I’m simply not equivocating protecting one’s person and protecting one’s assets, since it makes no sense to equivocate them.
It’s seriously absurd to call that “bootlicking”, and you’re only calling it “euphemistic” because you failed to grasp what was a very simply-stated statement.
If you Internet Tough Guys were ever going to do anything, you would have already. This is nothing more than an impotent circlejerk, not to mention it also violates Rules 3 and 4 of this community.
The thing that annoys me the most is the amount of money it takes to protect their wealth…the money paid for private guards and security alone is in the hundreds of millions.
Considering the above “protecting your wealth” instead of simply protecting yourself from hostile third parties is extremely disingenuous.
it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎
she tried to run over the cop and/or thats what he thought when he fired, anyway
Even if this was true, it’s honestly irrelevant. You’re not supposed to fire upon the driver of a running/moving vehicle period, lest the vehicle become an ‘unguided missile’ (via dead weight pressing on the accelerator) that can cause who knows how much more damage.
ICE’s own rules explicitly prohibit it, I saw someone citing them earlier.
The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.
Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.
The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.
Just a little 90x error, lol
When Firefox started recording key strokes
Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.
EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol
Winter and Summer are both too extreme. That leaves Spring and Autumn.
I hate bugs, and Spring is the ‘buggiest’ season, so for me, Autumn wins by default, lol.
I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.
You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.
The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.
So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.
That headline works whether or not that C is capitalized, heh…
How much would you like to bet? Please respond before clicking on the link below:
That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.
That is the point they’re making.
Smugness and delusion in equal proportion, it seems.