I remember maybe a year or so ago, overhearing some of my coworkers who seemed to genuinely believe that schools were installing litter boxes for alleged students that identify as cats.
These idiots will believe absolutely anything, and it doesn’t need to be even remotely anchored to reality.
Has there ever been a repeat mass shooter?
I don’t have hard data, but probably not. Most probably don’t get the chance. If they don’t kill themselves and aren’t killed by police, most of them are probably facing decades if not life in prison or even execution.
At least if we’re talking about the sort of “classic” mass shooting scenario where a lone wolf type walks into a soft target like a school and opens fire indiscriminately.
If you open up the definition a bit, you might find some examples, though I don’t really like doing that because they really seem like different kinds of scenarios to me.
You could probably find a couple gang or mafia types who have taken part in more than one incident where multiple people were shot. Same for certain terrorist/guerilla groups and such.
The beltway sniper attacks took place over about 6 months, though most of their attacks individually wouldn’t count as mass shootings
After the Boston Marathon bombing the bombers shot an MIT police officer and then later had a shootout with police. Not mass shootings, and you could probably argue that everything that followed the bombing was just an extension of the original incident.
The shootings in Maine last year might count, since they took place at 2 different locations, but again you could probably argue that it was all part of the same incident.
That’s what I can think of off the top of my head. Nothing that I’d personally feel comfortable labeling as “repeat mass shooter” but they are incidents that kind of lean in that direction that show that they may not be just one-off events and that the perpetrators may try to continue if not stopped immediately.
I feel like I’ve also seen a few cases where it was discovered that the shooters had plans to commit other attacks. We’ll probably never be able to say conclusively if they actually would have followed through with those plans if given the opportunity.
former president, current presidential candidate
That’s a lot of words to say “ordinary private civilian,” that’s all trump is right now, same as you and me. He has no legal authority over anyone.
And expecting that should be the bare minimum we expect from members of the military. They are expected to disobey illegal orders if they receive them, if they’re not willing to stand up to an ordinary civilian, how can they be expected to stand up to a commanding officer ordering them to commit war crimes? At that point they’re no better than a Nazi concentration camp guard who was “only following orders.”
In a warzone not everyone is in a combat role
Until your base, convoy, ship, etc. is attacked, and then suddenly you find yourself in combat. Or until circumstances change and you end up getting reassigned to a combat position because that’s where you’re needed. Even if you’re just there to work on computers, fix humvees, dig ditches, etc. there’s a reason you still got the same basic training with a rifle and such as the guys who signed up to play soldier. It’s a small chance of those things happening, but a very real one.
Like other comments have said, this employee is not in the army
But members of the military swear an oath to protect the country against foreign and domestic enemies, and to defend and uphold the constitution
Trump and his ilk are domestic enemies, and declining to press charges certainly isn’t defending against them. It’s more like allowing them to wipe their ass with the constitution. And in the grand scheme, is maga more of a threat than if you got shipped off to a war? Because you agreed to the possibility of the latter if you signed up for the military.
My grandfather had dementia, for a long time it was pretty hard to tell what was dementia and what was just him not giving a fuck. He was always someone who just did whatever he wanted and wasn’t afraid to go against the grain and didn’t really care what anyone thought of him, and he was kind of always that way. It would be really hard to pick apart which of his quirks were dementia related and what was just him. Standing naked in the doorway of his room at the nursing home waggling his dick at the lady across the hall sure sounds a lot like a dementia patient, but it also sounds like something an immature, womanizing troublemaker would do if they knew they were pretty much immune from getting in any actual trouble.
He didn’t have the most severe case of dementia, it didn’t progress super fast, I’m sure if I went months or years without seeing him I could have picked out some changes, but since we saw him regularly it was really difficult to see the changes over time.
And if he had an army of lackeys getting paid to cover up his mistakes and trying to keep him in line, he probably could have passed as relatively mentally competent almost up until the very end.
