I can't stand when a company calls it's employees "team members". They work for wages and you will fire them the second it becomes advantageous.
Nothing wrong with that, it's just business, but let's not pretend that the relationship is anything more than this.
[W]hile the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence. The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole.
You know why evidence collected illegally is inadmissible, even if it absolutely, irrefutably proves the guilt of the defendant? Because we want to create the most powerful disincentive possible for police officers violating the law in obtaining evidence.
I don't particularly care if Facebook would have chosen to censor the same stuff the government asked it to on its own. I don't care if it was just a suggestion that Facebook was free to refuse and not coercion. The idea of the federal government even asking a private company to be their proxy in censorship is so repugnant to the 1st Amendment that the nuances don't matter, and it should be treated under a similar "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" as illegal searches.
It's shit decisions like this that have convinced me that, just like politics and elections, the judicial branch is just a bunch of kayfabe bullshit.
I watched a documentary once about a lady with kids that got kicked out of her apartment because it was condemned and didn't have the means to get another. She was couch surfing at friends houses, sleeping in her car, hitting up the different social services, using computers at the library to apply for jobs, etc. At the end things ended up working out.
I suspect that there's something seriously wrong with the homeless in filthy clothes begging on the corner. A normal person will exhaust every option to avoid that fate.
It's more than just that. The cost to raise a child from birth through college is now astronomical. This article says the per-year cost is 41% more in 2024 than it was eight years ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-kids-cost-raising-child-inflation-childcare-tax-exemptions-2024-1
In an agrarian society children were assets, because they provided a workforce for the family once they got old enough. As the makeup of our society changed in the 20th century they shifted from an asset to a liability, with the only "return on investment" being that they will potentially care for their parents in old age, which is not guaranteed because our society doesn't place a heavy stigma on stashing your parents in an old folks home to die.
Faced with that reality, the only people having children are those that really want them for the sake of having a child in and of itself, and poor scumbags who don't practice birth control (see Idiocracy).
It's even worse than that. Little kids and old people aren't committing crime except by rare exception. Take everyone under 8 and over 65 out of that 13% and what do you get? 9-10% maybe?
Imagine having a demographic that represents less than 1/10 of your population committing more than half the crime and saying it's everyone's fault but them.
Das, not right. She was wrongfully accused.
Bitch brought a marijuana vape pen into Russia. I haven't heard anyone dispute this. There's plenty of room to argue that her punishment was unjust (it wasn't) or that she was used as a pawn in geopolitical politics between Russia and the US (she was), but her underlying guilt has never been in question.
How in the world can she keep such a huge smile considering that fact?
You probably already know this, but c/MGTOW has the answers to that mystery.
Sell everything out to foreign investors, then you flip the switch and just take everything back.
I've actually pondered this as a solution the problem that the US is selling everything to foreign investors. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from citing "national security" and seizing everything right back or paying pennies on the dollar in some sort of eminent domain proceeding.
The shame is that it won't help the individual losers: if you sold your farm to a Chinese company it's not like the US is just going to give it back to you, even if they seize the farm from the Chinese.
It's also a one time trick. You're not going to get foreign investors ever again if they think you can just steal their property on a whim.
Eh, his shit was silly, but there was an earnestness about the earlier stuff that had appeal.
His content was definitely designed for a certain demographic, being nostalgia bait for the generation that grew up with the NES. Even the shitty games from that era are memberable, because there was no reliable way to find out if a game was any good before you bought it like there is now. How many people's game libraries are full of turds from LJN because they liked Friday the 13th or Back to the Future and nobody warned them? Raging against the NES's version of what we would now call shovelware hits the spot for those that were there.
The sheer stupidity of it is that leftists actually do ban books, often at the publishing and distribution levels.
If they're not just straight up rewriting them. Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl have both been victims of having their work edited to "eliminate outdated cultural perceptions".
The rights so-called "censorship" has always been simple time and place restrictions- this book isn't appropriate here and for this audience- and only in circumstances where the book is being provided at government expense.
The left, on the other hand, wants to simply erase works that it doesn't like from existence.
Women's suffrage is the single largest cause of the downfall of Western society. Behind every bullshit crazy political cause and unfathomably stupid decision is an army of women voters and politicians.
Of course they all have a very Scottish accent- no hint of Africa in there.
It's a senior gift. Sounds like this class needs to just not give a gift to the school.
That's the part I take issue with. It's well established that you can't use someone's likeness without their permission to imply an endorsement of your product, they should have just stuck to the laws on that matter in their C&D.
By putting a statement like that in there they've converted this into a suppression of free speech issue when it should be a rather mundane unauthorized use of likeness case.
It doesn't make any sense, but you see it all the time.
There were a bunch of bicyclists protesting driver's not sharing the road a few years back where I live. They did so by blocking intersections and making a general pest of themselves.
Putting aside the fact that most people hate bicyclists because they're rude and don't follow any of the rules of the road themselves, all this did is pissed off everyone they encountered and didn't earn them any sympathy at all.
The strategy of making my problem with you a third party's problem by taking it out on them and hoping they will blame you instead of me has always been fucking retarded.
Crashdown. He ended up leading a group of survivors who crashed on Kobol and failing miserably. They had to murder him to prevent him from forcing them to all die in a suicide attack.
I think they're trying to say that he became edgier and cooler, but he seems like he just turned into an angry douche.
One of the strangest things about women is that they seem to inherently suck the joy out of others as just a core component of existing. They're not doing it to gain some advantage or to become happy themselves, it's simply a state of being for them and they're quite often just as miserable as they're making everyone else around them.
When did screenshotting tweets from random people become journalism?
These idiots probably consider that to be "researching" their article. The "article" being just a short synopsis of what the 30 tweets they're going to link say. Stop it, please.
Ah, the old "orange man bad" justification. Democracy doesn't work when those that control the levers of power abuse their position to persecute their political opponents.
Whether you like Trump or not, everything about that trial reeks of political persecution.
From the "creative" bootstrapping of misdemeanor charges into felonies by tying them to some other unindicted and unspecific felony, to the judges one-sided rulings, to the prosecutions star witness being a serial liar.
I think it's obvious enough that even some people on the left are uncomfortable with it.
I don't need an hour and a half video to tell me something I already knew from stories that are regularly posted here.
I think it's more a protection against them moving too far, too fast. There's always that thought in the back of their minds "is this going to be the thing that finally makes people snap and fight back?"
On the other hand, things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was a retaliation for Waco, didn't involve guns at all. Presumably if the English wanted to rise up, they would be planting IEDs, stabbing cops in the back while they ate breakfast at a cafe, throwing acid in their faces, etc. and wouldn't be terribly disadvantaged by not having firearms.
The real issue is that they probably won't be in a uprising in either England or the US. The politicians are skilled at ratcheting back when needed, and allowing performative "debate" and controlled opposition.
valiantly trying to bring the injured dude out of reach of the terrorist
You can clearly see him throwing the white guy on the ground face first and he's sitting knees down on his back in the classic "I'm about to handcuff someone" pose when Johnny Turk stabs him.
There's no fucking way you can fool anyone who has seen that video into thinking he was trying to render aid. That's why they'll try and excise it from any form of mainstream news.
"Wow, this must be some parody, maybe it's an Onion article or something." Nope, it's fucking real:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297751609_The_benefits_of_world_hunger