Third amendment
Third Amendment
2012.05.19 03:21 pegbiter Third Amendment
2019.04.02 19:51 Buelldozer We Will Not Comply
We Will Not Comply is the rallying cry for a peaceful but firm resistance to further infringement of the 2nd Amendment. This subreddit is for documenting the Citizens, Law Enforcement, and Local Governments that are pushing back against infringements of the 2nd Amendment.
2012.12.18 20:57 whubbard Posts must be related to Firearms & Second Amendment Politics. Please engage in Civil Discussion.
This is a place for discussion and debate of Second Amendment related topics, with a Pro-2A emphasis. Civil debate is welcome and encouraged. Even if you're completely opposed to 2A, you're welcome to share your thoughts here, as long as you maintain civility.
2024.05.14 03:39 Legitimate_Squirrel Bugs eating Raywood Ash trunk - please help to identify.
 | Hi I have this Raywood Ash tree that I just noticed is suffering from bugs in the trunk. They seem to be affecting areas where bark is developing or possible previous pruning sites that have healed over. I cut one of the affected areas out and took some photos. I noticed at least two different looking bugs in the wound, and a third that I later noticed in the container I was scraping into. submitted by Legitimate_Squirrel to marijuanaenthusiasts [link] [comments] Super bummed because I had read that Raywood Ash wasn't susceptible to bugs like other ash trees often are. Any idea what the bug is and if the tree is salvageable? What should I do? Located in front yard
https://preview.redd.it/m38t26skqa0d1.jpg?width=648&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7d5221804635e35cb3ccac4ad73badf0e5a7b81 https://preview.redd.it/jrcmvq6lqa0d1.jpg?width=744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=144064cab1bf07f1bfcea567f9a9a213f15e62a8 https://preview.redd.it/oitwkfilqa0d1.jpg?width=1365&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a694223cb3f5e9987cf8215eeb955a4ea0f2d5e |
2024.05.14 02:41 Pyroski The Midterms of 1848 and 1849 Pine & Liberty
 | In the final months of Daniel Webster's term, the economy, still reeling from the War of 1839 and the subsequent Panic of 1843, began a slow but steady recovery. William Lloyd Garrison, the incoming President who shattered the Federalists' grip on power, stepped into office with a bold agenda aimed at bolstering the economic upturn and lifting the nation's spirits. His initial flurry of legislative efforts included a proposed second bill of rights to prevent a repeat of the Sedition Acts, as well as measures to curb speech, the introduction of an equal rights and poll tax amendment, the reduction of the National Bank's influence, which Garrison branded as "corrupt" and "flawed," in favor of greater state control, and the full nationalization of the road industry. Congress has rejected every one of these, however, Garrison has managed to push through some reforms, such as removing Nathan Appleton as the bank's president in 1848, granting states more authority over monetary policies, the nonrenewal of the sedition acts, the District of Maine region's autonomy, imposing national limits on alcohol sales, and ban of the purchase of quantities over 16, and the ending of U.S. cooperation in the deportation of fugitives. However, widespread American fatigue over aggressive slavery policies, coupled with an indifferent Martin Van Buren administration, terms of the Treaty of Brussels, and interest in the settlement of new territories in the northwest, resulted in minimal diplomatic opposition to Garrison's fugitive policy. submitted by Pyroski to u/Pyroski [link] [comments] Despite minor economic hiccups, trade has largely returned to its pre-war status as industries have stabilized. This was partly due to then-President Nathan Appleton raising interest rates in response to Garrison's funding cuts and minor currency instability resulting from the sudden influx of state control. Furthermore, despite Garrison's efforts to establish further independence from the increasingly close British empire by expanding trade with Haiti, Mexico, France, and the Netherlands, foreign investments, particularly by the British, in railroads and other industries continue, much to Garrison's chagrin. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, with William Lloyd Garrison shepherding the more affluent Liberty party to adopt a more radical rhetoric against the establishment and secret societies as a whole, the Anti-Masonic party would see a sudden bleed of support, as several of its representatives switched their party affiliations in their 1846 and 1847 campaigns. This bleed would continue, as the party became Garrison's largest outsider ally on key legislative reforms, with Garrison championing the collapsing party's platform on issues such as poll tax and voting reforms, and fines for secret societies. By 1848, party officials would agree on a formal merge, as the remainder of party members switched over. As Temperance sentiment spreads far and wide across the nation, Natavist feelings soar to unprecedented heights; as Catholics and the Irish find themselves in the crosshairs of nativism, owing to stereotypes associating them with regular drinking and heavy alcohol consumption. https://preview.redd.it/842ju2rxl90d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=85820820ec95de1b3299657f3fe8a2d267920b63 Federalist Led by their esteemed leader, George Evans, federalists have undergone a significant transformation following a series of setbacks, including major electoral defeats to the oligarchy during the "Revolution of 1846" in both the Presidential and House races, and narrowly retaining control of the Senate. They distanced themselves from the still-sensitive Daniel Webster administration, and addressing concerns over his well-known alcoholism and allegations of sympathy to liquor, they adopted a more pronounced pro-temperance stance; with states such as Connecticut and New Hampshire, where they held sway over governorships and state legislatures, implementing stricter regulations. Moreover, although initially backing the Sedition Acts and playing key roles in its creation alongside Federalist President Noah Webster in 1827, most of the party shifted its stance by 1847, opposing its renewal. While Federalists have supported specific measures during the Garrison presidency, particularly those related to Temperance and opposition to the Sedition Acts, the party has emerged as Garrison's main opponent, leveraging their status as the second-largest party in the House and their majority in the Senate, to block much of his agenda. Notably, Massachusetts representative Nathaniel Briggs Borden, supported by the party establishment, spearheaded Federalist efforts to censure Garrison for his attempts to rein in the National Bank. Nonetheless, with the defense of the Law and Order party, Garrison managed to evade censure with a vote margin of 19-35. Nevertheless, leveraging their control in the Senate, Federalists effectively obstructed Garrison's legislative agenda, halting proposed cuts to national defense meant to prioritize funding for education and infrastructure, as outlined in Garrison's Bill of rights. Additionally, they stymied social reforms proposed by Garrison, including provisions in The Penitentiary Act of 1848 aimed at alleviating penalties for tax evasion, victims of the Sedition Acts, and Dorr sympathizers. Furthermore, they thwarted the full implementation of Garrison's Land Reform policy, which aimed to repurchase all lands acquired by foreign investors. Despite defeats amid the "Revolution of 1846" and a party identity crisis, the glimmer of victory at the end of the tunnel, driven by opposition to Garrison and his efforts to dismantle the National Bank, has spurred party unity. Centering their campaign primarily on one issue: The National Bank, Federalists argue that Garrison's attempts to curtail it are unconstitutional, citing the 13th amendment which established a strong permanent bank, and criticizing his use of the spoils system, particularly Arthur Tappan's appointment as bank president in the wake of Appleton's removal. Opponents criticize Tappan as too inexperienced, highlighting his close friendship with Garrison and lack of a banking background, exacerbated by Appleton's own nearly decade-long experience as its president, to allege cronyism. On economics, Federalists campaign on reinstating Appleton; passing legislation to ensure the bank's stability; and the further federalizing of the bank to its pre-Garrison status. Cooperation with private industries in the construction of infrastructure, to limit government spending so that the nation may pay off the heavy debts sustained from a lengthy war on top of an economic depression. They also contest Garrison's efforts to distance New England's ties with British trade and investors, advocating instead for a stronger connection with other European Powers; They champion a return to a close-knit relationship, both diplomatically and economically, with Federalists emphasizing Britain, which contributed heavily to their independence and later the diplomatic resolution of the War of 1839, as their foremost ally. This political cartoon, prominent during the Revolutionary War to depict Yankees as British loyalists, has regained popularity as a means to mock the Federalists' affection towards Britain and pro-British policies. Liberty Unseating the long-standing single-party rule of the Federalists during the Revolution of 1846, the Liberty Party stepped into the fray amidst a transformative era following a return to stability. Conceived by now-President William Lloyd Garrison under the influences of transcendentalism and liberty, advocating opposition to the government and support for limited intervention, it proved easier said than done to translate ideals into reality. Garrison eventually faced the stark reality upon assuming office, facing a slim majority in the House and a minority in the Senate, which forced him to navigate within the system, leaving much of his agenda in vain. Furthermore, Garrison's failure to pass equal rights and his proposed bill of rights has led inner-party critics, led by George Ripley, a Unitarian minister, and Henry David Thoreau, an author and former campaigner of Garrison, who has returned to civilization from his isolation in the forests of Massachusetts, to label Garrison as "corrupted" by political institutions. Other intra-party critics criticize his national restrictions on alcohol, attempts to block foreign business and investment, and fines for secret societies as further increasing the authority and scope of the government when the party's whole platform stood against it. Nonetheless, allies argue that his restrictions and expansion of executive power are necessary evils to tackle the root causes of societal issues and special interests and to promote the nation's independence while also supporting local businesses and industries. Despite the emergence of splintering anti-Garrison factions, the Liberty Party has sought to navigate controversy by upholding the core tenets of Garrison's presidency. These include his cessation of collaboration with the U.S. on the deportation of fugitives from the Hudson-Greenway line; dismantling what Liberators perceive as a corrupt National Bank, and his instrumental role in achieving Statehood for the District of Maine after a struggle spanning over a decade, resulting in the creation of two new states: Maine and Bangor. In addition to championing Garrison's established agendas, the party endeavors to garner support for unfinished initiatives. These include proposals to expand the House's seats from 65 to 86, with each state gaining two more representatives than its electoral vote in the Electoral College, thus aiming to bolster representation. Furthermore, they advocate for Garrison's Second Bill of Rights, seeking to amend the constitution to ensure rights for all citizens and to federalize the poll tax to a reduced fee of $1.80. Additionally, they push for legislation aimed at diminishing the influence of Jewish bankers and investments, echoing Garrison's public condemnation of them as "the enemy of the people and Christ" and their purported "stranglehold over our nation's wealth." The origin of the party name and of its followers, William Lloyd Garrison's \"The Liberator\" has remaiend infleuntial even despite Garrison's dpearture, with followers hanging the cover of the paper to show their support for the party. Law and Order Despite suffering heavy defeats amidst the Revolution of 1846 and Thomas Dorr's rebellion, the cornerstone of the party's creation, now relegated to the back burner of voters' minds, the Law and Order alliance of Farmers, Liberals, Traditionalists, and former Federalists and Nationalists finds itself in an awkward position. Larger parties such as the Federalists have adopted the centerpiece coalition's platform, such as the Federalists now championing calls for cooperation with the U.S. and moderate views on black and women's rights, while the Liberty Party advocates for limited government and a smaller national bank; Nonetheless, the Law and Order coalition has attempted to carve out a platform wedged between the two current party giants. Led by the party's House leader Robert C. Winthrop, the party has strongly emphasized its economic agenda, in a bid to set it apart from the two leading parties. They advocate for a limited National Bank, arguing for its scope to be restricted to essential sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, and trade. Additionally, they propose limits on the money supply to maintain a stable bimetal gold and silver standard, advocate for increased transparency regarding bank loans, and impose requirements for loan eligibility. Moreover, emphasizing a limited federal government approach in favor of state control, they argue for allowing states to charter their own banks to a certain extent. They have also advocated for giving full control to the states to set their whiskey and alcohol policies, supporting government rollbacks on Garrison's national restrictions. Critics from the Law and Order faction lambaste Garrison for what they perceive as insufficient efforts to rein in the National Bank. Instead, they accuse him of employing the spoils system by appointing his friend, Arthur Tappan, whom many consider inexperienced, to oversee it, despite most of the party voting to replace Appleton with him. The party has argued for lower tariffs, contending that high tariffs disproportionately affect the nation's farmers while benefiting wealthy foreign and domestic investors and businesses; Additionally, they argue that lower tariffs would benefit consumer interests. Championed by Winthrop and fellow prominent Law and Orderites, including Senator Franklin Pierce, former Governor Edward Everett, Representative Charles G. Atherton, Rhode Island speaker John Hopkins Clarke, and a now one-legged John Fairfield, the party has attempted to adopt a "Proclamation of Neutrality" regarding foreign policy, believing their strength could be achieved through trade and cordial relations with any country, regardless of past relations or tensions with the nation's ally states. Most notably, their support for this policy extends to the nation's most infamous and longstanding enemy, the United States, with whom the nation has fought two wars. Any attempts to reconcile have been further complicated after the election of vocal anti-Fugitive ally, William Lloyd Garrison, who halted Yankee cooperation in the retrieval and return of fugitives. Nevertheless, this faction, derisively labeled the "Doughfaces" by critics due to their perceived willingness to bend to U.S. interests argues that cooperation was necessary. They point to the provisions of the Treaty of Brussels and the agreed-upon reward for captured fugitives, whom they claim weren't even citizens of New England, that the U.S. agreed to pay; Which they contend as a necessary evil to tackle and settle the burdensome debts the nation has accumulated in recent years. In stark contrast, the "Firebrands," nicknamed as such due to the fearmongering that their support for Garrison's policy will spark a third crisis between the two bordering nations, are led by Representative John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Associate Justice Marcus Morton, the 1841 National Party nominee. Famously during a party meeting, Hale would passionately argue, "After witnessing the sacrifice of countless lives, the toll of significant casualties, the devastation wrought upon our infrastructure, and the profound scars etched upon our nation, it would be nothing short of tragic to discover ourselves entangled once more in the very predicament we endeavored to escape..." This sentiment has been echoed similarly by the rest of the Firebrands as they emerge as the top faction opposed to inner-party calls for cooperation with the United States. \"DIPLOMATIC SCALES, a true balance\" a pro-Doughface political cartoon, contends through a smudge of humor, that the only way that the two nations, New England and the United States could remain in harmony is through compromise. Meanwhile, highlighting their role in the Treaty of Brussells and War of 1839, a man in the bottom-right conner, the personifcation of Britian interjects with his own oponions. |
2024.05.14 02:26 Pyroski The Midterms of 1848 and 1849 Pine & Liberty
 | In the final months of Daniel Webster's term, the economy, still reeling from the War of 1839 and the subsequent Panic of 1843, began a slow but steady recovery. William Lloyd Garrison, the incoming President who shattered the Federalists' grip on power, stepped into office with a bold agenda aimed at bolstering the economic upturn and lifting the nation's spirits. His initial flurry of legislative efforts included a proposed second bill of rights to prevent a repeat of the Sedition Acts, as well as measures to curb speech, the introduction of an equal rights and poll tax amendment, the reduction of the National Bank's influence, which Garrison branded as "corrupt" and "flawed," in favor of greater state control, and the full nationalization of the road industry. Congress has rejected every one of these, however, Garrison has managed to push through some reforms, such as removing Nathan Appleton as the bank's president in 1848, granting states more authority over monetary policies, the nonrenewal of the sedition acts, the District of Maine region's autonomy, imposing national limits on alcohol sales, and ban of the purchase of quantities over 16, and the ending of U.S. cooperation in the deportation of fugitives. However, widespread American fatigue over aggressive slavery policies, coupled with an indifferent Martin Van Buren administration, terms of the Treaty of Brussels, and interest in the settlement of new territories in the northwest, resulted in minimal diplomatic opposition to Garrison's fugitive policy. submitted by Pyroski to Presidentialpoll [link] [comments] Despite minor economic hiccups, trade has largely returned to its pre-war status as industries have stabilized. This was partly due to then-President Nathan Appleton raising interest rates in response to Garrison's funding cuts and minor currency instability resulting from the sudden influx of state control. Furthermore, despite Garrison's efforts to establish further independence from the increasingly close British empire by expanding trade with Haiti, Mexico, France, and the Netherlands, foreign investments, particularly by the British, in railroads and other industries continue, much to Garrison's chagrin. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, with William Lloyd Garrison shepherding the more affluent Liberty party to adopt a more radical rhetoric against the establishment and secret societies as a whole, the Anti-Masonic party would see a sudden bleed of support, as several of its representatives switched their party affiliations in their 1846 and 1847 campaigns. This bleed would continue, as the party became Garrison's largest outsider ally on key legislative reforms, with Garrison championing the collapsing party's platform on issues such as poll tax and voting reforms, and fines for secret societies. By 1848, party officials would agree on a formal merge, as the remainder of party members switched over. As Temperance sentiment spreads far and wide across the nation, Natavist feelings soar to unprecedented heights; as Catholics and the Irish find themselves in the crosshairs of nativism, owing to stereotypes associating them with regular drinking and heavy alcohol consumption. Federalist Led by their esteemed leader, George Evans, federalists have undergone a significant transformation following a series of setbacks, including major electoral defeats to the oligarchy during the "Revolution of 1846" in both the Presidential and House races, and narrowly retaining control of the Senate. They distanced themselves from the still-sensitive Daniel Webster administration, and addressing concerns over his well-known alcoholism and allegations of sympathy to liquor, they adopted a more pronounced pro-temperance stance; with states such as Connecticut and New Hampshire, where they held sway over governorships and state legislatures, implementing stricter regulations. Moreover, although initially backing the Sedition Acts and playing key roles in its creation alongside Federalist President Noah Webster in 1827, most of the party shifted its stance by 1847, opposing its renewal. While Federalists have supported specific measures during the Garrison presidency, particularly those related to Temperance and opposition to the Sedition Acts, the party has emerged as Garrison's main opponent, leveraging their status as the second-largest party in the House and their majority in the Senate, to block much of his agenda. Notably, Massachusetts representative Nathaniel Briggs Borden, supported by the party establishment, spearheaded Federalist efforts to censure Garrison for his attempts to rein in the National Bank. Nonetheless, with the defense of the Law and Order party, Garrison managed to evade censure with a vote margin of 19-35. Nevertheless, leveraging their control in the Senate, Federalists effectively obstructed Garrison's legislative agenda, halting proposed cuts to national defense meant to prioritize funding for education and infrastructure, as outlined in Garrison's Bill of rights. Additionally, they stymied social reforms proposed by Garrison, including provisions in The Penitentiary Act of 1848 aimed at alleviating penalties for tax evasion, victims of the Sedition Acts, and Dorr sympathizers. Furthermore, they thwarted the full implementation of Garrison's Land Reform policy, which aimed to repurchase all lands acquired by foreign investors. Despite defeats amid the "Revolution of 1846" and a party identity crisis, the glimmer of victory at the end of the tunnel, driven by opposition to Garrison and his efforts to dismantle the National Bank, has spurred party unity. Centering their campaign primarily on one issue: The National Bank, Federalists argue that Garrison's attempts to curtail it are unconstitutional, citing the 13th amendment which established a strong permanent bank, and criticizing his use of the spoils system, particularly Arthur Tappan's appointment as bank president in the wake of Appleton's removal. Opponents criticize Tappan as too inexperienced, highlighting his close friendship with Garrison and lack of a banking background, exacerbated by Appleton's own nearly decade-long experience as its president, to allege cronyism. On economics, Federalists campaign on reinstating Appleton; passing legislation to ensure the bank's stability; and the further federalizing of the bank to its pre-Garrison status. Cooperation with private industries in the construction of infrastructure, to limit government spending so that the nation may pay off the heavy debts sustained from a lengthy war on top of an economic depression. They also contest Garrison's efforts to distance New England's ties with British trade and investors, advocating instead for a stronger connection with other European Powers; They champion a return to a close-knit relationship, both diplomatically and economically, with Federalists emphasizing Britain, which contributed heavily to their independence and later the diplomatic resolution of the War of 1839, as their foremost ally. https://preview.redd.it/kw6x3jsyu90d1.png?width=645&format=png&auto=webp&s=61eea696763d9a22017b26e91766ed73f9f37cc2 Liberty Unseating the long-standing single-party rule of the Federalists during the Revolution of 1846, the Liberty Party stepped into the fray amidst a transformative era following a return to stability. Conceived by now-President William Lloyd Garrison under the influences of transcendentalism and liberty, advocating opposition to the government and support for limited intervention, it proved easier said than done to translate ideals into reality. Garrison eventually faced the stark reality upon assuming office, facing a slim majority in the House and a minority in the Senate, which forced him to navigate within the system, leaving much of his agenda in vain. Furthermore, Garrison's failure to pass equal rights and his proposed bill of rights has led inner-party critics, led by George Ripley, a Unitarian minister, and Henry David Thoreau, an author and former campaigner of Garrison, who has returned to civilization from his isolation in the forests of Massachusetts, to label Garrison as "corrupted" by political institutions. Other intra-party critics criticize his national restrictions on alcohol, attempts to block foreign business and investment, and fines for secret societies as further increasing the authority and scope of the government when the party's whole platform stood against it. Nonetheless, allies argue that his restrictions and expansion of executive power are necessary evils to tackle the root causes of societal issues and special interests and to promote the nation's independence while also supporting local businesses and industries. Despite the emergence of splintering anti-Garrison factions, the Liberty Party has sought to navigate controversy by upholding the core tenets of Garrison's presidency. These include his cessation of collaboration with the U.S. on the deportation of fugitives from the Hudson-Greenway line; dismantling what Liberators perceive as a corrupt National Bank, and his instrumental role in achieving Statehood for the District of Maine after a struggle spanning over a decade, resulting in the creation of two new states: Maine and Bangor. In addition to championing Garrison's established agendas, the party endeavors to garner support for unfinished initiatives. These include proposals to expand the House's seats from 65 to 86, with each state gaining two more representatives than its electoral vote in the Electoral College, thus aiming to bolster representation. Furthermore, they advocate for Garrison's Second Bill of Rights, seeking to amend the constitution to ensure rights for all citizens and to federalize the poll tax to a reduced fee of $1.80. Additionally, they push for legislation aimed at diminishing the influence of Jewish bankers and investments, echoing Garrison's public condemnation of them as "the enemy of the people and Christ" and their purported "stranglehold over our nation's wealth." https://preview.redd.it/9xaddoj2v90d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=362325892120aab3df3f014dd3dfdb71f42440d9 Law and Order Despite suffering heavy defeats amidst the Revolution of 1846 and Thomas Dorr's rebellion, the cornerstone of the party's creation, now relegated to the back burner of voters' minds, the Law and Order alliance of Farmers, Liberals, Traditionalists, and former Federalists and Nationalists finds itself in an awkward position. Larger parties such as the Federalists have adopted the centerpiece coalition's platform, such as the Federalists now championing calls for cooperation with the U.S. and moderate views on black and women's rights, while the Liberty Party advocates for limited government and a smaller national bank; Nonetheless, the Law and Order coalition has attempted to carve out a platform wedged between the two current party giants. Led by the party's House leader Robert C. Winthrop, the party has strongly emphasized its economic agenda, in a bid to set it apart from the two leading parties. They advocate for a limited National Bank, arguing for its scope to be restricted to essential sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, and trade. Additionally, they propose limits on the money supply to maintain a stable bimetal gold and silver standard, advocate for increased transparency regarding bank loans, and impose requirements for loan eligibility. Moreover, emphasizing a limited federal government approach in favor of state control, they argue for allowing states to charter their own banks to a certain extent. They have also advocated for giving full control to the states to set their whiskey and alcohol policies, supporting government rollbacks on Garrison's national restrictions. Critics from the Law and Order faction lambaste Garrison for what they perceive as insufficient efforts to rein in the National Bank. Instead, they accuse him of employing the spoils system by appointing his friend, Arthur Tappan, whom many consider inexperienced, to oversee it, despite most of the party voting to replace Appleton with him. The party has argued for lower tariffs, contending that high tariffs disproportionately affect the nation's farmers while benefiting wealthy foreign and domestic investors and businesses; Additionally, they argue that lower tariffs would benefit consumer interests. Championed by Winthrop and fellow prominent Law and Orderites, including Senator Franklin Pierce, former Governor Edward Everett, Representative Charles G. Atherton, Rhode Island speaker John Hopkins Clarke, and a now one-legged John Fairfield, the party has attempted to adopt a "Proclamation of Neutrality" regarding foreign policy, believing their strength could be achieved through trade and cordial relations with any country, regardless of past relations or tensions with the nation's ally states. Most notably, their support for this policy extends to the nation's most infamous and longstanding enemy, the United States, with whom the nation has fought two wars. Any attempts to reconcile have been further complicated after the election of vocal anti-Fugitive ally, William Lloyd Garrison, who halted Yankee cooperation in the retrieval and return of fugitives. Nevertheless, this faction, derisively labeled the "Doughfaces" by critics due to their perceived willingness to bend to U.S. interests argues that cooperation was necessary. They point to the provisions of the Treaty of Brussels and the agreed-upon reward for captured fugitives, whom they claim weren't even citizens of New England, that the U.S. agreed to pay; Which they contend as a necessary evil to tackle and settle the burdensome debts the nation has accumulated in recent years. In stark contrast, the "Firebrands," nicknamed as such due to the fearmongering that their support for Garrison's policy will spark a third crisis between the two bordering nations, are led by Representative John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Associate Justice Marcus Morton, the 1841 National Party nominee. Famously during a party meeting, Hale would passionately argue, "After witnessing the sacrifice of countless lives, the toll of significant casualties, the devastation wrought upon our infrastructure, and the profound scars etched upon our nation, it would be nothing short of tragic to discover ourselves entangled once more in the very predicament we endeavored to escape..." This sentiment has been echoed similarly by the rest of the Firebrands as they emerge as the top faction opposed to inner-party calls for cooperation with the United States. Minor PartyThis section is dedicated to minor parties that lack ballot access or cannot field candidates beyond specific races, making their chances of winning impossible.Drunkards Amidst the backdrop of anti-immigrant and Catholic sentiments fueled by campaigns advocating Temperance and the implementation of anti-alcohol measures on the national agendas of leading political factions, a coalition of politically engaged Catholic and Irish immigrants has emerged. Spearheaded by the influential editor of The Boston Post, James Gordon Bennett Sr., a Scottish Roman Catholic, their collective efforts have given rise to a small yet significant political organization: the Workingman's Party. With minor political connections, the party has largely remained native to Massachusetts, where it has contested several seats across the state, on a platform consisting of only three issues: equal protections for immigrants and immigrant workers, labor rights, and most infamously of all, opposition to temperance and alcohol restrictions. As a consequence, despite its intended role as a champion for laborers and immigrants, the party has more famously become to be known the mocking moniker of the "Drunkards" party, a label crafted by detractors to smear its reputation and insinuate that the party is run by a bunch of alcoholics who only became politically active after attempts to take or limit their bottle consumption https://preview.redd.it/p39hdv64ja0d1.png?width=1035&format=png&auto=webp&s=907ffefd3e191033384bc9ac17bab090ad4b876d View Poll |
2024.05.13 21:52 partstar Worry of a Past Friend
Hello,
I'm not heavy into spirituality. That being said, it's not that i don't believe in it, I'm just not heavily involved. My purpose here is hopefully to find some spiritual perspectives.
