#politics
1 messages · Page 61 of 1
We aren't the first ones to do that btw, in 2019 a similar ruling was issued in the netherlands
“Obvious” is also a political statement. And if it’s obvious, then the legislature should act based on it being clear to all constituents that it should change
And if it’s not “obvious” enough that too many people disagree… then that’s how a representative democracy works.
Well, clearly I am bad at explaining this, but this is entirely based on facts, there is nothing political about this. They court also doesn't say to do, but they said this doesn't properly fullfil the duties of the gov, and they have to fix it
They don't say how to fix it, just what's wrong
How is it based on facts about the future?
They don’t know 100% that whatever is in place isn’t enough.
There is enough data and studies about the climate catastrophe, no?
No, not that. Specifically this law you are talking about
You said the court said it didn’t do enough to address it for the future
Experts can weigh in and give their opinions and convince the public.
A non-representative body shouldn’t be making these types of decisions because it is a political one.
It's not a decision
The law has to be amended to do more to combat climate change right?
That’s what the court said?
More or less, yes
Specifically the law needs to do more to protect the freedoms of these young individuals, with are threatened by the climate catastrophe
That’s the decision I’m talking about. It should come from the people, they tell their reps the law isn’t doing enough.
“Extreme circumstances” are always justifications in the eyes of the government
I assume this place is for US politics
Hmmm let's see what is going on in your country
oh okay
Well, this court is just a tool to hold the gov accountable
So that they properly fulfill their duties and don't overstep their power
The people should hold the government accountable
Not some other part of the government
Any citizens can rise a complaint there
A court isn't part of the government?
Legislative and judicative are strictly seperated
Courts certainly are part of the government
If courts aren’t part of government, they have 0 meaning. Do their rulings matter? Are they enforceable? If they are, it’s part of government
Well, depends on your definition of government
And separated is good. But it’s still part of the government. And governments should hold themselves in check where they can, but mainly so one part doesn’t get too powerful. In the end, it’s always the people who hold the gov accountable.
Yes, courts are one of the 3 branches
But when I say gov, I often refer to the legislative, the politicans
To govern: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
If the courts have a role in that, it’s the government
But that doesn’t matter, it’s still people in positions of power.
A court saying a legislature over stepped its bounds is good. A court saying a legislature needs to do something is giving the court too much power
But this ruling basically means that climate protection is a fundemantal right in germany
The court says that the legislature didn't fulfill it's duty
That doesn’t matter. The law of topic is irrelevant.
It’s all about a court forcing a legislature to do something, vs not do something.
It's like, who do you complain to if your gov doesn't properly feed you?
Ones a positive right, the other a negative
Your representative in the legislature. Where policy is made/passed.
Who do you complain to if your gov doesn't fulfil it's duty to protect you?
You get rid of the people currently in government
Elections
Or recalls, impeachment, whatever flavor exists in Germany
The court, in an ideal world, should never be influenced by polls, or the mood of the public.
And yes, thinking your gov isn’t doing enough IS another political opinion
Thinking that it’s not doing it’s duty, whatever that may be, is a political opinion, and has no business in a court
Unless you can scienfically prove it
Now you have the government defining science, in a sense.
If a government gets into the business of proving science, that can lead to all sorts of problems.
Well, clearly germany has a whole different definition of all do that, which is what makes our country so great
Makes it scary more like it. Def don’t want a government in the science proving business
The federal constitutional court is an important part of our system and it has proven to be very valuable in the past
I said nothing against the system, other than this one case, which it looks like the court is doing what the legislature should do. It’s a power grab. Probably not intentionally, but a court should not be able to say to a legislature, you have to do “more”. Only that you can’t do “that”.
It’s not up to the court what the laws should be, only what they should not be
It's not a power grab cause that court is designed to do that
That's how our constitution works
Well there’s the problem. A court has no business ordering a legislature to do more. Only to do less.
I’m guessing another job of your gov is to keep you safe right?
Yes
Well, what if this court said to the legislature, you have to put 20km/hr speed limits everywhere to reduce auto accidents. We don’t think the legislature is doing their duty to protect lives.
That's funny because speed limits have been discussed heavily in germany ^^
But the court can't order to create new legislation
Only fix current
In both directions
Ok. Say there were already speed limits then. And the court said they had to be lower to prevent more loss of life
The court only acts if somebody raises an complain
Ok. So someone complains caus their 3 children and wife died
And some other court first Rules if the federal constitutional court has any jurisdiction and stuff, it's really complicated
And I don't understand enough of it to explain it
Well whatever. I think new policy should originate from the people, not from a court.
??
Having a court issue a ruling saying laws need to be passed seems weird
Laws need to be adjusted
Because in it's current form it's not compatible with our constitution
typically the thing you do it just throw out the law then
idk how your judges are elected
but giving them the power to alter the law as they see fit seems pretty 
at least in the US we try to limit that as much as possible
the only known place I can think of even happening in the US is the courts all agreeing to severely limit our anti trust laws because our anti trust law was so poorly written
They don't alter the law
They highlight issues and request those issues to be addressed
so what does that entail
is that a forceful request
is that a suggestion
does that repeal the law until that and only that concern is addressed
or does it repeal the law and your legislature changes it how they see fit?
They set a say till when the points need to be addressed
No clue what would happen if legislators don't
The law in this case is still in affect
I think that depends on the case
Like there was a case recently where gov overstepped on corona stuff so court nullified that law
Or a part of it anyways
Again, no expert, just trying to explain from my limited knowledge
If you really care I bet they have an english wikipedia or smth
the eu is good they said
Yeah, we kicked the Brits out, now it's time to get rid of other idiots too
Dictators like orban has no buisness being in the EU
The EU negotiations seem like the EU wanted the United Kingdom to stay, if I were intent on kicking someone out of my house I don't think I'd be telling them they have to pay to leave, seems like a fairly stupid way to handle it.
they wanted us to stay or to make it look like a fuck off gigantic mistake to do so
I also think calling an entire nation of people idiots because they felt like leaving the EU is fairly incendiary.
many countries expressed interest in yeeting their membership if us leaving worked well
Spain and Italy if I remember right.
france was talking about it too iirc
I don't know about the other two but France was talking about it because they want the EU to be closer, EU army and such
Yeah france wants a powerful EU
Anti-globalization is also a motivating factor in France
Every country has multiple views, but that's not what their gov is representing
"The European Commission has informed Apple of its preliminary view that it distorted competition in the music streaming market as it abused its dominant position for the distribution of music streaming apps through its App Store. The Commission takes issue with the mandatory use of Apple's own in-app purchase mechanism imposed on music streaming app developers to distribute their apps via Apple's App Store. The Commission is also concerned that Apple applies certain restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative, cheaper purchasing possibilities. "
- Tim epic likes that *
if it were any fucking organization to rule in fucking tim epics favor it would be the fucking eu
It's in response to a complaint by spotify
Unsurprisingly
idk a lot about EU antitrust so idk if this is even valid but if EU antitrust does allow them to claim in app purchases and app stores are relevant markets (one that should be regulated) then its a braindead law
they're literally killing walled gardens because too many people use the product
so fucking stupid
They have to compete with apple, while they have to pay apple a cut but apple doesn't need to, so apples margins are much higher for apple music
How is killing a walled garden bad?
because a walled garden shouldn't be a banned business model
listen i fucking hate them too
but some people don't
This is also just a statement of objections, that's not a ruling
and they do provide decent end user experiences most of the time
yeah ik
but its an official statement by their commission on the subject
I don't think forcing powerful companies to open up part of their walled garden is a bad thing
meaning they probably will follow with a suit?
