badnewsbandit
lol π¦ lmao
No bio...
User ID: 1038
The current Egyptian government somewhat recently had some troubles with an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood. In Gaza there is an organization called the Islamic Resistance Movement which started as a branch off that same Egyptian organization and currently exercises some amount of political authority in Gaza. So there are understandably some tensions between Egypt and Gaza right now beyond not wanting refugees.
There is a Catholic photo that shows up with some regularity but it's a Priest blessing rifles for hunting. There is the old De Benedictione Armorum from a Roman Pontifical of Benedict XIV and Leo XIII which some folks have grown attached to but it is as much about blessing the person who will wear them and use them for defense of themselves, others and the Church as the weapon itself.
Leadership positions increasingly filled with college educated, peace time service, career-oriented PMC types who are of and interface with DC political culture especially to advance beyond a certain level. Policies and initiatives are downstream from culture.
K-12 teachers and administrators are not empowered to provide therapy or other significant psychosocial interventions to the kids in their care. Not even the school counselor can diagnose or provide therapy. They need parental consent to initiate any of that.
That used to be the norm at least. Not so much any more.
Many states, including Washington, allow schools to give out prescriptions to any minor over age 13 without getting permission from a parent if they are seeking treatment for mental health services.
Far have we strayed from the origins of LW. Inconveniences are hardly trivial and many of them just coincidentally happen to most inconvenience the point of entry into the funnel of gun culture. Good faith at this point has to be proven and compromise has to involve give and take, not compromising on only taking 50% instead of 100% of the original ask.
Every once in a while I'll get random YouTube pre-rolls for very vague pharmaceutical ads that are generally targeted at LGBTQ communities. Entire ad campaigns that are purely aspirational and don't even mention what the drug is supposed to do. I'm thinking there might be a bit of an info bubble where people in those communities have a decent idea about the different drugs as products and it's more about establishing brand identity. More recently at my office in the break area where all manner of magazines are left lying around I noticed a full page advertisement in a similar vein (Men's Health May-June 2022 issue, pg41 so not that old). Effectively the same as the first page of this brochure.
While it was at least more straightforward about the purpose of the drug, the ad campaign slogan "detect this" and the 2017 "U=U" (Undetectable = Untransmissible) campaign (bonus CW, Fauci is apparently a big promoter) both seem to have a similar info bubble. In this case slightly different. I can understand how for people who are very aware of HIV and fret about things like detectable viral load then the messaging of undetectable being functionally untransmissible is more along the lines of "X rights are human rights" slogan.
But did anyone involved consider how a normie might parse "undetectable" in conjunction with HIV? That it might convey a sense of other people not being able to find out about the infection, even when those "other people" include partners? Which is not some hypothetical, the pull quotes from an article about a paywalled research article. Meanwhile an AMA Journal of Ethics article looking at the merits and drawbacks (reads like a position paper but apparently it merits peer review) didn't even consider whether or not attitudes about disclosure could be a drawback. Of course duty to disclose is itself an ethical question, so whether or not a campaign affects whether or not people fulfill it can be sidelined by not considering either of those questions relevant.
Not my circus, not my monkeys but from the outside I feel like the possible implication of encouraging sneaky fuckers who cannot be caught because they cannot be detected (especially since consent and disclosure get heavily emphasized in other areas of sexual ethics) might be a bad thing. And I'm sure there have been heated conversations about it internally but the polished, pharma+government+activist PR campaigns present a rather unified picture and criticism is hard to find (U=U also has terrible SEO and typed out is equally generic). From the U=U campaign presser I linked, here is how the opposition is presented:
But what about the naysayers? Those who donβt believe in U=U or have concerns? Some were contacted and declined to comment. However, Gina Brown, an activist from New Orleans who is living with HIV, says, βIn the beginning I had some reservations about this message. I wasnβt really sure how it worked. To me it was almost too good to be true. I didnβt want to give PLHIV the wrong information or information that could get them into trouble. [Editor's Note: Louisiana is a state that criminalizes the intentional exposure of another person to HIV/ AIDS through sexual contact. But, despite the language in the statute, Louisiana courts have found that neither the intent to transmit HIV nor actual transmission is required. See hivlawandpolicy.org/states/louisiana]. You would think that Iβd be an initial believer; after all, I had a daughter who was proof that treatment works. I was on 076 [the study demonstrating that giving AZT to pregnant moms and babies cut the risk of transmission by two-thirds], plus the fact Iβd been in a relationship where we made a conscious decision to not use barriers and the guy never acquired HIV. I was undetectable during that time, as I am now. I happened to meet Bruce Richman in Florida at USCA [the U.S. Conference on AIDS] and we had an in-depth conversation about U=U. He told me where I could find credible information that would spell U=U out clearly. I devoured this information, joined the U=U Facebook page and became a member of the U=U Steering Committee. I am a true believer that if a PLHIV is undetectable they cannot transmit the virus. Thatβs why itβs important that every PLHIV have access to this information and the medications that makes U=U a possibility in their lives!β
You don't even need blue-on-blue for the actual quote as presented. The first part isn't even part but to be charitable there may be a paraphrase: "[some of the casualties suffered by Russia near Avdiivka were] on the orders of their own leaders." That can just as easily be ordering troops into a situation where you know they are going to take casualties.