When I (M) was a kid, I went to a park and met a boy who we'll call G. We ended up becoming easy friends and he eventually moved into the same area I was living in at the time. As we grew up, we drifted apart and he started bullying me once we started middle school. I lost touch with him in High School since we ended up going to different ones and eventually lost all contact. After I graduated High School, a friend of mine who is his cousin, invited him to one of her birthday parties. He ended up coming over but he seemed very different. I don't mean in the sense that he grew up, but a part of him felt so strange. We ended up talking and he apologized for everything and I forgave him. Told him I held no grudge and that I didn't blame him for anything he did. (To me it seems he did it based on influence.)
After that night we went our separate ways and I have yet to see him again. Since that encounter, I've woken up a very (rarely) few times with a rush of anxiety and him being the first thing on my mind. It has my stomach in a knot and I'm filled to the brim with worry to the point where I have to reach out to him and have a conversation to make sure he's good. It's been 5 years since the party and this has happened maybe three times total, this morning being the third. It's never happened with anyone else I've known before, not even my family members.
I can't seem to put together some type of answer that makes sense to me. The thought of someone who I met as a kid, who turned on me, bullied me, apologized and made amends, to losing contact all over again and having a worrying heart as soon as I wake up is a strange concept to me.
I reached out to him through on social media, yet he hasn't replied. And as I wait, I feel as if my soul and my being can't calm itself until I hear from him. Until I know he's okay.
Can anyone offer some perspectives on this?
submitted by partstar to spirituality [link] [comments]
I'm not heavy into spirituality. That being said, it's not that i don't believe in it, I'm just not heavily involved. My purpose here is hopefully to find some spiritual perspectives.
When I (M) was a kid, I went to a park and met a boy who we'll call G. We ended up becoming easy friends and he eventually moved into the same area I was living in at the time. As we grew up, we drifted apart and he started bullying me once we started middle school. I lost touch with him in High School since we ended up going to different ones and eventually lost all contact. After I graduated High School, a friend of mine who is his cousin, invited him to one of her birthday parties. He ended up coming over but he seemed very different. I don't mean in the sense that he grew up, but a part of him felt so strange. We ended up talking and he apologized for everything and I forgave him. Told him I held no grudge and that I didn't blame him for anything he did. (To me it seems he did it based on influence.)
After that night we went our separate ways and I have yet to see him again. Since that encounter, I've woken up a very (rarely) few times with a rush of anxiety and him being the first thing on my mind. It has my stomach in a knot and I'm filled to the brim with worry to the point where I have to reach out to him and have a conversation to make sure he's good. It's been 5 years since the party and this has happened maybe three times total, this morning being the third. It's never happened with anyone else I've known before, not even my family members.
I can't seem to put together some type of answer that makes sense to me. The thought of someone who I met as a kid, who turned on me, bullied me, apologized and made amends, to losing contact all over again and having a worrying heart as soon as I wake up is a strange concept to me.
I reached out to him through on social media, yet he hasn't replied. And as I wait, I feel as if my soul and my being can't calm itself until I hear from him. Until I know he's okay.
Can anyone offer some perspectives on this?
2024.05.13 08:38 Salt_Dragonfly1729 Is my handwriting readable? Nervous for exams
2024.05.13 06:10 doanworks [For Hire] Full Stack Software Developer With a Background in Accounting and Business Management
Hi, my name is Jay and I'm currently located in Oklahoma (CST/GMT-6).
submitted by doanworks to Jobs4Bitcoins [link] [comments]
PORTFOLIO
With a degree in accounting and roughly a decade of full-time experience managing businesses ranging from startups to publicly traded corporations, not only do I come with a better understanding of your product needs outside of just the code, but I can help you plan your project in a way that makes sense for you or your business, including:- Tech/idea feasibility and advice
- Time/cost/benefit analysis regarding different approaches
- Product release stages and planning (including which might be necessary)
- MVP (minimum viable product/proof of concept)
- beta
- alpha
- full release
- All initial discussion and advice comes free of charge. Not a penny is accrued until a contract is signed.
Skills and Experience
I have been programming for 9 years, freelancing for 8, and working full-time as a Software Engineer for 6. All skills listed come from successful professional experience and represent technologies I'm fully comfortable building from scratch and deploying (in no particular order).- Frameworks
- React for web
- React Native and Expo for mobile and web
- Native iOS/macOS/Android
- .NET, both for APIs and Windows applications/automation
- Microsoft Office applications/automation
- Classic ASP
- Languages
- Typescript
- Javascript
- Swift
- C#
- C++
- VBA/VBScript
- PHP
- Python
- Database Technologies
- SQL
- MongoDB/NoSql
- GraphQL
- Third party solutions like FireBase and AWS
- Previous Project Examples
- iOS/Swift security framework
- Product/venue revue and rating app/website
- Movie scene location finder and shot replicator camera image overlay
- Job tracking and inventory management app/website for moving companies with QR generation, printing, and scanning for boxes
- Native iOS and Android buy/sell app for luxury watches
- Social media apps with posts, comments, likes, friends, follows, #hashtags, @user tags, and live chat
- Native iOS chatroulette/omegle clone
- Farm harvest tracker with CSV exports
- Pharmacy price tracker with chat between pharmacists and customers
Work and Availability
I can work with any time zone (located in US Central) and offer both hourly rate contracts and fixed-quote contracts.- How hourly contracts work $60 USD
- Higher hourly rates come with higher familiarity of the project technology
- Fairly simple contract outlining app concept and hourly rate
- Product and codebase are available to you throughout the project
- Invoices are sent on a regular schedule
- Time is tracked online and a detailed report is sent with each invoice
- How fixed/quote-based contracts work
- More initial conversation/planning required in order to:
- compile a quote price
- outline in-depth list of deliverable features on the contract
- Material scope/feature changes will require contract amendments
- 3 payments due at start, midpoint/MVP, and completion
- Product available for testing at milestones, code made available after final payment
- More initial conversation/planning required in order to:
- If you have a hard set budget...
- ...and are comfortable disclosing it, I can work with you on outlining a version of your product that can be properly built within that budget, even if that includes helping you find other vendors more suited for your price range.
Contact Me
You can reach me here on Reddit, through my website, or by email at jay@doan.works2024.05.13 06:08 Secret_Term1215 I hurt and lost the closest friend I've ever had. I dont know what to do anymore.
its now been 3 months since everything, this lasted for around 5 months.
Long novel incoming sorry but im deeply struggling to understand it and its complex.
Hey all. I really cant talk about this to anyone without hurting her; so sit down this is a doozey. Needless to say I have not so great mental health, in high school I was in a pretty bad emotionally abusive relationship, I was pretty badly abused and pushed everyone I knew away and was in a pretty much severe depression and severe anxiety for around 6 years, I assumed one day I would sleep it off, and think normal but that never happened.
Anyways I get to college and really dont put myself out there to meet anyone else. Come to my senior year and my grades are pretty good, but this is when I meet her, and I think shes gorgeous. I eventually work the effort to talk to her, and we become ok friends for about a week or so. During this time she would always message me and one time we stayed up until 2am in the university rec room just talking. This felt pretty damn good, for once it felt like somebody actually wanted to know about me, during this time she even looked up my house address and parents facebook without me even telling her their names, anyways a few days or aobut a week later she says shes going on a trip to visit her BF, I was devastated and cried, she says "that must be a punch in the balls, you had me mindfucked there for a while though, being in a LDR your always looking for something new etc" "i always had this mindset that this guy is great but I gotta tell him i have a boyfriend etc", even when I asked about her bio once(this is all on me however, I should of asked, I cried for other unhappy personal reasons aswell). It probably should of ended there.
But it didnt the next day I ask if she was okay if we were still friends and she says yes, she apologizes for not telling me sooner. We become pretty great friends, eventually we tell each other about pretty personal secrets, I tell her my high school experience, I tell her things I have never told anyone else in my life, like my suicide attempt in high school, she helps me explore some things about me like my sexuality, she even puts makeup on me which I love, and she reveals she also did not have the greatest high school experience and she has self harm scars, she later tells she SHs since she has a pattern of cheating in relationships; this only makes me feel more like a piece of shit and youll find out later. I genuinely for the first time in my life feel a purely platonic connection with someone. The nights where we sat by the pond for hours just tlaking about movies and tv shows filled my soul with so much warmth, I loved these moments I truly developed a platonic connection with her and cared so much about her. Shes in a LDR with this guy who I dont know(she later says she never brings him up because it makes me sad and I look away(should of ended then)), we begin hanging out quite regularly, I do some things I shouldnt have done at this time, I noticed she vapes and smokes so I begin to buy her vapes(she never asked me to)(im 21 and shes 19), and I begin to vape and smoke cigarettes, she never asked me to, looking back this should not have happened, but I genuinely enjoyed seeing her happy and talking to her. She used to always say with the vapes "Now I have a reason to talk to you", why? Why would you need a reason to talk to your friend? It only made me want to buy them more.
Things start getting bad and she even mentions at this point shes likely emotionally cheating with me, which only scares me; that any day any moment any time this person who I genuinely enjoy and is my best friend could have to cut all contact with me, my mental health becomes absolutely horrendous due to this and this was always a very scary fear I had throughout all this,
I even tell her at one point it feels like im on a seesaw and im stuck and have to constantly battle catching feelings and keeping my only close friend. If i really cared about her it should of ended here, but it didnt, I should of stopped it. She begins to touch me, relativelly platonically(?)(Asking to bite me, biting me, rubbing my chest and carresing my arms) and sharing food, at first I sit there and dont touch back and sit there; I dont want to hurt her. Why would I hurt someone I care about? After a while I call her out on this and say like why are you touching me, I really cant touch back she says something along the lines of "I think im using you as a replacement for the lack of attention in a LDR", she later says she thought about it and I cant provide that for her and shes just showing her affection, but this continues, what was I doing wrong? Why cant I provide that?
Eventually I convince myself its after alot of weeks that its platonic and I touch back with the same things the arm on the shoulder, the shoulder rubbing etc. We would have smokes together roughly every night which would usually be hidden in a stair enclave where we would hug each other etc. One of her responses during this time when I mentioned how bad it would look if somebody saw us doing this she said "It would be worse for you"?? How would it be worse for someone who is not known to be in a relationship?? My self esteem was the lowest it has ever been in its life, I told myself that perhaps one day things would somehow magically change. Someone finally seemed to really like me?
Eventually as you could imagine things escalate, this involves her sitting on my lap once(forward facing, saying inapprioate things etc) in her room, her letting me rub her thighs and do her hair and rub her feet and bare legs. I should of cut contact but she was the only person who knew me, and understood me in my life. I didnt want to hurt her, I didnt want to hurt myself, but I did both. The big event happens just before Christmas, we go out and we cuddle for a while in the backseat of my car where she asked if we could cuddle in the backseat, then we head back, while in the car prior she shows me lewds on her phone(I showed her a lewd of mine prior), we both get buzzed then we go out to the pond and were looking in each others eyes holding each other and she asked to kiss my cheek, I say sure, she kisses my cheek and my chin just below my lips, which makes me feel euphoric then says "You know it would still be platonic if I let you kiss me, then I wouldnt actually be kissing you",
I wanted to so very bad, I wanted to with my whole being, I lean in, lean out before eventually saying "you have a boyfriend, If I kiss you your going to hurt yourself and I dont want to hurt you", she says "wow you have more morals than I do", "must be because your older etc" and tries to move on from it fast and dance with me, well I emotionally break the fuck down like you've HURT yourself because of this for fuck sake, she says "I didnt want to kiss you, I love my boyfriend, even if I broke up I wouldnt want to ever date you, you have too much baggage", "if we kissed I would block you and stop talking to you", the person who just asked me to kiss them, the person who has been biting me and touching me for weeks wouldnt even date me? Would block me if i did what she told me to do??? This absolutely destroyed me. I didnt know what to think. I basically had to yell at her and ask her "Why did you just try to kiss me." anyways this ends with both of us crying, her saying "I dont know what to do with the love given to me etc" me almost puking and eventually with me consoling her.
The next day we go get yogurt and I say shes my best friend and we simply need strong boundaries because I dont want to hurt her. If I should of stopped anytime it should of been now. I buy her a Christmas present and things end ok, breaks go by and im mentally gone, im at the lowest I've ever felt in my life, I feel insane, depressed, just psychotic. She messages and we talk everyday of the break(s), we say how much we miss each other etc, shes my buddy she really is, she knows everything about me, I know alot about her, and shes honestly my best friend, and I loved talking to her, she always would be there for me, I really appreciated her, we had alot in common; but I was hurting extremely bad, I felt like I was in a awful position. Anyways we return from the break into the new semester and I feel like im being used, I feel like a doormat, I feel like dirt. Things escalate here, I help her code and give her anything and everything she needs to succeed, I loved watching her succeed, because shes my best friend y'know? Anyways things get pretty bad, and we hang out alot, we always hug and I play with her hair and share our food and were pretty close, at one point I kiss her cheek for a week before realizing thats weird and made her uncomfortable and stop it, there was a week where she would cuddle with me in my bed and I moved her hand from my chest once saying stop I dont want to hurt you, she would say how happy I make her and we would rub our faces together and rub our noses together, we would watch shows together and I would rub her legs and put my hand around her. Looking back now it makes me feel sick and gross and confused, I convinced myself it was platonic.
I would pretty much be repeating often during any intimate event "I dont want to hurt you; I dont want to be the person to hurt you.", but it made me feel so very good, how do I navigate this? She would say I was the highlight of her days, the highlight of her semester, how sad she was I graduate soon, how she wishes I was in her grade, how im not a chore to talk to or hangout with. I certainely didnt fully stop these physical actions now because I was selfish, because I was ignorant. She would rub my head as we drove and put her arm down my shirt and while I was driving, etc. She would often also say "Why havnt you killed me yet...you must hate me etc." but why would I? She was my closest friend I ever had in my life. Things get super bad here, we head out and I buy her a vape(she did not ask) and we have another tough conversation about things, with the usual, "Im not breaking up with my boyfriend but your so lovable" and I get super emotional and hurt,
I really didnt want to hurt anybody. Anyways I get drunk; shes sober, and she lets me into her room a hour later as we were going to go see live music and she sits on my lap again forward facing and non-platonic things occurred, it doesn't go as far as sex but a line is crossed and we both immediately stop, but she cheated; I hurt her. I hurt her bad. I never wanted to hurt her. I never wanted to hurt anybody. The guilt is beyond anything I ever experienced and I cant even understand how she feels. She downplays it, I almost cut myself because of the shame I felt that night, the next day im crying really bad to her and tell her she should probably tell her BF if she really loves him, she says "ok i will, he will still love me tho" "doesnt this scare you? I fuck around" "this guy called me cute the other day" "you deserve better" , I then tell her not to tell her BF, because im scared and didnt know what to think to do. I should of not stopped her and walked away then. We stay close friends for around 2 weeks after this event with a bit of contentation afterwards. There was a time I got super emotional and basically told her I wish there was a camera or a third party watching this to see what you were doing to me with all this rubbing and cuddling and affection, which made her pretty much storm away from me and me saying sorry im wrong and begging her to just talk and I have a panic attack. Eventually she realized because of a outside voice that she had to tell her BF(her roommate walked in on us as that event in her room was done unfolding) , she said her BF broke up with her and she needed space, me being a selfish asshole was unable to do that, I didnt want someone I cared about harming themselves because of me, she stated the day prior she was "going to get whats coming to her" I wanted to be there for her more than anything, I get extremely drunk throughout the week and I send her messages about how absolutely terrible I felt and how much she meant to me and of selfish ideals, I then saw her outside and ran up to her, she ran away and she couldnt even look at me.
The next day she said that was unacceptable, which it absolutely was, and even before that event she didnt see room for friendship since it was never"real", what does that mean? I still dont understand it, how was it never real? She then blocked me, said she would call the police on me if I approach her again. she would still absolutely avoid me even 2 months after.
During that time after I tried to apologize, I tried to make amends, I tried to give my closure, I tried to seek closure, All met with disgust, hatred and anger. She would literally will sprint away from me full speed as I stand. She stayed at a event I was presenting at and looked away from me for the whole hour, then very obviously took pictures of me then sprint away full speed as I sat there. That hurt me beyond belief. I never in my life had someone dead sprint away from me like im a monster. I dont know whats wrong with me or why she would think I would hurt her after everything she knows about me, after everything, but I dont blame her. She said she was sorry for her decisions before this and I had little to be sorry for, and gave me a blanket "im sorry for my decisions" but how do I have little to be sorry for if I was treated as im a abuser? I should hate her guts, she even said she led me on, she knew how bad that would hurt me, she dangled happiness infront of my face for months, she ruined my senior year, shes filled my brain with pain and resentment and betrayal, she caused me to become ostracized, to become an outcast. I never felt that low in my life, I never felt that extreme level of emotional pain. I honestly feel forever damaged. But for some reason I still have this deep care for her and I shouldnt, I still hope with all my being she passed and succeeded. I hope shes okay. If she fails or hurt herself over this I dont think I could ever forgive myself. It feels like she trusted me and I betrayed her, but I dont know.
I can't stop thinking how scared and confused and sad she was on the last day we talked, how can I forgive myself for doing that to someone, it haunts my dreams and beats me to my knees everyday. I was usually very sad when i was hanging out with her. And if she for some reason forced herself to do those things with me because she felt bad for me then I don't know how I can live with myself, I never asked for those things, but I should of stopped them, I knew they were wrong, Im sorry.
Just recently I managed to find her BFs insta which was hard since she never spoke about him and I have no friends and theres still pictures of them together so now what do I do? Do I message him 3 months after the fact and tell what happened? Do I show all the proof I had all the things that occured all the videos all the photos the months? It'll likely just make me seem estranged its just so unfair. Why not just leave me alone why put all this into my head even after I told her how bad this would hurt me. If im not the bad guy then why put the image of someone in my head sprinting away from me like im a monster. There has to be something im missing, I dont understand how you can move on from something like this. The closest friend I ever had dead sprint away from me, the person I would talk to every single day for 5 months straight absolutely hates my guts and my whole being. I dont want to try anymore. I gave it all the little I had.
Im not a victim, im not a saint, I didnt stop my actions, I played a role and Im forever sorry, I lost someone I cared about and someone who maybe at one point actually cared about me. Im sorry. I dont know how to view this. I just want someone to talk to and someone to understand me, I just want someone to tell me I wasnt blind, for someone to tell me this doesnt define me, for someone to say your going to be okay, because as of now im 2/2 for being hurt badly in a relationship(I dont even know what to call this), any insight I get online I always have to type in "ex" to get relevant results which only makes me more confused She couldnt even wish me happy birthday or give me the present she bought me, i spent it all alone. I graduate college in 3 days, I have a ok job lined up which I hate.
I have a not so great home life, I dont know what to do with myself or how to live with myself after all this, why would I do this to myself, why do I struggle forming connections? why do I hurt people I care about? It felt real to me. I now talk to maybe 2 people, im bisexual and live in the middle of nowhere and have nobody. I dont want to talk to anyone ever again. Theres more to it perhaps, she used to always say " i hope im doing him more good than harm etc" but i dont know how leading someone on who has emotional trauma helps them, maybe we both should of left each other alone. I really did like talking to her, and liked hearing what she had to say, but ill likely never talk or see her ever again. I dont want to go down this road again. I dont want to hurt anybody. I have panic attacks when I go to her hallway or if she sees me I feel like i have to document everything I do, i feel like a weirdo loser. I constantly breakdown. I spend most of my days sleeping and waking up feeling immense internal guilt and hatred and pain. Anytime I try to talk to someone about this im seen as estranged, im disregarded, the only thing I can do is tell my side with proof and videos, but I dont want to hurt anybody anymore but it so unfair; im tired of being hurt.
If you read all this then I deeply appreciate you. I have nobody to talk to this about.
submitted by Secret_Term1215 to TrueOffMyChest [link] [comments]
Long novel incoming sorry but im deeply struggling to understand it and its complex.
Hey all. I really cant talk about this to anyone without hurting her; so sit down this is a doozey. Needless to say I have not so great mental health, in high school I was in a pretty bad emotionally abusive relationship, I was pretty badly abused and pushed everyone I knew away and was in a pretty much severe depression and severe anxiety for around 6 years, I assumed one day I would sleep it off, and think normal but that never happened.
Anyways I get to college and really dont put myself out there to meet anyone else. Come to my senior year and my grades are pretty good, but this is when I meet her, and I think shes gorgeous. I eventually work the effort to talk to her, and we become ok friends for about a week or so. During this time she would always message me and one time we stayed up until 2am in the university rec room just talking. This felt pretty damn good, for once it felt like somebody actually wanted to know about me, during this time she even looked up my house address and parents facebook without me even telling her their names, anyways a few days or aobut a week later she says shes going on a trip to visit her BF, I was devastated and cried, she says "that must be a punch in the balls, you had me mindfucked there for a while though, being in a LDR your always looking for something new etc" "i always had this mindset that this guy is great but I gotta tell him i have a boyfriend etc", even when I asked about her bio once(this is all on me however, I should of asked, I cried for other unhappy personal reasons aswell). It probably should of ended there.