If apple doesn't react I guess? Idk about that procedure
it is 100% a bad thing, you're telling apple they cannot control their own platform
yeah i figured
assume this goes thru, the EU is forcing a private company to change the rules on their own platform
rules that app developers agree too
Which I support (and not just because it's apple, i support that for any comparable walled garden)
Point is that app devs have to agree
they are not forced
nobody is forcing them to put their app on the store
android is a bigger market too
so they don't even have that leverage
idk the stats about EU-only but still
Apple is a big enough market, you can't ignore it as a buisness
That's the whole point
you legally can 100%
you are not entitled to the app store
apple could the very next day just remove the app store
apple can charge whatever they want to operate their store
Yes, but as long it exists, it's a market and it should be regulated
The issue isnt that they charge, the issue is that their are creating an environment where 3rd parties are disadvantaged
in the US for antitrust we have what's called relevant market, and our anti-trust laws can only regulate said relevant markets.
Seems like EU regulation is different then, no clue about the details
Now a relevant market can only be so broad because if you zoom down everything can be perceived as a monopoly
for example you could get uhhh paypal to say spotify has a monopoly on spotify payment processing
and that they must be allowed to be a payment processor on spotify!
because there is just so many users using spotify!
and they want to make money
spotify really shouldn't maintain that monopoly on payment processing
paypal can't ignore spotify's business
now apply that to apple
it's kinda the same thing
its too specific a market
of course apple is going to have a monopoly on payment processors on the app store
and they're going to have a monopoly on appstores for ios
but they're not "relevant markets" to regulate
at least in the US
That's a strange comparison, since the app store is a platform
For now
Well, we will see how this develops
Considering they took almost a year to come to this point, I think they have considered what they said
does the EU have to go in front of a judge for that
ik in the US, companies get to defend themselves
I would guess the commission would sue infront of the european court of justice?
Sue apple that is
So yes they would defend themselves
alr thats good ig
however i somehow doubt the fairness of an EU court 
with that pepega of statement
makes me think their antitrust law is that pepega
"This is the initial, formal stage of antitrust proceedings against Apple, and the company will have the chance to respond to the Commission’s list of objections within the next 12 weeks. "
does respond = court tho
Nah I think it's informal
They have a chance to provide perspective, and commission then decides if they want to persue this?
Reading the verge article rn that has some context and explanation
Our preliminary conclusion: @Apple is in breach of EU competition law. @AppleMusic compete with other music streaming services. But @Apple charges high commission fees on rivals in the App store & forbids them to inform of alternative subscription options. Consumers losing out.
597
1300
jesus
VP of the EU commission for competition
fucking christ if that kind of shit happened in the US
with the look of this it seems like epic may file in EU when they lose in US
ig it makes sense to abuse the EU's broken law if they can
man i really want apple to just say fuck off to the EU
and see what happens
This announcement is only about the music market, but commission also looking into gaming, for project xcloud ban
Since msft complained to the commission
which is even worse
because now you're getting the EU to say apple is forced to let ANYONE on the store
jesus christ
That would be nuking like a quarter of their revenue I think
is it tho
i thought EU was super android?
now that UK is out
maybe france uses iphones a lot
idk what that one blue country is
Swiss
ah
Banks
they're EEA anyway
Swiss is?
Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market.
Well, if you part of eea, you might as well just join the EU, is kinda the same, but you don't get to vote
yea switzerland is not part of EU so they're absolute aids to work with 
At least they can hold our gold. 
Says the norwegian
But norway and switzerland aren't the same level, right?
Norway is eea, right?
norway is EEA
norway also takes in EVERY god damn EU law
but insists on not having voting rights
Doesn't the eea forces that?
it's like EU but 1700s and incredible taxes
no
EEA gives every member the right to veto a law, and EU and EEA also have different laws
some laws are EU level, some are EEA level
Ah I see
and Norway clearly doesn't realise that as they take in all laws
I always saw eea like all economical eu laws minus voting rights
and also no free market, no free flow of people, no free flow of money...
i thought EEA members had to follow most laws
costs a fuck tonne to import into Norway from Germany
aside from like some trade related shit
yeah, pretty much; if the law is implemented in the EEA, it's there for all EEA members who didn't veto it
though I don't believe anyone has ever vetoed an EEA law?
It's definitely a weird distinction
isn't is because of fishing since most EEA countries have big fishing markets?
most EEA countries aren't even close to the sea
The European Union with a lot of asterisks.
Support these videos: https://www.patreon.com/cgpgrey
meh source but um... https://www.thedailybeast.com/joel-greenberg-letter-written-for-roger-stone-says-matt-gaetz-paid-for-sex-with-minor
Also, 17 is of age in some states. It’s 18 in Florida.
I don’t see in the article if it points to where this took place
Wouldn't matter if he was flying her to DC or out campaigning with him
Which is what the original NYT story says was being investigated
This doesn’t have anything to do with that tho. That was never about paying for sex, it was about transporting someone between states for the purposes of sex.
Sure, that's federal sex trafficking laws
This would get him in trouble in Florida too for prostitution, not sure if her being 17 would matter for that or not
Prostitution man… idk what I think about that.
If two consenting adults agree on an exchange of money for sex, why should that be illegal
It's a mix of Puritanical bullshit and an attempt to protect women from exploitation although that part definitely backfires
Pushing it underground makes it easier for them to be exploited
I do love how it’s so different in different states tho. Got Nevada with literal brothels
Yeah but not in any of the places people actually live iirc
They have to be out in the middle of nowhere
Oh do they? I didn’t know that was a requirement
It's not a requirement from the state but some counties and/or cities ban them
But… if we are on the topic of zoning, I certainly do not want prostitution going on outside an elementary school.
So I’m probably pro-some zoning restrictions
hehe, little johnny isn't getting bullied for his lunch money, he just doesn't want to tell you what he bought
bahahaaaa
brings a whole new meaning to sneaking out of the yard for lunch
I mean, outside of "won't somebody please think of the children" (i.e. follow the laws, no sketchy behavior by the school, etc), I really don't see any issue with it; For some it's a safety net of an occupation, for some, it's a fun job, as
a society we need better safety nets to protect people from that, but, generally, it peoples own body, it's dumb that we have regulations against it which do nothing other than to harm those in need
On a somewhat similar note, why is gambling also illegal? Idc what people do with their money, as long as I don’t end up paying for them if they lose all of it.
You're going to though
I have the same argument about drugs. They can probably all be legal, if not 1 cent of the taxes I pay goes directly to anyone who uses heroin regularly.
“Stupid should hurt”
Issue is gambling additions are fucking crazy, and idk a real sane way to fix it bar pita regulations that licensed orgs should have a duty to protect their clients, but, idk any way they could do that, "you can only bet X% of your income", would just be split across companies or done underground
for stuff like women of the night, I think it's dumb, for gambling, I can kinda see there being some concerns about it, but, errr...
I mean, I eeer in the way of government fucking off, generally, but, it's government who we expect to provide these safety nets and to protect the vulnerable, so, yea... fuuun...
it's easier to just not care at all
idk. i'm not a politician. we don't live in a lottocracy. so i'm not gonna rack my brain over issues like these as i can't do anything about it.
generally fosters bad habits
like cat said
that being said lotteries should be illegal too
I think they are illegal some places, unless operated by the state
Don't know if it's illegal to have your own here, but here all lotteries are by the state.
I think I remember reading you can’t have your own. Which is why on all those sweepstakes things, there is always a way to enter without paying for a coke, or smth.
Can’t require money to enter a chance event I think it what it boils down to.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/16/a-third-of-people-only-wash-their-bed-sheets-once-a-year-13431864/
Gross
Once every 2 weeks at the longest for me
80% wash pants after wearing them once? That’s seems crazy high. Especially for jeans or smth
i guess illegal was the wrong word
i mean shouldn't be operated by the states
Their gov said anti-globalization too.
So that's just categorically wrong.