I won’t pretend that my grandfather’s moral compass always pointed north, but he definitely had one. He could also be pretty charming and personable when he wanted to. If he threw his morals out the window and had any political ambitions, he probably could have become an even more dangerous trump if someone had given him a small loan of a million dollars. Luckily all he ever really wanted to do was drive a bus.
Funnily enough, most of his siblings ended up fairly rich thanks to a successful business venture my grandfather wasn’t interested in. Those branches of the family turned out a lot of real conservative assholes, and once the money started drying up, also a lot of criminals a generation or two down the line.
Yeah, they’ve been a boogaloo thing for a while.
Unfortunately for me I have always liked Hawaiian shirts
And I’m a white guy, with a shaved head, who works in 911 dispatch so I’m police-adjacent, with some outdoorsy hobbies like hunting and fishing, with a pet malinois (free dog that fell into my lap, didn’t go out seeking a super police/military dog breed, but that’s the card the universe dealt me)
I’m practically a walking conservative stereotype in just about every superficial appearance, except that I’m not a conservative.
Pisses me off to no end that they’ve co-opted things like Hawaiian shirts and tiki torches.
For a brief moment I thought you’d gotten Iggy Pop and Suzy/Eddie Izzard confused because I cross dressing might involve wearing a shirt, which Iggy pop isn’t known for
But sure enough, it was Iggy Pop, him in a dress is probably the closest I’ve ever seen to him wearing a shirt.
Yes, words mean things.
Murderer means someone who has committed murder.
Acquitted means that someone was tried for a crime but not convicted.
That could be because they’re actually innocent
Or it could be because of insufficient evidence, loopholes, technicalities, and circumstances that the people who wrote the law didn’t foresee, they were unable to adequately prove guilt. It could also be due to corruption or incompetence.
So you can commit a murder and still be acquitted of it. It doesn’t mean you’re not a murderer, it just means that you weren’t convicted for the murder you committed.
“Old people can’t be ageist against young people”.
Is basically what you are saying.
I’d very much like to hear you explain how that is your takeaway from what I said.
Older people have more cardiac-related problems because they’re old, and things just wear out.
Which would fall under the category of age-related health issues I mentioned that is one of the special considerations their specific demographic needs special attention paid to. People of any age can keel over of a genetic defect, and addressing those kinds of issues helps everyone, but it doesn’t address the specific issue of a 70 year old with a worn-out ticker with no genetic issues, and so there also needs to be attention paid to those specific issues that don’t affect young people. Just as addressing mental health issues helps everyone not get shot by cops but doesn’t address systemic racism, and how improving voter turnout overall is good but may not be enough to specifically get younger voters to turn out in similar numbers to older ones.
the problem here, is that this rhetoric is a prelude to “those damn kids didn’t vote and that’s why we lost”.
And how wild would it be if those damn kids actually turned up and voted in unprecedented numbers, took this election by storm, and kept doing so for the rest of their lives turning politics on its fucking head, making politicians have to cater to them and subsequent young generations? It’s only a prelude to that if 1. The younger people in fact don’t vote and 2. The election is lost by a margin that could have been made up by those youth voters, and if both of those things happen, it would in fact be true that it’s one of the reasons the election was lost from a numbers perspective, millennials and Gen z could be one of the biggest voting blocks, we have the numbers to call the shots if we just turn out and vote, but we don’t.
You want to make sure young people’s voices are heard? Then listen to them.
I’m listening, hell, I’m looking forward to hearing your rebuttal to this, the problem is that what matters isn’t getting some rando on the internet to listen to you, you need to get politicians to listen to you, and unless you have the money to throw around and buy them like big companies, lobbyists, and billionaires can do, the only way to get them to listen is by using your vote.
Pointing fingers rarely is persuasive or motivational
And sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling when someone says something you don’t like doesn’t exactly leave you very open to being motivated or persuaded, and yet here we both are doing weird things with our fingers.
