laws that make simply existing illegal are dangerous by definition.
not to mention greater dangers to society
2,729 karma · joined July 10, 2016
email: dillon _____ 4degre.es
not to mention greater dangers to society
Does this mean the US probably has satellites that can easily pick up cell signals anywhere in the world from space?
from people I know in the recovery community, they say that getting off fent is way harder than other opiates and suboxone doesn't always work well enough, even at crazy high doses.
it's a disgusting drug.
we're seeing a similar pattern now where cartels are mixing crap like xylazine in. when the only drugs you can get on the street are literal poison, there isn't much choice but to use them.
that's why if pure injectable morphine was available, for free or close to it, I doubt new users would choose to move to fent; especially if fent wasn't easily available.
sure some people will always chose to use more destructive drugs. but we need to stop the next cycle of escalation.
and I don't think most people are advocating selling high dose opiates OTC at the corner store.
i'm personally ok with MDMA, cocaine, speed (pills not rock) being pretty accessible with some type of license limit system, and tools to avoid smurfing/create outreach for those high quantity users move into dependence.
Shot/smoked meth & opiates I think should be more controlled, but still provided for free as part of harm reduction & programs to reduce use.
Favorite quote: "I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs"
Related: new data from CO lends even more credence to legalization/harm reduction: pot use is way down (35% amongst teens)
or posts with corn emoji in place of a word that starts with P. Or trends that are really just thrust your hips in loose fitting shorts. Or guys who point to song name which is really their twitter handle.
I know this because... Science.
Should maybe post on a throwaway but: it will show me the gay version of tit-tok, let's just call it putting a bunch of sweatpant season thirst traps in my feed.
Often videos with like 100 views or even less.
Their ML is likely categorizing d*ck prints, visible nipples, and a bunch of other human monkey brain dopamine drivers.
Instagram will recommends shirtless people. But TikTok takes it way farther. And probably a good reason it got so popular to begin with. People are creeping on kids.
tiktok is TOO good at micro-optimizing. it's so far above at recognizing the content of a video and then serving it to that specific individual.
It's crazy that videos with 100 views, from a poster I've never seen before, fit into the niche of something i'd like.
and super telling that I haven't seen like half of the things people are listing in this thread!!!!!
But this disagreement highlights this major problem the US faces.
We live in two increasingly separate realities with different 'facts', where obvious is totally different based on your identity.
the one religious non-belief class example I gave is the football coach prayer case.
to me it's an obvious overreach and clearly breaks secular education norms (and past scotus rulings).
to such an obvious degree that the minority (on the court, majority in public opinion) broke precedence and put photos directly refuting the 'facts' the majority claim are truth.
that's also a bit spurious. i don't think anyone is arguing that churches must be forced to interview (or hire) other religions.
but the majority does believe that the state & courts shouldn't create laws that expressly allows someone to discriminate or refuse to provide service to someone else just because they are gay or trans or use different pronouns. or deny an adoption. or disallow kids from playing incredibly low states high school sports. or ban books. or not talk about gender & sexuality. i keep using queer-centric issues because that's my identity and I can speak to it better than race/trans issues. there are plenty of examples there too.
it's minority religion dictating laws that affect our lives and explicitly allowing those beliefs to take away rights from the rest of us.
how tf is ethnic diversity harmful?
also my comment had nothing to do with hiring.
but to respond anyways:
ideological diversity !== making room for racist, homophobic, christian nationalist or otherwise hateful people.
and people have every right not to want to have to work and sit next to someone who is actively working to make their life worse, take away their rights, and or who are simply diametrically opposed to their very existence and often overtly bring this with them into said workplace. e.g. see all the other threads on hn that have to do with race and gender.
you clearly asked "Can you give me one example where such a society was allowed?" that is past tense, not bounded to now. I answered. You are wrong.
Oh and BTW white ethnic activism is alive and well.
first: tone & language means this is silly of me to reply.
second: how about basically the entire existence of the US
so many examples of government & local police enforced white ethnic activism and active racism & enslavement.
fugitive slave act. legally forced segregation & jim crow laws.