They are actively working against that tho?
Well, not that I would be an expert in french politics
I only notice what they do on eu stage
I don't particularly think what a government says is often what they actually want, but they are representing the view of the French people like that in recent years, pretty sure in 2018ish Macron made a statement in an interview about it. That being said I'm even less in touch with French politics, it may have changed.
About one-third of Basecamp employees accepted buyouts today after a contentious all-hands meeting. I’m told more are coming.
1042
5201
This is because of https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5
At Basecamp, we treat our company as a product. It's not a rigid thing that exists, it's a flexible, malleable idea that evolves. We aren't stuck with what we have, we can create what we want. Just as we improve products through iteration, we iterate on our company too. Recently, we've made some internal company changes, which, taken i...
lmfao what is that post
the only one I kinda get is #1
rest is literally basically begging people to quit

1/3 would be about 20 people, btw
The rest feels like something taking their ball and going home
Like "fine, no more politics means no more anything that even hints at being political"
The basecamp thing is so ridiculous
The "buyout" is 3 months pay for people there 0-3 years and 6 months pay for 3+ years
If 1/3 of my company (or even just my team) walked I'd be looking for a job starting that same day and probably quitting soon whether I'd found another job yet or not (or in this case definitely quitting and taking that severance pay)
I'd had experience with that before, when you lose 10% of your team that just means everyone gets to work 10% harder, they don't drop work or reschedule things
So they're banning "politics" because people were complaining that a list of "funny" names seemed kind of racist
Interviews with a half-dozen Basecamp employees over the past day paint a portrait of a company where workers sought to advance Basecamp’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by having sensitive discussions about the company’s own failures. After months of fraught conversations, Fried and his co-founder, David Heinemeier Hansson moved to shut those conversations down.
UPDATE FOR INVESTORS: YOU WILL BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT YESTERDAYS COURAGEOUS CHANGES HAVE RESULTED IN OUR STAFFING COSTS DROPPING 30% OVERNIGHT!
I THINK WE CAN CALL THAT A WIN
178
The committee they're talking about getting rid of is the one for examining how to improve diversity in the company through hiring practices, what vendors they work with, etc
20 people volunteered to work on it, I wonder if those are the same 20 who left
Heh
Over 50% were not republicans
Kinda makes sense
Will be interesting to see what republicans do
I know stalling the coronavirus stuff didn't poll well with republicans
Hopefully his opponent is moderate enough
Thank god the 2020 election was the most secure in history
Wat
hm?
I was mocking the commentary in that post
ah
This time, we won't look the other way on Coca-Cola's $12 billion in back taxes owed. This time, when Major League Baseball lobbies to preserve its multibillion-dollar antitrust exception, we'll say no thank you. This time, when Boeing asks for billions in corporate welfare, we'll simply let the Export-Import Bank expire.
- Ted Cruz
who has said that? tho i agree, it'd be nice to take a train to anywhere in texas
you guys have systemized transport systems?
"costed" 😠 but anyway, politics huh? Right to repair anyone? 😁
Uff
Poor armenia
As if genocide wasn't enough for azerbaijan
Another big uff
In india they have to burn bodies on the street cause the crematoriums are hopelessly overfilled
Weil ein Krematorium in der indischen Hauptstadt Neu Delhi mit der Einäscherung der Corona-Toten nicht hinterher kommt, müssen die Verstorbenen auf einem Parkplatz verbrannt werden. Derweil trafen die ersten Corona-Hilfslieferungen aus Großbritannien ein. © AFP
Link zum Video: https://www.faz.net/-gum-ab3yd
Link zur Homepage: https://www.faz.n...
Insane pictures
right to repair is gonna be a fun one, many places seem to be adopting some form of rules for it, Rossman was showing some place a while back in the US where the leaders somewhere basically laughed them out, then they all got voted out next election and some stuff was passed
But, it's crazy, it shows how detached these people are from us and from the people they represent, especially the rural people who run the farms who provide the food, who are hammered with companies like john deere who think that repairing your own tractor should literally be a sin
What the actual F… you can be locked up in the UK for quoting the Bible in public?
Never heard that one but wouldn't surprise me
Frankly, the whole “it was from the Bible part” is kinda just added on top of the, “you can be arrested for offending someone part”.
In this video, the police officer claims the preacher is being arrested for “hate crime” following complaints that he has “caused distress” by quoting from the Bible.
Is there more to this case? Or does the Bible now officially qualify as “hate speech”?
https://t.co/FULQeHZUSJ
1819
5716
71 year old guy, doing his thing, idc, I wouldn’t pay him any attention, but the government stepping in and taking him away because he “caused distress”? Get outta here. Yikes.
I mean, it's caveated, as we have no idea what he's said, but, generally, eeerrrr
I mean, I wish the bible thumpers would fuck off, very few town centres you can go to without there being a reasonable chance you'll run into one over the week
It shouldn’t be caveated. It doesn’t matter what he was saying really.
Now, this obv doesn’t apply in the UK, but I think it’s pretty good.
“…not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.”
i'd be interested if i saw actual charges
due to the nature of UK speech law this isn't that surprising
I think he was released, I couldn’t find a news article about it.
yeah figures
something like this would offend me greatly if he was charged
I think it’s just as big a deal tho, even if he was released with no consequences
i don't believe in any stronger message than that given by Christianity, so to see someone arrested for this, that's just plain insane
i mean it happens around the world anyways
so something like this isn't much of a surprise
Well, yea, that's the issue here is that the laws are trash and as is the police force these days
It's funny because the UKs stance on policing is that it's "policing by consent", and yet, we have no say at all in anything
What is policing by consent even supposed to mean?
“I don’t consent to being arrested, so you can’t arrest me”?
it's the nature that the public approves of the police force and their powers, pretty much
Part of the bible is definitely hate speech 😂
There is some really fucked up shit in there
Same with any religious scripts tho
was gonna say, it's the same for most religions
I mean,it's complex, especially in these hypersensitive days
We had like a huuuuge child pros ring which the media failed to report and the police refused to do anything about because of the fear of being called racist
But, I don't think that many of the issues with the religious texts is a religious issue as much as a culture issue
The religious texts just prop up what can only, imho, be desribed as deep found cultural issues
i guess i have a problem with anyone saying hate speech is bad yet has a subjective view of morality, i really do
no foundation there
Issue is these days is that many issues are so nuanced and people go into discussions thinking that they're right and you're wrong and there is 0 interest in you potentially changing your own view point or having any real proper discussion about it
yeah exactly
being offended is bad and the person doing the offending is satan and i don't want them to exist in my life
I do wonder about stuff like religion as we go through the generations
I know many people born into like muslim families who don't really practice the religion outside of keeping their parents happy
christinity in the UK is practically all but dead in my generation so it seems
You'll have people who'll say that they're christians when quizzed but they don't really follow any of the teaches, go to church, etc
I think I knew like, one person who did
i've heard it labeled as extrinsic and intrinsic christianity
i think it's like intrinsic is about your relationship with God, it is something very genuine for you, while extrinsic is about doing it because others are, or something like that
i guess these days people are just so tied up into the dogma of labels they gotta find one
saying you're a christian is also generally deemed more socially acceptable than being an atheist so it seems
fairly sure some of the leaders of my church would have already known about this, wonder how they feel about it
On the extreme end I don't mind someone chasing women yelling bible verses about subservience to men getting consequences for their actions. Not arrest, but some consequences :P
At least to me, that would fall under the line of harassment, imho
"freedom of religion" is weird as shit
especially as most religions are from a time where people would shit themselves if they saw modern society
WOMEN?! WORKING?!
Bible is full of stuff that just isn't cool anymore.