I’m only expressing my thoughts on what conservatism means to me and what I think it should be. I’m not making any claims that it is what conservatism actually is in this country or any other, or about what it has been at any point in time (even if they sometimes like to pretend that it’s what they’re about.) like I said, I don’t align myself with any of the so-called conservative movements that are out there.
Heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in all age brackets.
For people 65 and older it is the leading cause of death.
Is it ageist to point out that statistic? Is it ageist to recommend that older people should see their doctor regularly, pay special attention to their cardiac health, eat right, get exercise, etc?
Of course all people should do those things, but since those older people are the ones who are most at risk of those issues, I think it’s pretty reasonable to specifically target them with those messages.
Ageism would be if you refuse to hire someone who’s over 65, or insure them, or allow them to do other things just because statistically people in their age bracket are more likely to randomly keel over dead of a heart attack, whether or not they themselves actually have any cardiac issues.
Same goes for voting. Americans in general vote in pretty sad numbers, but the numbers for young people are especially bad, even if our current young people are better at it than young people of previous generations, the numbers for them still are pretty bad.
Pointing that out, encouraging them to vote, talking about why that’s the way it is, what it means for them and for the rest of us, etc. isn’t ageist.
What could be considered a form of ageism, however, is that because they don’t vote in as great of numbers, politicians don’t pay attention to the needs and wants of younger people.
And unfortunately since we can’t just flip a switch and make politicians and other voters grow a conscience and take those younger people into consideration when they’re making decisions, the only way to address it is to actually get those younger people to vote and make their voices heard.
There’s other issues at play, the way people talk about young people not voting and such can certainly contain some ageist language, not all of the takes on the issue are good ones, and the way people try to target their messaging to those younger people to encourage them to vote is often seriously lacking, tone deaf, and even offensive.
There’s also the issue that the way voting and politics are handled in this country can often make it difficult for young people to get to the poles, be engaged in the process, etc, and there’s certainly an argument to me made for that being an ageism issue.
But just making the core statement that young people don’t vote in high enough numbers is not in and of itself against.
Circling around to the all lives matter comparison
Just as people of any age can die of heart disease, people of any race can be needlessly killed by police. However, in both examples, people of certain demographics are at significantly higher risk of those things occurring. Yes there’s a lot of overlap between things that may get both a black guy and a white guy shot by cops, or that may lead to both a 20 year old and an 80 year old having a heart attack, and tackling those common issues is important, but there’s also risk factors that significantly impact one demographic or the other and they need special attention. Black people have to deal with poor police training, mental illness, drug use, etc. same as white people, but they also have to deal with systemic racism on top of that and white people don’t generally have to deal with that, and old people have congenital heart issues, environmental exposures, poor diet and exercise habits same as young people, but have additional health concerns due to their age on top of that which don’t tend to affect young people. As they say a rising tide raises all ships, but some of those ships have issues besides just being stuck at low tide, and the rising tide isn’t going to do anything to fix their leaky hull.
Which is why “all lives matter” is such a stupid statement, because if they truly think that all lives matter, they’d be happy to see those leaky ships getting patched up so they can take advantage of the tide rising for everyone.
So yes, it’s an issue that Americans in general don’t vote enough, but younger people especially don’t vote enough, and so we need to be paying special attention to that issue to try to solve that and make sure their voices are heard. And saying that calling attention to that issue is ageist because other demographics also don’t vote enough absolutely has the same kind of energy as pulling the “all lives matter” bullshit when people talk about black people being killed by police because “white people can get shot too.” Both can be true, and we need to address both parts of those issues, but one demographic needs a little extra or at least a different kind of attention. We can’t ignore the age-related health complications, the systemic racism, and the factors that lead to poor voter turnout amongst younger people just because those issues don’t affect everyone, we have to address them alongside those other issues.
deleted by creator
In a saner world, I’d probably consider myself a conservative, in the world we actually live in though, I’m not touching anything the conservative parties have anything to do with.
