Between your comment and u/SpaceGeneral's this list looks compromised as hell.
I think I would start with something that required law to be applied equally to generally competent adults regardless of their intersectional configuration. That applies to any facet of personhood, including politics. No more lawfare. It would need to be thought out more than that, but that's the core principle.
just devils advocate, but where do you expect residents to learn real world experience if not in a clinical setting?
At the clinic I see is fine, if asked for less important appointments. However, I don't want to be forced to accept a medical student or be kicked off the roster. I also don't want to be told I'm in the wrong for wanting a doctor foremost.
FYI, these forced med. student appointments are new. It may be a teaching clinic (it didn't used to be), but that's no excuse for requiring people to see med. students instead of full-fledged doctors.
Furthermore, the teaching angle is an incomplete excuse. Notice how "physician assistants" was also on that list, right beside medical students? What's the justification for that?
Many specialists can take 1-2 years to see and almost all require referrals from family doctors.
Some specialists, like ophthalmologists, can be quicker to see and can be referred by an optometrist. However, if your family doctor thinks you may have colon cancer? Enjoy waiting 16 months.
Heads up, that's a shift from what they used to be. This is a bit of a rug-pull in that they haven't always done forced medical school student one-on-ones with patients. I also think they're leaning into that description more and more as a way to absolve themselves of the ever-lowering scrutiny and quality of care.
To be clear, I think there's a lot of merit to later-year students and residents getting the opportunity to pseudo-practice outside of immediate supervision. My problem is that patients of this clinic don't seem to have a choice over who we'll be seeing. We have to accept someone inexperienced or find a new doctor (almost impossible in urban areas). It's coercive and implies fault with us if we don't like it.
There was a sting here in Ontario last year, "How to Catch a Predator" style, in which a preteen girl alleged to want to meet older men. Five or six men reached out wanting to trade sexual favours, and all ended up being charged by police. I didn't see mugshots at the time, but every single one of them had an unmistakably pajeet name.
no
stop giving money to people who hate you. jesus fucking christ.
leftists aren't self-hating, they cannibalize OTHERS, not themselves. self-hating whites are the faggots who pay Disney to shit on them
there's a post up right now about people going to see that faggoty deadpool movie. Wow congrats "it wasn't woke" you still paid Disney, you still willingly gave money to people who hate you and blame you for everything. absolute fucking cuckold retards
I've had it on my wishlist for what feels like years, and despite multiple sales I haven't purchased it. Not sure why, but I think I'm not sold on the art style and animation. Steam reviews are bonkers positive though, so maybe give it a shot.
Let me give you an example:
"A" has coercive control over another individual, "B," someone they've abused so much that B can't or won't resist A's authority or demands.
A puts B in a room with another person, "C," who's been captured by A. Speaking out loud, A orders B to kill C. B obliges.
This is not "freedom of speech." This example is the commission of several crimes that happen to use one's voice. Slander is similar in that someone "says" something that is demonstrably untrue for the purpose of falsely damaging another person. The use of speech here is just the arbitrary vehicle for the crime or tort, but the crime or tort could be committed in many different ways.
Freedom of speech does not encompass any and every literal use of the voice. There are many, many clear examples where using one's voice is incidental in hurting or damaging another person, whether figuratively or literally.
So we're clear, freedom of speech is about the uninhibited expression of truth or opinion.
Kotaku next, pretty please?