That's the thing that pisses me off with bible thumpers as we call them
Or, people who follow religious texts in general
Like, in order to justify that these religions are peaceful, you need to erase a lot of the lessons from the books or their history
afaik, all religious books of relevance in the UK pretty much have some form of "it's okay to kill the non-believers" type crap
I like the one about summoning bears to maul dozens of children for mocking you.
Imo freedom of religion doesn't need to be a law that exists; if you believe in some god or something, fine, but that's just your opinion and can fall under freedom of opinion or whatever law covers that.
problem with all of this is that it gets caveated into social norms
We can agree that murder is wrong, but, idk many guys who'd have something against a groomer disappearing, yet we can agree that killing people over who you believe in the sky is wrong, for the most part
freedom of religion gives you the right to practice whatever religion you want so long as it doesn't break any other laws
If you need a guidebook to tell you murder is wrong I have serious concerns. :D
but, then that gets caveated, e.g. weed was made illegal in part to push out some religions, iirc
Yeah, these religious texts are full of... questionable stuff. Some people are like "I only believe in x religion because of the morals", but, have you seen what these religious texts say? If that's your standpoint, fine with me, but it probably isn't.
freedom of religion is fine since it doesn't absolve you from breaking laws
And, well, we know murder is wrong, but, back when many of these books where written, murder was wrong unless it wasn't
If we started the world without religion entirely, I for sure think we would have been better off.
When it's used to justify denying service to people based on sexual orientation though... No thanks.
If you try to rip it out now, it's probably not going to go well, though.
ah yeah that kind of stuff is weird
I believe it would be better as then people would have to find where they stand on issues vs believing some book of what is right and wrong determined by some peeps thousands of years ago
the supreme court seems to contradict itself all the time
I mean, it's one of the side-effects of things without a real absolution
I don't mind people having a handle on their morality, but there are a lot of people that only follow "the good stuff" from x religion. At that point, it sounds to me like you are perfectly capable of defining your own morality.
especially when tryna address a question such as that, you're generally gonna come in from the angle of the texts you believe in and then try to contractict it with other texts
But, that first text you believe in is generally gonna have a higher weight on your views outcome
and, well, that's the issue, is that you have to cut down the books to "the good stuff" to be able to defend your belief in it
I think that as humans we're flawed into wnating answers to stuff, and, shamefully, the answer "we don't know", is very caveated
Well the first part of this statement is a testament to a lot of what is wrong today I think. “Doesn’t need to be a law…” Laws don’t say I have some freedom, laws take away freedoms.
"The most elementary and valuable statement in Science, the beginning of wisdom is: "I do not know. I do not know what that is, Sir."
-Data
From Star Trek: The Next Generation
Season 2 Episode 2 - Where Silence Has Lease
There seems to be a shift in perspectives, at least on the US, that freedoms come from laws, and the government
The government exists to take away freedoms. And the people say that is fine so long as the government does the job of protecting all the rest of them that we have regardless
Freedoms don’t emanate from the government
"i'm from the government and i'm here to help"
The government loves to take away freedoms and sell them back to you. That’s what a permit is. The government permitting you to do something.
And that’s not all bad ofc
I mean, that's where it gets caveated af
Gotta pay for my barber permit. Otherwise it’s illegal to cut someone else’s hair for money
Well, I'd argue that it could be either way. Of course, if you don't have any laws you'd have maximum freedom, with all of the possible consequences. But I'd argue that laws such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion could grant you more freedom when some other law would otherwise take it away from you. Naturally that situation only arises when such a law would be created, but for that scenario, that law just prevented you from getting more freedom taken away. I guess that's the better phrasing, "preventing freedom from being taken" rather than freedom in itself.
the government takes away the freedom of companies to put ingredients in your food which can harm you
Freedom of speech isn’t a law is what I am saying. It’s saying the government cannot make a law taking it away
That freedom exists beyond government, it’s super-legal in a sense.
The US has a philosophy that our rights are given to use by our “Creator”, now take that however you want, it means because I exist, I have those freedoms
Not because a law gives them to me
the bill or rights isn't laws, etc, it's basically rules for the government
you know, there was a point in history where religion didn't exist? assuming God doesn't exist and evolution is true, there was a point where humans first came on the scene without religion
Well, maybe that's a language barrier on my part, I'd translate the position freedom of speech resides in where I live as a "law".
e.g. the first amendment states that the US gov does not have the legal power to take away your rights of free speech
Ok, didn’t know there was a language barrier there, ok maybe that’s it then. My bad
I suppose I should have been more specific, if we never had religion I think we would have been better off.
that's taking a huuuuuuuge leap of faith in humanity tbh
its argued between some scholars that the bill of rights doesn't need to exist technically for you to have those same rights but just make thing really super clear
why are there referees in sports?
But I think there is a societal shift in the US, away from that notion. People are more looking to the government to give them freedoms, instead of asking the government to stop restricting freedoms where they want them to stop.
I mean, I'd argue that the bill of rights covers some pretty common sense stuff
you think sports could exist if there was no one to officiate matches or make sure they played out well?
Issue is as machine says, people want the government to start working outside of that, in the hopes of the government protecting them from the evils of the world
we have a referee it's called the justice system
Yeah, some founding papas were against the bill of rights because they thought someone would say, that’s all the rights the people have
religion has no power in the united states but uhhh
religion itself has no power, yet you swear on the bible, and the majority of people in control are generally religious in some capacity
well my dad conducted an in-depth study on the influence of Jesus on our culture, and he came away with the idea that nothing came close to the influence of Christianity on our world
technically its Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you under pains and penalties of perjury?
the last part is also optional too
very rare god is said in modern day court
It had an influence sure. That's not debatable. Was it a good influence tho?
Don't quote me on this, but someone once told me frisbee is played without referees.
Assuming that's true, I'd say yes.
Countless wars and blood and shit in the name of someones imaginary friend
Religion only ever existed to control people
So that they don't think themselves
in rural places religion is also a really good community builder
But you can form communities without that
sure but nothing really ties a community together like it
You don't need to tell lies to get ppl together
Yes, but humans love to be lazy, and we had this huge ass pretext of a book in order to gather around
it is my view that people today are just as archaic as they were in the ancient world
to answer all the questions we didn't have, to offer hope when shit looks bleak
And god is the reason we don't murder everyone we see?
Kekw
It's like when somebody gets cancer and they're told they're terminal

how often do you see sane, sensible people start looking at stuff which in their normal might they'd argue was obviously a scam, in the hopes of maybe finding a cure
So we tell them lies to comfort them
Aren't we nice friends?
that's the issue, people open up to these lies
That's the issue, is that people are so preconditioned to these lies that it's a tragedy
I mean, pretty easy to prove the first book of genesis wrong, lmao
yes mini for some people it's easier to give someone something to look forward too rather than giving them the hard truth
NK is a prime example of this
(for the atheists, genisis is where god thanos snaps the world into existence in 6 days)
The thing is that religion is often this sorta like self serving waterfall or hopes and beliefs
religious people often pass on their religious teachings to their children
On the low level
On the high level it's all about power and control
Oh and child rape, can't forget the child rape
thankfully these days it's slowly being broken and more and more people are questining this stuff and breaking free from the stream
but, there will always be somebody so desperate as to fall into the cycle of control of the church, either through people who are so ingrained in the control of religion or through the churches themselves
walk down the street selling a book with the cure to cancer
Nobody sensible is gonna buy it
But, walk far enough and you're gonna find somebody desperate enough that they're willing to throw the cash into the false hopes of your book
religion just buys heavily into our human instinct of wanting answers to all our questions and uncertainties, and hopes to all our downfalls
especially given that most people who are religious are brought into it from an early age, or are brought into it after some stupidly low point in their lives or some experience which they can't explain
So education is about child rape too?
Mmh?
I personally think that's a logical fallacy, let me know what you think.