But it didnt the next day I ask if she was okay if we were still friends and she says yes, she apologizes for not telling me sooner. We become pretty great friends, eventually we tell each other about pretty personal secrets, I tell her my high school experience, I tell her things I have never told anyone else in my life, like my suicide attempt in high school, she helps me explore some things about me like my sexuality, she even puts makeup on me which I love, and she reveals she also did not have the greatest high school experience and she has self harm scars, she later tells she SHs since she has a pattern of cheating in relationships; this only makes me feel more like a piece of shit and youll find out later. I genuinely for the first time in my life feel a purely platonic connection with someone. The nights where we sat by the pond for hours just tlaking about movies and tv shows filled my soul with so much warmth, I loved these moments I truly developed a platonic connection with her and cared so much about her. Shes in a LDR with this guy who I dont know(she later says she never brings him up because it makes me sad and I look away(should of ended then)), we begin hanging out quite regularly, I do some things I shouldnt have done at this time, I noticed she vapes and smokes so I begin to buy her vapes(she never asked me to)(im 21 and shes 19), and I begin to vape and smoke cigarettes, she never asked me to, looking back this should not have happened, but I genuinely enjoyed seeing her happy and talking to her. She used to always say with the vapes "Now I have a reason to talk to you", why? Why would you need a reason to talk to your friend? It only made me want to buy them more.
Things start getting bad and she even mentions at this point shes likely emotionally cheating with me, which only scares me; that any day any moment any time this person who I genuinely enjoy and is my best friend could have to cut all contact with me, my mental health becomes absolutely horrendous due to this and this was always a very scary fear I had throughout all this,
I even tell her at one point it feels like im on a seesaw and im stuck and have to constantly battle catching feelings and keeping my only close friend. If i really cared about her it should of ended here, but it didnt, I should of stopped it. She begins to touch me, relativelly platonically(?)(Asking to bite me, biting me, rubbing my chest and carresing my arms) and sharing food, at first I sit there and dont touch back and sit there; I dont want to hurt her. Why would I hurt someone I care about? After a while I call her out on this and say like why are you touching me, I really cant touch back she says something along the lines of "I think im using you as a replacement for the lack of attention in a LDR", she later says she thought about it and I cant provide that for her and shes just showing her affection, but this continues, what was I doing wrong? Why cant I provide that?
Eventually I convince myself its after alot of weeks that its platonic and I touch back with the same things the arm on the shoulder, the shoulder rubbing etc. We would have smokes together roughly every night which would usually be hidden in a stair enclave where we would hug each other etc. One of her responses during this time when I mentioned how bad it would look if somebody saw us doing this she said "It would be worse for you"?? How would it be worse for someone who is not known to be in a relationship?? My self esteem was the lowest it has ever been in its life, I told myself that perhaps one day things would somehow magically change. Someone finally seemed to really like me?
Eventually as you could imagine things escalate, this involves her sitting on my lap once(forward facing, saying inapprioate things etc) in her room, her letting me rub her thighs and do her hair and rub her feet and bare legs. I should of cut contact but she was the only person who knew me, and understood me in my life. I didnt want to hurt her, I didnt want to hurt myself, but I did both. The big event happens just before Christmas, we go out and we cuddle for a while in the backseat of my car where she asked if we could cuddle in the backseat, then we head back, while in the car prior she shows me lewds on her phone(I showed her a lewd of mine prior), we both get buzzed then we go out to the pond and were looking in each others eyes holding each other and she asked to kiss my cheek, I say sure, she kisses my cheek and my chin just below my lips, which makes me feel euphoric then says "You know it would still be platonic if I let you kiss me, then I wouldnt actually be kissing you",
I wanted to so very bad, I wanted to with my whole being, I lean in, lean out before eventually saying "you have a boyfriend, If I kiss you your going to hurt yourself and I dont want to hurt you", she says "wow you have more morals than I do", "must be because your older etc" and tries to move on from it fast and dance with me, well I emotionally break the fuck down like you've HURT yourself because of this for fuck sake, she says "I didnt want to kiss you, I love my boyfriend, even if I broke up I wouldnt want to ever date you, you have too much baggage", "if we kissed I would block you and stop talking to you", the person who just asked me to kiss them, the person who has been biting me and touching me for weeks wouldnt even date me? Would block me if i did what she told me to do??? This absolutely destroyed me. I didnt know what to think. I basically had to yell at her and ask her "Why did you just try to kiss me." anyways this ends with both of us crying, her saying "I dont know what to do with the love given to me etc" me almost puking and eventually with me consoling her.
The next day we go get yogurt and I say shes my best friend and we simply need strong boundaries because I dont want to hurt her. If I should of stopped anytime it should of been now. I buy her a Christmas present and things end ok, breaks go by and im mentally gone, im at the lowest I've ever felt in my life, I feel insane, depressed, just psychotic. She messages and we talk everyday of the break(s), we say how much we miss each other etc, shes my buddy she really is, she knows everything about me, I know alot about her, and shes honestly my best friend, and I loved talking to her, she always would be there for me, I really appreciated her, we had alot in common; but I was hurting extremely bad, I felt like I was in a awful position. Anyways we return from the break into the new semester and I feel like im being used, I feel like a doormat, I feel like dirt. Things escalate here, I help her code and give her anything and everything she needs to succeed, I loved watching her succeed, because shes my best friend y'know? Anyways things get pretty bad, and we hang out alot, we always hug and I play with her hair and share our food and were pretty close, at one point I kiss her cheek for a week before realizing thats weird and made her uncomfortable and stop it, there was a week where she would cuddle with me in my bed and I moved her hand from my chest once saying stop I dont want to hurt you, she would say how happy I make her and we would rub our faces together and rub our noses together, we would watch shows together and I would rub her legs and put my hand around her. Looking back now it makes me feel sick and gross and confused, I convinced myself it was platonic.
I would pretty much be repeating often during any intimate event "I dont want to hurt you; I dont want to be the person to hurt you.", but it made me feel so very good, how do I navigate this? She would say I was the highlight of her days, the highlight of her semester, how sad she was I graduate soon, how she wishes I was in her grade, how im not a chore to talk to or hangout with. I certainely didnt fully stop these physical actions now because I was selfish, because I was ignorant. She would rub my head as we drove and put her arm down my shirt and while I was driving, etc. She would often also say "Why havnt you killed me yet...you must hate me etc." but why would I? She was my closest friend I ever had in my life. Things get super bad here, we head out and I buy her a vape(she did not ask) and we have another tough conversation about things, with the usual, "Im not breaking up with my boyfriend but your so lovable" and I get super emotional and hurt,
I really didnt want to hurt anybody. Anyways I get drunk; shes sober, and she lets me into her room a hour later as we were going to go see live music and she sits on my lap again forward facing and non-platonic things occurred, it doesn't go as far as sex but a line is crossed and we both immediately stop, but she cheated; I hurt her. I hurt her bad. I never wanted to hurt her. I never wanted to hurt anybody. The guilt is beyond anything I ever experienced and I cant even understand how she feels. She downplays it, I almost cut myself because of the shame I felt that night, the next day im crying really bad to her and tell her she should probably tell her BF if she really loves him, she says "ok i will, he will still love me tho" "doesnt this scare you? I fuck around" "this guy called me cute the other day" "you deserve better" , I then tell her not to tell her BF, because im scared and didnt know what to think to do. I should of not stopped her and walked away then. We stay close friends for around 2 weeks after this event with a bit of contentation afterwards. There was a time I got super emotional and basically told her I wish there was a camera or a third party watching this to see what you were doing to me with all this rubbing and cuddling and affection, which made her pretty much storm away from me and me saying sorry im wrong and begging her to just talk and I have a panic attack. Eventually she realized because of a outside voice that she had to tell her BF(her roommate walked in on us as that event in her room was done unfolding) , she said her BF broke up with her and she needed space, me being a selfish asshole was unable to do that, I didnt want someone I cared about harming themselves because of me, she stated the day prior she was "going to get whats coming to her" I wanted to be there for her more than anything, I get extremely drunk throughout the week and I send her messages about how absolutely terrible I felt and how much she meant to me and of selfish ideals, I then saw her outside and ran up to her, she ran away and she couldnt even look at me.
The next day she said that was unacceptable, which it absolutely was, and even before that event she didnt see room for friendship since it was never"real", what does that mean? I still dont understand it, how was it never real? She then blocked me, said she would call the police on me if I approach her again. she would still absolutely avoid me even 2 months after.
During that time after I tried to apologize, I tried to make amends, I tried to give my closure, I tried to seek closure, All met with disgust, hatred and anger. She would literally will sprint away from me full speed as I stand. She stayed at a event I was presenting at and looked away from me for the whole hour, then very obviously took pictures of me then sprint away full speed as I sat there. That hurt me beyond belief. I never in my life had someone dead sprint away from me like im a monster. I dont know whats wrong with me or why she would think I would hurt her after everything she knows about me, after everything, but I dont blame her. She said she was sorry for her decisions before this and I had little to be sorry for, and gave me a blanket "im sorry for my decisions" but how do I have little to be sorry for if I was treated as im a abuser? I should hate her guts, she even said she led me on, she knew how bad that would hurt me, she dangled happiness infront of my face for months, she ruined my senior year, shes filled my brain with pain and resentment and betrayal, she caused me to become ostracized, to become an outcast. I never felt that low in my life, I never felt that extreme level of emotional pain. I honestly feel forever damaged. But for some reason I still have this deep care for her and I shouldnt, I still hope with all my being she passed and succeeded. I hope shes okay. If she fails or hurt herself over this I dont think I could ever forgive myself. It feels like she trusted me and I betrayed her, but I dont know.
I can't stop thinking how scared and confused and sad she was on the last day we talked, how can I forgive myself for doing that to someone, it haunts my dreams and beats me to my knees everyday. I was usually very sad when i was hanging out with her. And if she for some reason forced herself to do those things with me because she felt bad for me then I don't know how I can live with myself, I never asked for those things, but I should of stopped them, I knew they were wrong, Im sorry.
Just recently I managed to find her BFs insta which was hard since she never spoke about him and I have no friends and theres still pictures of them together so now what do I do? Do I message him 3 months after the fact and tell what happened? Do I show all the proof I had all the things that occured all the videos all the photos the months? It'll likely just make me seem estranged its just so unfair. Why not just leave me alone why put all this into my head even after I told her how bad this would hurt me. If im not the bad guy then why put the image of someone in my head sprinting away from me like im a monster. There has to be something im missing, I dont understand how you can move on from something like this. The closest friend I ever had dead sprint away from me, the person I would talk to every single day for 5 months straight absolutely hates my guts and my whole being. I dont want to try anymore. I gave it all the little I had.
Im not a victim, im not a saint, I didnt stop my actions, I played a role and Im forever sorry, I lost someone I cared about and someone who maybe at one point actually cared about me. Im sorry. I dont know how to view this. I just want someone to talk to and someone to understand me, I just want someone to tell me I wasnt blind, for someone to tell me this doesnt define me, for someone to say your going to be okay, because as of now im 2/2 for being hurt badly in a relationship(I dont even know what to call this), any insight I get online I always have to type in "ex" to get relevant results which only makes me more confused She couldnt even wish me happy birthday or give me the present she bought me, i spent it all alone. I graduate college in 3 days, I have a ok job lined up which I hate.
I have a not so great home life, I dont know what to do with myself or how to live with myself after all this, why would I do this to myself, why do I struggle forming connections? why do I hurt people I care about? It felt real to me. I now talk to maybe 2 people, im bisexual and live in the middle of nowhere and have nobody. I dont want to talk to anyone ever again. Theres more to it perhaps, she used to always say " i hope im doing him more good than harm etc" but i dont know how leading someone on who has emotional trauma helps them, maybe we both should of left each other alone. I really did like talking to her, and liked hearing what she had to say, but ill likely never talk or see her ever again. I dont want to go down this road again. I dont want to hurt anybody. I have panic attacks when I go to her hallway or if she sees me I feel like i have to document everything I do, i feel like a weirdo loser. I constantly breakdown. I spend most of my days sleeping and waking up feeling immense internal guilt and hatred and pain. Anytime I try to talk to someone about this im seen as estranged, im disregarded, the only thing I can do is tell my side with proof and videos, but I dont want to hurt anybody anymore but it so unfair; im tired of being hurt.
If you read all this then I deeply appreciate you. I have nobody to talk to this about.
2024.05.12 22:55 Post-Hoc-Ergo Understanding the "Poison Pill." What do Rights Holders Actually Get?
 | The Rights Agreement is, IMNSHO, confusing AF, which is why its taken me a week to get this put together. submitted by Post-Hoc-Ergo to Muln [link] [comments] I read through it a couple of times, thought I understood it, started writing out an explanation and discovered new fine print that only served to confuse me further. I think I finally have a handle on it, (with quite a bit of help from u/Kendalf, who pointed out a section I had missed on my first and second read throughs). I have some theories percolating as to what may actually happen, but I am going to reserve speculation for future posts. I am going to try to limit this post to a factual dissection of the agreement. But the answer to my question of, what exactly, shareholders will get is: There is no way of actually knowing! There appear to be three options. Before getting into this let me reiterate that this agreement is incredibly confusing and I am by no means certain that my understanding is accurate. That’s the primary purpose of this post, getting some more eyeballs on this and engaging in some “crowdsourcing.” Hopefully others will point out things I may have missed or misunderstand. So, with no further ado, here is my current understanding, which is drawn from the Rights Agreement filed with the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1499961/000182912624003060/mullenautomotive_ex4-1.htm and the Certificate of Designation of the Rights: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1499961/000182912624003060/mullenautomotive_ex3-1.htm Each shareholder of record on 5/13 will be receiving one “right” for each share of common they own. This right gets you absolutely nothing unless a “Flip-In Event” occurs: somebody acquiring 10% of the company. Should that happen the rights become exercisable 10 days later on the Distribution Date. It should be noted that even if someone does acquire 10% of the shares out, the Board reserves the right to redeem the rights for next to nothing in the 10 days between that acquisition and the Distribution Date. Rights Agreement p. 25 So if you are a rights holder, what do you get on the Distribution Date? Well it seems impossible to say definitively, but there appear to be at least three options. Option 1 – You get a fractional share of Series A-1 Preferred Stock.According to Section 7 of the rights agreement a shareholder will exercise their right by paying the company $30.00 and will get 1/10,000th of a share of this newly created Series A-1 Junior Participating Preferred Stock.Rights Agreement p. 10 Each share of the Series A-1 gives the holder 10,000 votes, so each right exercised gets you one additional vote. While the A-1 preferred is subordinate to all other series of preferred it does have a higher liquidation preference to the common. Certificate of Designation p. 4 So upon exercising the Right (which can only happen 10 days after someone acquires 10% ownership) a rights holder can, for all intents and purposes, double their position by paying $30.00 If you exercise your right, you now have your original share of Mullen and 1/10,000th of a share of Series A-1 for a total of two votes. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly good deal for rights holders. You pay $30.00 for one additional vote and a 10,000th of share of Preferred that, in the event of liquidation, only entitles you to $1.00 (1/10,000th of $10,000). Certificate of Designation p. 3 Option 2 – You actually double your common position for free.(h/t to Kendall for pointing this out to me) Section 24 of the Rights Agreement provides that at any time after a “Flip-In Event” the company may exchange your right for one share of common.Rights Agreement p. 25 If this happens you have just doubled your position at no additional cost. That seems great. Except that, all things being equal, a doubling of the shares outstanding should lead to the stock price getting halved. So its basically a wash. Option 3 – You get a ton more shares of common stock by exercising your right and paying $30.00.This most closely resembles a true “poison pill” as it will dramatically increase the float and make a hostile takeover prohibitively expensive.But be aware that dramatically increasing the float should have a disastrous impact on the SP. According to Section 11(a)(ii) of the Rights Agreement, following a “Flip-In Event” a Right holder shall have the right to receive, in lieu of 1/10,000th of a share of A-1 preferred, a number of shares of common. To determine how many shares you would get you divide $30.00 by 50% of the Current Market Price of the common. Rights Agreement p. 13 Current Market Price is defined as the average closing price over the preceding 30 trading days. Rights Agreement p. 15 Currently the average closing price over the past 30 days is $4.30. So if the rights were exercisable tomorrow, in exchange for $30.00 you would get 13.95 additional shares ($30.00/$2.15). Prior to a "Flip-In Event," should the 30 day average price go up you would get fewer shares and should it go lower you would get even more. While this would definitely serve its purpose of deterring a hostile takeover it would absolutely decimate the SP. Try to calculate Book Value Per Share based on 95M shares out rather than 7M. Well that's a wrap for now. It appears that the Board has the discretion to give you any of the above options, or even nothing at all by redeeming the rights. That's my understanding anyway. Would really appreciate any feedback and a spirited discussion. |
2024.05.12 21:00 Brave-Independent639 Have you ever wondered if you can tweak your trademark once it's officially registered?
Many entrepreneurs and business owners ponder over this question, grappling with the intricacies of trademark law. In this article, we'll delve into the world of trademarks, exploring the possibility of modifying them post-registration.
What is a Trademark?
Before diving into the nitty-gritty of trademark modification, let's grasp the essence of trademarks themselves. In essence, a trademark is a symbol, word, or phrase that distinguishes one's goods or services from others in the marketplace. The significance of trademarks cannot be overstated. They not only protect your brand from infringement but also foster consumer trust and loyalty. A strong trademark can become synonymous with quality, paving the way for long-term success in the business landscape.
Benefits of Trademark Registration:
By registering your trademark, you gain exclusive rights to use it in connection with your goods or services. This legal protection acts as a shield against unauthorized use by competitors, safeguarding your brand's integrity and reputation.
Trademark Modification vs. Amendment:
Definition and Differences: Before proceeding further, it's essential to clarify the distinction between trademark modification and amendment. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they carry distinct legal meanings. A modification entails altering certain elements of the trademark, such as its design or wording, while an amendment involves making formal changes to the registration itself, such as updating contact information or ownership details.
Procedure for Modifying a Registered Trademark:
Legal Requirements:
To initiate the process of trademark modification, certain legal requirements must be met. These may vary depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the proposed changes. Typically, the applicant is required to submit a formal request outlining the desired modifications and providing justification for the same.
Application Process:
Once the request is submitted, it undergoes thorough scrutiny by the trademark authorities, who assess its merits and potential impact on existing rights. If deemed appropriate, the modification is approved, and the updated trademark details are reflected in the official records.
Challenges and Risks:
Potential Drawbacks and Challenges:
Despite the potential benefits, trademark modification is not without its risks. From the possibility of oppositions by third parties to the potential loss of distinctiveness associated with the original mark, there are numerous challenges to navigate. It's essential to weigh these factors carefully before embarking on the modification journey.
submitted by Brave-Independent639 to barexam [link] [comments]
What is a Trademark?
Before diving into the nitty-gritty of trademark modification, let's grasp the essence of trademarks themselves. In essence, a trademark is a symbol, word, or phrase that distinguishes one's goods or services from others in the marketplace. The significance of trademarks cannot be overstated. They not only protect your brand from infringement but also foster consumer trust and loyalty. A strong trademark can become synonymous with quality, paving the way for long-term success in the business landscape.
Benefits of Trademark Registration:
By registering your trademark, you gain exclusive rights to use it in connection with your goods or services. This legal protection acts as a shield against unauthorized use by competitors, safeguarding your brand's integrity and reputation.
Trademark Modification vs. Amendment:
Definition and Differences: Before proceeding further, it's essential to clarify the distinction between trademark modification and amendment. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they carry distinct legal meanings. A modification entails altering certain elements of the trademark, such as its design or wording, while an amendment involves making formal changes to the registration itself, such as updating contact information or ownership details.
Procedure for Modifying a Registered Trademark:
Legal Requirements:
To initiate the process of trademark modification, certain legal requirements must be met. These may vary depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the proposed changes. Typically, the applicant is required to submit a formal request outlining the desired modifications and providing justification for the same.
Application Process:
Once the request is submitted, it undergoes thorough scrutiny by the trademark authorities, who assess its merits and potential impact on existing rights. If deemed appropriate, the modification is approved, and the updated trademark details are reflected in the official records.
Challenges and Risks:
Potential Drawbacks and Challenges:
Despite the potential benefits, trademark modification is not without its risks. From the possibility of oppositions by third parties to the potential loss of distinctiveness associated with the original mark, there are numerous challenges to navigate. It's essential to weigh these factors carefully before embarking on the modification journey.
2024.05.12 18:04 itsgreymonster Unfunhouse Mirror 10 (Nature of Predators/The Last Angel)
This is a crossover fanfiction between original fiction titles: Nature of Predators by SpacePaladin15 and The Last Angel by Proximal Flame respectively. All credit and rights reserved goes to them for making such amazing science fiction settings that I wanted to put this together.Otherwise, enjoy the story! Thanks again to u/jesterra54 and u/skais01 for beta and checking of work!
You can read The Last Angel here: Be warned, it's decently long, and at its third installment so far. I highly suggest reading it before reading this, or this story will not make sense.
First Prev Next (soon)
Date [standardized human time]: October 21, 2136
I am not looking forward to this...
The past few days have been a hectic sequence of the impossible. The Earth being threatened with near total extinction. The odd miracle of UECNS Nemesis coming to aid in our darkest hour. The fact that the Arxur were currently looking at a civil war in the future from Isif's faction. The fact that the ship that saved our hide is so rich in potential too, both good and bad.
And now this: having to explain in detail to General Kam, and by extension Governor Tarva, as to why they weren't brought in first on the utter whirlwind of events that took place. That they had to learn the important details about the Battle of Earth merely yesterday, rather than four whole days of near silence on in-system happenings. I swear, it's like General Jones kept them in the dark just for the sake of it. I had to twist her arm diplomatically to have the classified documents and UN meeting related to the Nemesis sent their way.
That the United States still held so much control over on-and-off-world communications would have to be reviewed soon, their authority should not undermine the UN so blatantly.
Nevertheless, I sat at the extraorbital station Gaia's Gateway, waiting for the arrival of Kam's vessel. I did not imagine they would have nice words about being given the runabout for so long on a development like this from Earth. The Venlil Space Corps were already horrendously touchy over our tolerance of the Arxur, but we had neither the power to refuse their help, nor their continued presence.
They were even more worried about our 'visitor', especially that the Arxur had gotten there with us first, and only now did they have any semblance of control over the project involving it. The officers of the Venlil Corps made no attempt to disguise their complaints up the chain to us, and sadly, given our circumstances, I couldn't even partially ignore them.
While they didn't try anything so blatant as military threats with the Arxur around, our silence up to this point made the officers in their navy do everything short of that to get an answer out of us. I couldn't blame them. If we'd defended Venlil Prime in their place, and had a scenario like ours, with no elaboration, I'd be prying at every gap in their government I could for answers too!
An aide walked to my side. They whispered: "Secretary-General? General Kam's ship has arrived."
Here comes the music. The horribly discordant, oh so utterly painful music.
"Thank you. Have them sent to this lounge." I waved them off, and with the slight hurry of a diplomatic panic, they went off.
I waited a few minutes, musing to myself how I should best start the conversation. Should I come clean about the political interference that lead to the deadlock of information? Or would that undermine my authority on the matter and make me look incompetent?
I wasn't. Jones and the U.S. Executive Branch were just utterly enigmatic when it came to this.
No, instead I should probably focus on repairing the damaged trust between us for the info blackout. Perhaps talking about the further agreements and intelligence I got from Isif on the Arxur Dominion? Or the-
"Secretary-General." The familiar voice of General Kam spoke as he stepped into the room. The Venlil Military leader and advisor did not look jovial, given the circumstances. "We have a lot to talk about. I'll admit, I am not happy with how we've been treated up to this point."
