I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.
This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.
The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.
If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?
The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
I believe the legal repercussions are part of that “can ruin your life”, not just the addiction and/or health concerns.
Though that still makes it an entirely artificial consequence that does not need to and should not exist.
Is that legal? I know you’re not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?
What are the ages of the generations here? I’m just curious because it’s rare enough to have a living great-grandparent, let alone a great-great-grandparent (in relation to your children) in the same house. And how did this end up falling to you?
Nigerians are actually one of the most successful migrant groups in America.
A pit maneuver isn’t an attempt to kill the driver.
There is no evidence she was a danger to anyone in that parking lot. None. Zero. Pulling out of a parking spot does not make you a deadly threat. There’s no amount of imagination of what could go wrong that makes it so.
Have the police even used the threat to the public as justification for this shooting? If not, why are you making that argument for them? The only issue I’ve seen them raise was the danger to the officer who fired the shot.
There’s no such thing as objective right and wrong, we’re not discussing a measurable experiment here. I’m biased against the unnecessary loss of life. I’m biased against police murdering pregnant women (or anyone, of course). I’m biased against our police being far more violent than any of our contemporaries. If that makes me “politically biased” in your eyes, so be it. I’d much rather be on that end of bias than the other.
If she was trying to run him over why did she cut the wheel as far as she could to try and get around him?
It’s not police policy to kill fleeing suspects, plenty of jurisdictions even choose not to pursue. So the answer to those questions is that yes, they absolutely could have let her drive away, as some other police forces already do without issue.
Aside from that, even if they decided to pursue, it is not police policy anywhere to use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject unless it becomes an acute danger to the public. A fleeing subject who has yet to break 10 MPH does not fall under that description, not here, not anywhere.
And here’s a question, if it was such a deadly situation for this officer, how did he not get injured? He was already safely out of the way of the vehicle by the time any of his bullets had an effect. Because he’s not a fucking invalid and can side step a car, which he put himself in front of to begin with, pulling out of a parking spot.
Do you feel safer today because this woman is dead? Does anyone?
This is the fruits of the GOP strategy that’s been going on for decades to strengthen their support through Christian believers. The Pope is just recognizing the impact of that from the religious side, whereas Barry Goldwater warned of it’s impact from the political side.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.
It certainly is a terrible damn problem, and we’re knee deep in the shit right now.
It’s just sinking with style
Every time I see it I can’t get past how hideous it looks. I just don’t get it…who’s the target demo for this thing? They’ve already been beaten to market by non-absurd looking trucks, how big could their market actually be?
Group A was wronged by entity B. Group A goes to court to seek restitution from entity B. Courts rule that entity B did in fact cause damages to group A and must be held liable.
That’s all reparations are. Entity B is your government. It’s the same legal entity as it was 190 years ago, regardless of the composition of the population it represents. If a group was wronged by their government, this is their only means to legal restitution. Unfortunately since the primary form of income for some governments is taxation, it means people complain about paying for things when that’s not exactly what’s happening.
The alternative is to say that if a government “runs out the clock” and is able to avoid responsibility until the population turns over, then they can no longer be held liable for anything they did prior to that point. That’s not a very good position, in my opinion.
“Person we hired to say things says the thing” more at 11.
Really irresponsible reporting, to be honest.