I don't know what you are talking about
If religion is bad because children have been molestered/raped/etc. Then Education would be too.
I mean, there was a good catholic ring who where being protected by the church
Which is the joyous thing about the church is that they get flustered about such a topic yet still refuse to deal with it or let authorities deal with it
Yeah, that's a single religion. Catholicism hardly represents Christianity. They literally executed the hero in the story.
Idk what particular cases you are referring too, i don't think that's a thing over here.
I was referring to the systematic issues in the catholic church with child molestering and how those caught have been handled (as in, moved to other sector and hidden, no other consequences)
Am not saying every catholic priest is a child rapist either
Most just don't mind working with child rapists, defend child rapists or hide child rapists
Yeah I can agree with the Catholic church being disgusting.
The history of Catholicism was exactly as you described, a power thing. It was founded by Emperor Constantine to meld the Christian faith into their own faith.
The thing is that I think that religion has generally outgrown its use in terms of a rulers thing, so now you've basically got a "mock" form of rulers in the form of the church who have 0 legal say on matters of politics but have enough sway on the public to "get their way" so to speak
I would guess however that in the countries that recognize human rights as being important, most of them had a lot of Christian influence. That's not to say that correlation is causation, it may just be a symptom - that's the religion people with freedom seem to choose or that's the religion that flourishes.
Guess as in that's what seems to be the case to me, I don't have any hard facts on the matter.
it's a good cop out for proper teaching of morality
I agree mostly, that's why I support religion in only the sense of freedom of religion.
"don't murder people because that's wrong" vs, "don't murder people because that's wrong and you'll be thrown in a firey pit for all eternity"
Constantine didn't create the church, he just stopped trying to punish its members
Theodosius made it the state religion, that was later
He was at least the one who merged the Roman and Christian faiths.
The cross for example was his doing, which is actually from the Roman religion of the time.
Many of the special dates in Christianity were also replaced by him with those of significance from the Roman religion.
I would also argue that the First Council of Nicaea was founded by him, before Theodosius was even alive.
He definitely called for that council
I don't know how much power he had over them though, the bishops certainly thought he didn't have any
I would also think that making something a state religion is not the same as foundation.
They saw his role as enforcing orthodoxy and their role determining what orthodoxy is
I mean, I think his power laid in being able to unite the people of two religions.
My overall point was that that religion is not a very good representation of Christianity.
Neither is the bible, apparently 😛
You just have the follow what the bible means to say
I mean, whoever said that would be incorrect
I said that, the Bible is full of horrible shit
Ah, you're talking Old Testament?
It describes a petty asshole who apparently created everyone so he could fuck with them
That is inaccurate.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Is Jesus not as important as one's family?
Imo no
Some stranger who died 2000 years ago vs family? I guess it depends on how awful your family is.
btw i don't think religion is the problem
if people invented religion, then religion is only as good as the people are, or only as bad as the people are
when it comes to actions sure but at the end of the day most religions push harmful beliefs
for exampole lgbtq rights
right, and that is such a sensitive area
wat
well, what if the rights the lgbt community wants will end up harming everyone else, this is why it's a sensitive topic
Not sure if antichrist argument or non-aggression principle argument
yeah equal treatment is gonna harm people sure bro
That's not specifically religion however, that's human nature. Just because people who claim to practice a specific religion persecute a group of people and infringe on their rights is a reflection of the religion as a whole. That being said I'm not advocating the nirvana fallacy, I think there are definitely religions which are by their nature more harmful than others.
something that has been pushed in canada is to make it hate speech to not refer to someone by their preferred pronoun
Some would be considered evil by reasonable people.
which, i'll say, i can respect someone's pronouns, but not by compulsion through some law
Yeah doubt he's saying respect is a right anyone has.
that's not even realistic to pass in the US and that's not a right
it's just a social expectation called not being an asshole
Generally JRoy is fairly balanced, though I don't always agree with him.
I thought the Canadian pronoun thing was about business relationships
Like if a business refuses to use your pronouns they can be fined
The Canada thing was if I say to you I want to be called by a specific pronoun, the Human Rights Tribunal can fine you up to 100,000, and jail you until you pay and apologize basically.
Provided you refuse or forget.
@foggy fern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code#Summary
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16, 2016; French: Loi modifiant la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne et le Code criminel) is a law passed by the Parliament of Canada. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Cri...
It's a very totalitarian law to be honest.
I'm not getting what you're saying from what Wikipedia says
From looking at that it appears to just be a modifier to make other crimes like harassment more severe if they're motivated by gender identity
That's because the whole picture is not the specific issue. Since it's an amendment.
According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.
The issue actually existed before C16, in my opinion.
regardless unless you think about getting the first amendment repealed that's nothing you'll ever see in the US (making hate speech in it of itself illegal)
however it can (and probably already is) grounds for a hate crime
which just increases the sentence of an attached crime
I guess in theory if you push at the law as hard as you can and a particular series of steps are taken and two bodies rule against you what you said might be possible
But it still seems to only apply to businesses?
Well, and the people who work for them
And only certain businesses
The issue is particularly that the human rights tribunal basically is given a lot of latitude to decide what is and isn't considered part of the law, which existed before C16.
Like, it apparently doesn't even apply to universities
Yeah it partially does since the law that was amended by C16 had those classifications/situations covered by it's protections.
It includes individuals: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-5.html#h-257147
Federal laws of canada
40 (1) Subject to subsections (5) and (7), any individual or group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file with the Commission a complaint in a form acceptable to the Commission.
Huh, looks like Florida has banned social media
Well, the law probably isn't actually enforceable for a variety of reasons but the only way social media companies could realistically comply with it is to block Floridians from using their services
commerce clause is probably an issue too
Link to this?
DeSantis hasn't signed it yet apparently but it made it through both houses of congress and he was the one that asked them for this
Just came across this guys tweet. Gotta be a troll right? I mean…come on https://twitter.com/unseeingeyes/status/1388548855709437954?s=21
@VP And as you can see nobody gives a flying fuck you treasonous “we did it Joe” call girl-cunt. You did NOT win and both you and your husband belong in GITMO. 80 Million votes? You did t even get 50. And you aren’t qualified to Manage a McDonalds. You embody pure evil.
165
Ignoring the bad language, the “…belong in GITMO.” Where’s that come from?
The irony and hypocrisy is hilarious. Republicans wanna act like they are pro free-market and anti-government regulation and then keep a private Corp from enforcing its terms of service. How tf is your freedom of speech being violated when you are bitching on national television.
You mean like the lynching of parler when it turned it that they seemed to be the only social media platform actively alerting the services about this stuff?
I think social media is complex, especially when it's the primary platform for news and such these days, which is why it gets concerning when sites like big 3 social media platforms boot a highly influential politician for something which last I recall the act which "pushed their hand" fell completely apart timeline wise, then you have sites like CNN which knowingly and intentionally acted as part of a propaganda machine to instill fear into people, parler being forcefully booted off the internet for their hand in what happened on the 6th, yet they where apparently the only social media platform willing to stand up and say that it happened but they where working with the feds, yet most of the organisation happened on facebook/twitter
sure it can be concerning but there is no proper solution
the best solution is the current one
The Social Media scene is totally monopolized but having politicians decide what’s right and what’s wrong is generally not better then the companies themselves. Honestly if the current political environment was better I’d understand. Atm the only real reason why these laws are being passed is because radical and even just stupid republicans are upset they got banned on Twitter for insighting violence (“freedom of speech”). I guess someone has to decide what’s right and what’s wrong but sadly their will always be bias :/
I somewhat disgree on the "insighting violence" aspect, but, if that's the case I'd argue that the rulings are 100% biased against republicans when you've got leftist politicians also beckoning the stuff they argue to be "war calls"
Tbh I’ve yet to see a valid example
Every case I’ve seen has one way or another been a valid ban
Sure there is a argument conservatives are attacked for these things more
But generally the bans are a result of a social media’s terms of service being broken
I mean, last I recall the "pushing point" for trump was his speech for insightment, yet, he was midspeech when people where actively tryna break into the capital, and why was it so defenseless given that the feds where aware of the threat?
trump did more shit to get banned way before that too
Yeah...
twitter only did it because since he wasn't president it was no longer beneficial to have him on their website
His tweets and retweets after the capital riot were not exactly great
it's not the only reason but that was what they pushed as a strong reason for it
This is a good watch
This treatment of the insurrection recreates the attack moment by moment, tracking the protesters mounting agitation and rage, and some rioters breaking into various fronts of the U.S. Capitol, eventually marching the Confederate flag into the building and occupying the halls of Congress. It also reveals the diverse and competing ideologies that...