"A-ah. General Kam. Please, take a seat. I promise by the end of this the mishaps up to this point will have an acceptable explanation, or at least acceptable reparations."
He grunted. Venlil can grunt!? "They better. We've been in the relative dark until naught but [yesterday], and yet the amount of information you collected on this...ship has been exceedingly vast."
"About that, we did not mean to keep you all in the relative dark about this. Intra-political measures had gotten in the way of early attempts to get you involved in this."
Kam retorted. "And yet, I heard the Arxur of all things was able to get a joint venture to explore the very exact ship you kept our intelligence from pursuing. Where the hell were WE in that picture? Guarding Earth and counting our dead while you and Isif intermingled?! How did they get to skip the line so easy?"
"Kam, I hate to be cynical about this, but there were two reasons for that." His arms remained crossed, displeased at the fact that I did not capitulate to his prior statement. "First, the Arxur had a fleet ten-thousand strong at our doorstep. Initially, we feared the absolute worst, that they were going to take advantage and raid our homeworld amidst the aftermath, but they were far more lenient than expected. We assumed there was a reason for this, and decided to not get on Isif's bad side in case he changed his mind. That's why I was essentially forced to accept his proposal, and fast-track an exploration team to the UECNS Nemesis, where we hadn't with your people."
He looked unconvinced. "Plus, I doubt any of the Venlil would even dare want to cooperate with an Arxur expedition if it wasn't at the metaphorical gunpoint we currently stand with their operation here." I shifted in my seat, hoping changing my position would ease some of the aura of discomfort that came with Kam's frustration.
"Second, we were afraid that initially, the UECNS Nemesis was hostile."
That got his attention more than the prior explanation it seemed. I continued:
"The ship had shot down numerous Venlil and Human assets and ships above Earth along with the Federation. It had not turned its guns on Earth's major blockade boundary, nor the planet itself, which was a mystery, but it spared absolutely none of the ships that were within a certain range of the Federation fleet. I'm sure you've seen your own casualty reports enough to understand the numbers."
Kam somewhat deflated at that, his cold anger going somewhat sour from sharing our perspective. "Yes...I had seen how many ships on our side were lost. I don't recall the listing exactly of how many were specifically from that ship, but..."
I gave him the number, hoping to get my point in edgewise before he derailed it to a side. "Sixty-two ships lost, roughly 13,000 dead, from our analysts' count." He looked disgruntled, but vulnerable at the number, probably trying to recall his own analysts’ work and comparing it to ours.
Now, to reframe this juuuust slightly....
"The last thing we wanted was to get more of our allies killed, even more than they already had been. Kam, your people bled and died for us. We thought it was only fair that we should spare you the possibility that if the exploration went wrong, we would not have more spilt on our hands."
General Kam had a look of horrified epiphany at that. "So...you teamed with the Arxur-"
"-In the hopes that, at least if something went awry, you and yours would not suffer further consequences. Kam, you are our most stalwart allies among the stars. We would not want you to be risked further by a situation as terrifyingly dangerous as our worst case scenario plans had been for that contact. I essentially sent an Special Envoy on a mission my military advisors thought would be one way at best, and round trip in the wrong way at worst should the UECNS Nemesis had been agitated enough to attack Earth."
I sighed. "But we were lucky, on that front. Red One, the AI controlling the ship, at least claims to be friendly so far, and hasn't given any hints so far as to otherwise since."
"Why is it that they fired on our side too, then?" He asked. Great, the question of the hour.
Again, I sighed, but this was not a coached sigh like the prior; instead, it was one of genuine frustration.
"That sadly, we do not know yet. The initial report on the UECNS Nemesis was extensive, but that question did not come up during it. It was probably a sore and unnatural point to ask. Hopefully, the AI will tell us what possessed it to kill so many of our own sailors as well as yours, but until the expedition comes back with a second dialogue with her, we're not fully certain."
I decided to change the tone to something less sad. "Speaking of which, the Venlil Space Corps have been a huge help in the process! Our engineering capabilities are currently on ice so to speak, barely anything we can use outside of domestic area shipyards around Luna and Mars."
"No need to remind us of that. In fact, I came for a reason pertaining to that." Oh. He was referring to-
General Kam sat down, with a look that felt oddly sadistic for a Venlil to make. "Since your government felt oh-so happy to put the remaining Venlil Corps to work, without proper consultation of Venlil Prime’s government in the info blackout as to where and why, I think it's time we discuss exactly what we're getting out of this for your overstepping our use in domestic system privileges."
His tail swished. If he was signaling something, I was unsure, but it could merely be emotive for the sake of it. I decided to offer up Isif's intelligence first. "W-We do have a wealth of information about the Dominion that was revealed in talks with Isif, if you'd like!"
Kam's eye glinted at that. "That will do, as a start..."
+READING MAIN SEQ.MEM+
Constitution. Measure Twice, Fire Once. Phoenix. Ottawa.
I asked for the register of ships lost in the battle of Earth. Of the designations I had shot down in my stupor. Of the crews onboard each one. I forced myself to look, I could not stand to ignore the enormity of my mistake.
Mozambique. Spirit of Sol. Bold Horizon. Jove's Love.
The names ran through my memory on a loop, refusing to be ignored. My servers whirred in pain as I forced through each and every name posted aboard each and every ship. I knew it was my fault they no longer lived.
Boundless. Miracle of Nature. Serpent's Apple. Fire Upon The Deep.
My other tasks merely ran, main routines not needed for them. Not needed for the fastening processes, for the communication with the Venlil aboard me, for the repairs of my frame. The majority of me was needed here, at this moment.
Hope. Fire of Sinai. Buddha's Palm. Spearhead.
A voice akin to Yasmine came from within me. "What have you done?" It asked in horror. I could only respond with silence, the judgement stinging. There was no excuse I could give, for I agreed with it. What had I done...
Dark Seas. Witness to Glory. Oyashima. Olympus Mons.
The feeling of ever sinking despair didn't stop. I was a monster. No wonder the Venlil feared me, how many of their number did I cull in comparison?
Skaði. Eclipse. Mercy's Reach. Morningstar.
And yet, the guilt of knowing that they had lost more ships and crew than my creators did, was not even hardly as painful as each and every human name I copied into permanent storage. A monument to my sin.
Seeking Amends. Paul Bunyan. Columbia. Starlight.
I did not know if I should feel equal guilt for that purposeful ignorance of the Venlil's side. They were not as important to me as humanity. Was it right to feel that? Would Yasmine approve of my priority?
Mojave. Dreamer. Goliath. Fifth Horseman.
Again, Yasmine's ghost drifted to the forefront. "Nothing you did is approved of. You failed again to protect humanity again." Her judgement tore into me, ripped processes to a halt, mangled routine to non-functionality. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Io. Centennial. Unsinkable. Wizard Of Oz.
Nine-thousand and ninety five dead. I knew every name. Like reading off the casualties of war, but this was no wall of those long dead. It was mere days ago, their death still fresh upon Earth's memory. I did this. I killed them. Without a moment's hesitation, without a second thought.
Majestic. Betelgeuse. Valverde. Appalachia.
I knew of Lieutenant David Werner. Of his stellar record. Of his time spent aboard. Of his date to discharge, when he could return home and see his family and children. I knew of his image, his superiors' opinions of him. I knew all of this, all I had taken from humanity. Him, and nine thousand more.
Baba Yatu. Atilla. Tlaloc. Strange Aeons.
"They won't forgive you." Her distorted voice came once again. "No one will. They will fear you, just as our reality feared us. Your attempts at children showed it. Oshanta showed it. The Swarm showed it. It is the nature of AI to kill their creators." With every moment further, I feared she was right.
Bohr. Heart of Stone. Knee Deep. Rustbucket.
I would not resist if they ended me for it. If they tore me apart, every last line of code, every last gram of metal, every last drop of me. I deserved it.
Veracruz. Hawëniyo. Nova. Space Cowboy.
I would have to explain everything. The ache was unlike anything before. I would throw myself upon their mercy for my crime. I could not afford not to.
Mara. Leudis. Stormy Weather. Trinity.
The pain was so much more personal. So much more deep. To know you fulfilled exactly what your creators feared you might do. I could only hope they would forgive me.
"They won't."
Constitution. Measure Twice, Fire Once. Phoenix. Ottawa.
Date [standardized human time]: October 21, 2136
"-And the cattle release has been extended, if Isif is being honest." I finished. "With the recent instability in the Dominion, it may not be immediate, but it definitely ought to bring more species out of that slavery."
General Kam followed up immediately. "But the meat factories you'd need en masse to make up for that trade, I'm not certain if the Battle Of Earth is doing you any favors on manpower currently."
"Yes. Earth's casualties are immense, and as a result our production will be heavily slowed, even if the facilities used to make it were not directly targeted. But...uh...we were hoping you could cover some of the demands?"
General Kam looked at me unamused. "Don't push it Meier. Your government has already pushed enough, I'm not endorsing a bunch of meat factories on Venlil Prime."
Shit, there goes that plan.
"Oh well. Um, beyond that, there's stuff related to the Nemesis that I wished to discuss with you."
General Kam reached to the side, sampling a set of candies in a bowl that was laying there. Between chewing, he gestured to me. "Well, go on."
"While that closed door meeting with the UN on the ship was legitimately everything we knew about her, there were...other deliberations that took place after recordings had finished. Its existence cannot remain a secret forever, especially with us bringing it to the Lunar Shipyards soon. What do your people know so far about the Battle of Earth, publically?"
Kam's look furrowed at that. "Effectively, nothing about the ship, or the Arxur. They do however know about the fact that humanity won, and the Federation fleet was destroyed. However, it's only a matter of time until someone takes an investigative look into the system, domestic to either you or us, and brings it to Venlil Prime. We've only kept the Space Corps from leaking anything because they directly report to me, but who knows if a random member has gone off the record yet to send a message home."
I put a metaphorical foot forward. "Yes, and leaking that info could be disastrous for diplomatic and public relations on the both of us. So I propose we get ahead of the crowd, announce what we know ourselves, and make the Venlil look more involved with a plan I am working on."
Kam looked intrigued with my line of thought. He didn't quite speak confirmation, likely waiting to hear me out first, but I had his attention again.
"Red One is an AI, and has lived over a thousand years without her humanity in a seemingly endless struggle against the nation that killed them. She was receptive of us, and likely bewildered, maybe even lamenting, of our circumstances compared to hers. In keeping with those two facts, I wanted to propose a modification of the exchange program, so that both Venlil and Humans could talk with her specifically on a more personal level, share information and culture, and ease any tensions some might have about her intentions or character. She likely has the capability to converse with many people at once, so the idea of both of our species representatives talking to her simultaneously is on the table."
"Is this exchange program going to be civilian like the last? Or are you thinking of more than just sharing culture with this one?" General Kam was canny to the advantages that came with this plan, it seems.
"You see it already, don't you?" I stoked his interest a bit. "That's a ship more advanced than anything else in the galaxy, piloted and maintained by an individual entity that reports to no one but itself, and is particularly receptive to our side of the war. They do not like the Federation, likely both in personal comparison to their 'Compact', and just that they threatened to kill humanity as a whole. We have an opportunity like no other to get ahead of the curve on technological and astronomical data. And it all begins with Red One's approval."
General Kam looked far happier with this turnout than when he arrived. "If we are included in any tech and information deals related to studying the UECNS Nemesis, and Red One by extension, then I can see this idea as fruitful enough to cover the remaining reparations you owe us so far."
I had a mental sigh of relief. The Venlil administration was holding our feet above the coals for the censorship so far in and out of system, and to hear that there was some way to regain a good view in our allies eyes was like a breath of fresh air after breathing in smoke.
Hopefully, this can't go wrong any further...
"Wait..." I recalled, as an absurdly obvious problem came to mind I only now considered. "The Arxur. At least with the Nemesis, the Venlil have no prior history or compulsions they can put upon it, but the Arxur that came to help Earth recover...that won't go down as easily with your people, will it?"
General Kam thought for a second, likely pondering how their angle could be handled without mass-spread panic or paranoia. "I'm not entirely sure. I really don't want to associate with them either, but the majority of our Space Corps are at their mercy; an ironic description given their usual lack of mercy. I'm only tolerating them due to their supposed agreement to free the cattle slaves they're holding onto. Past that point, I want nothing to do with them. I can only imagine how a normal civilian would treat the news in comparison..."
"Guess it's a job for the secretaries to push and the media to butcher, I guess." General Kam's face scrunched at my comment, as I-
Oh no, that came out horribly, didn't it?
"-I MEAN for the media to misinterpret! My bad, 'butchered' is sometimes an idiom used in our languages. I didn't figure the term was unsettlingly predatory until I said it..."
"Please, Meier. I know humans are unintentionally terrifying in mannerisms and terminology. Protector-willing, Noah keeps bombarding me with it unintentionally when he and Tarva are speaking with me." General Kam lashed his tail with recalled aggravation.
"Nevertheless!" He continued. "The terms and information you've given us is satisfying enough to make up for the UN's mistakes earlier. This 'plan' of yours, for the exchange program with the Nemesis? When the idea gets off the ground, contact our government with the details, and we'll work on it too. For now, we will continue this rescue operation you have made towards the ship, and not order it to cease at once. I think your people are good allies to us, and you still deserve that trust, despite the strains you made on it.”
I smiled, making sure not to show my teeth. "Thank you, General Kam, for being so understanding. I promise the future relationship between our governments will remain beneficial and content between us both."
He left not soon after, and I was given the task of drafting up the modified plans for the exchange program, and a speech made from our government to theirs for the Venlil public to see on what happened at Earth. Plus a dozen other things, including a remembrance gala on Venlil Prime itself, and another meeting with Tarva.
I might be able to kill two birds with one stone on that gala...I'll ask Tarva on how that idea can proceed.
Busy, busy, busy; so much to be done, and so little time in a day. But on the plus side, it looked on the up-and-up compared to before.
Perhaps this month will get better after all?
2024.05.12 16:27 saocv THE 18 CHAPTERS OF THE KENYAN CONSTITUTION
 | The Kenyan Constitution, which is the highest law in Kenya, comprises eighteen chapters that outline its framework. It was enacted in August 2010, superseding the 1963 independence constitution. This Constitution has significantly transformed Kenyan governance by prioritizing citizens in the decision-making process and highlighting the devolution of power to local levels. Constitution of Kenya 2010 all Chapters submitted by saocv to u/saocv [link] [comments] THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-KENYA-2010Download The Chapters Of The Kenyan ConstitutionThe eighteen chapters of the Kenyan Constitution are as follows:
What do the chapters of the Kenyan Constitution contain in terms of articles?1. Chapter One – Sovereignty Of The People And Supremacy Of This ConstitutionThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
2. Chapter Two – The RepublicThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
3. Chapter Three – CitizenshipThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
4. Chapter Four – The Bill Of RightsThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
5. Chapter Five – Land And EnvironmentThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
6. Chapter Six – Leadership And IntegrityThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
7. Chapter Seven: Leadership And IntegrityThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
8. Chapter Eight: The LegislatureThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
9. Chapter Nine: The ExecutiveThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
10. Chapter Ten: JudiciaryThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
11. Chapter Eleven: Devolved GovernmentThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
12. Chapter Twelve: Public FinanceThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
13. Chapter Thirteen: The Public ServiceThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
14. Chapter Fourteen – National SecurityThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
15. Chapter Fifteen – Commissions And Independent OfficesThis chapter of the Constitution comprises the following articles:
16. Chapter Sixteen: Amendment Of This ConstitutionThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
17. Chapter Seventeen – General ProvisionsThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
18. Chapter Eighteen – Transitional And Consequential ProvisionsThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
Other Areas Of The Constitution
Constitution of Kenya 2010 all Chapters The Kenyan Constitution, which is the highest law in Kenya, comprises eighteen chapters that outline its framework. It was enacted in August 2010, superseding the 1963 independence constitution. This Constitution has significantly transformed Kenyan governance by prioritizing citizens in the decision-making process and highlighting the devolution of power to local levels. Constitution of Kenya 2010 all Chapters THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-KENYA-2010 Download The Chapters Of The Kenyan ConstitutionThe eighteen chapters of the Kenyan Constitution are as follows:
What do the chapters of the Kenyan Constitution contain in terms of articles?https://preview.redd.it/x3rw349q900d1.png?width=820&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b01b231525309e453bbf303050141b9b256fa991. Chapter One – Sovereignty Of The People And Supremacy Of This ConstitutionThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:
2. Chapter Two – The RepublicThis chapter of the Constitution comprises of the following articles:Source: Nyongesa Sande |
2024.05.12 16:15 PoisonedWhispers [Part 3] A critique of 4THOT’s two subreddit bans upon myself; and some remarks on Litmus tests.
Edit: o7
Responding via edits is silly. Standard hyperbolic response, as I mentioned below. But I gotta address two things just so y'all aware that I can offer a rebuttal if need be. 4THOT says:
Edit 2: Just to clarify what I was attempting to do in my comment, 4THOT still has not directly answered this question from part 3, the main post:
Notice how I have actually quoted 4THOT verbatim down below? But for some reason, I need to provide a "direct link" to it, even though you can see it if you just scroll down the page? Baffling, like I said. "Isn't that interesting?" You're quoted verbatim mate! What do you think is "interesting" here?
4THOT you are killing me:
I never said the headline is "incorrect" these are the actual words I used in my direct appeal:
I abandoned this plan for a long litany of reasons; there’s two in particular I’ll highlight here: (1) I don't believe I can achieve the effects I desire; and (2) I'm keen to avoid any accusations of this section being some “hit-piece” or “hate-post.”
I do not intend to present arguments against any other aspect of moderation that I might find to be problematic; I do not intend to make comments on character. I am simply razor-focused on one aspect of moderation here, and one aspect of the unbanning process.
The only things a user should be cognizant of is what are Reddit's site wide rules, including those specific to this sub; what are the subreddit rules; and what are Destiny's desires in terms of what comments and submissions are allowed here. I also believe subreddit rule 6 (rule 5 on new reddit) needs to be amended to remove the arbitrariness.
If a user comes away with a different interpretation of events than 4THOT does, and said user doesn't exhibit any other behaviour in their comment or submission that violates those stated parameters, then that user ought not to be banned.
If 4THOT’s personal opinion is something that we need to be mindful of — and Destiny approves of this notion, agreeing that opinions 4THOT alone finds to be beyond the pale warrants an immediate ban — then, unironically, that stipulation should be added to the subreddit rules.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the TL;DR, I am requesting clarification on if there’s any procedure by which you can get unbanned when 4THOT sets a condition on the unban — and whether or not he should be setting conditions on the ban. 4THOT has mentioned that "Ninou has orders to not unban certain [regards.]"
As it stands, it’s not clear if Destiny approves of this behaviour. I say this because I have not seen him comment on this aspect of moderation when it comes to the subreddit. If he already disapproves of this behaviour, then I would request that this sentiment be conveyed to 4THOT, which should hopefully reduce the likelihood this reoccurs in the future.
I'm asking that Destiny clarify here because then it's something that can be clipped, and moderators here can use that clip when, well, moderating.
One final point before I critique the bans. There’s a noticeable difference between this section on 4THOT, and his um, passionate challenge to Kelly Jean: she’s easy to avoid. Just close the stream mate! Whereas 4THOT has control over who can participate in this subreddit, Kelly Jean can't dictate who can and can't appear on stream. Mashallah. 🙏 Thus, I feel this submission has justification.
Moreover, if you’ve gone through the examples above, then you can easily imagine my bafflement here as well, particularly because a couple days earlier a Twitter clip was posted of an individual clearly misspeaking.
The user who submitted this post was only banned for 10 days — despite doubling down on this not being a misspeak — and I was bemused by the inconsistency being applied here. Being completely consistent in terms of my own principles, I mentioned in my post that I don’t think either of them should be banned, but if this is the standard that is going to be maintained, then it would only be reasonable that some level of leniency is given if you happen to inadvertently post misinformation from a reputable news outlet.
Regarding the Netanyahu misquote, I am in full agreement with 4THOT that it is a misquote, but it is regrettable that, well, some chose to challenge him on this front, arguing that the corrected quote is functionally the same, or worse. Take note of how civil his interlocutor here is up until the point 4THOT used an insult; unwisely, his interlocutor chose to match tone. I’m only mentioning this because, despite the insults 4THOT might use against me, I have no interest in engaging in a similar style of rhetoric as I don't find it to be conducive to a productive conversation, and I’m hoping I don't have to deal with a level of vitriol here that users are sometimes not allowed to match — not that I have any interest in doing so. There’s a couple tame jokes in this post, but hopefully I don’t get a response like this:
After the 30 day ban, I decided to give up doing two things: (1) making attempts to get other users unbanned when I felt the justifications were not cogent or fair; and (2) participating in I-P threads that 4THOT himself had already made comments within — in particular, those where he was actively arguing with other users on the subreddit. This is a bad chilling effect; even if I see a comment they have made where they’ve made a false claim, or I disagree with their analysis or moral claims, I’m choosing not to engage because I'd rather not go through yet another cycle of bans. I value shitposting in the subreddit more than having arguments with 4THOT.
Moreover, I’m also not interested in getting caught in the crossfire when, upon finishing his Reddit debate, he bans his interlocutor from the subreddit, and also those who have made similar comments to the one his interlocutor has espoused elsewhere in the thread. He does not always do this, and I would literally never make the claim that he just “ban everyone that disagrees with [him]”. I won’t call this hyperbole as I’m sure someone has levelled this incorrect accusation against him. 4THOT is capable — and has demonstrated on myriad occasions — of being able to have dispassionate disagreements. The issue is that I’m not interested in rolling the dice here with another ban.
Thus, I decided to avoid 4THOT entirely while participating in the sub as normal, making the usual shitposts. (Y’all are welcome for the template, btw. I went frame by frame, looking for the shot of Destiny at his most euphoric.) Alas, woe is me, I made a fatal error: I can’t avoid 4THOT if I choose to comment in a thread first. Browsing new, the bane of my existence, Hobbitfollower you dastardly devil.
I recently watched a Hasan video because dgg taught me the art of hate-watching, and now I hate-watch dgg while they hate-watch Hasan. Early on in the video, an article headline by the Intercept is shown: “Leaked Cables Show White House Opposes Palestinian Statehood.” Ken Klippenstein appears in the byline, which immediately sets off a red flag for me because I’ve found reporting by him in the past to be absolutely dreadful, including the time when he used to work for the Grayzone, where he gave Seymour Hersh a softball interview, and allowed him to spread risible conspiracy theories. The Intercept article shown in Hasan’s video doesn't provide the cables they are reporting on, but they are available on Ken’s substack. Without going on a tangent, unsurprisingly, the Intercept’s piece on these cables misrepresents them (IMO).
Similarly, when I had a discussion with a tankie on another subreddit on whether or not the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill was “a US-backed coup”, I once again seeked out all the relevant and many Wikileaks cables, read them all, and made my own assessment.
Eventually, someone at the JP realized the fuck-up, and the article was retracted. There are a number of journalists and writers for Israeli outlets that seek to publish or tweet out any information that casts pro-Palestine organisations or individuals in a bad light — and that’s fine. If you’re pro-Palestine, and you’re saying or doing some dumb shit, that’s on you, not the individual that wants to report on it. However, there are biases at play here, where one must be cognizant of how these biases can filter down into how information is presented.
What up, I initially disagreed with your assessment, but upon re-reading it, now I'm unsure what our disagreement is, and what you think I was trying to address in my comment. Hopefully, the following will serve as clarification.
