Keep in mind, reasonable force might include running away.
Depends on the state. If you’re in a Stand Your Ground state, there’s no duty to flee. If you aren’t, then you probably have a duty to flee an attacker if possible, unless this is at your house, they have entered your home illegally and refuse to leave.
ghee or clarified butter, both of which
I thought ghee was clarified butter?
ou can also get packs that include oil, kernels, salt, and butter powder that come out like theater popcorn and taste great (included some in the link above).
Mmmm, bronchiolitis obliterans. Being serious, the common name for the disease is “popcorn lung” because it was first identified in a microwave popcorn plant and it’s caused by inhaling certain chemicals often used in flavored popcorn.
They are presumably not going to ask “do you think Your Body, My Choice is a threat of violence” during questioning. If they ask whether or not any verbal threat could possibly rise to that level, then “yes” obviously. “I’m going to enjoy beating you until you stop breathing” is clearly an immediate threat to one’s life and health, for example.
Yes, white supremacy for decades means that the police force, a former KKK offshoot, has been killing and scapegoating black men since their inception. This is known. Literally it’s the history of the police. Lol.
I don’t think you grasp the scale of what you’re arguing. For the stats to really mean that black folk are no more likely to commit homicide than white folk, a majority of homicides black folks are charged with (to the tune of thousands of homicides every year since we’ve started keeping the stats) would have to be frame jobs. Every level of the criminal justice system would have to be in on the manufacture of evidence and frames, nationwide, for decades, with no leaks. No lab tech coming out and admitting to falsifying hundreds of tests because he was told those test needed to show particular black people were guilty even though they weren’t, no officers, prosecutors or judges with a guilty conscience. Hell, Kamala Harris would have had to play an instrumental role in intentionally framing at least a couple dozen black folks every year she was part of the criminal justice system.
Modern police descending from slave catchers and constables a century and a half ago is not proof of a massive nationwide conspiracy to frame thousands of black folks for homicide every year. No more so than Margret Sanger’s racism proves that Planned Parenthood is a white supremacist eugenics program.
I’m curious what “my type” is.
I was just curious. A lot of cosplayers make their own, thought it was worth asking. To be honest, you being an OF model, essentially a no contact sex worker maintaining a para social relationship with a bunch of guys responsible for your income kinda helps explain why you seem to default to seeing the worst in guys.
Yes I am delusional, all the Trump justices are absolutely impartial to women,
This is a trend that has been ongoing for a long time, long before Trump. No reason to expect Trump justices to be radically different on this than non-Trump justices, especially since most cases (family, criminal and civil) are at the state level and Trump only ever had the power to appoint federal justices.
how stupid of my woman brain for claiming this
The only person in this conversation who’s blamed anything on you being a woman is you. It’s just not a topic a lot of people actually look into with any depth, and generally make assumptions based on what they’d predict from their existing framework of how the world works instead of looking into the stats.
Hell, I didn’t even notice you were a woman until I clicked on your profile and got a banner image of cleavage in…is that a Vault-Tec jumpsuit? Did you make it or order it from somewhere?
Yes, police have actively been using black people as scapegoats for homicide that the police carry out for decades. There used to be a code police would put on bodies in the 80s and before - “DNE” do not investigate, indicating a homeless person or sex worker who probably will never be identified. However, it has been found, particularly with LAPD, that they were using this indiscriminately and many cops through the years were found to have covered their own murders with this code.
“DNE” is the opposite of inventing evidence to prosecute black folks for killings secretly done by police - it’s institutionally telling everyone to drop the ball on this one. For “DNE” to be a significant part of what the statistics show while your beliefs remains also true, cops would have to be going around killing and "DNE"ing white folks (which seems backwards from what you’d expect from people driven by white supremacy) and/or have an elaborate conspiracy all the way along the chain from cops to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors to judges to jurors to frame black folks for murders of other black folks.