Trump 100% insighted the capital riot
I think trumps rhetoric around a lot of suff was shitty and I can defo get why it lead to a ban, but, I mean, just the 6th as a whole is sketchy af
It’s a valid reason lol
The idea that conservative politicians and republicans in genera have enforcement more heavily put on them because of bias is valid. The issue with these laws is that even tho conservatives might be targeted more for bans, the bans themselves still are validated considering these sites terms were still violated. Social Media does not need free speech to the fullest extent of the constitution because that easily results in the growth of hateful, violent ideology.
What should be happening is the push for the left to meet the same consequences for breaking a sites terms.
My caveat is is that these sites highly rely on the defenses that the government give them to operate
Twitter is more than happy to host CP
if you think twitter is knowingly doing that you're just wrong
safe harbor laws are needed for any modern sites to operate
otherwise you 100% wouldn't see any republican on any site
their content moderation is outsourced
last i knew
those are just mistakes
or bad actors on the moderation team
And do they intend to improve upon this, as this is hardly a new issue, they're capable of blacklisting a wide range of media on their platform, but not this?
I’ve seen this but what does this have to do with anti-deplatform laws being put in place. I doubt anyone wants cp to be allowed or seen on any site...
Like, I get stuff slipping through, but, when media is repeatedly re-uploaded, it's a bit iffy imho
Not talking about anti-deplatform laws there
am talking about how they as a company rely on government protections
100%, way better then what they are attempting to do now.
i mean this anti-deplatform shit isn't gonna go thru anyway
Like, they repeatedly refused to remove the content of some child being sassaulted, and their defense is 230
again this was like a handful of examples
The thing is that they have little interest to improve these systems because they have a catchall piece of law which gets them off in 99.9% of cases here
and as it should
unless they took a hardcare stance on keeping it
which wasn't the case here
it seemed to be a small problem with their moderation
I'm too drained to pull it apart more, but, here's a summary from somebody:
I haven't fully read it and all the details but one of the articles links to a copy of the court filings. https://www.scribd.com/document/491614044/Doe-v-Twitter
From what I very quickly skimmed it appears that it was reported to Twitter multiple times, including with police reports concerning the child abuse material and also verifying his identity through drivers licence to confirm he was indeed the person in the video. Twitter took a week to respond to the report saying that there was no violation of their rules and didn't remove the content. The video remained on the platform for 10 days from the first time the plaintiff reported the content to Twitter (reported 20th Jan, removed 30th Jan 2020). The account that was posting the abuse material had been reported to Twitter before for posting child abuse material and Twitter didn't act. It was only after authorities intervened and gave notice to Twitter to remove it that Twitter did, but the person who was posting the content created a new account using the same name and continued posting child abuse material. Before the video was removed it had 167,000 views and over 2200 retweets (seriously, what the fuck?).
Like, it seems twitter can act fast and decisevely against other matters, but, in this case it took a government agency to knock to actually get the content dealt with
They employ the Facebook method of ignore it until you get summoned to testify in front of
Congress
well what probably happened is the first request just got forwarded to content moderation they ruled incorrectly and that gets marked as the final ruling. then once the legal notice came through and it got forwarded to lawyers, competent humans, and realized what was going on
doubt they purposefully kept cp on Twitter. They are a company, that’s not exactly great pr. They for sure need to get their priorities straight lmao.
My annoyance is that they have things like 230 which protects them to stupid levels of degree which allows stuff like cases of this to just be 🤷♂️
This is hardly the first time it happens and is one of those long standing underbellies of social media
Yeah, the issue with 230 being removed is social media could then be openly attacked.
You'd hope that by now they'd have a better stance on this stuff, and it's only because the parent knew somebody who worked for the home office that the content finally got dealt with
i would be fine with 230 being amended to require an amount of spending towards content moderation based on company revenue and user count
Well,yea, that's the horrors is getting any logical amendments these days is just, urgh...
If 230 is removed censorship would be heavily increased (possibly negatively) and people could attack sites by getting them in legal troubles by posting illegal content.
A lot needs to be taken into account
right, i don't think revoking 230 is likely to happen either
you've got the two extremes where one side is perfectly content and wants 0 change, and the other who just wants a straight up nuke of it
Removing 230 is not the best solution
It seems like the easiest but it will cause even more problems
Normally my answer here is to break them up but twitter isn't something you even could break up, afaik
I mean, they only really do one thing
So I'll fall back on ban social media 😄
breaking up companies wasn't really a tool made for the age of internet companies
oh i don't mean ISPs
those are a good example of what you should split up
The real solution to the problems I have with twitter is to delete the trending section and the "More Tweets" section
And any other place where they try to drive you to other users
companies based on a website
lol trending is like half kpop half mc stans nowadays
u s e l e s s
Far too many orgs these days earn much more on division vs on serving as a tool
youtube is more than happy to drive a million users to a conservative channel because they have such high "engagement" so sending more people is likely to make youtube more money
Then that channel pushes the line a little too much, gets banned, and it becomes a big deal because youtube made them popular first
least they're starting to demonetize some of the more extreme ones
Right, worse than being banned, they're put in "give us free money" jail
Youtube still wants their content and "engagement"
sure i guess
i remember youtube put a "viability" clause in their TOS recently (meaning they will terminate people not commercially viable)
i wonder if they'll start using that
You mean "you're costing us money so banned"?
They've been doing that from the beginning 😛
right they can terminate for whatever
but they recently clarified it
which was interesting
Twitter now doing this when you retweet news
Based asf
Probably won't stop anything tho
I wish they would put an indicator under retweets if the person didn't read it
LOL
Thing is that it doesn't mean jack
all it tracks is on twitter, so can read and then spot a post and share and boom, you've "not read it", meanwhile, all you gotta do to get the flag is to click the article, close the tab and then hit share
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump and his supporters are intensifying efforts to shame — and potentially remove — members of their party who are seen as disloyal to the former president and his false claims that last year's election was stolen from him. On Capitol Hill, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican in the House, risks losing her...
oh boy
Hes still gripping on
imagine Trump/someone he prepares running for 2024, TOTALLY would not happen
I've seen a lot of "TRUMP IN 2024" signs.
Theres one house in my neighbor hood with every trump sign there is
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/4/22419850/donald-trump-social-media-platform-ban-twitter-facebook
This is kinda funny. It apparently is just a WordPress blog type thing.
Why tf is this being called a social media platform??
It’s legit just his own fucking blog
I do like how he writes to it as if it’s Twitter lmao
I don't see any specific reference to him calling it a social media platform, unless I'm missing something seems like media are just calling it that.
Yeah, I’m not talking about Trump himself
These news sites and such
Stupid headlines
I wasn't responding directly to you btw, but no big deal
Also looks like they took their time reporting on it, the first "user" posted to the "platform" weeks ago.
Ah apparently there is a video, will have to see.