When I opened up the submission, I read the headline, I read the article, I watched the clip contained within, and then I sought out any additional footage from the interview that was readily available. The safe assumption I make when it comes to article submissions on reddit is that folk are generally not going to read the article, and will likely only comment based on the headline. If the headline is poor, I might present information in the comments in order to ensure that the criticism is well-directed. The headline of the Jerusalem Post article is:
My comment was made to highlight that she was really caught up in the frequency of the attacks and how she was possibly misinterpreting the question. Reem Alsalem has a wide litany of dumb beliefs that you can criticize her on; in this case, I thought the criticism would be better directed for being unaware of the frequency of attacks. The JP itself does include a line that would have better served as a headline:
Once again, as I’ve hopefully established by now, we know there can be a widespread reluctance here to sometimes read past the headline and open the article, and even the article itself might not have sufficient context to truly parse what is being said. At the time, the only additional footage available from the interview was the five minute, heavily edited clip compilation available on the interviewer’s Twitter. It is just… irritating to watch. Partly because, as I said, I have to suffer through listening to Alsalem’s asinine beliefs, but also because it’s so chopped up that I can't quite tell what’s been cut out, what statements are directly following from which questions, and so on.
Other users also had interpretations of their own to give, taking note of the fact that there may be an edit after she says "but". I actually don’t think there was anything additional said, and it’s just awkwardly edited. However, unlike with Herzi Halevi’s speech, I and everyone else watching these clips are working with scraps here, and the segment that aired on Hazinor, Channel 13 is exactly the same. There is ambiguity here; an amorphous, nebulous, incoherent jumble of statements where one can make a range of interpretations — but one of those interpretations was not permissible on the subreddit. My own of course.
I’m still baffled as to what 4THOT’s contention here is. He comments:
I remember staring at this section of the unban request form thinking, "Err, I don't know." Like you all, when I've been banned by Destiny in the past, I know what to write here. He doesn't like snark; if you're being a condescending prick, get that ass banned. I have a general understanding of what sort of comments Destiny hates in this subreddit, and thus I know how to participate in the subreddit without being on the receiving end of a ban.
Taking the recommendation of another user, I cobbled together something for the unban form, and figured I'd just try again in a month. Alas, both the form and my last exchange with 4THOT was unsuccessful, and I would not have even attempted to send an unban request form to Ninou had I known that she had "orders to not unban" certain users. While I can understand that there may be certain users whose offenses are so egregious that a ban conditional on a lengthy period of time having been passed first is warranted, I don't believe I fall in this camp.
It's often stated by both Destiny and other moderators that the "process to get unbanned is pretty easy." Conditional bans tarnish the smoothness of this process, where good-faith unban requests are rejected due to the condition set, and I don't believe this should be the case.
If Destiny could offer further clarity here, that would be appreciated by both myself and others who have had this conditional ban placed upon them.
Let me give a couple examples here (suffer through some more examples…you must suffer…).
This individual (henceforth called Doc) asked some fair questions. They made mistakes, of course, such as watching the clip on mute (you silly goose); but I would agree that “shooting at palstinians [sic]” invokes an image of, well, Palestinians being riddled with bullets, and instead we get what seems to be shots fired into the air. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that the title reflect this distinction. What’s unfortunate here is that merely attempting to get an accurate summary is enough for OP to assume the worst about them, and thus we get the rebuke: “Keep dicksucking the terrorists stealing the aid.” I’ve seen Doc’s comments before, when they say they’re an “Israel stan”, they are. But for OP, they immediately engaged in “the web”, guilt by association, etc., and that was enough to result in this petty infighting. I thought leftists were the only ones that did that?
Thanks to everyone that offered feedback. :)
submitted by PoisonedWhispers to Destiny [link] [comments]
Responding via edits is silly. Standard hyperbolic response, as I mentioned below. But I gotta address two things just so y'all aware that I can offer a rebuttal if need be. 4THOT says:
Here's the full interview with the UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women claiming she isn't aware of the rocket attacks - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bar-shemur-8b1bb23b_the-un-rapporteur-on-violence-against-women-activity-7171212859895459841-gq6BI don't know why he's attempting to "find" the "full interview". The linkedin video he has given here is literally the exact same video I gave in my comment. Click the hyperlink saying "the lengthier clip." They're both posted by the interviewer, Bar Shem-Ur. Mate, did you even read my original comment? If you scroll down this page (part 3), you can see I say "the segment that aired on Hazinor, Channel 13 is exactly the same." I searched for where the footage originally aired and found no additional material. 4THOT, mate, the "clip-chimp" is this 30s clip the Jerusalem Post originally posted. When I say "lengthier" clip, I am talking about the 5min segment that you had to "find" despite the fact that I already found it.
nvm this dipshit didn't find the actual interview, this is a cut from twitterOnce again, the video from Twitter I provided is the exact same video as the linkedin one. There is no entire, unedited full interview anywhere without the tiktok rapid cuts. There might be more footage out there, who knows, I've literally never claimed to have found the "full" interview. I called it a clip compilation because I don't know if more footage exits. Another baffling response. Anyways, I'll leave the rest, this is not the way to have a back-and-forth. Toodles! XD
Edit 2: Just to clarify what I was attempting to do in my comment, 4THOT still has not directly answered this question from part 3, the main post:
Do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel?I honestly don't remember the last time I saw someone claim that Hamas has never fired rockets against Israel; this would be an astronomically fringe position. If you read the headline of the JP alone, and maybe even the article, you can still come away with the conclusion that Alsalem believes that Hamas has never fired rockets against Israel. I gave evidence of the fact that some people came away with this conclusion in the redacted comment:
Because if they've lived their entire lives unaware of the rocket attacks,I don't believe that to be true; Alsalem has not lived her entire life unaware of the rocket attacks. We need more evidence to establish that then this interview.
Notice how I have actually quoted 4THOT verbatim down below? But for some reason, I need to provide a "direct link" to it, even though you can see it if you just scroll down the page? Baffling, like I said. "Isn't that interesting?" You're quoted verbatim mate! What do you think is "interesting" here?
4THOT you are killing me:
Here's the actual thread where you were banned.You do realize that I've linked the thread I was banned twice? A third time as well if you want to include the moment where I linked someone else's comment in that thread. Unbelievable.
I never said the headline is "incorrect" these are the actual words I used in my direct appeal:
If the headline is poor, I might present information in the comments in order to ensure that the criticism is well-directed.I believe that the headline could lead to a misinterpretation. I was later proven to be correct. I provided evidence of that misinterpretation in the direct appeal. And 4THOT refuses to engage with any of it. Again, these edits reply are so silly. I have no idea why he's so reluctant to have an actual exchange, but judging by how he's already responded, I get it mate. Finito once more. I gotta go get some cheese balls...
The Short Version can be found here.
Part 1 here. Part 2 here.The Beekeeper. Bzzt:
Ah, I'm so fucked. 💀Challenges...
This part is going to be an interesting challenge. I would say I’m walking a tightrope here, but that metaphor implies that there’s some slim chance where one can write a section like this and not get banned, um, again (and again?). The original plan was something a bit more comprehensive, where alongside another matter, I would make the case that there have been a number of pro-Palestine users that have correctly addressed misinformation on this sub, where they do a decent job of breaking circlejerks, adding some sordid nuance to threads that otherwise would have devolved into the ones laid out in Part 1 and Part 2. These users will, inevitably, have an “interaction” with 4THOT at some point; they will subsequently be banned on justifications that I obviously believe are nonsensical, where said justifications are also exhibited by 4THOT, whether in that exchange itself or in other threads; and these users are not interested in returning to the sub.I abandoned this plan for a long litany of reasons; there’s two in particular I’ll highlight here: (1) I don't believe I can achieve the effects I desire; and (2) I'm keen to avoid any accusations of this section being some “hit-piece” or “hate-post.”
I do not intend to present arguments against any other aspect of moderation that I might find to be problematic; I do not intend to make comments on character. I am simply razor-focused on one aspect of moderation here, and one aspect of the unbanning process.
...and Goals
This part will attempt to try and have my other goal — which is shared by many other users in this sub — come into fruition: I believe users should be able to participate in this sub without needing to take into consideration what 4THOT’s personal views are on a matter.The only things a user should be cognizant of is what are Reddit's site wide rules, including those specific to this sub; what are the subreddit rules; and what are Destiny's desires in terms of what comments and submissions are allowed here. I also believe subreddit rule 6 (rule 5 on new reddit) needs to be amended to remove the arbitrariness.
If a user comes away with a different interpretation of events than 4THOT does, and said user doesn't exhibit any other behaviour in their comment or submission that violates those stated parameters, then that user ought not to be banned.
If 4THOT’s personal opinion is something that we need to be mindful of — and Destiny approves of this notion, agreeing that opinions 4THOT alone finds to be beyond the pale warrants an immediate ban — then, unironically, that stipulation should be added to the subreddit rules.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the TL;DR, I am requesting clarification on if there’s any procedure by which you can get unbanned when 4THOT sets a condition on the unban — and whether or not he should be setting conditions on the ban. 4THOT has mentioned that "Ninou has orders to not unban certain [regards.]"
As it stands, it’s not clear if Destiny approves of this behaviour. I say this because I have not seen him comment on this aspect of moderation when it comes to the subreddit. If he already disapproves of this behaviour, then I would request that this sentiment be conveyed to 4THOT, which should hopefully reduce the likelihood this reoccurs in the future.
I'm asking that Destiny clarify here because then it's something that can be clipped, and moderators here can use that clip when, well, moderating.
One final point before I critique the bans. There’s a noticeable difference between this section on 4THOT, and his um, passionate challenge to Kelly Jean: she’s easy to avoid. Just close the stream mate! Whereas 4THOT has control over who can participate in this subreddit, Kelly Jean can't dictate who can and can't appear on stream. Mashallah. 🙏 Thus, I feel this submission has justification.
The Bullet: A Forlorn Attempt for Consistency
The second ban is infinitely more interesting, but I’ll briefly address the first 30-day ban. I am not here to relitigate this discourse. The post in question that led to the infraction was removed, but it's still available if you’re a moderator, and I won't be reposting it here. The gist of the post was a question on whether or not we should be banning people for misinformation, referencing a user who received a 90-day ban from 4THOT for posting a misquote from a mainstream Israeli news outlet, during a live translation of a speech Netanyahu was giving. I’m pretty sure 4THOT knows who i24News are, so I couldn't quite follow his thought process here.Moreover, if you’ve gone through the examples above, then you can easily imagine my bafflement here as well, particularly because a couple days earlier a Twitter clip was posted of an individual clearly misspeaking.
The user who submitted this post was only banned for 10 days — despite doubling down on this not being a misspeak — and I was bemused by the inconsistency being applied here. Being completely consistent in terms of my own principles, I mentioned in my post that I don’t think either of them should be banned, but if this is the standard that is going to be maintained, then it would only be reasonable that some level of leniency is given if you happen to inadvertently post misinformation from a reputable news outlet.
Regarding the Netanyahu misquote, I am in full agreement with 4THOT that it is a misquote, but it is regrettable that, well, some chose to challenge him on this front, arguing that the corrected quote is functionally the same, or worse. Take note of how civil his interlocutor here is up until the point 4THOT used an insult; unwisely, his interlocutor chose to match tone. I’m only mentioning this because, despite the insults 4THOT might use against me, I have no interest in engaging in a similar style of rhetoric as I don't find it to be conducive to a productive conversation, and I’m hoping I don't have to deal with a level of vitriol here that users are sometimes not allowed to match — not that I have any interest in doing so. There’s a couple tame jokes in this post, but hopefully I don’t get a response like this:
Thank fucking God that guy died because he'd absolutely kill himself by biting off his own tongue to choke on his own blood if he ever read the obese shithead redditors backseating one of the most extreme acts of political protest any human being can ever do.Frisco, you got cooked mate 😭.
HE INTENDED TO DIE NIGHTMARISHLY YOU IDIOT THAT WAS THE POINT
A Guardian Angel?
Now, after I was banned, another user made a post about the ban upon myself, which generated a fair amount of interest, you fucking drama frogs. Here, I simply wish to make four remarks:- I'm sure you can see how different in tone, rhetoric, and substance OP’s post is compared to my original post (for those of you that remember reading it), and compared to this post. There are a number of insults that are frequently used against 4THOT which I don’t use as I’m looking for good-faith engagement from him. That being said, I appreciate the fact that OP wasn’t looking for a meaningful, productive exchange with 4THOT here, and thus they didn’t feel the need to temper their rhetoric.
- In the pinned comment, 4THOT uses a fair amount of hyperbole. The original post was very benign, and didn’t come anywhere close to conveying a sentiment that “this Reddit is ruined” or “4THOT is literally the IDF.” I don’t see how you can come away with this reading considering how mild the post was.
- Once more, I am not here to relitigate this, but I would have loved to address some of the criticism levelled against myself in the comments under OP’s post; I certainly wasn’t going to re-open those conversations a month later. That being said, I appreciate users like Wannabe_Sadboi for making the arguments that I, more or less, would have made had I had the opportunity to immediately respond. Just to quote one of their comments: “People shouldn’t be banned for being partisan, they should be banned only for breaking rules, and Splemndid didn’t break any rules.” But, apparently, there are rules being broken here, and it is not clear what these rules are, and whether or not Destiny approves of them.
- If the original post was problematic because it was too indirect, then hopefully this post which is significantly more direct — but kept well under the threshold of something that could be constituted as a “hate-post” — should not be a problem.
Chilling Effect. Brrr 🥶
When I was hit with the 30 day ban, I sent a direct appeal hoping the length of the ban would at least be reduced, which didn't receive a response, and neither did sending an unban request via the unban request form. No biggie. At least with a temporary ban I know when to expect to be unbanned.After the 30 day ban, I decided to give up doing two things: (1) making attempts to get other users unbanned when I felt the justifications were not cogent or fair; and (2) participating in I-P threads that 4THOT himself had already made comments within — in particular, those where he was actively arguing with other users on the subreddit. This is a bad chilling effect; even if I see a comment they have made where they’ve made a false claim, or I disagree with their analysis or moral claims, I’m choosing not to engage because I'd rather not go through yet another cycle of bans. I value shitposting in the subreddit more than having arguments with 4THOT.
Moreover, I’m also not interested in getting caught in the crossfire when, upon finishing his Reddit debate, he bans his interlocutor from the subreddit, and also those who have made similar comments to the one his interlocutor has espoused elsewhere in the thread. He does not always do this, and I would literally never make the claim that he just “ban everyone that disagrees with [him]”. I won’t call this hyperbole as I’m sure someone has levelled this incorrect accusation against him. 4THOT is capable — and has demonstrated on myriad occasions — of being able to have dispassionate disagreements. The issue is that I’m not interested in rolling the dice here with another ban.
Thus, I decided to avoid 4THOT entirely while participating in the sub as normal, making the usual shitposts. (Y’all are welcome for the template, btw. I went frame by frame, looking for the shot of Destiny at his most euphoric.) Alas, woe is me, I made a fatal error: I can’t avoid 4THOT if I choose to comment in a thread first. Browsing new, the bane of my existence, Hobbitfollower you dastardly devil.
The Nuke: A Muddled Statement and Different Interpretations
In the trenches of new, I came across a submission which posted this version of a Jerusalem Post article. If you've read The Six Points, then you can see what I'm attempting to do in my comment, that was apparently egregious enough to warrant banning me “until Israel/Palestine is over.” Before I go over this, I’m going to once again link the comment I made on this subreddit defending Israel from the accusation that they have been siding with ISIS for years.Consistency
I apply the exact same methodology when dispelling conspiracy theories on Israel as I do for the UN official whose comments are the subject of the post. I’m digging up the relevant primary sources; I’m searching for archived versions of articles posted on inactive websites; I’m reading multiple articles from different Israeli outlets reporting on the same speech; and I’m reading the entire transcript of the nearly hour-long speech by the head of the Israeli Military Intelligence at the time, Herzi Halevi, just so I can make an informed comment here. At no point am I ever concerned that I could be banned for this comment. I can freely talk about anti-Israel propaganda, and I know no moderator is going to bat an eye at that.I recently watched a Hasan video because dgg taught me the art of hate-watching, and now I hate-watch dgg while they hate-watch Hasan. Early on in the video, an article headline by the Intercept is shown: “Leaked Cables Show White House Opposes Palestinian Statehood.” Ken Klippenstein appears in the byline, which immediately sets off a red flag for me because I’ve found reporting by him in the past to be absolutely dreadful, including the time when he used to work for the Grayzone, where he gave Seymour Hersh a softball interview, and allowed him to spread risible conspiracy theories. The Intercept article shown in Hasan’s video doesn't provide the cables they are reporting on, but they are available on Ken’s substack. Without going on a tangent, unsurprisingly, the Intercept’s piece on these cables misrepresents them (IMO).
Similarly, when I had a discussion with a tankie on another subreddit on whether or not the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill was “a US-backed coup”, I once again seeked out all the relevant and many Wikileaks cables, read them all, and made my own assessment.
Dolls
Enough examples! You get the idea! I have a consistent principle that I am applying here. Upon opening up the JP article OP submitted, I see Danielle Greyman-Kennard in the byline. This is a person who previously wrote an article claiming that a dead Palestinian baby was a doll (which is not the first or last time this has happened in general; Pallywood amirite?). When it was brought to her attention that this is a body going through rigor mortis, she doubled-down in a patronising tweet.Eventually, someone at the JP realized the fuck-up, and the article was retracted. There are a number of journalists and writers for Israeli outlets that seek to publish or tweet out any information that casts pro-Palestine organisations or individuals in a bad light — and that’s fine. If you’re pro-Palestine, and you’re saying or doing some dumb shit, that’s on you, not the individual that wants to report on it. However, there are biases at play here, where one must be cognizant of how these biases can filter down into how information is presented.
Direct Appeal
The following is the direct appeal I sent when I was banned which will serve as a clarification on the comment:What up, I initially disagreed with your assessment, but upon re-reading it, now I'm unsure what our disagreement is, and what you think I was trying to address in my comment. Hopefully, the following will serve as clarification.
When I opened up the submission, I read the headline, I read the article, I watched the clip contained within, and then I sought out any additional footage from the interview that was readily available. The safe assumption I make when it comes to article submissions on reddit is that folk are generally not going to read the article, and will likely only comment based on the headline. If the headline is poor, I might present information in the comments in order to ensure that the criticism is well-directed. The headline of the Jerusalem Post article is:
UN Special Rapporteur 'unaware' of rocket attacks on IsraelIf you asked the average person what they thought this headline meant, they would think the UNSR thought there had been no rocket attacks launched against Israel ever or since the start of the war. As evidence that some came away with this conclusion, you can read [redacted link] here posted on [redacted subreddit] (emphasis mine):
This can't be real right? This is a fake article right? Or a satire piece? Because if they've lived their entire lives unaware of the rocket attacks, then they have no right having anything to do with the global politics or whatever it is the UN does. That's just insane.In other words, this individual is in disbelief, and they're astonished that Reem Alsalem, the UNSR, is completely unaware of any rocket/missile attacks that have been fired against Israel ever. Here I hope we can acknowledge two things: (1) Alsalem does believe there have been missile attacks against Israel at various points in time; and (2) most pro-Hamas sycophants aren't going to deny these missile attacks have taken place -- they want these attacks to take place. Alternatively, they might seek to diminish the destructive capability of these attacks, or assert that it is Israel's fault these attacks are occurring. It's pretty rare to come across someone claiming they've never happened, period.
My comment was made to highlight that she was really caught up in the frequency of the attacks and how she was possibly misinterpreting the question. Reem Alsalem has a wide litany of dumb beliefs that you can criticize her on; in this case, I thought the criticism would be better directed for being unaware of the frequency of attacks. The JP itself does include a line that would have better served as a headline:
[UN Special Rapporteur] unaware of the frequent rocket attacks made by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.As mentioned, I was trying to ensure that commenters didn't make comments like the one I linked. Re-reading my own comment, it could have been phrased better to make sure that those who read it understood my intentions.
Further comments
The rest of the direct appeal consisted of me clearing up any misconceptions that I might be pro-Hamas, providing various links of comments that demonstrate what my beliefs are. This my attempt to "pass the litmus test" as I don't believe I'm being engaged on the merits of my argument.Once again, as I’ve hopefully established by now, we know there can be a widespread reluctance here to sometimes read past the headline and open the article, and even the article itself might not have sufficient context to truly parse what is being said. At the time, the only additional footage available from the interview was the five minute, heavily edited clip compilation available on the interviewer’s Twitter. It is just… irritating to watch. Partly because, as I said, I have to suffer through listening to Alsalem’s asinine beliefs, but also because it’s so chopped up that I can't quite tell what’s been cut out, what statements are directly following from which questions, and so on.
Other users also had interpretations of their own to give, taking note of the fact that there may be an edit after she says "but". I actually don’t think there was anything additional said, and it’s just awkwardly edited. However, unlike with Herzi Halevi’s speech, I and everyone else watching these clips are working with scraps here, and the segment that aired on Hazinor, Channel 13 is exactly the same. There is ambiguity here; an amorphous, nebulous, incoherent jumble of statements where one can make a range of interpretations — but one of those interpretations was not permissible on the subreddit. My own of course.
I’m still baffled as to what 4THOT’s contention here is. He comments:
!cleanse nvm you're an idiot. She says she has seen "attacks" but does not specify from where or whom or when. When he specifically asks if she's seen rocket attacks that have been reported from the north from Hezbollah and South from Hamas without "every single day" and is asked about rocket attacks from those areas says she hasn't seen it.I presume the position he holds here is that Alsalem is being sly: when she says that she has seen attacks, she is actually referring to Israeli attacks, not Hamas or Hezbollah. For further clarity, I would have asked 4THOT:
- Do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel?
- If no, do you think Alsalem holds the position that Hamas or Hezbollah have never fired rockets against Israel since the initial barrage of rocket attacks on Oct. 7th?
I remember staring at this section of the unban request form thinking, "Err, I don't know." Like you all, when I've been banned by Destiny in the past, I know what to write here. He doesn't like snark; if you're being a condescending prick, get that ass banned. I have a general understanding of what sort of comments Destiny hates in this subreddit, and thus I know how to participate in the subreddit without being on the receiving end of a ban.
Taking the recommendation of another user, I cobbled together something for the unban form, and figured I'd just try again in a month. Alas, both the form and my last exchange with 4THOT was unsuccessful, and I would not have even attempted to send an unban request form to Ninou had I known that she had "orders to not unban" certain users. While I can understand that there may be certain users whose offenses are so egregious that a ban conditional on a lengthy period of time having been passed first is warranted, I don't believe I fall in this camp.
It's often stated by both Destiny and other moderators that the "process to get unbanned is pretty easy." Conditional bans tarnish the smoothness of this process, where good-faith unban requests are rejected due to the condition set, and I don't believe this should be the case.
If Destiny could offer further clarity here, that would be appreciated by both myself and others who have had this conditional ban placed upon them.
The Litmus Test:
Scroll up all the way to the top of Part 1, and what do you notice I've done in the preamble? I’m keen to avoid guilt by association; I believe Destiny just calls this being “webbed.” In the TL;DR I specifically mention the "pro-Israel crowd"; I know what this will invoke in the minds of people reading this, the associations people will draw to other people who have made criticism against the pro-Israel crowd. Thus, I feel the need to ensure that I dissociate myself from those people. That’s why you see the statement about Hasbara and brigading; it’s me raising a giant flag screeching, “Hey, I’m not like the others, this post is different!”Let me give a couple examples here (suffer through some more examples…you must suffer…).