Because again, for homicide and race statistics to be what they are because of white supremacist policing there either have to be a bunch of white killings not being counted as homicides at all, or a bunch of totally fabricated frame jobs for killings of blacks fabricated in a conspiracy that is shockingly tight lipped despite being utterly massive (something like a third of all US homicide to bring black homicide rates in line with share of population) and spanning decades.
More likely is what you find when you dig deeper - a huge proportion of homicide in the US is gang related and young black men are the primary gang recruitment demographic for a mix of cultural and mostly economic reasons.
Public shooters, school shooters, going postal shooters, were all typically white male shooters (the one black shooter I can think of was a cop).
Yes, public mass shooters tend to be white men, typically young ones. There’s about 25,000 homicides per year in the US. Since the 60s, public mass shootings have accounted for a total of about 1,500 of those (not 1,500 per year, 1,500 total). And those shooters either die on the scene because the whole point was to kill themselves and take a bunch of innocents with them, or get tried and convicted.
You’ll note I said public mass shooters instead of just mass shooters, because the difference is relevant. It’s a trick of the statistics - when talking about how bad mass shootings are, people will point to Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, Pulse, etc but when talking about how often they happen will include any shooting with three or more casualties. If you limit your talk of mass shootings to only include shootings that were not limited to a single private residence (such as home invasions and family annihilators, which tend to have different demographics) and were not done as part of some other criminal activity (a lot of those are gang or cartel related, and have different demos as a result), then what you’re left with is mostly young white guys in dire need of mental health assistance who decided to take a bunch of people with them when they killed themselves (as in Columbine) and the remainder are mostly white supremacists who think they’re acting to defend the white race (as in Christchurch) or some similar bullshit.
No, courts will always make sure both parents have custody rights because it’s about the child’s best interest, not the parents.
No, they don’t. Or rather, they’re not required to (individual judges can if that’s their preference). Two states require the courts start from a presumption that equal custody is in the best interests of the child unless there’s a good reason for it to be otherwise (and includes an explicitly non-exhaustive list of examples of such reasons), about half a dozen require that the courts “consider” equal custody, and the rest leave it totally up to the judge’s preferences and biases. Kentucky was the first state to pass a law requiring a rebuttable presumption of equal custody, and they did that in 2018 (and they were fought against by ostensibly feminist women’s lobby groups).
Until the 2000s, most custody was influenced by the old fashioned “tender years” doctrine and the fallout from that - basically the idea that a child needs it’s mother so keeping mother and child together as much as possible was in the best interests of the child. At this point you’re likely to claim this idea was patriarchy, but it became a thing in the first place because of early agitators for women who could be seen as sort of proto-feminist who were fighting against the previous standard of putting children with whichever parent could better materially support them (usually the father). It was only later that we took to the idea that material support could simply be extracted from one parent and given to the other.
The court is biased against women, not men, because that’s how a patriarchy works.
You should probably look at how the court system actually treats people based on sex, rather than just looking at your wildly inaccurate model and assuming that the map matches the territory because it’s the map you like. I can go on about how and why it’s an inaccurate model, and give some examples of those inaccuracies in action if you’d like, but that’s a bit offtopic.
It’s especially obvious in criminal courts, and especially when a man and a woman have been arrested for literally the same crime (not just the same kind of charges, but literally the same event). For example, look at the Chicago torture case from 2017 where two black men and two black women essentially kidnapped and tortured a white guy and streamed it on Facebook. The two men got $900k and $800k bail, the women got $500k and $200k bail. They eventually all took plea deals with the men getting 7 and 8 years in prison while the women got 4 years probation and 3 years in prison. This treatment wasn’t some kind of weird one-off, but its convenient and illustrative because you had four people who all did the same crime together with an even sex split and a very obvious and dramatic difference in bail and punishment.
The reason black men are disproportionately charged in the US with crimes is due to white supremacy, including within the police force, which has been information in the public knowledge since BLM protests so stop playing stupid.
