’t care if they’re a sick child or hitler, everyone deserves treatment, no matter who they are or what they have done.
Geneva Convention 1, article 6Wounded or sick soldiers shall be entertained and taken care of, to whatever nation they may belong. Commanders-in-chief shall have the power to deliver immediately to the outposts of the enemy soldiers who have been wounded in an engagement, when circumstances permit this to be done, and with the consent of both parties. Those who are recognized, after their wounds are healed, as incapable of serving, shall be sent back to their country. The others may also be sent back, on condition of not again bearing arms during the continuance of the war. Evacuations, together with the persons under whose directions they take place, shall be protected by an absolute neutrality.
The Hippocratic Oath, Paragraphs 4-7I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug. I will not be ashamed to say “I know not”, nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
Note: I am not against locking them up in prisons, but while they are in prison they still have a right to treatment.
I will reiterate that I agreed upon treatment as a necessity. I also believe he deserves a punch. Not a single illness out there makes you a nazi. Not one.
@flicker I know it's probably comforting to think to yourself that your entire personality and belief systems are baked into your core and could never be affected by any kind of illness.
Unfortunately it's not quite true, there are serious mental illnesses that could make you think you are a nazi or that you want to kill someone or whatever. This is one of the heartbreaking things about mental illnesses like schizophrenia.
If you've never seen it you wouldn't know what it's like of course, but it's like a great big chunk of the person you used to know and love has been replaced by a stranger in their body. When they start saying abberent shit it can be hard for people to remember it's the illness talking. To remember they are still "in there" somewhere.
I'm not going to get into my history here but I've spent years in and out of institutions. If you want to make the argument that this is schizoaffective disorder I won't stop you, but I assure you that even if that is the case, we are still completely responsible for what we say, and I would argue even moreso because there is zero excuse for him not to be seeking care and treatment.
When grandma has dementia, and spits and bites, she is still responsible for the consequences of her actions. We will treat her with kindness and compassion and health care, but she isn't absolved of her part in hurting someone. That is the notion I rebel against. You are still responsible for your racism. You are not given a consequence free card because of your illness. Advocating for a consequence free environment is why people can claim Kanye should be forgiven and should not be treated as an intelligent, thinking, feeling human being. I will not allow someone to say he should be. That is dehumanizing and ultimately the opposite of kindness.
@flicker I think we may be talking at cross purposes here.
I am simply advocating for non violent mental health treatment for all who need it.
I don't follow Kanye West closely so I don't know what his issue is or whether his expressed views are products of his own mind or malfunctions. My comments are not about him, they are about the absurd generalizations about mental health I am seeing in here.
I have had loved ones with Schizophrenia and no, they absolutely should not be "held accountable" let alone physically assaulted for the content of their delusions. That's just not how it works.
Sweeping generalisations about all mental illness are not helpful, particularly when we have a long and fairly recent history in our societies of violent abuse of such people.
I'm not going to argue about this any more. Thank you for the discussion.
I didn't read it as grumpy or defensive! One thing I miss about a more civilized age... people were allowed to "argue." You could fight it out, have opinions, everyone could be right at the same time (and wrong, too) but the ability to converse seems to be lost.
We're all made better by these things! Even if it seems to get heating. Being able to talk (and disagree!) Sharpens our understanding of our topics, helps us work through and solidify our feelings and opinions, and (assuming everyone is speaking in good faith, which is a big ask on the internet) we are all made better for it!
I said good deal because it is! I called you friend cuz we are! I said have a good day because I hope you do!
We part as friends! We aren't enemies even if we may seem at odds. Take care of yourself. You're a person who deserves happiness and kindness in life.
I agree with you, being able to dialogue through disagreements is really important.
When I was younger I used to discuss politics a lot online, and one of the things I discovered is that many people on the "opposite" part of the political spectrum in my country want the same basic outcomes I do (stuff like fairness) - they just disagree on how to achieve it. That really helped me to see everyone as people like me not weird/scary/strange.