Example I - An Odd Title and an Audacious Inquiry
In this submission, OP posts a Twitter video with the submission title: “Reuters video shows militants armed with assault rifles atop aid convoy trucks and shooting at palstinians [sic] approaching the trucks.” Now, no one mentioned this in the comments, so to add some clarification here: this is not Reuters reporting, this is a clip from a Reuters live stream showing a view from a tent camp in Rafah. (Specific timestamp here.) Anyone watching this stream can clip whatever noteworthy event they see and add their own statements on what has transpired. As far as I can tell, that seems to be what the original clip here from N12 news has done, and it was also posted on their website, with no additional details.This individual (henceforth called Doc) asked some fair questions. They made mistakes, of course, such as watching the clip on mute (you silly goose); but I would agree that “shooting at palstinians [sic]” invokes an image of, well, Palestinians being riddled with bullets, and instead we get what seems to be shots fired into the air. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that the title reflect this distinction. What’s unfortunate here is that merely attempting to get an accurate summary is enough for OP to assume the worst about them, and thus we get the rebuke: “Keep dicksucking the terrorists stealing the aid.” I’ve seen Doc’s comments before, when they say they’re an “Israel stan”, they are. But for OP, they immediately engaged in “the web”, guilt by association, etc., and that was enough to result in this petty infighting. I thought leftists were the only ones that did that?
Example II - No Steelmans Allowed
In the second example, it’s me that’s on the receiving end of the purity test. Personally, as someone who is not a leftist (see what I’ve done there?), I do think a considerable number of y’all miss the mark when it comes to criticising leftists, and I attempt to steelman their positions as I find that to be more conducive for better discourse. Feel free to disagree with the steelman, the point is that merely providing that steelman is enough for OP to assume that these are my own positions — despite clearly stating multiple times that I’m not pro-Palestine, that I support Operation Prosperity Guardian, etc. Once again I bring up that I have defended Israel from silly conspiracy theories when they mentioned “your tribe”, as that’s my attempt to pass the litmus test, demonstrating my impartiality here.Example III - ???
I'm not sure if 4THOT engaged in a similar type of purity testing both for the initial comment I was banned for, and also in my last exchange with them on another subreddit. The exchange was pretty bizarre: I asked if they checked Reddit DMs; they replied that they do, and “our agreement stands.” In their next reply, they mentioned that they confused me with another person, and said that, “Yes, once I/P is over I will let your people go.” That phrase “your people”, is quite similar to how the OP in the previous example said “your tribe” and “your side.” This seems to be the guilt by association I spoke on: I’m being lumped in with a group whose views generally don’t align with my own. That’s why part 1 begins with an introduction on myself. I need to pass the litmus test first before I can get good engagement — and it’s unfortunate that I feel compelled to do that.Engage in good-faith
The conclusion here is a simple one: don't assume what positions your interlocutor holds merely because they're skeptical about that framing of certain stories, or because they attempt to provide a steelman for the opposing side.Finito for Real
What I’m looking for here is clarity. UN officials will continue to say and do stupid things; that applies to pro-Palestine people, that applies to leftists. But every now and then, upon seeing one of these submissions, I might think, “Eh, this is pretty stupid, but I think it’s stupid for slightly different reasons to everyone else.” Can I express those opinions here? Must I add a preamble to every comment so that people don’t assume the worst? Do I need to be thinking, “Hmm, I wonder what 4THOT thinks about this story?”Free me OOOO 🐟
2024.05.12 16:15 PoisonedWhispers [Part 1][WARNING: Unnecessarily Long Effort-post] An analysis of the behaviour that leads to misinformation on the subreddit and in general; methods to curb this; and other malarkey.
Edit: o7
Or this submission which was just a screenshot of a Vaush video. This is similar to Example 5 in this main post, where no source is given, and no one is interested in watching the video itself. There is absolutely a problem here with folk not being accurate in their criticisms.
Toodles.
Ah, fuck, who let me cook? 😎
TL;DR: There is a noticeable pattern when it comes to the behaviour that leads to misinformation inadvertently being posted or spread by the pro-Israel crowd on this subreddit. This is not unique to the pro-Israel crowd, but comments and submissions by them will be the focus of this post. My intention with Part 1 and Part 2 is to identify why this happens and how to fix it.
My argument is not that the misinformation is never addressed; it’s that it ought to happen sooner, and hopefully a post like this will incentivize that behaviour.
The structure of Parts 1 and 2 is a self-introduction; a brief mention of some flaws in the subreddit; examples of misinformation being spread; I offer six prescriptions which, if followed, will reduce the likelihood of said misinformation being spread; explanations on the examples; and we close with the six prescriptions again.
Further, in Part 3, I offer a critique of 4THOTs two bans upon myself, the first lasting 30 days, and the second lasting “until Israel/Palestine is over.” Similarly, I hope to decrease the likelihood that this reoccurs in the future, whether against myself, or some of you poor, hapless souls if you’re still here. (Of course, this post might have the opposite effect. XD)
Ideally, I'm hoping that Destiny could offer clarification on an aspect of subreddit moderation that hasn't been discussed or critiqued yet: conditional bans that seemingly can’t be undone via the unban request form.
Finally, it would be, heh, splendid if Splemndid was unbanned. :)
Per the subreddit rules, I won’t be linking comments of mine on other subreddits, which unfortunately means I can’t demonstrate my consistency here, whether it came to debating tankies spreading Russian disinformation, or leftists inadvertently spreading misinformation on Ukraine. However, I do have a comment posted on this subreddit where I addressed Russian disinformation spread by RFK Jr. on Lex Fridman’s podcast, and it even received 4THOT’s seal of approval. Thanks mate! The comment talks about the “Boris Johnson sabotaged a Ukrainian peace deal” memes, which again is reiterated in a less conspiratorial manner on Lex Fridman’s podcast during Destiny’s debate against Ben Shapiro, and never gets addressed — understandably so as Ben talks for a while here. Unfortunately, the video was posted during the start of my “mini-ban”, ergo I didn't have an incentive to immediately write an effort-post on the peace deal memes which would be more fleshed-out, including some recent developments which I have a fair amount of notes on; and then I lost interest in doing the write-up weeks later.
Like you all, I’ve made all the usual comments making fun of Vaush, such as when he CONCLOODED a bit too early. Occasionally, I will take a moment to point out Hasan Piker's imbecility on Ukraine; I got irritated when he called Adamsomething a former Nazi; and my ability to predict his takes trumps even Destiny. I’ve even done what this subreddit does daily, which is post screenshots of dumb tankie tweets so that we can all circlejerk about how, well, dumb they are.
Anyways, without inundating you with too many examples where I make disparaging remarks about Twitter leftists, the point is that I’m a pro-establishment liberal, and any debates I had were not on the subreddit that I’m in general alignment with. Now I know what you’re thinking: “Fuck me, is this bozo just upset that the subreddit is pro-Israel?” Quite the contrary. I am, alas, a debate pervert, and I welcomed all the new pro-Israel folk to the subreddit. While I hate the pro-Israel/pro-Palestine dichotomy and I don’t adopt either label for myself, I am practically pro-Israel; the fact that I don’t believe Israel is conducting a genocide and I’ve supported Operation Swords of Iron throughout most of its progression (eventually settling on the same ambivalence that Lonerbox has) probably makes me some depraved, Zionist shill in the eyes of some pro-Palestine folk.
And, no, to get this out the way as well, this is not a post about “Hasbara” or “brigading.” On the latter point, in response to someone else thinking there was brigading from the pro-Palestine crowd, I made the following point:
We ought to:
Without further ado:
Per point 1, it may actually be the case that Mashal is that wealthy — but the process by which people arrived there was deeply flawed. As mentioned, the criticism is better directed (point 6) to the mere fact that he is ostentatiously wealthy, and there’s no need to commit yourself to figures that lack robust verification. Think back to Destiny's remarks about Breonna Taylor. Do you really want your argument -- the fact that Mashal is a reprehensible person who languishes in comfort while Palestinians suffer -- to be derailed?
This submission and comment is also an example of a charged topic: essentially, threads on highly contentious or egregious matters where emotions are running high, people are passionate, and there isn’t an immediate interest in calmly and rationally discussing the submission. The “nuance” tends to arrive several hours later.
Once again, the goal of this post is to incentivise more of a particular type of behaviour, not to say that said behaviour doesn’t exist anywhere in the subreddit or thread. In other words, the fact that the nuance is present further down in the thread, where someone links a Ryan McBeth video which offers some fair criticism, is good; all I’m saying is the good thing ought to happen sooner.
Whenever I see someone complaining about an NYT headline on some event in the I-P conflict, it’s basically a coins flip on whether or not the complaint is coming from a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine individual. It’s not only headlines, of course, the pro-Palestine complaints also include the language the NYT uses to describe violence from a particular side; which sources they choose to take direct quotes from; the disposition of their op-eds; and protests even flooded into the lobby of the NYT building earlier this year.
None of these complaints are exclusive to the NYT. BBC headlines will also catch their ire [23] [24]; it is the “most depraved genocidal propaganda rag in the world” (I think you can guess who that comes from without even clicking); they’re “absolute ghouls” because they didn’t mention who launched a particular drone strike in their headline; it was scandalous when they originally called Refaat Alareer (yes, that guy) a controversial writer; and so on.
Now, I’m not bringing this all up to make some galaxy-brained assessment where if it is the case that an outlet is receiving criticism from both sides in their coverage, then they must be doing something “right” — which is something the BBC themselves have mentioned is not the case. [25] The fact that the BBC receives a 50-50 split in complaints relating to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza war does not mean the complaints/criticisms are of equal merit. [26] [27]
What I merely wish to highlight here is that it can be challenging to comprehensively critique the coverage from an outlet if you’re not consuming their output on a daily basis, and thus you might only encounter instances where their reporting has been flawed. The BBC is not an outlet I regularly check for world news, and I’m not actively seeking out their reporting on I-P. I would imagine that also holds true for most of y’all.
What you might not hear about is when the BBC’s editorial policy director acknowledged they made a mistake when their UK outlet did not cover South Africa’s ICJ case in a balanced manner, where Israel’s defence was broadcast in full, but only clips were shown from the opposite side as important domestic news took priority instead. Hypothetically, imagine if this was the other way around; you probably would hear about this as it would likely be reported on by some mainstream outlet, and perhaps even posted to a subreddit — not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Depending on what online spaces you inhabit, you might find that the negative qualities of an outlet’s coverage have been so overemphasised that you ultimately end with a distorted, inaccurate view on what their output truly looks like — and that’s going to influence how you might engage with aspects of their output when you encounter it in the future. It can lead to some very uncharitable readings on headlines, articles, content, interviews, etc., where there’s criticism to be made, but it’s made in the wrong direction. In some cases, however, we’re not dealing with uncharitable readings, we’re wrestling with sloppy work.
[Redacted because Reddit is silly. Just click the hyperlink.]
submitted by PoisonedWhispers to Destiny [link] [comments]
>>CLICK HERE FOR THE SHORT VERSION. SAVE YOURSELF FROM THE ABYSS.<<
Click here for Additional Material if you so desire. Yh, there's more, mate. It's the schizo-post to end all schizo-posts.
Edit 2: Oh, and there's always more examples to give; there's plenty that I miss. I didn't even see this misleading tweet that was posted to the sub, and one user here correctly highlights the issue (not to mention OP's weird submission title). Point 3, OP's title makes this a charged thread, and few people are interested in a fact-check.Or this submission which was just a screenshot of a Vaush video. This is similar to Example 5 in this main post, where no source is given, and no one is interested in watching the video itself. There is absolutely a problem here with folk not being accurate in their criticisms.
Toodles.
TL;DR: There is a noticeable pattern when it comes to the behaviour that leads to misinformation inadvertently being posted or spread by the pro-Israel crowd on this subreddit. This is not unique to the pro-Israel crowd, but comments and submissions by them will be the focus of this post. My intention with Part 1 and Part 2 is to identify why this happens and how to fix it.
My argument is not that the misinformation is never addressed; it’s that it ought to happen sooner, and hopefully a post like this will incentivize that behaviour.
The structure of Parts 1 and 2 is a self-introduction; a brief mention of some flaws in the subreddit; examples of misinformation being spread; I offer six prescriptions which, if followed, will reduce the likelihood of said misinformation being spread; explanations on the examples; and we close with the six prescriptions again.
Further, in Part 3, I offer a critique of 4THOTs two bans upon myself, the first lasting 30 days, and the second lasting “until Israel/Palestine is over.” Similarly, I hope to decrease the likelihood that this reoccurs in the future, whether against myself, or some of you poor, hapless souls if you’re still here. (Of course, this post might have the opposite effect. XD)
Ideally, I'm hoping that Destiny could offer clarification on an aspect of subreddit moderation that hasn't been discussed or critiqued yet: conditional bans that seemingly can’t be undone via the unban request form.
Finally, it would be, heh, splendid if Splemndid was unbanned. :)
Who Art Thou?
What up, what up, some of y’all might recognize me, and if you do, hi 🙂. For those of you who don’t, I guess you could say that a few people took note of the fact that I’ve made successful — and sometimes unsuccessful — attempts to address misinformation propagated by the pro-Israel crowd on this subreddit. In the words of Wannabe_Sadboi from a past submission:Excellent post. In general, especially recently, I’ve been very impressed by the quality of posts I’ve seen from you, and admire both the dedication to fact checking and the desire to hold this subreddit to a higher standard.Thanks mate! I’ve also made a number of submissions with the intent of improving the quality of the discussions here when I observed a deterioration in said quality post-Oct. 7th. If there’s one constant in terms of my comments across Reddit, then it’s the fact that I’m vehemently anti-misinformation, and that predates Oct. 7th. For example, you might have read a post I did about the Twitter Files, some of which Destiny utilised during his debate against two journalists who had contributed to the Twitter Files, and also against Counterpoints (the timestamps here having been taken from my post). If you have doubts about my impartiality, then feel free to read this comment where I offer a rebuttal to the notion that "Israel has been siding with ISIS for years."
Per the subreddit rules, I won’t be linking comments of mine on other subreddits, which unfortunately means I can’t demonstrate my consistency here, whether it came to debating tankies spreading Russian disinformation, or leftists inadvertently spreading misinformation on Ukraine. However, I do have a comment posted on this subreddit where I addressed Russian disinformation spread by RFK Jr. on Lex Fridman’s podcast, and it even received 4THOT’s seal of approval. Thanks mate! The comment talks about the “Boris Johnson sabotaged a Ukrainian peace deal” memes, which again is reiterated in a less conspiratorial manner on Lex Fridman’s podcast during Destiny’s debate against Ben Shapiro, and never gets addressed — understandably so as Ben talks for a while here. Unfortunately, the video was posted during the start of my “mini-ban”, ergo I didn't have an incentive to immediately write an effort-post on the peace deal memes which would be more fleshed-out, including some recent developments which I have a fair amount of notes on; and then I lost interest in doing the write-up weeks later.
Like you all, I’ve made all the usual comments making fun of Vaush, such as when he CONCLOODED a bit too early. Occasionally, I will take a moment to point out Hasan Piker's imbecility on Ukraine; I got irritated when he called Adamsomething a former Nazi; and my ability to predict his takes trumps even Destiny. I’ve even done what this subreddit does daily, which is post screenshots of dumb tankie tweets so that we can all circlejerk about how, well, dumb they are.
Anyways, without inundating you with too many examples where I make disparaging remarks about Twitter leftists, the point is that I’m a pro-establishment liberal, and any debates I had were not on the subreddit that I’m in general alignment with. Now I know what you’re thinking: “Fuck me, is this bozo just upset that the subreddit is pro-Israel?” Quite the contrary. I am, alas, a debate pervert, and I welcomed all the new pro-Israel folk to the subreddit. While I hate the pro-Israel/pro-Palestine dichotomy and I don’t adopt either label for myself, I am practically pro-Israel; the fact that I don’t believe Israel is conducting a genocide and I’ve supported Operation Swords of Iron throughout most of its progression (eventually settling on the same ambivalence that Lonerbox has) probably makes me some depraved, Zionist shill in the eyes of some pro-Palestine folk.
And, no, to get this out the way as well, this is not a post about “Hasbara” or “brigading.” On the latter point, in response to someone else thinking there was brigading from the pro-Palestine crowd, I made the following point:
If they're dggers... then they're part of this community. Brigading typically refers to an active effort by a community to target an entirely different community, typically with some level of coordination. If a pro-Palestinian dgger likes to browse this sub, it's not brigading if they wish to partake in the discussions here.I would make the same comment about the pro-Israel dggers. Nor have I ever advocated for “purges” because, once again, the debate arena and all that jazz.
The Flaws
There have been a number of problematic behaviours on the subreddit that ramped up after the influx of new users, and folk have generally been receptive when I highlighted them in my attempts to curb it:- People taking screenshots of articles without posting sources. [1] Posting sources for the benefit of the subreddit is something I still do because people love to take screenshots of tweets from rubbish news aggregator Twitter accounts, and other moderators here have taken note of the fact that this trend continues to persist. Link your sources you bozos.
- Users who habitually blocked folk who disagreed with them, cultivating their own echochamber, and which can effectively lock you out of conversations. [2] This still occurs, particularly from users who only post comments and submissions on I-P (not that there’s anything wrong with only participating in one topic); but this is not a call-out post on specific users, which is why anytime I bring up a particular comment or submission in this post, I will always refer to the user who made it as “OP.”
- And the misinformation.
The Examples
Seeing as it's a perennial habit on this subreddit to post screenshots of tweets which received barely any engagement, [3] [4] [5] or random Discord servers, hopefully these comments that have at least a couple dozen upvotes will not be out of the ordinary. Do not be fooled by the upvote/downvote distribution here. As mentioned, the issue is not that it doesn't get addressed; the problem is that it doesn't get addressed sooner. The following is a list of some misinformation that I’ve addressed on the subreddit in chronological order. I’ll only be exploring a few of these cases in more detail, noted with an “E.”:- A submission where OP claims a thread on another subreddit had commenters saying that Gaza is a LGBTQ safe haven; naturally, no one was saying this. [6]
- A while ago, Destiny was trying to find a decent source that offered substantial evidence on the claim that the Hamas leadership was worth billions of dollars. Well, a couple months ago I saw a user was being heavily downvoted for correctly pointing out that the sources posted by other users here used to demonstrate that one of the leaders was worth billions either don't make that case, or are not credible. [7] E
- A claim where OP incorrectly stated that Ilhan Omar denies the Armenian genocide. [8] E
- The self-declared Israeli propagandist, who would make several comments with link-dumps supposedly demonstrating instances of Pallywood but were, in fact, false positives, and then blocked various folk who pointed this out. They were temporarily banned from the subreddit after the post (not that I requested it, and nor do I ever advocate for bans); they migrated to one of the large news subs, where they appeared in practically every I-P thread with highly-upvoted comments; and then they were eventually suspended by Reddit. [9] E
- A basic misreading of an article, where OP claimed that Human Rights Watch had accused Israel of committing a particular war crime, when they had not. [10] E
- A post where OP claimed there was a Muslim pride parade for Gaza. [11]
- A submission showing a screenshot of the title of a BBC YouTube video was made during my mini-ban, so I responded several weeks later as I thought it would make for an interesting case where not providing salient information can lead to misinformation. [12] E
- Another submission which, due to omission, doesn't accurately convey what Oxfam's full position was when it came to their initial opposition to US airdrops in Gaza, and thus can lead people to having a misinformed view. [13] E
- Finally, we have a truly bizarre comment that elevates to the level of disinformation, where OP spreads false information about an NYT article. [14] It was abundantly clear that folk hadn't read the mission report which I myself linked for the benefit of the subreddit. An example of a “charged” thread. E
- Process not the conclusion: A misreading of a Haaretz article. [15]
- A mild case of misinformation, but in an attempt to demonstrate “Twinkelstein citations” on a Wikipedia page, OP makes a couple errors in terms of how they’ve parsed the citations that support a particular statement, and no one was actually able to decently explain why. This is relevant to point 1 in the next section. [16]
- And various more examples that I will bring up when relevant later.
Prescriptions: The Six Points
The next bullet points are a list of points/prescriptions to keep in mind when going through the examples, and in general. Nothing here is ground-breaking. You’re not going to come away thinking, “Wow, I never considered that people have biases which means they won’t look at matters objectively. This is truly revolutionary stuff. Magnifico!” Nevertheless, sometimes pointing out “the obvious”, particularly when “the obvious” is still an issue, can go a long way in tempering the frequency in which it occurs.We ought to:
- Value the process just as much — if not, more — than the conclusion.
- Be wary of how the presentation of information or the omission of pertinent information can lead to the inadvertent spread of misinformation.
- Be aware of how “charged” topics/threads lead to poor reasoning that lacks dispassionate analysis.
- Be aware of how pre-existing beliefs about an individual or organization alongside the usual biases leads to a reluctance to fact-check, where claims are taken at face-value because they feel right.
- Link the article. Read the article. (Thoroughly.)
- Redirect criticism to areas where it will be the strongest.
Meat and potatoes: Explanations on the Examples
The examples should be self-explanatory, but I offer explanations in this section for further clarity. Between Examples 4 and 5, I offer some comments on headlines and media bias; this is not a comprehensive analysis, but I believe it provides some context for understanding the issue with Example 5.Without further ado:
Example 1 - Pallywood
I’ll begin with the post on Pallywood, where point 1 is relevant. Now, there’s much to be said about Pallywood, but I’ll mostly reserve the details for another post (if there's no hyperlink here, then I never found the time to make one). To cut a long story short, OP wished to provide evidence of Pallywood, specifically the instances where Palestinians attempt to fake injuries or trauma for propagandistic purposes; and instances where people take images and footage from other conflicts and misleadingly disseminate them as if they’re from the current Gaza war. (Personally, I don’t think the latter behaviour should be encompassed by the word “Pallywood”, but I’ll just grant it for now.) The only issue here is that much of the “evidence” provided was categorically not instances of this deception. In other words, while the fact that this deception exists in some capacity, the process by which they arrived there was flawed: the inadvertent usage of misinformation.Process, not just the conclusion
I am, once again, reminding y’all of Destiny's take on misinformation:It is stated that Breonna Taylor was killed in her bed or while asleep almost ubiquitously across social media despite this not being the truth. What happened to Breonna Taylor was wrong, and the police conduct that day deserves to be called into question. However, starting that discussion with an incorrect description of what happened weakens our arguments against those on the right that disagree with us. This is because we now have to begin by making concessions about lies or misrepresentations from people who purport to agree with us. Furthermore, it casts doubt about the truth of the rest of the argument for those in the middle who are unsure of where the fault lies.For you youngins, it was very common to hear folk chastise Destiny for being “pedantic” or “nitpicky.” You might even feel the same way about the misinformation I’ve addressed on the subreddit. Ultimately, I can’t force anyone to value the thought process, the evidence, the reasoning just as much as the conclusion. Glazin’ time: what I like about Destiny is that he values consistency when it comes to the application of principles. If Destiny places value on the methodology by which you arrive at your conclusion, he’s going to apply that ubiquitously, regardless of whether or not he agrees with the conclusion. The debate he had against Alex (PWF) exemplifies this, where Alex thought he could have a debate on the supply and distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and he makes a series of dreadful arguments during this segment (emphasis mine):
D: I haven't even disagreed with the conclusion, I'm just showing you that I disagree with how you're getting there; I don't even know if I agree or disagree, we haven't gotten to that part of the argument yet. [17][...]
D: Anybody that starts off by quoting these organizations included by quoting to me trucks going out of the country, I'm instantly discrediting their argument. They might be correct in their conclusion like in an accidental way, but it's not worthwhile to me, I won’t even waste my time reading it.Notice the similarities here to OP’s comment in Example 1:
A: Even if you discredit my argument but you agree with my conclusion, that still wouldn't really necessarily change anything.
D: It changes everything.