You donβt hate journalists enough. You think you do but you donβt.
It's important to forgive the people who made wrong calls regarding the pandemic, so says an essay in The Atlantic at least which has published some less forgiving essays in previous times.
Black Panthers to MLK
The Black Panthers were literally founded after the March on Washington.
He wasn't stopped by the many other laws he violated. Assuming enforcement of your specific policy will not suffer the same problems as laws related to immigration or deported foreign nationals not being allowed to purchase firearms is special pleading.
Why would Democrats agree to that, especially when all polling indicates that gun control is a winning issue for them?
It's not and historically has been a great way for Democrats to lose elections. Almost all the polling you're talking about is vague preference polling that has things like "should laws be stricter?" along with things like "<current law already on the books> is too far". Same sort of thing with economic policy questions. At least the Gallup poll includes data from the 90s or 50s depending on the question.
Why is that a problem? What do differential outcomes have to do with the racism and collectivism your OP was concerned with?
Funny that the other Korea is doing the same thing for the other side of the equation.
Typically it's just a misdemeanor with a fine on the order 50USD.
Satanic as a term well predates anything associated with LaVey or Crowley. If your memeplex well is so thoroughly poisoned just read it as diabolic instead.
For historical reference Golda Meir (Mapai->Labor) was succeeded by Yitzhak Rabin (Alignment->Labor) but her and her party did retain power though there were less domestic political issues plaguing Labor as a whole then and they did drop in parliament seats compared to before the war.
Several cases have raised the claim that the NFA is unconstitutional but they generally haven't gone anywhere. In particular the AutoKeyCard case raised it though doesn't rely on it (unsurprising given that Matt Larosiere is one of the defense attorneys in that case) but that one lost in an odd way related to jury decisions on definitions.
The data is garbage. Most of the restrictions are going to be state level and most data is national. Most of the data is self reported surveys about a politically charged topic where people have had a strong incentive to lie since the 90s and unlike an election where you can validate something like the shy-tory effect in polling, there is no ground truth data point to calibrate against. Sales cannot distinguish a new owner from an existing owner buying their 30th firearm. (That first versus 30th is a classic example against waiting periods as implemented since they rarely/never allow someone who has already purchased a firearm previously to opt out which is nonsensical given the justifications for them.) Keep in mind also twenty years ago the AWB was still in effect, while forty years ago it didn't exist and sixty years ago the GCA didn't even exist so firearms could be mail ordered and there were no background checks then. Never mind the demographic changes over decades from urbanization and the downstream cultural effects. I'd wager that relative to sixty years ago there are far fewer gun owners per capita.
Meanwhile the CW thread folks share some in common with the old /tg/ types who would ignore the troll parts and just start having fun with some of the concepts or premises in the OP. That it's a /v/ origin talking about tabletop makes some aspects of the argument make much more sense.
The guy with the 1986 amnesty for 2.7m undocumented immigrants? Who as Governor signed the first No Fault Divorce law in the US? Traded the Hughes Amendment for the toothless FOPA? That guy is one of the greats?
Some of that comes from a very strong (and reasonably grounded) stereotype associating Korean immigrants with Christianity. To the point of it being a joke in Asian American circles that while other Asians come over and open restaurants and nail salons (if they're feeling especially broadminded, they might add motels to the list), Koreans comes over to start a churches. Still a good example and probably comes from the original source material being written by a Korean immigrant (who true to stereotype is the son of a pastor).
From the video that seems to be the first thing he does. Now given that the sign he takes down (one of them simply taken down, one in his hand as he walks away) says "Push Until Alarm Sounds (3 Seconds), Door Will Unlock In 30 Seconds" and that he did not try the door again after manually pulling the alarm there might be some conclusions to be drawn.
More options
Context Copy link