You're a familiar "face" to me here on kbin so it's nice that we have talked a bit!
Precisely! I feel like taking away our responsibility also takes away our agency. I hate when people have their agency restricted.
There's a reason AA and NA and other peer recovery services make people take responsibility for what they've done, even if it was illness that "made" them do those things. Because having responsibility for what you've done is ultimately what frees you to have responsibility for the good that you can do. I love that for us, for all of humanity.
I’m honestly not sure what you mean by that. We know he is bipolar. We know people sometimes tend to use that as an excuse for his words and actions. And people with bipolar like myself tend to dislike that because our disorder does not turn us into neo-Nazis.
I wonder if he has people in his ear telling him this shit and he’s easy to fool, or if it is just a terrible internet rabbit hole he got himself into. It could also be that he’s in ultimate contrarian mode and just wants to provoke.
It just seems weird for a black man to literally turn into a person who supports Nazis on his own. Like, he has to know what Hitler and the Nazis would have thought of him and his family, right?
I get that he has untreated mental illness, but I feel as if maybe someone is putting these ideas in his head. I could be wrong, though.
I came here thinking this sounds like she might be getting woke-cancelled for suggesting Israel is pure as driven snow…
Khalifa even urged Hamas fighters to “flip their phones and film” executions horizontally in one of her posts.
Nevermind, she can go fuck herself with a cactus.
If you think military fighters executing civilians is an acceptable strategy, you probably deserve to be among those civilians and see how you like it.
They took her comment grossly out of context for effect. The actual quote was…
“Can someone please tell the freedom fighters in Palestine to flip their phones and film horizontal."
Yeah, pretty tasteless, but it’s not what the article makes it out to be. She’s largely getting dragged for openly criticizing Israel’s genocide and the media is skewing the situation to make her look worse. Can’t have the masses questioning the party line and all.
You don’t need to know that Israel are carpet bombing a city (which is wrong) to know that Hamas executing civilians is also wrong. Neither side are justified in the horrific war crimes they are committing.
Maybe check that again. Those reports came from a less than reputable Israeli newspaper and was based on claims from IDF sources. There’s no independent confirmation. It’s pretty much just war propaganda to dehumanize the Palestininans and clear the road for the atrocities to come.
And definitely not praising the people who just went through a music festival with guns and indiscriminately killed people and dragged off other ones.
A woman whose husband is missing was being interviewed. She said that whenever her baby would cry in their hiding place, bullets would fly through the wall of the shed where they were hiding.
Why anyone would have praise for that organization I cannot fathom.
Good thing she didn’t actually praise anyone who just went through a music festival with guns. But nice job making that assumption instead of actually reading the quote.
Her comment suggests the videos of interest are being filmed by the freedom fighters.
I am unaware of any armed Palestinian group which fights the Israeli government for their independence. Who is the only other group that someone could (somehow) construe as freedom fighters that’s taking videos?
Unless she’s calling the Israeli army freedom fighters and they have people filming in their midst, there’s only one group she can be talking about, and they went through a music festival with guns.
Don’t stop at just reading the comment. Comprehend it. Analyze it.
Edit: And that includes your own comments. There are indeed other groups involved which aren’t Hamas, and she was referring to civilians. Incredibly poor wording if she’s telling the truth, but I see no reason to not give her that benefit of the doubt.
The order declares that, in matters of the state, the “biological differences between the sexes are enduring” and that the “sex” of a person will be defined by the gender designated at birth.
This means that insecure men in Nebraska can now go in to the dive bar they get drunk at starting at 1030 AM, and hit on any woman in the place without fear of her secretly having a penis.
Not that there are any women in that bar, that they’d ever have a chance at taking one home, or, that this executive order actually means any of that. But the idiots who support this kind of thing will think it does.
My wife didn’t want to move to Minnesota, so we bought a house here, and aren’t likely to leave now. Had I not met her when I did I likely would have left a few years ago.
I think you don’t know how often it’s not one of those two, and if someone is going to get to pick, maybe we should also let individuals pick for themselves too.