Either they didn't spot it before or Trump started posting to it before it went live, doesn't seem like something that would have been missed though so probably the latter
Guessing they were iterating on making it as easy and familiar as possible for him to post so when it went live he could open the floodgates again
Yeah I did a bit of research and seems like it's just populated with things he's said in the last few weeks.
https://apple.news/AzaQNpGvBTFKMEhUKz0t8Xg
… why is this a legal issue?
Daughter and mom rigged election, fire the mom, suspend the daughter, have new election.
I didn’t realize “homecoming queen” was that important an election.
A public school maybe? So misuse of taxpayer dollars or smth, idk
Seems like it's likely to revolve around this charge: Offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks and electronic devices (third-degree felony)
Yeah, hacking laws are really harsh for no reason at all
Well the school has every incentive to push hard on police to charge them regardless, it looks horrible for them.
its mostly a holdover from the past when security was non existent and the only barrier to hacking was the law
the Fraud and Abuse act has no severity distinction
even sharing your netflix password is grounds for full penalties
Did they even hack? I thought I read that the mom just had access to the system
I mean, "hack" is a pretty broad term in social culture these days
guessing your mates password from the fact that they had a cat called simba is considered hacking to many
Meanwhile… this is horrifying, and hilarious. It’s horrifarious.
these types of laws generally cover unauthrorised access/misuse of the system
doesn't even matter in the eyes of the CFAAA
also useless typically, very few people actually know shit about the economy
they tend to trust their own party
I know, which is why it’s horrifying and hilarious. There’s no way it’s an accurate picture of the economy
I DO NOT own any of the videos on this channel.
All copyrights go to : Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.
Show from the video : How I Met Your Mother
Wanna buy HIMYM on Amazon ? --- goo.gl/VdufJz
I will upload scenes from the show so you can discover this LEGENDARY Tv Show :)
Huh, usually those show 10-20 point swings on the Democrats while the Republicans swing wildly
Or at least the ones I've seen over the last decade
I guess Democrats are playing the same games now
Like, that increase over 4 years is explainable, the sudden drops and sudden spikes are just partisan bullshit
The law in most countries does not differentiate unauthorized access of a computer system from actual hacking. Additionally when the target of said unauthorized access also probably holds confidential information about students, it's often taken fairly seriously.
I think in regards to the poll data from 538, it's possible it's a difference in the questions compared or the way people understand the questions. i.e. "is the economy getting worse" vs "do you believe the current policies will be good or bad for the economy". Be interesting to see the poll questions asked in the data they compare.
what is this
Politics is every few years where you pick the person who makes receiving an anal fucking sound the most fun
Seems like having zero personality or ideas other than tepidly supporting the Tories has really paid off https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1390548721243459584?s=20
Hartlepool, parliamentary by-election result:
Con: 51.9% (+23.0)
Lab: 28.7% (-9.0)
Ind: 9.7% (+7.5)
RefUK: 1.2% (-24.6)
Grn: 1.2% (+1.2)
LDem: 1.2% (-3.0)
Oth: 6.1% (+4.9)
Con GAIN from Lab.
1092
3187
Tories = con?
I mean, labour has only attacked their key voter pool over the past few dozen years and a good % of them feel that the party has left them rather than them being the obvious option for workers
Starmer is basically considered a tory lite, and after the damage they did to the party over the past few years, ooof... Corbyn made himself become too unelectable to a good % of the working class, which was labours primary voting pool bar the younger generation, then they got rid of him which ejected a good % of the younger pool who stick to voting labour out of principle, but, hartlepool has generally gone to shit over the past few dozen years, and, well, tories actually offer cash, which is shitty and basically buying votes, but, I really can't blame hartlepool for wanting something different
fwiw, labour lost their majority last by election there, just brexituk or whatever it was basically stole enough votes from the tories to keep labour ahead, and in an unsurprising manner, that party disappeared and the labour party really had little interest in picking themselves up as they for some reason have this complex of "we can't lose" more or less, they obliterated the "red wall" as it's so called
yeah i can't really imagine how much more of a shit show it would've been if BXP didn't exist
UK political shift isn't going quite the same as in the US
In the US the blue collar white men moved to the Republican party but Democrats picked up college educated people in exchange. More and more people are going to college and college educated people are more consistent voters so it's probably in their favor
one of my favorite videos
I mean, part of the thing is that the left generally doesn't care to get out and vote here
Like, I think most people generally don't care to vote as you're stuck between two parties
You got one party which seems to have half a clue of what it is or what it wants, and then you have the party which is "kinda" corrupt, but, I mean, if you vote for them maybe they'll give you some hand outs
Lmao the last clip
i think the biggest problem is how completely and utterly incompetent Labour are combined with the biased media
He won! The most incredible ad for a Tory candidate I’ve seen. Blackburn’s Tiger Patel.
PS when we played this video on @SkyNewsAust today we had to pixilate the graffiti 🤣
https://t.co/BN60hxCcde
211
1458
See all 19 candidates in the Kingston upon Thames local election on 6 May 2021:
Baron Von Achenbach (Official Monster Raving Loony Party)
Michelle Akintoye (Kingston Independent Residents Group)
Charles Bamford (Labour Party)
Undertaking Director Brunskill (Official Monster Raving Loony Party)
...
LOL
yeah, was a literal LOL for me too
Well Jake that pic isn't true
The falcon first stage burns in orbit too, and they crashed down before too
But yes spacex at least tries
I mean... its a meme
also, the second stage is designed in such a way that nothing is left over after re-entry, and they have control over the re-entry
this Chinese rocket... totally uncontrolled and some stuff is expected to survive
Which is what I mean with at least tries
But spacex had uncontrolled decent before for failed launches
man, just let me make fun of this one incident 😜
mini coming in here, just ruining everything... 😆
#lebronjames #backtheblue #lebron #police #shortsOfficer Silvester has been SUSPENDED by the boneheads in the Bellevue, Idaho Marshal's office. Here's the G...
Ok, that… is funny.
Guy got suspended from his job for it, but he got $700k from a go fund me, so he’s gonna be just fine.
“That doesn’t make sense to me… but then again, you are really good at basketball.”
mega cringe video
Looks like he was just reinstated at his job actually.
I didn’t think it was cringe, I thought it was pretty funny
Definetly a bit cringy
yeah i get what he's trying to say and he's not too off but just the delivery and the format was cringe
typical tiktok
Unfunny and cringe
The he’s bad at basket ball and the; “Michael Jordan’s the goat” shit kills me
So cringe
I mean SpaceX usually does a de-orbit burn of the 2nd stage after deploying the payload, but occasionally it runs out of fuel/doesn’t work and it has an uncontrolled reentry. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/mdgquu/rocket_breakup_over_portland_or/
And yes, most of it burns up but not all of it: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/2/22364582/spacex-rocket-debris-falls-farm-washington
SpaceX does try harder than most, and the problem is that the Chinese rocket isn’t designed to restart its engines in orbit
Yeah, I think the thing is, that it’s done this twice now, both times this rocket has launched. Also public pressure isn’t something the Chinese government is known to cave too.
Steph Curry is the GOAT, obviously
I heard an interesting thing... if he keeps it up, he could win a second scoring title, and become only the 3rd person to win multiple scoring titles, mvps and championships
wait 4th I think. with wilt, kareem, and michael
I believe another thing to consider is that SpaceX calculate whereabouts the debris will land in order to minimise risk, whereas China (I hate lumping it on a whole country but this will have to do) just throw it without regards for risk. Obviously both are in the wrong. We've had the ability to safely retrieve and land debris for years now, there is no excuse beyond valuing cost savings over life/environment. However, it is clear that SpaceX (as much as it pains me to defend them) do it better than others.