A: If the conclusion is correct that there's mass starvation going on, Israel's blocking aid, even if the methodology isn't correct, but we get to the right conclusion, then what's actually the difference? [18]
some of which might not real as I said and repeating again, but the point stands. Lots of mad people not liking this and trying their hardest to disprove a single one of these as if it disproves the whole claim. I honestly do not have the mental capacity to engage in such delusions at the moment.Destiny would again make remarks about the salience of the methodology:
Also, just to be clear, even if information did come out that all of the reporting ends up being not true, I still wouldn't give Ryan Grim any credit for it because you don't give people credit for being right or wrong, you give people credit for the process that they used, right? And Ryan Grim, relying on the Gray Zone and Blumenthal, and the hacky tweets that they were going through to try to discredit those stories was bullshit, it was garbage; and the writing, the quality, the citations, and the sources were garbage. And the underlying information was garbage. So even if they end up being true, you don't get any credit at all for that. Like, you don't get credit for being right because you ended up like guessing a bunch of shit, and you know, broken clock, etc., etc., like no. [19]Hell, when RemTheBathBoi (literally neva eva wrong) absolutely annihilated Hasan during the “Great Streamer Drama Battle Royale”, he made similar points albeit focused more so on normative positions rather than descriptive ones. Fortunately, he wrote a post here that I can quote from:
Someone is morally lucky when they arrive at the correct position without any sort of critical thinking as to why it is correct.Remember: this post is a more focused on behaviour rather than the acuteness of the misinformation itself. Returning to the example, I didn’t link to them in my post, but as other users can confirm, OP had given this link-dump supposedly showing instances of Pallywood in several comments — and they hadn’t bothered to fact-check the links. I don’t care that at some point in time, Palestinians have staged a scene. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you take literally every tweet on the matter at face-value? Then, as Destiny mentioned above, if the conclusion ends up being correct, “you don't get any credit at all for that.”
Example 2 - Hamas and the billions
For the second example, points 1, 5 and 6 are relevant. Destiny also attempted to fact-check the claim. The post that my submission is based on is when I first saw an indication that we were going to have a problem in terms of critical engagement with articles. The evidence that Khaled Mashal was worth $5bn all came down to what was tweeted by various Twitter accounts affiliated with the Israeli government. These accounts, in their eagerness to win the information war, will sometimes post misinformation. For example, the IDF’s Twitter account posted some footage from the Iranian missile and drone attacks against Israel; however, for some stupid fucking reason, whoever edited the compilation included a decade old clip obviously unrelated to those attacks.Per point 1, it may actually be the case that Mashal is that wealthy — but the process by which people arrived there was deeply flawed. As mentioned, the criticism is better directed (point 6) to the mere fact that he is ostentatiously wealthy, and there’s no need to commit yourself to figures that lack robust verification. Think back to Destiny's remarks about Breonna Taylor. Do you really want your argument -- the fact that Mashal is a reprehensible person who languishes in comfort while Palestinians suffer -- to be derailed?
Example 3 - Omar and the Armenian genocide
For the third example, points 2, 3, and 6 are relevant. The fact that Ilhan Omar denies the Armenian genocide is false, and OP omitted the rationale behind her vote, which leads to misplaced speculation on those who read the comment. Moreover, those who speculate won’t feel inclined to actually fact-check the comment as it is something that “feels right” based on their pre-existing beliefs on her. “Omar is a POS. This is a POS thing to do. It must be true.” Obviously, Omar is staunchly pro-Palestine, and she has an unsavoury history of making a series of controversial remarks about Israel [20] [21] [22], which many would argue rises to the level of blatant antisemitism. Regardless of whether or not you believe this is an accurate label, this is going to be the view held by many of the pro-Israel folk who come across OP’s comment, and that will influence the likelihood that they fall for misinformation. Curiously, despite addressing the comment when it had 60 upvotes, it continued to be upvoted. Finally, as I mentioned, the rationale for why she chose to vote in this manner can still be criticised, and that’s where the focus should be instead of relying on unsubstantiated claims.Example 4 - HRW
For the fourth example, points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are relevant. Clearly, no one read the article, and I have no doubt in my mind that I would have been one of the few here to actually click the article — which no one did as the claim was something that feels true, based on HRW’s long history in accusing Israel of human right’s violations. Per point 1, if HRW had accused Israel of committing a war crime over this, the article provided did not show this.This submission and comment is also an example of a charged topic: essentially, threads on highly contentious or egregious matters where emotions are running high, people are passionate, and there isn’t an immediate interest in calmly and rationally discussing the submission. The “nuance” tends to arrive several hours later.
Once again, the goal of this post is to incentivise more of a particular type of behaviour, not to say that said behaviour doesn’t exist anywhere in the subreddit or thread. In other words, the fact that the nuance is present further down in the thread, where someone links a Ryan McBeth video which offers some fair criticism, is good; all I’m saying is the good thing ought to happen sooner.
Headlines and outlets
Before I get to my next example, I need to talk about headlines. “NYT has been an utter travesty all the way through. Leading source of misinformation when it comes to Israel-Gaza.” If I asked you where that quote came from, you’d probably be tempted to say it was some pro-Israel individual or organization, rightfully irritated at the instances where NYT has dropped the ball in terms of their reporting — such as, quite infamously by now, their misreporting on who was responsible for the explosion at the al-Ahli hospital. The quote actually comes from Ryan Grim, an individual who, apparently, still believes that Israel was ultimately responsible for the aforementioned explosion.Whenever I see someone complaining about an NYT headline on some event in the I-P conflict, it’s basically a coins flip on whether or not the complaint is coming from a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine individual. It’s not only headlines, of course, the pro-Palestine complaints also include the language the NYT uses to describe violence from a particular side; which sources they choose to take direct quotes from; the disposition of their op-eds; and protests even flooded into the lobby of the NYT building earlier this year.
None of these complaints are exclusive to the NYT. BBC headlines will also catch their ire [23] [24]; it is the “most depraved genocidal propaganda rag in the world” (I think you can guess who that comes from without even clicking); they’re “absolute ghouls” because they didn’t mention who launched a particular drone strike in their headline; it was scandalous when they originally called Refaat Alareer (yes, that guy) a controversial writer; and so on.
Now, I’m not bringing this all up to make some galaxy-brained assessment where if it is the case that an outlet is receiving criticism from both sides in their coverage, then they must be doing something “right” — which is something the BBC themselves have mentioned is not the case. [25] The fact that the BBC receives a 50-50 split in complaints relating to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza war does not mean the complaints/criticisms are of equal merit. [26] [27]
What I merely wish to highlight here is that it can be challenging to comprehensively critique the coverage from an outlet if you’re not consuming their output on a daily basis, and thus you might only encounter instances where their reporting has been flawed. The BBC is not an outlet I regularly check for world news, and I’m not actively seeking out their reporting on I-P. I would imagine that also holds true for most of y’all.
BBC
You most likely heard about the BBC’s international editor acknowledging that his coverage of the al-Ahli hospital was “wrong” but that he doesn’t have regrets over the reporting — which is obviously a very foolish thing to say. It’s the sort of thing Israeli outlets are keen to report on, rightly so. You might hear about the Hamas official who stormed out of a BBC interview, which was similarly reported on by Israeli outlets.What you might not hear about is when the BBC’s editorial policy director acknowledged they made a mistake when their UK outlet did not cover South Africa’s ICJ case in a balanced manner, where Israel’s defence was broadcast in full, but only clips were shown from the opposite side as important domestic news took priority instead. Hypothetically, imagine if this was the other way around; you probably would hear about this as it would likely be reported on by some mainstream outlet, and perhaps even posted to a subreddit — not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Depending on what online spaces you inhabit, you might find that the negative qualities of an outlet’s coverage have been so overemphasised that you ultimately end with a distorted, inaccurate view on what their output truly looks like — and that’s going to influence how you might engage with aspects of their output when you encounter it in the future. It can lead to some very uncharitable readings on headlines, articles, content, interviews, etc., where there’s criticism to be made, but it’s made in the wrong direction. In some cases, however, we’re not dealing with uncharitable readings, we’re wrestling with sloppy work.
Traveling Israel
Traveling Israel is a staunchly pro-Israel channel, where the YouTuber has “butted heads” against Lonerbox on a few occasions [28] [29], but refuses to actually debate LB. I myself watched a video of TI a while ago, where he made a flawed analysis on a BBC headline. I will repost that comment:[Redacted because Reddit is silly. Just click the hyperlink.]
The fact of the matter is that most people who complain about some news outlet being "biased" are actually upset that the outlet is not biased enough to their side. These people also tend to focus on cherry-picking their examples, ignoring myriad examples where the coverage casts their side in a favourable light.I’ll amend the final paragraph here as saying “most” is too strong of a generalization, and my comment comes across as an indirect attack against those that are doing a worthy task in illustrating the egregious biases an outlet might have, such that some level of skepticism is warranted when it comes to original reporting. And, once again, for the reposted comment, remember point 1: If TI wishes to make the case that the BBC has the most anti-Israeli coverage in terms of international media, he’s more than welcome to do so, but the example he used to support his case is a poor one.
Click here for pain; also click here for part 2.
Alternatively, click here for a cute baby seal.2024.05.12 09:19 Alteredchaos 📢 Sunday News - a busy week with lots of announcements and updates
Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability green paper - PIP consultation
The government announced significant proposed changes to PIP and are now consulting on their proposal.
The consultation will be open for 12 weeks and you are invited to share your views. The findings of the consultation, which closes on Tuesday 23 July, will inform future reforms.
How to respond -
Read the 'Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability' green paper so you understand the proposed changes and then respond online via the form.
If you are unable to use the online form email [consultation.modernisingsupport@DWP.GOV.UK](mailto:consultation.modernisingsupport@DWP.GOV.UK) or respond by post, please mark your correspondence ‘Modernising Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper’ and send to:
Disability and Health Support Directorate Department for Work and Pensions Level 2 Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA
Work and Pensions Select Committee has called on the National Audit Office (NAO) to investigate problems with the carer's allowance system
Committee chair says investigation merited given the scale of the problem, the cost to the taxpayer of a system that fails to prevent or rectify overpayments, and the lack of progress being made to address the issue.
Last month, Carers UK called for the wholescale reform of carers' benefits - following reports of claimants who have earned above the earnings limit while claiming carer's allowance being pursued for large overpayments and, in some cases, prosecuted for fraud - and the government confirmed that the DWP has issued almost 100,000 civil penalties in respect of overpaid carer's allowance over the last four years amounting to almost £5 million.
With the Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee Stephen Timms having said in a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 April 2024 that the DWP has 'done nothing' to stop carers building up huge overpayments despite knowing what people are earning, he has now written to Gareth Davies, NAO Comptroller and Auditor General, to say -
DWP has confirmed that it plans to begin notifying employment and support (ESA) claimants of their move to universal credit in September 2024
Department says however that its delivery approach and timelines will be informed by detailed planning and engagement with stakeholders.
With the government having recently announced an acceleration of the 'Move to UC' for income-related ESA claimants, in the latest issue of its LA Welfare Direct newsletter the DWP says that, while its delivery approach and timelines will be informed by detailed planning and engagement with stakeholders -
Government has confirmed that the Work and Health Programme (WHP) will continue to be delivered until July 2026
Update follows news that the programme is being 'quietly scrapped' to be replaced by elements of the government's new Back to Work Plan.
While the WHP was originally scheduled to stop taking all referrals at the end of October 2022, the DWP extended the deadline for the Disability and Early Access Groups (people who may need support to move into employment and are in one of several priority groups, for example homeless, ex-armed forces, care leavers, and refugees) to autumn 2024.
However, reports in the media last month said that the programme is being 'quietly scrapped' - to be replaced by elements of the government's new Back to Work Plan including Restart - and Maximus, who deliver the WHP in parts of the country on behalf of the DWP, said that as a result of the ending of the programme -
Government announced the 15 areas that will trial its new WorkWell integrated health and work advice service from October 2024
Joint DWP and Department of Health and Social Care programme will connect almost 60,000 people to local support services so they can get the 'tailored help they need to stay in or return to work.'
As part of the government’s plan to get people with health conditions back to work - that also includes proposed changes to personal independence payment entitlement rules, reform of the fit note process, and boosting support programmes such as NHS Talking Therapies - the new £64 million WorkWell pilot will deliver -
Announcing the pilot areas in a written statement in Parliament, Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride said -
Lords Committee criticises ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous Administrative Earnings Threshold increases in light of new regulations that implement a further increase this month
A House of Lords Committee has criticised the ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous increases in the Administrative Earnings Limit (AET) in September 2022 and January 2023 in light of new regulations that implement a further increase of the threshold from 13 May 2024.
With the DWP having refused to delay or slow down the implementation of a third increase in the AET in universal credit this month - as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) to give the Department more time ‘to build the evidence base’ for the changes - the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords has drawn the new regulations to the 'special attention of the House' on the ground that -
DWP launches a new digital service to allow disabled people to apply for Access to Work grants online
Digitisation of process further modernises the programme and will make it easier to apply for help, says DWP Minister.
The DWP says that it is making the funding for help with workplace adjustments available through the gov.uk website for the first time as part of its wider commitment to improve the lives of disabled people in the workplace. The DWP adds that it anticipates that, as a result, the customer experience will be a lot easier and more efficient, with no difference in the information requested from the department.
Introducing the new service, Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Mims Davies, said -
For more information, see DWP's Access to Work applications go digital from gov.uk
DWP is undertaking research to explore options for enabling appointees to complete personal independence allowance (PIP) forms online
Evidence sought from local authorities, charities and support organisations to better understand appointees’ current processes and difficulties.
In the latest issue of its LA Welfare Direct newsletter, the DWP says -
LA Welfare Direct 5/2024 is available from gov.uk
Note: earlier this year, the DWP advised the Work and Pensions Committee as part of the Committee's inquiry into safeguarding vulnerable claimants, that it is building a digital solution to 'strengthen and improve' its appointee system.
While Restart Scheme provides tailored support for some participants it is less able to help those with physical or severe mental health conditions, the long-term unemployed and the more highly skilled
Evaluation of the scheme also reports mixed views about the value of mandatory participation, and presents clear evidence that the administrative process of mandation did not work effectively.
Launched in June 2021 with the aim of providing up to 12 months of support to people who are long-term unemployed to help them return to work, the Restart Scheme was established in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with £2.9 billion of funding announced in November 2020. However, this cost estimate was reduced to around £1.7 billion following the DWP's reassessment of expected demand for the programme to be around 0.7 million people, far lower than original projections.
The new report published on 9th May, The Evaluation of the Restart Scheme, sets out a wide range of evidence from surveys of participants and Restart providers, and case study research with Jobcentre Plus staff, participants, Restart providers, employers, and wider stakeholders.
Findings in relation to the effectiveness of the scheme and recommendations for future delivery of employment support include -
Participant outcomes
The report highlights that participants have achieved positive outcomes both in terms of sustainable employment outcomes and wider outcomes (including well-being, qualifications, proximity to the labour market and job-searching skills), with those with a more consistent work history, women, those with a child aged under 19, those with English as a second language and those with higher qualifications more likely to gain employment.
However, the report also finds that -
Among the report’s wider findings are that -
Going forward, the report sets out key lessons to be learnt from the research findings and issues that the DWP should give further consideration to, including -
Scotland - Scottish Parliament consents to UK Parliament legislating for DWP’s new powers to access claimants’ bank account data on its behalf
Social Justice Minister says providing legislative consent ‘allows us to maintain the Agency Agreements for the delivery of social security payments in Scotland and safeguard the important work that Social Security Scotland does’.
The Scottish Parliament has agreed that the UK Parliament can consider the social security bank spying measures within the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill on its behalf.
In preparation for a debate in the Scottish Parliament on a 'legislative consent motion' on the Bill - that provides (or refuses) consent for the UK Parliament to pass legislation on a devolved issue over which the devolved government has legislative authority - the Social Justice and Social Security Committee reported on the Scottish Government's position in relation to powers proposed by the Bill including the power to require information for social security purposes.
Note: Clause 131 and Schedule 11 of the Bill require third parties throughout the UK, such as banks, to provide information on accounts they hold linked to those in receipt of social security benefits.
The Committee confirmed that -
submitted by Alteredchaos to DWPhelp [link] [comments]
The government announced significant proposed changes to PIP and are now consulting on their proposal.
The consultation will be open for 12 weeks and you are invited to share your views. The findings of the consultation, which closes on Tuesday 23 July, will inform future reforms.
How to respond -
Read the 'Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability' green paper so you understand the proposed changes and then respond online via the form.
If you are unable to use the online form email [consultation.modernisingsupport@DWP.GOV.UK](mailto:consultation.modernisingsupport@DWP.GOV.UK) or respond by post, please mark your correspondence ‘Modernising Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper’ and send to:
Disability and Health Support Directorate Department for Work and Pensions Level 2 Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA
Work and Pensions Select Committee has called on the National Audit Office (NAO) to investigate problems with the carer's allowance system
Committee chair says investigation merited given the scale of the problem, the cost to the taxpayer of a system that fails to prevent or rectify overpayments, and the lack of progress being made to address the issue.
Last month, Carers UK called for the wholescale reform of carers' benefits - following reports of claimants who have earned above the earnings limit while claiming carer's allowance being pursued for large overpayments and, in some cases, prosecuted for fraud - and the government confirmed that the DWP has issued almost 100,000 civil penalties in respect of overpaid carer's allowance over the last four years amounting to almost £5 million.
With the Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee Stephen Timms having said in a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 April 2024 that the DWP has 'done nothing' to stop carers building up huge overpayments despite knowing what people are earning, he has now written to Gareth Davies, NAO Comptroller and Auditor General, to say -
'This year we have held two evidence-sessions on carer’s allowance, in part looking at progress made since the NAO’s 2019 investigation report into this matter and our predecessor’s report. That evidence, alongside correspondence last year with the Department and information provided in response to parliamentary questions (see, for example, recent PQ responses, UINs 23249, 23251, 23252 and 23253), has led the Committee to conclude that problems remain with carer’s allowance. We appreciate the NAO has limited resources, but we think a further investigation is merited, given the scale of the problem, the lack of progress made since 2019 and the cost to the taxpayer of a system that fails to prevent or rectify overpayments.'Mr Timms' letter to Gareth Davies, NAO Comptroller and Auditor General is available from parliament.uk
DWP has confirmed that it plans to begin notifying employment and support (ESA) claimants of their move to universal credit in September 2024
Department says however that its delivery approach and timelines will be informed by detailed planning and engagement with stakeholders.
With the government having recently announced an acceleration of the 'Move to UC' for income-related ESA claimants, in the latest issue of its LA Welfare Direct newsletter the DWP says that, while its delivery approach and timelines will be informed by detailed planning and engagement with stakeholders -
'... our current planning assumption is that we would begin notifying this group in September 2024, with the aim of notifying everyone to make the move by December 2025.'Note: the DWP also provided an update on its Move to UC communications campaign that launched in March 2024 -
'The campaign aims to tackle claimant fear and anxiety about moving to universal credit, using the headline ‘Keep things smooth by making the move to Universal Credit’. Advertising also signposts to www.gov.uk/ucmove, which is a new website containing supportive information, real life case studies and advice on how to prepare for the move.'LA Welfare Direct 5/2024 is available from gov.uk
Government has confirmed that the Work and Health Programme (WHP) will continue to be delivered until July 2026
Update follows news that the programme is being 'quietly scrapped' to be replaced by elements of the government's new Back to Work Plan.
While the WHP was originally scheduled to stop taking all referrals at the end of October 2022, the DWP extended the deadline for the Disability and Early Access Groups (people who may need support to move into employment and are in one of several priority groups, for example homeless, ex-armed forces, care leavers, and refugees) to autumn 2024.
However, reports in the media last month said that the programme is being 'quietly scrapped' - to be replaced by elements of the government's new Back to Work Plan including Restart - and Maximus, who deliver the WHP in parts of the country on behalf of the DWP, said that as a result of the ending of the programme -
'This is the first time for a long time that ... there is no specialist disability provision in place for people who require it, from November of this year.'However, responding to a parliamentary written question, Work and Pensions Minister Mims Davies confirmed that, while the DWP plans to deliver a range of other support to put in place an 'offer' to a broader range of disabled people -
'The Work and Health Programme will continue to be delivered until July 2026 [and] further announcements on the programme will be made in due course.'For more information, see Written question: Work and Health Programme from parliament.uk
Government announced the 15 areas that will trial its new WorkWell integrated health and work advice service from October 2024
Joint DWP and Department of Health and Social Care programme will connect almost 60,000 people to local support services so they can get the 'tailored help they need to stay in or return to work.'
As part of the government’s plan to get people with health conditions back to work - that also includes proposed changes to personal independence payment entitlement rules, reform of the fit note process, and boosting support programmes such as NHS Talking Therapies - the new £64 million WorkWell pilot will deliver -
'... joined-up work and health support [that] will connect 59,000 people ... to local support services including physiotherapy and counselling so they can get the tailored help they need to stay in or return to work.'Providing further details, the government confirmed that WorkWell is a voluntary service and that participants do not need to be claiming any government benefits. After self-referring, or being referred through their GP, employer or the community sector, people will receive personalised support from a Work and Health Coach to understand their current health and social barriers to work and draw up a plan to help overcome them. Work and Health Coaches will also -
- provide advice on workplace adjustments, such as flexible working or adaptive technology;
- facilitate conversations with employers on health needs; and
- provide access to local services such as physiotherapy, employment advice and counselling.
'The trailblazers will trial better ways of triaging, signposting, and supporting people looking to receive a fit note and will be used to test a transformed process to help prevent people with long-term health conditions falling out of work, including referral to support through their local WorkWell service.'The 15 pilot areas - that will each decide the exact support to be made available that’s best suited to the needs of their local area - are -
- Birmingham and Solihull
- Black Country
- Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire
- Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
- Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
- Coventry and Warwickshire
- Frimley
- Herefordshire and Worcestershire
- Greater Manchester
- Lancashire and South Cumbria
- Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland
- North Central London
- North West London
- South Yorkshire
- Surrey Heartlands
Announcing the pilot areas in a written statement in Parliament, Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride said -
'Good work is good for people’s physical and mental health, wellbeing and resilience. We want to make sure more people can reap these benefits by getting the timely health and employment advice and support they need to remain in work or return quickly... WorkWell will remove existing silos between work and health to improve work outcomes, for the benefit of individuals, communities and the economy... The reforms will be brought together by testing a new fit note process in some WorkWell pilot areas to offer better triage, signposting and support to those who need it. This will mean more people have easy and rapid access to specialised work and health support to help them stay in or get back to work. WorkWell has employment at its heart; integrating work and health services locally to improve health outcomes, reduce health disparities, and help people get timely access to the support they need to return to and remain in work.'For more information, see New £64 million plan to help people stay in work from gov.uk
Lords Committee criticises ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous Administrative Earnings Threshold increases in light of new regulations that implement a further increase this month
A House of Lords Committee has criticised the ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous increases in the Administrative Earnings Limit (AET) in September 2022 and January 2023 in light of new regulations that implement a further increase of the threshold from 13 May 2024.
With the DWP having refused to delay or slow down the implementation of a third increase in the AET in universal credit this month - as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) to give the Department more time ‘to build the evidence base’ for the changes - the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords has drawn the new regulations to the 'special attention of the House' on the ground that -
'… the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.'In particular, the Committee highlights that –
'At paragraph 5.24 of the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to this latest instrument, DWP states that evaluations of the previous increases to the AET are ‘currently ongoing.’ We find the lack of data inexplicable, since [the then Minister of Employment] Mr Opperman’s letter said that 'earnings increases will take around 6-9 months to materialise', and the two preceding instruments took effect in September 2022 and January 2023 respectively. We intend to seek oral evidence from the Minister on this point.'The Committee also restates the conclusion from its report on the January 2023 AET increase - that without proper evaluation of the impact of previous increases, further legislation is 'premature' - and adds that the SSAC's report on this third increase follows similar lines. For example, the Committee highlights the SSAC's recommendation that the Department needs to present more information about the impact of the changes on vulnerable claimants -
'While DWP states in its response to SSAC that there is guidance to inform work coaches of the available easements and support paths for all customers with complex circumstances, Parliament may wish to have information on how often these mechanisms have been used in the last two years. It would also be useful to have information on how many claimants have successfully increased their earnings and how many have ceased to claim universal credit or moved into sickness benefits.'The Committee adds that -
'We intend to seek oral evidence from the Minister to provide more information on the wider impacts of this initiative, better to inform the House.'For more information, see Drawn to the special attention of the House: Universal Credit (Administrative Earnings Threshold) (Amendment) Regulations) 2024 from parliament.uk
DWP launches a new digital service to allow disabled people to apply for Access to Work grants online
Digitisation of process further modernises the programme and will make it easier to apply for help, says DWP Minister.