But if I'm understanding the 2nd sentence, this is so true in that these extremists feel that unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform that they are somehow being censored.
No one is taping someone's mouth shut.
In fact those voices are louder now than they have been in my entire life.
But I'm not going to listen to it.
and yeah young people are generally more open minded and yes they are peer pressuring (subject of this complains about peer pressure). Maybe that says something..
One can change ones behavior and beliefs and maybe they'll be more accepted into the group they want to to be in.
Or not!
it's their choice that they are free to make.
In this instance a statement simply saying their research doesn't perpetuate discrimination !== mandating your research must do ___ whatever ___
if the research does somehow discriminate, simply not accepting it into this particular society or some conference doesn't wipe it off the face of the earth or send someone to woke jail.
no one is forcing you to accept concepts of diversity & inclusion worldviews.
or that recognizing and trying to correct real factual imbalances somehow means that the 'other' group must be treated worse or be discriminated against.
multiple recent WSJ editorials are super similar to this article.
----
"‘Implicit Bias’ Training Cost Me My Nursing Job" [1]
the author argued that that training would have required her to 'discriminate.'
instead of the reality of a discussion highlighting the real, legitimate, and actually factual disparities of treatment and higher death rates of POC.
correcting imbalance !== actively treating white patients worse.
no one is mandating that we lower treatment quality to level the playing field. instead of trying to correct and raise everyone up!
btw a very common refrain: they knew this without actually taking the training?
----
"The College Board’s Racial Pandering" [2]
Glossing over the weird argument that funding pre-k is somehow bad because test scores have remained stagnant.. hand waving away huge benefits, including for the economy, printed by the wall street journal!
Author makes another false equivalency and presents un truths.
The addition of a new AP course on afam studies does not somehow take away from remedial math & science classes.
No one is forcing students to take this class.
author claims some ambiguous liberal education propaganda machine is aiming to "turn students who haven't even learned to read and write into social-justice warriors"
what student who can't read are taking an AP level course?
Author even spends paragraphs writing about what he assumes will be taught even though he says himself he doesn't even have a syllabus.
he complains that the afam course will ignore jewish & asian discrimination!?!
what? 1: we don't know this. 2: even so, that's not the subject of the course!
his language like "pander to black kids" sends shivers down my spine.
----
I love WSJ reporting.
But the anti-factual junk they are printing in their opeds makes it hard to read.
At least they are still labeling it oped, unlike fox news.
i've written to apple news so many times. they will put non-factual, non-reporting opinion on the news feed and not label it, presenting it as real news.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-from-my-nursing-job-for-r...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-boards-racial-pande...
Look at marjorie taylor green's most recent insanity.
"accusation in a mirror."
and it goes far beyond a handful of loud extremists who are given megaphones from the 'less-extreme' in their party (are they really the minority then?)
the Fox news led contingent have been screaming this 'under attack' narrative.
and they are openly setting the conditions for IRL violence.
Othering trans & queer people. freaking attacking drag queens which is SO silly..
claiming we are pedo groomers who give out hormones to tweens like candy. saying your identity will no longer be people like you in the future, straight & cis.
child abusers seem to be the one class that it's still acceptable to openly wish violence upon.
telling their audience to 'take a stand' or else lose their entire existence & identity produces extremism and prods armed extremists to show up in real life.
they are bringing guns to shut down libraries, ban books, pile into vans to go attack pride, passing discriminatory laws.
not even touching on poc, immigrants, & attacks on democracy/jan 6; i'm focusing on my identity since I can better speak to it. which btw funny how there is always an eminent caravan invasion (a specifically chosen word) right before the election.
we have always been victims of violence.
but this is a much bigger boiling kettle and one group is stoking the fire.
i clearly see this fear in the eyes of a large & heavily armed group.
they think they are under attack. what will they do to 'protect themselves and save our country'? what happens when the kettle boils over?
they're pointing those guns at me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/xtbx7t/marjorie_t...