You can make that argument for things like nonviolent drug charges and the like (and that’s why you’re saying “crimes” and not “violent crimes” or “homicide”, and to be clear I absolutely agree with you that police are more likely to arrest black folks for nonviolent crimes than whites), but I specifically was pointing to violent crimes and in particular homicide. The “fun” thing about homicide is that it’s hard to invent homicides whole cloth, and you can’t just plant a homicide in someone’s car to “discover” when you search them or w/e. And when you get into homicide, in most cases perpetrator and victim are the same race.
So in your scenario how would police white supremacy cause the effect shown in the stats? Do the police just ignore dead white folks, because they are more likely to have been killed by other whites? Do they send extra effort investigating the deaths of black folks, because they were likely killed by other blacks? Is there a secret, nationwide conspiracy whereby every law enforcement institution secretly murders black folks and then manufactures evidence to frame other black folks for it at a later date, and everyone from officers to coroners to forensic techs to prosecutors, judges and jurors are all in on it?
But to double down on my original argument, when you start looking at criminal justice stats, usually when there’s a racial gap that harms black folks there’s also a sex gap that harms men. Your argument that racial gaps are definitely just bigotry but men are just violent monsters who should be (for example) disproportionately killed by police, be more likely to be prosecuted when arrested, be more likely to be arrested for nonviolent crimes, should receive higher bail for the same charge and longer sentences for the same charge, etc, etc? And you don’t see the bigotry in saying that?
…and yet federal domestic violence law in US was full of explicitly gendered language and until fairly recently (I haven’t read over the last two revisions of it in detail), had things like having the standard anti-discrimination boilerplate and then following it with that funded programs were allowed to discriminate with respect to actual or perceived sex or gender if the program felt it was necessary, so long as an alternative was available (no requirement to even give lipservice to it being equivalent), but elsewhere that all funded programs must serve women (hint: they weren’t thinking about non-binary people when they were thinking of who that would exclude).
Or Title IX implementation. Title IX literally says that federally funded educational programs cannot discriminate with respect to sex. The implementation of that very simple notion includes things like if a girl wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a girls team she must be allowed to try out for the boys team and be allowed to play if she can perform at their level. If a boy wants to play a school sport but there isn’t a boys team, he’s SOL. Equality! https://www.nfhs.org/articles/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions/
The first men’s DV shelter in Canada was repeatedly denied funding specifically because it wasn’t a women’s shelter until the guy running it couldn’t keep it open from his own finances and private donations. When he shut it down, he hung himself in the garage.
The right occasionally pays lips service to men’s issues, the left mostly ignores them. Neither generally actually does much.
“Feminists” that base their feminism on pure misandry are counterproductive to the movement
…but are also quite common and not called out or excluded for it.
Hell, I can point you to the sexual assault researcher who is the origin of that 1 in 4 number you hear thrown around and also coined the term “date rape” asking in confusion how a woman could even hypothetically rape a man and when given an example where the man was drugged into compliance declared it to be “unwanted contact” and not, you know some kind of assault or rape. This was about ten years ago, not like back in the 70s or something.
Most serial killers, most violent offenders, are men.
In the US, violent offenders are also disproportionately performed by black folk (including being an actual majority for homicide and robbery). I suspect you don’t think we should make assumptions about black folks being violent though? I doubt you think when someone is killed we should simply assume the killer is black because the killer is usually black?
And note, I’m not arguing that we should - I’m using it as an illustrative point of why this line of thinking is bullshit.
Wow, think of the example he’s setting. If his kids were in that marriage, would he recommend waiting for 1/5 of their life to go by with a horrible person? How will his kids even know how to have a loving relationship if his parents are that fucked up?
He’s a coward who cares more about money than about being a good person or dad.