I generally think that things should overall trend towards being more liberal, and conservatism should just kind of be a moderating factor, not really working against a liberal agenda, just kind of slowing it down, making sure everything is fully thought through before we jump into anything, that the plans and funding and contingencies and such are in place, and in some cases just slowing things down because some stubborn assholes (mostly the current “conservatives”) need to be eased into certain changes because their tiny minds will explode if you go to fast
I have a few ideas about that ranging from the boring to insane conspiracy bullshit.
A decent amount of people, myself included, have chosen to register as republican despite not really aligning themselves with the party. PA is a closed primary state so if you want a vote in the primaries you basically have to choose R or D, I personally went Republican on my registration because in general I can live with whoever the Democrats put up, they may not be my first, third, or 20th choice of candidate, but on the Republican side there are mostly only bad choices, and I’d rather try to head off the worst of them before they make it to the general election. In other cases it might just be down to a coin flip.
A lot of PA is pretty damn red, in some cases you may not have many or even any Democrat candidates in your local elections, and the ones you do have don’t really have a snowballs chance in hell, so you might as well try to work with what you got on the Republican side.
Or maybe even you just registered as a Republican because that’s what your parents told you to do when you got your driver’s license and never bothered to change it. Maybe you just kind of figured that’s what everyone did, or maybe you’ve had a change of heart since registering.
There are still some never-trump type Republicans out there, some of them even have their heads screwed on mostly correctly. Someone who sees trump as damaging to their party, or maybe even democracy while holding other Republican values may want him and his ilk taken out.
Again, some Republicans do have their heads screwed on mostly right, and maybe they feel very strongly about one of the many things Trump will obviously make worse.
Starting with the conspiracy bullshit - someone wanted to make trump a martyr to galvanize the Republican base. Maybe they only intended to wound him, maybe they did want to kill him. Maybe it’s a publicity stunt orchestrated by Trump himself or other high ranking Republicans, maybe it’s a lone actor who decided that it would really get Republicans motivated.
They know Trump is overall pretty incompetent, and felt he has already served the role he was needed for and wanted him out of the picture so that someone just as evil but actually good at his job could step into his shoes.
Even more radical Republicans who think that trump doesn’t go far enough in advancing their race war, or christofascist, or whatever insane bullshit they want to bring about.
Putin is sick of his shit, or some other foreign actor helped bring this about.
Just plain ol’ mental illness and trying to understand the motivation here isn’t going to get you very far because it’s not based on anything approaching logic.
I believe when talking about naval ships, commissioning is when they enter active service, so construction probably began early 90s, maybe even late 80s, and probably a few years of designing, bidding, etc before that. And of course there were probably all of the usual idiot politicians, bean counters, stubborn assholes, sales people, etc. involved who pushed for older tech. Maybe because everything else they had worked on the old disks, maybe they were skeptical of the new tech not being robust or tested enough or wouldn’t catch on, maybe it was just cheaper, etc.
I’m willing to bet that they somehow locked themselves into using 8 inch disks in the early to mid 80s if not earlier, when the 5¼ discs were still new-ish and the 3½ were brand-new or not even available yet.
A lot of them absolutely do learn those skills the same way I did
But for a lot of parent/child relationships, being gay can still be a pretty big stumbling block. If your dad is rejecting you, doesn’t want anything to do with you, maybe even kicking you out of his house, you’re not going to be able to learn anything from him. If he’s overall supportive but worried about not wanting to push you into traditional gender roles and ideas of masculinity and such that you may not identify with, he may not try hard enough to pass those skills on. If a kid coming to terms with his sexual orientation feels pressured to act a certain way because of pressure from his peers or society, he may push back against his parents trying to teach him those skills, etc.
It’s not unique to being the father of a gay son, lots of parents struggle to find ways to bond with their kids who have different personalities, interests, opinions, etc. than they do, but being gay can throw an extra level of complications into the mix and so I suspect you’d see it at least somewhat more among gay guys than otherwise comparable straight guys.