If it even existed in the first place; there are plenty of laws that expressly allow discrimination in deference to 'religious beliefs.'
Courts, & the Supreme Court in particular, are giving far more weight to 'christian freedom' at the expense of the rest of us.
Cases include recent PrEP ruling, insane football prayer ruling that willfully ignored facts, bathroom & sports laws targeting kids. crazy ruling on prayers in court.
Adoption discrimination (de-facto govt by transitive property. we have to stop outsourcing government to contractors, especially when it makes religious orgs the only avenue).
Upcoming ruling from CO which will probably allow even more queer discrimination.
that 'pressure to conform' is and has historically been one way, giving one class the legal go ahead to discriminate in the name of some skewed idea of christian ideals
"paper" produced "a man reading a newspaper while riding a walrus"
"a wolf reading a newspaper"
"Trapped inside infinity"
and I got to say, the wawlrus readers look passable at a glance when shrunk to low res
https://replicate.com/api/models/stability-ai/stable-diffusi...
https://replicate.com/api/models/stability-ai/stable-diffusi...
and by their definition that somehow topics around queer people & gender can be inappropriate; this is not sex education and no, nurses are not handing out hormones to pre-teens.
Many of these laws specifically enable people to sue teachers, governments, officials, women who had an abortion, etc.
That enables conservative & religious fanatics to have the last say and impose their moral worldviews onto the rest of us.
The fact that gay people exist is not 'appropriate' in many of their minds. Which is gross and sad. And therefore these laws give the vocal minority the power to force the rest of us back into the closet.
We used to basically destroy the paper so it felt 'used.' The first couple times sure just old as hell money. But i'm sure that lady had to have known when all the money looked like that!
They probably just want kids to have fun & get snacks.
But also I hate that we charge kids for meals in the first place.
The food should be free for all and much healthier and better quality.
Better off parents will still pay for their kids' meals regardless via taxes.
Do it again with different CSS settings.
No government hand outs. Unless it's fossil fuel subsidies for Mr. Koch.
Socialized medicine is evil. Unless my company is stealing hundreds of millions from our government/medicare (and then I became a US Senator)
Abortion is bad. Except in my instance, but it's ok because I'm not one of those girls. Or my life is in danger!
Copy pasta from Reddit, but it rings true more often than not: any accusation is an admission.
Literally just read an op-ed from conservative crying about Democrats banning books... Seriously
Really dumb 'feature.'
As if anyone could print money at home that would work, and even if so somehow this will stop amateur counterfeiters.
Welll... I guess we did do that as pre-teens for $1 cookies. School found out obviously. Poor lady whose job that was I'm sure she got in trouble.
kids are assholes.
There are usually arcane rules. Sometimes things have to get put on by council sometimes cities allow citizen petitions.
Something that changes the charter/constitution versus just an ordinance or a tax/levy.
And sadly activist judges can have too large of a say imho.
Well not funny. More sad and terrifying.
most of the example complaints they highlight are just students saying they don't feel comfortable speaking up or they had dorm mate issues.
Does not feel like a good way to rank a school's actions to hinder speech (as an institution/administration).
Does have some better real examples but large majority I read were not.
Just because you don't feel comfortable doesn't mean someone is stopping you from speaking.
You can't force someone to live with or listen to ones ___ whatever religion, hate speech, crazy liberal ideas etc.
And yes.. Most young people are pretty open minded and fairly liberal.
If you hold views outside that box you should speak them! But you can't be made if people judge you or the majority speak themselves against those beliefs.
I don't see how those common complaints are a school forcing someone to be silent or punishing them for their viewpoints.
Maybe I'm being too emotional given recent court rulings/direction of my country; Which is probably why I took so much time on that site and commenting.
But your speech !== that I will listen, or not judge you, or allow you to be around me.
A lot of the religious court rulings (PrEP most recent) feel like these complaints. Freedom to speak/express your religion does not go so far as to control my choices and my body or force me to listen to you.
- abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers
could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is it
Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too
Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges.
and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening.
https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...