Sounds more like he’s a realist who knows how this will go. Kentucky requires the court in contested custody cases start from a presumption that equal custody is best unless there’s a good reason not to and a preponderance of the evidence for that reason. A few other states require the court to at least consider the possibility, but the rest leave contested custody cases entirely up to the judges preferences and biases. The result is that the court tends to be biased against men because “a child needs it’s mother” or some similar BS. Couple that with a lot of these cases involving Mom staying in the home and Dad having to find somewhere else to live, and suddenly it’s in “the best interest of the child” for Dad to see them every other weekend, at most.
And that’s most men in these relationships. Men would rather cheat and lie than be honest and extend basic respect and communication to their partners. And then get upset when women finally initiate divorce for the broken shitty relationship.
They’d rather be in their children’s lives and able to at least try to take care of them than risk losing them altogether while paying their mother for the privilege of being her former victim and just kind of hoping she’ll use at least some of that for the kids. And I’m not even going to start on the fundamental “man = bad” presumption here.
1 is questionable, in part because of the claim that we don’t know how under reported it is in 2. But also because there have been studies going back to the 70s suggesting that most violent relationships involve mutual violence, and the ones that don’t aren’t a large majority of men abusing women. For example, the woman who founded the first women’s refuge in the UK had written that many of the women entering her shelter were as violent as the men they were leaving, giving a number a number that was pretty close to numbers Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz came up with from their research in the 70
Those studies get questioned or minimized not because they have particularly bad issues with how they are done, but because the field is essentially subject to ideological capture and research that contradicts the goals of the activism at the time is worked against.
There’s also some playing with terms and definitions that works against men in this kind of thing. To use a trans example, all women in the UK who rape are trans - this isn’t because trans women are particularly likely to rape, but because rape is defined in the UK as requiring the perpetrator to penetrate the victim with the perpetrator’s penis, which means cis women are incapable of “rape”, but if you’re a TERF and need something to support your point… For an example regarding men, Mary Koss (a prominent sexual assault researcher, enough so that you almost can’t talk about the topic in the US without touching something descended from her work) was asked a question about men being raped by women about a decade ago in an interview. She responded with incredulity, asked how would that even happen, and when given an example who had been drugged into compliance was told by Koss that that wasn’t rape, but “unwanted contact” and in other places she’s made a point about the importance of keeping rape a word for female victims because men just don’t feel hurt or shame in the same way.
Or NISVS where you see a couple of interesting things. One is playing with definitions where if a man copulates with a woman against her will it’s “rape” but if a woman copulates with a man against his will it’s “made to penetrate”, with the latter being a subcategory of “Other” so as to obscure any kind of direct comparisons between them or that the two are as similar as they are. You also have this clearly demonstrated phenomenon that they seem to actively avoid discussing where previous year rape numbers are pretty similar (if you consider being “made to penetrate” equivalent to “rape”) but in lifetime numbers men’s reporting drops off drastically. I suspect this is caused by men not categorizing what happened to them in this way, in large part because they get told again and again that it doesn’t count, that they were lucky, or similar until eventually they believe it.
By extrapolating from there…there’s gonna be someone that is gonna make Trump look good.
This progression is necessary, otherwise the Democrats would not be able to sell every election as “the most important election of our lifetimes.” The escalation of stakes is required.
Tusday was maybe the best a thousand years ago but who cares?
Closer to two hundred years ago, since the law in question was passed in 1854. But the point was it’s that way for a reason, and that reason was a good reason at the time it was done. It seems so weird now because of social change that has since made it inconvenient.
It can also be changed if Congress wanted to, as it’s just a regular law and not part of the Constitution or something else that would be harder to change.
Honestly, it will probably do little or nothing. A lot of adolescent boys make a habit of saying whatever they think is shocking and will get a reaction, and kids that age in general try ideas on like they’re changing clothes. It’s just generally not going to “stick” in the way you think. Once the next shocking thing comes along they’ll drop it and probably never think of it again until it’s 2040 and they think back about what idiots they were as kids.
Although in the era of social media, they may never get the chance to do so.