China's situation was a failure, in which they basically gotta learn
Shamefully, given that our angencies don't generally share knowledge, they gotta fuck up on their own
Yeah it's not the first time they did this though, and iirc it wasn't a mistake/failure the other time - it was on purpose
why land in a specific place when you can just land it anywhere?
thankfully no one was hurt in that incident, or severe damage to property
It's not a failure. It's nominal behavior for this rocket. It launched twice now and both times they just did entry wherever
well... I think its a failure to be a good space citizen. The rocket may have performed as expected, but ya
love the daily hopper
Well, yes, it's a failure in that regard. But since this is the second time I wouldn't count on the learning part
yeah, China, known for caving to international pressure 😆
It's really amazing how much things you don't know when you grow up as a white male
John Oliver discusses the importance of black hair, the ways it can be a target of discrimination, and some ideas to address that.
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight
Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your...
Or grow up in a country that just doesn't care about that?
what is he talking about regarding hair?
Oppression, due to hair style.
I just went back thru my life, I can name 2 black boys from school, one from my team, and his sister. That's all black ppl i have met and talked to for more than 5 minutes in my whole life
who is oppressing who cause of their hair?
The two boys at school I never shared classes with, the boy from my team only played a year with us and his sister i don't think i spoke to more than a few sentences
No black adults I can remember
Employers, teachers, etc
Vid is worth watching if you can spare the time
I'd hardly call enforcing a work dress code oppression tho right? Jobs have had their own dress codes for a long time. And they also have changed pretty dramatically over time. Just look at technology companies
Well, examples included class centers
idk what hair styles hes talking about tho. Ill watch later, dont have time right now
Call*
Traditional African american hair styles.
And generally, what you need to understand that this is part of their identity
This isn't a style, this is natural
if someone shows up to a law office with spiked hair thats 10 different colors... that'll affect their business in a negative way.
Because that's how far this oppression has come to
We aren't talking about those extremes
Also: dress codes in general can fuck of
Unless its like: no bathrobes in the resterants at a hotel
We didn't have a dress code till someone pushed the limits too far. 
but what if that's part of someone's identity? Who are you to judge?
(playing devil's advocate here)
Don't pull a straw man
It's a practical restriction
Bath robes = wet = no bueno in a restaurant
there are dress codes that are also practical restrictions I would assume
I mean, it depends, now, you don't neccessarily want some rainbow spikey haired tourtoise tryna represent your company on the global stage in an uber professional market as lets face it, even if we say we're open and diverse, we all make deep instinctual judgements on people
but, imho, people shouldn't be forced to drop their cultures form of stuff like hair as long as it doesn't impact the company, but, you gotta accept that if your hair is what is deemed as scruffy in a professional sense, you're gonna be limited in a professional sense, and, that does defo kinda suck ass, but, it's not all too much of a surprise, imho
Why are ur bath robes wet
Because ppl come from the beach or pool
A lot of companies ban religious and cultural symbology not because they are inherently discriminatory but because they want to be as bland and unassociative as possible. If you aren’t appealing to one group you are appealing to many. The same way you might be required to wear a suited dress code instead of being able to wear a shirt of your favorite band.
Ofc your cultural and religious identity being more important then who your favorite band is but realistically this is how the sad and bland suits operate 🤷♀️
This can’t be real…
The group that did the ransomware attack on the pipeline in the US is apologizing?
Gonna start moderating which companies they attack now.
That is too good to be true right?
i've heard that groups doing ransomware want to avoid making large problems
as then they get "looked at"
so they try and avoid companies/institutions or whatever that could get people killed due to being locked out of the system
so some of them will try and avoid hospitals
the ones that want to only make money that is
Btw, great video here https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his article on the topic at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119.
His best-selling book on the same subject, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, c...
This whole randoms where attack on the pipeline is so funny
Like, first, I learned that there is like only this one pipeline in that part of the US
No redundancy
Which, when I look at Europe, is really surprising, similarly surprising when I learned about your fragmented energy net when ppl were freezing to death in texas (there's only one net in europe)
that's only Texas
Then, why is it physically possible that you can get infected with ransomware?
literally everything else in the US is connected
texas just don't want to be taxed for stuff tied to power
Like, this isn't an attack. You don't get attacked by ransomware. You get infected because your security sucks
and that turned out well for them
critical infra being unsecure as shit
eerr...
You do know we are talking about the US govs dealings here, rite?
But your net is still framemented other than that, my dad told me this Sunday, he building some machine for the US and had to call the local electricians to ask what frequency they have there, because it's different for states, and sometimes even counties
I also learned that you power oven and stove with 120 volt or smth insane like that?
they have 240V
uhh they may be 240
or, well, 220V, or there arounds
our power system is actually 240
Ah maybe that's a local thing then
we just have two 120 phases
Meanwhile my oven has 3 phases
but, why
I guess for load balancing it's nice, but, don't really need 3 phase for an oven unless it's some industrial crap
actually now that i think of it, the fragmented software may be a blessing in disguise. because if one gets breached, chances a power station a mile down the road runs something totally different
lowering the attack surface
I wasn't talking about software
that being said it would be epic if we had super updated shit everywhere
I mean, ideally this stuff is managed by competent providers rather than cheapest bidder
yeah
pretty sure US is 60 across the board?
if it varies we're talking less than one hertz deviation
Idk, maybe I misunderstood smth
I don't listen too closely when my dad rambles like that, lol
But he's good at his job so I must have something mixed up 🤷♂️
That's another cool thing, he needs to fly over to supervise the installation of his machine for two weeks, so he needs a work visa
You can only get them in 3 big cities in germany, have to travel there
His appointments where cancelled twice now, via SMS, no reason provided
New head of NASA wants to be referred to in public docs as Administrator Senator Bill Nelson
Gotta be illegal somehow… can’t just combine titles like that😛😛
Just because it's 60 Hz doesn't mean it's in sync across the country
iirc there are still a few separate grids, they just cross state lines so are regulated by the federal government
yeah, while the grids can send power to each other, its usually a conversion from AC to DC back to AC
usually to make up the difference in syncing problems
Yea, I guess not being tied together makes more sense than an actual different frequency
Oooo who wants to comment on what’s going down with Israel/Palestine right now?
_Can't comment on something that doesn't exist. _
all im seeing is cringe twitter morons who have no business talking about foreign policy over simplify the conflict by making comments about foreign policy
Is this where I say "Israel bad", remember that am a Germany and apperently have some historical burden and have to say "Israel good"?
Seriously tho, fuck netanyahu
Why do you have a historical burden? Don’t quite think you were around back then
Way to fuel a conflict for his own political gain
Germany generally officially always supports Israel
Cause else they cry and call us anti semites
They still think we owe them money too
I will never understand how you can call me an antisemite when I say fuck Israel but I don't make the rules 🤷♂️
I think the total breakdown of communications between Albania and Israel in under 1 day after signing the ambassador papers should already say that.
But yeah, Israel and netanyahu have annoyed me for quite some time now, and even tho the situation is really fucked up, I am somewhat glad this gets pulled into the public eye again
This time I don't see many agreeing with Israel
No clue if our gov said anything official yet tho
It really isn't a question of if, only when.
Merkel is tried 🤷♂️
And it's election season
Not a topic ppl here wanna touch I guess
Foreign Minister @HeikoMaas on the sidelines of his visit to Rome: Firing rockets at #Israel is absolutely unacceptable and must end immediately. Israel has the right to engage in self-defense in this situation. This escalation of violence is neither to be tolerated nor accepted.
321
939
Ah yes, I knew it
Just a copy paste from the US response.
This is a difference between uncontrolled rocket strikes from Hamas, and targeted military strikes (even if those strikes cause civilian casualties).
Those aren’t moral equivalents.
Obv, it’s all bad, but they shouldn’t be looked at as the same thing
One is a form of protest, the other is an execution
Hamas knows they can't do real damage, Israel got a good shield
Yikes. Ok.