Edit:
Looked at that profile…
Pretty sure you don’t think at all, easiest block of the week. Have fun shouting hated into the void
You are thinking of sex. Gender comes from the same root as genre - like how you categorize books. It was initially used to define things loosely by cultural traits like “tribe” or “type” and was used in the 15 century to describe men and women in a tongue in cheek way. Basically saying “the tribe of woman” right before trying to be witty about how women don’t make any sense because they are like another culture. Other uses would have been to distinguish differences between any different nations, families, groups. So your gendre could have been “English” or “From this specific village where they eat a lot of cheese” or of a social class.
The word got hijacked by Victorian sensibilities which used it euphemistically in that “tribe of” way for the word sex because having a woman saying the word sex aloud to a room in the scientific sense of the word caused monocles to shoot out of men’s eyesockets at lethal speeds and early feminists needed language they could use without being censored… But the modern usage of gender is not a euphemism for sex. They are two distinct words.
Gender does not concern itself with any part of the person’s body. It refers more to classification by cultural attributes. Like how you would decide if a book belongs in the mystery section or romance. Whether the book is hard or soft cover is not relevant to genre classification in the same way male /female/intersex is largely irrelevant in regards to gender classification.
But that doesn’t even make any sense as a joke. The more genders there are, the higher the likelihood that someone else is a different gender than you, e. g. something that would be heterosexual. The more genders, the less gay.
It was probably a scholarship for people with lower spinal paralysis. She was all set to collect the money but then she got roped into one of J-Roc’s grease videos.
Nope, after reading the article, it seems she was a student destined to be used for PR by the school and probably also for sucking up to donors. No humanity allowed, twerking is of the devil and such stuff.
The amount of “innovation and debate” I’ve seen during remote meetings is no different than when I used to work in an office. Meetings are either exhausting and dead (when they’re the usual bullshit administrative meetings that no one wants to be in and could’ve been handled via email) or they’re fun and engaging (when its something like a working session where the participants want to be there).
This guy is an idiot and, as others in this thread have already stated, he’s got ulterior motives beyond “innovation and debate.”
My tin foil hat tells me that these captcha tests were never about preventing actual bots, but rather they were intentionally put in place for google / whoeverelse to get free training on their image recognition software ai.
This was probably a bonus of using them, but they did stop bots. They aren’t meant to stop the sophisticated AI we have now, they are meant to stop swarms of “dumb” bots from creating spam accounts, ddosing servers, etc
A few bots accessing your site doesn’t matter. A million bots do
probably legally but again stupid + drunk and angry with zero thought beyond the moment
something like ‘they’re not gonna kick me off my own property’ drunk as fuck and was interviewed in shock
I know someone that shot at his own mom cause she wouldn’t give him 20$, they got in a fight and she told him something like ‘shoot me if you don’t believe me I don’t have it’
Maybe his intention was just to clear the view, not to kill anyone. He’s allowed to clear the view in his home, right? Anything above waist height has to go, I’ve felt the same many a time polishing my SMG in the garage. Alas, I have neither wife, kids, nor visitors to obstruct my view, for unrelated reasons.
I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don't need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I'm not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I'm pointing out the "the side with the bigger guns wins" argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn't even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they're on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn't make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who's in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn't about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that "You don't need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles" is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it's just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn't the hard part. Topographical data doesn't win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I'm not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket "no guns!" statements aren't really productive to the conversation. It'd be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding "abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!"
It's just such a dismissive, "my way or the highway" take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Satellites don’t let you map tunnels and caves, that’s the difference with fighting in the USA vs in Afghanistan or Iraq or Gaza, in the USA towns have maps of their underground and of all the buildings and heck, authorities have files on the people most likely to be armed and dangerous.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
Not likely. Someone attacking you while trying to rob or hurt you, will either have prepared much better than that (look out for brass knuckles, baseball bats, knives, guns, etc.) or think they can overpower you with their bare hands. Either case, no keys.
nottheonion
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.