In addition to being disinherited, discrimination, moving to more expensive bluer areas that are more tolerant, and such that people have already touched on, and I’m sure are significant factors at play, I just kind of want to spitball a couple thoughts. I’m no sociologist or economist or anything of the sort so I don’t know how much these thoughts hold water
The sort of stereotypical American dream- husband & wife, 2.5 kids, 2 cars, house in the suburbs, etc. probably looks at least a little different for many LGBTQ people. In many cases, the kids are kind of a non-starter- adoption, IVF, surrogacy, etc. are out of reach for a lot of people for a few different reasons, and if you’re not planning around having kids, you may not need that house in the suburbs with a good school district and a yard for them to play in. And if you’re not spending money on kids, you may want to spend that money elsewhere, it may be more important to you to be close to other things, or to not have a mortgage hanging over you’re head and want to be able to move to a different neighborhood, city, state, or maybe even country every few years when your lease is up.
I’m a fairly stereotypical straight dude, I grew up holding the flashlight for my dad and getting yelled at while he fixed pretty much everything around the house himself, and it gave me a pretty solid foundation as a handyman. There’s not much around a house that I’m not confident I could fix myself or with a couple buddies if I needed to, and I suspect that a lot of girls and probably many gay guys have a different experience with that kind of thing in their childhoods. Not that they can’t learn those skills on their own later on in life if they want/need to, but it can be a pretty daunting prospect, and I could see a lot of people who didn’t grow up learning those skills choosing to live in an apartment or rental house where they can just call maintenance or their landlord when something breaks instead of needing to learn a bunch of plumbing, electrical, carpentry, drywall, etc on the fly as your house is falling apart around you. I’m not sure I’d want to take on home ownership if I had to start from square one and relearn everything I picked up from my dad on my own.
So I don’t have any specific insight to what’s available in the Netherlands
But I kind of feel like maybe you’re explaining what you’re looking for poorly
First some terminology
SIM and e-SIM are basically how your cellular service provider knows that your phone is connected to your account. The phone that has either that physical SIM card inserted, or that e-SIM data gets the calls, texts, data, etc. that are supposed to go to you. Take the SIM card out or change the e-SIM, and that phone no longer gets those calls, texts, and data. Put that same sim or e sim on another phone and it starts getting all those calls texts and data.
VoIP is Voice over Internet protocol, basically sending a phone call over the Internet instead of over phone lines. This might be from a computer, or from something that looks like a landline phone (or maybe even is a regular landline phone with some sort of adapter) or from a cell phone with a VoIP app installed. To use it from a cell phone you’d need to have either a WiFi connection, or a cellular data connection, and to have that cellular data connection you need to have either a sim or e-sim.
I don’t think there’s any VoIP provider that’s set up to just use your phone’s dialer and text app to directly handle calls and texts (though I could be wrong on that, I don’t try to keep up with all of the different types of phone services out there) everything would have to go through their app. If you want to do that, and you’re either ok having no cellular data and all of your calls, texts, and data use would have to go over WiFi, or if you keep paying for a cell plan (and the associated SIM/e-SIM) maybe either just a data plan with no talk/text, or a regular plan and you just don’t use the talk and text parts, then you just need to track down a VoIP provider, sign up for an account, and install their app on your phone.
If you want to transfer your actual phone number from your cell phone to a VoIP account, either to use on your cell phone through that VoIP app, from a computer, or from one of those landline VoIP devices, I don’t think that’s really a thing. If you just want calls to your cell to go to your VoIP phone number as well you’re looking for call forwarding.
You might also be getting tripped up with things like WiFi calling, VoLTE/VoNR (marked by some carriers with terms like “HD Voice”) which are things that are all going to be dependent on a regular cell carrier, not a specific VoIP company, and may depend a bit on their network infrastructure and what features your partic6 phone does or doesn’t support.
Yeah, didn’t mean to imply that you were, just wanted to expand on options for deaf people that are already out there, and point out some of the relative strengths and weaknesses they have compared to text-to-911
I don’t know. I’m pretty sure every high school had at least one student who would shit in a litter box just because and then brag about it