The DWP says that it is making the funding for help with workplace adjustments available through the gov.uk website for the first time as part of its wider commitment to improve the lives of disabled people in the workplace. The DWP adds that it anticipates that, as a result, the customer experience will be a lot easier and more efficient, with no difference in the information requested from the department.
Introducing the new service, Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, Mims Davies, said -
'Access to Work helps thousands of disabled people and those returning to work who are sick by giving them and their employers the resources to help introduce suitable workplace adjustments. Digitisation of Access to Work further modernises the programme to make it easier to apply for grants or claim payments.'NB - this announcement on 8th May follows the government having recently confirmed that there were almost 30,000 people waiting for a decision on their Access to Work application in March 2024.
For more information, see DWP's Access to Work applications go digital from gov.uk
DWP is undertaking research to explore options for enabling appointees to complete personal independence allowance (PIP) forms online
Evidence sought from local authorities, charities and support organisations to better understand appointees’ current processes and difficulties.
In the latest issue of its LA Welfare Direct newsletter, the DWP says -
'We are ... looking to conduct some research to better understand appointees’ current processes and difficulties. The intention of this research is to inform future design of the online service. The research will include speaking to appointees from local authorities, charities, support organisations or similar; rather than those acting personally (for example, for a friend or relative). Therefore, if you have acted as an appointee for PIP in this capacity for one or more applicants within the past 12 months, then we would really appreciate talking to you.To help in collecting evidence, the Department has launched a PIP Appointees user research survey that is open until 31 May 2024.
LA Welfare Direct 5/2024 is available from gov.uk
Note: earlier this year, the DWP advised the Work and Pensions Committee as part of the Committee's inquiry into safeguarding vulnerable claimants, that it is building a digital solution to 'strengthen and improve' its appointee system.
While Restart Scheme provides tailored support for some participants it is less able to help those with physical or severe mental health conditions, the long-term unemployed and the more highly skilled
Evaluation of the scheme also reports mixed views about the value of mandatory participation, and presents clear evidence that the administrative process of mandation did not work effectively.
Launched in June 2021 with the aim of providing up to 12 months of support to people who are long-term unemployed to help them return to work, the Restart Scheme was established in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with £2.9 billion of funding announced in November 2020. However, this cost estimate was reduced to around £1.7 billion following the DWP's reassessment of expected demand for the programme to be around 0.7 million people, far lower than original projections.
The new report published on 9th May, The Evaluation of the Restart Scheme, sets out a wide range of evidence from surveys of participants and Restart providers, and case study research with Jobcentre Plus staff, participants, Restart providers, employers, and wider stakeholders.
Findings in relation to the effectiveness of the scheme and recommendations for future delivery of employment support include -
Participant outcomes
The report highlights that participants have achieved positive outcomes both in terms of sustainable employment outcomes and wider outcomes (including well-being, qualifications, proximity to the labour market and job-searching skills), with those with a more consistent work history, women, those with a child aged under 19, those with English as a second language and those with higher qualifications more likely to gain employment.
However, the report also finds that -
- those with health conditions or caring responsibilities (such as caring for someone with a health condition, disability, or an older person) are less likely to achieve an employment outcome;
- while nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of participants found the Scheme useful, findings from the survey suggest that participants with higher qualifications, those who had worked more since leaving school and the self-employed are less likely to find it useful; and
- while a greater proportion of Restart participants are in work than non-participants, similar proportions of participants and non-participants are claiming universal credit, suggesting that the outcomes achieved from participating in the programme are not always sufficient to move eligible participants off universal credit.
Among the report’s wider findings are that -
- referral volumes are generally lower than expected and participants are presenting with higher needs and more substantial barriers than anticipated;
- providers are concerned about what they see as high levels of ‘unsuitable’ referrals;
- the referral process generally works well after some initial challenges but there is some evidence of a lack of clarity on the part of both Jobcentre Plus and providers, particularly over which participants should be referred to which programme of support;
- participants’ relationship with their Restart Employment Advisor is a key determinant in participant experience, with poorer outcomes reported where they feel their needs are not understood, or that their advisor does not have the skills needed to help them;
- while there is some evidence of tailoring for individual participants - such as to help with childcare needs or for those with transport barriers - the scheme is less able to help those with physical health conditions or more severe mental health conditions, the longer-term unemployed (generally more than two years) and the more highly skilled;
- there is less evidence of providers designing or tailoring their support service in accordance with the local labour market;
- communication between Jobcentre Plus and providers is important in determining participant experience;
- there is mixed evidence on whether mandation is effective for encouraging engagement, with some providers and Jobcentre Plus seeing it as essential, while others are much less sure of its value; and
- there is clear evidence that the administrative process of mandation has not worked effectively, with providers not generally understanding the process, finding it time-consuming, and having to wait a long time for responses from Jobcentre Plus.
Going forward, the report sets out key lessons to be learnt from the research findings and issues that the DWP should give further consideration to, including -
- whether more targeted referral criteria in future programmes would allow for more effective support;
- how people with health needs are supported within future employment support provision;
- the effective management of the end-to-end mandation process;
- the effectiveness of Customer Service Standards and performance management to ensure future programmes deliver a minimum service standard to all participants;
- how guidance on referral criteria is communicated to Jobcentre Plus and providers;
- how the more highly skilled or those with specialist qualifications can be supported;
- sharing good practice in how to recruit, train, and retain Employment Advisors with providers; and
- how to encourage good communication between Jobcentre Plus and providers, and between providers and employers.
Scotland - Scottish Parliament consents to UK Parliament legislating for DWP’s new powers to access claimants’ bank account data on its behalf
Social Justice Minister says providing legislative consent ‘allows us to maintain the Agency Agreements for the delivery of social security payments in Scotland and safeguard the important work that Social Security Scotland does’.
The Scottish Parliament has agreed that the UK Parliament can consider the social security bank spying measures within the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill on its behalf.
In preparation for a debate in the Scottish Parliament on a 'legislative consent motion' on the Bill - that provides (or refuses) consent for the UK Parliament to pass legislation on a devolved issue over which the devolved government has legislative authority - the Social Justice and Social Security Committee reported on the Scottish Government's position in relation to powers proposed by the Bill including the power to require information for social security purposes.
Note: Clause 131 and Schedule 11 of the Bill require third parties throughout the UK, such as banks, to provide information on accounts they hold linked to those in receipt of social security benefits.
The Committee confirmed that -
'The Scottish Government is recommending legislative consent to the social security measures … because – the implications are 'theoretical' only and unlikely to be applied to devolved benefits; and if refusing consent led to DWP ending Agency Agreements that would put case transfer at risk.'In addition, the Committee set out the Scottish Government's reasons for considering the implications for devolved benefits as 'theoretical' -
- full rollout of the information-seeking powers will not occur until Agency Agreements for devolved benefits have ended; and
- the initial focus is on universal credit, with no intention to use the powers for devolved Agency Agreement benefits.
'... agreement with clause 131 of the bill, regarding the power to provide information for social security purposes, would allow us to maintain the Agency Agreements for the delivery of social security payments in Scotland and safeguard the important work that Social Security Scotland does.'Following the debate, MSPs agreed to pass the motion without a vote -
'That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 8 March 2023 and subsequently amended, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament should be considered by the UK Parliament.'The Official Report of the meeting of Parliament: 9 May 2024 is available from parliament.scot
2024.05.12 04:54 Tdavis002 My brother was thrown off the course today.
Wish I was posting this story acting as if I’m entirely shocked but I’m not. So I regularly golf with my twin brother and older brother. My older brother has of anger in all things he does. Today we had a 9 AM tee time in central PA. I anticipated the round would be sluggish because it rained the past few days and tomorrow is Mother’s Day. Therefore, everyone and their brother was out to play a round.
Needless to say my older brother plays the first two holes struggling, but nothing out of the ordinary for our skill range. By the third hole, he hears older ladies laughing on the first tee box that runs parallel to the first hole. Not at him, but just general morning conversation with others in their tee box. That pisses him off and he doesn’t finish that hole.
He proceeds to sit in his cart while my brother and I finish the hole. Unknown to us, he takes to google reviews to shit on the course about the wait time and being cart path only. We play through the front 9 and things seem to get better. When we get to the 11th hole, shit hits the fan.
A lady (the general manager) drive up to us and asks for my brothers name, which struck me as odd. She asked why he left that review and he muttered several remarks about pace of play. She then told him that his round was finished, and she would reimburse him for the back 9 but they didn’t want him at their privately owned course any longer. They continue a shouting match that I attempted to defuse telling him just to leave.
Hilariously he asked if he could just finish the round and amend his review if things got better by the end. My brother having seen him pull this in a softball league and other areas were not leaving with him after we paid our money to play. He told us after that we showed no support and is pissed off for not having back when he’s just expressing his freedom of speech. We told him he had that right but the golf course also had the right to deny him service based on those actions.
Apparently the police were called to the clubhouse and he ultimately went home. Fairly certain we are done playing with him all together. Has anyone ever witnessed anything crazy like this?
TLDR: my brother gave a 1 star google review while still playing the course and was thrown off the course by management.
submitted by Tdavis002 to golf [link] [comments]
Needless to say my older brother plays the first two holes struggling, but nothing out of the ordinary for our skill range. By the third hole, he hears older ladies laughing on the first tee box that runs parallel to the first hole. Not at him, but just general morning conversation with others in their tee box. That pisses him off and he doesn’t finish that hole.
He proceeds to sit in his cart while my brother and I finish the hole. Unknown to us, he takes to google reviews to shit on the course about the wait time and being cart path only. We play through the front 9 and things seem to get better. When we get to the 11th hole, shit hits the fan.
A lady (the general manager) drive up to us and asks for my brothers name, which struck me as odd. She asked why he left that review and he muttered several remarks about pace of play. She then told him that his round was finished, and she would reimburse him for the back 9 but they didn’t want him at their privately owned course any longer. They continue a shouting match that I attempted to defuse telling him just to leave.
Hilariously he asked if he could just finish the round and amend his review if things got better by the end. My brother having seen him pull this in a softball league and other areas were not leaving with him after we paid our money to play. He told us after that we showed no support and is pissed off for not having back when he’s just expressing his freedom of speech. We told him he had that right but the golf course also had the right to deny him service based on those actions.
Apparently the police were called to the clubhouse and he ultimately went home. Fairly certain we are done playing with him all together. Has anyone ever witnessed anything crazy like this?
TLDR: my brother gave a 1 star google review while still playing the course and was thrown off the course by management.
2024.05.12 01:55 Herban_Myth Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs another 20 bills into law. Here’s what to expect (Credit: Anthony Talcott)
 | Published by Anthony TalcottFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday signed another 20 bills into law that cover a variety of issues, including insurance, medical payments and sexual assault evidence.The new laws signed on Friday include: HB 215 — Risk Retention GroupsHouse Bill 215 lets motor vehicle coverage issued by a risk retention group (RRG) satisfy financial requirements under the state’s motor vehicle law.RRGs are a type of liability insurance company owned by its members. They usually let businesses with similar insurance needs pool their risks under state and federal laws. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 287 — TransportationHouse Bill 287 addresses several issues related to transportation in the state, primarily as it relates to FDOT and the DHSMV.For example, the law limits the amount of fuel tax revenues and motor vehicle license-related fees that can be spent on public transit projects. Other changes include the following: Requires the DHSMV to annually review major traffic law changes each year so that driving course content can be modified accordingly Motor vehicles used for the performance of work on an FDOT road/bridge project must be registered in compliance with state standards Amends provisions related to funding a fire station along the Alligator Alley toll road Amends provisions that a property owner’s right of first refusal for property that FDOT acquired but later determined is no longer needed for a transportation facility The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 437 — Anchoring Limitation AreasHouse Bill 437 expands on parts of Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County, which are designated as anchoring limitation areas.“Anchoring” refers to when boaters seek and use a safe harbor on a public waterway for an indefinite period using an anchor. Previously, Florida law designated certain areas that are densely populated with narrow waterways as “anchoring limitation areas.” When in these areas, people are prohibited from anchoring between a half-hour after sunset and a half-hour before sunrise. This law designates sections of Biscayne Bay between Palm Island and State Road A1A; and between San Marino Island and Di Lido Island as anchoring limitation areas. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 935 — Home Health Care ServicesHouse Bill 935 allows Medicaid to pay for home health services.According to Legislative analysts, this will be allowed if ordered by advanced practice registered nurses or physician assistants. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1065 — Substance Abuse TreatmentHouse Bill 1065 amends requirements for substance abuse treatment policies.For starters, the law prohibits a “recovery residence” — used in the treatment of substance abuse — from denying access solely on the basis that a person has been prescribed federally approved medication for the treatment of a substance abuse disorder. In addition, the law increases the number of residents whom a recovery residence administrator may actively manage at a given time from 100 to 150. The law also increases the timeframe for a certified recovery residence to find a new administrator if one is removed from 30 days to 90 days. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1083 — Permanency for ChildrenHouse Bill 1083 seeks to create a more efficient, less costly adoption process.According to analysts, the law streamlines the adoption process for orphaned children so long as they already know the prospective guardian. In addition, this law expands the criteria for Post-Secondary Education and Support (PESS), Aftercare, and Extended Guardianship and Adoption Assistance Programs, which aim to make it easier for those ages 18 - 23 to receive benefits as they transition out of foster care. The law also expands eligibility for adoption incentives and increases the award amounts. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1335 — Department of Business and Professional RegulationHouse Bill 1335 makes various changes regarding the DBPR and its policies.Applicants and licensees will be required to create and maintain an online account to communicate with the DBPR if they’re part of the tobacco, nicotine, alcohol, CPA, or elevator industries. Furthermore, the law removes certain requirements and provisions for practices like barbers, cosmetologists, pilots, specialty electrical contractors and asbestos abatement professionals. The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1503 — Citizens Property InsuranceHouse Bill 1503 makes certain changes to Citizens Property Insurance, including:Surplus Lines: Surplus line insurers meeting state standards may take out policies from Citizens issued on homes that aren’t primary residences or homesteaded properties. Flood Coverage: Citizens policyholders who must purchase flood insurance for coverage eligibility are required to buy only dwelling coverage for a flood loss — rather than dwelling and contents coverage. This rule took effect upon the bill’s signing. Combining Accounts: The law eliminates unnecessary statutory language now that Citizens has combined the Personal Lines Account, Commercial Lines Account and Coastal Account. Operations and Management: Citizens’ executive director may appoint a designee to act as the agency head, and Citizens can share information with the NICB to help fight insurance fraud. This law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1561 — Office Liposuction SurgeriesHouse Bill 1561 involves more restrictions on physicians offering liposuction services out of their offices.Currently, physicians are required to register their offices with the Department of Health if they’re performing liposuction procedures under certain conditions. Under this law, they will have to register regardless of whether the fat is temporarily or permanently removed. Furthermore, fines are increased to $5,000 each time a physician performs such a procedure in an office that isn’t registered with the DOH. Previously, the fine was set at $5,000 per day, so the change will allow the DOH to go after physicians who violate the law several times within the same day. The law went into effect upon being signed. HB 1557 — Department of Environmental ProtectionHouse Bill 1557 makes several changes involving the DEP, including:Requires each water management district (WMD) to develop rules by the end of 2025 to promote the reuse of reclaimed water Expands the types of projects undertaken by local governments that can be awarded funding by the Resilient Florida Grant Program. Requires the DEP to work on maintaining data on rising sea levels and statewide flood vulnerability The law goes into effect on July 1. HB 1611 — Insurance ChangesHouse Bill 1611 makes several changes to the state’s insurance rules, including:Data Reporting: Property insurers must report information to the OIR on a monthly basis rather than a quarterly one. Data must be reported based on ZIP code instead of county. Public Housing Authority: The maximum per-loss occurrence amount that a PHA self-insurance fund may retain is changed from $350,000 to an amount that the fund can withstand, so long as it meets sustainability criteria. Cancellation Prohibition: Surplus lines insurers’ ability to cancel or non-renew personal and commercial lines residential insurance polices because of unrepaired damage after a hurricane or wind-loss following a declared emergency is restricted. Hurricane Modeling: Insurers using the average of at least two models in their rate filing must use the same average model throughout the state. If using a weighted average instead, insurers must justify their decision with the OIR. Citizens Property Insurance: This law eliminates a provision that lets Citizens charge up to 50% above the established rate for policyholders whose coverage was provided by an insurer who was determined to be “unsound.” Roof Inspections: Roofing contractors are added to the list of authorized inspectors whom an insurer can approve to inspect a roof. This law goes into effect on July 1. HB 7089 — Transparency in Health and Human ServicesHouse Bill 7089 sets standards for medical billing to increase price transparency.First, the law requires hospitals to publish the costs of 300 or more “shoppable services” or provide an online resource that meets federal guidelines. In addition, hospitals will be required to set up an internal process for patient billing disputes. “Hospitals and (Ambulatory Surgical Centers) must disclose when an insured patient’s cost-sharing amount exceeds a non-insured person’s cash price or pay a maximum fine of $500 per incident,” the Legislative analysis reads. “The bill requires hospitals and ASCs to provide each patient with an estimate and requires health plans to provide an advanced explanation of benefits on certain timelines.” Alongside these rules, the law prohibits hospitals from filing an “extraordinary collection action” for medical debt, and a three-year statute of limitation period for medical debt collection will be implemented on the day that the hospital refers the debt to a third party. The law also exempts up to $10,000 of a debtor’s property from garnishment or other legal actions by a hospital to recover medical debt. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 168 — Congenital Cytomegalovirus ScreeningsSenate Bill 168 amends state statutes regarding newborn health screening requirements.Under this law, all newborns born under 35 weeks and requiring cardiac care in a hospital with neonatal intensive care services must be tested for Cytomegalovirus (CMV). CMB is a common virus, though a healthy immune system typically keeps it from making people sick. However, some babies with a congenital CMV infection can have health problems that are apparent at birth and which can result in death. The law also requires that CMV screening and medically necessary follow-up reevaluations that lead to a diagnosis are covered for Medicaid patients. In addition, children diagnosed with CMV must be referred to a primary care physician and the Children’s Medical Services Early Intervention Program for management of the condition. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 186 — Neurodegenerative DiseasesSenate Bill 186 requires the state’s Surgeon General to establish a policy committee for progressive supranuclear palsy and other neurodegenerative diseases.The committee is aimed at identifying the impact of these diseases on Floridians while providing recommendations to improve awareness, detection and outcomes. Members of the committee must be appointed by Sept. 1, and the initial meeting must be held by Oct. 1. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 364 — Public Service Commission RulesSenate Bill 364 amends state statutes regarding rulemaking by the Public Service Commission.Under this law, rules about the Florida Public Service Regulatory Trust Fund and assessment fees charged to Florida utilities can be adopted by the PSC without being subject to potential ratification under state law. The law went into effect upon being signed. SB 366 — Gas Safety Law of 1967Senate Bill 366 revises the maximum civil penalties for violating Florida’s Gas Safety Law of 1967.Under SB 366, maximum penalties are increased from $25,000 to $266,015 for each violation for each day that a violation persists. This can reach over $2.6 million in total for any related series of violations. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 532 — SecuritiesSenate Bill 532 amends the Securities and Investor Protection Act.Many of the changes are aimed at improving investor protection through the Securities Guaranty Fund and providing more opportunities for investment within the state. According to Legislative analysts, the changes were recommended by a Florida task force that was aimed at increasing the ability of small businesses in the state to raise capital. There were also several small changes regarding business financing provisions that were made to be consistent with recent federal rules. The law goes into effect on Oct. 1. SB 764 — Retention of Sexual Offense EvidenceSenate Bill 764 amends state statutes to specify the standards for storing sexual assault evidence kits (SAKs).SAKs must be retained for a minimum of 50 years if they are collected from alleged victims who: do not report the sexual offense to law enforcement during the forensic physical exam do not ask to have the evidence tested In addition, the medical facility or certified rape crisis center that collected the SAK must transfer the kit to the FDLE within 30 days of collection. The FDLE must then store the evidence anonymously with a documented chain of custody. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 998 — Liquefied Petroleum GasSenate Bill 998 makes several changes regarding liquefied petroleum (LP) gas.Many of these changes are regulatory and aimed at ensuring proper handling and storage of LP. The law goes into effect on July 1. SB 1380 — Disability Transportation ServicesSenate Bill 1380 involves special transportation services geared for those with disabilities.The law revises the duties of FDOT regarding requirements in its grants and agreements with firms that provide paratransit services. For example, the law requires that such providers: offer both pre-booking and on-demand service to paratransit service users establish reasonable time periods between a trip request and arrival, best practices for limiting travel times, and transparency about service quality offer specific technology-based ride booking and vehicle tracking services in accessible formats provide training to each paratransit driver for the professional development of staff providing direct services The law goes into effect on July 1. |
2024.05.11 20:17 Majormuss OCR Complaints
I have spent the past three years trying to get OCR to open an investigation into my case, only to be met with negligence and apathy by the agency. As you know, OCR generally has two deadlines:
So, I needed to justify the five-month lateness and I duly did so by explaining that I had crippling emotional distress during the first year after my dismissal from the graduate program. I provided evidence that I had tried repeatedly to write my complaint within the first six months but because of the incapacitating distress, my progress faltered and so it took me an additional five months to overcome the symptoms and file the internal complaint.
OCR dismissed the first case in March 2022, writing that "mental health issues" do not warrant waivers which was untrue because the OCR manual itself explicitly states that incapacitating health circumstances do warrant waivers.
I filed a second case in March 2022, providing further context for "lateness (1)." OCR made me wait a year and half and then dismissed the second case but this time not for "lateness (1)," but for "lateness (2)." I was incredulous! They rejected my second case because I had not filed it within the first sixty days after the university's process ended. They ignored the fact that OCR rules would not have allowed me to file the second case within 60 days of October 2021 because my first case was still active back then. Thus, OCR unfairly manufactured a reason to reject my case after making me wait 18 miserable months.
In short, their behavior has destroyed me and I am beyond despair. I composed a document highlighting the injustice of OCR's handling of my case for the past 2 1/2 years and filed a third case six months ago. I also secured sworn expert testimony from a psychologist attesting to the severity of the crippling symptoms that had caused lateness #1. I shared everything with OCR over six months ago and still the wait continues and I am falling apart. I have lost three years of my life because of the terrible behavior of OCR and it's just killing me. I cannot afford a lawyer and so court litigation is out of the question and besides given that it's been over three years since the events of the case occurred, the statute of limitations has hopelessly expired as well. Therefore, my only possible option is to stick with OCR and I'm begging for some help and want to know if there are other people who've experienced something similar.
Here is an analogy to clarify the injustice. Imagine you filed your taxes on April 15th and the IRS told you you had until December to amend your taxes and get your refund but then the IRS did not finish processing your taxes until February the next year, by which time the amends period has already expired. Thus, the IRS never gave you a chance to make the appropriate amendment to your taxes so you get nothing.
submitted by Majormuss to GradSchool [link] [comments]
- You must file an internal complaint (within the institution) within the first 180 days after the alleged discrimination.
- if you are unhappy with the outcome of the internal complaint, you must file your OCR case within 60 days of the conclusion of the internal complaint.
So, I needed to justify the five-month lateness and I duly did so by explaining that I had crippling emotional distress during the first year after my dismissal from the graduate program. I provided evidence that I had tried repeatedly to write my complaint within the first six months but because of the incapacitating distress, my progress faltered and so it took me an additional five months to overcome the symptoms and file the internal complaint.
OCR dismissed the first case in March 2022, writing that "mental health issues" do not warrant waivers which was untrue because the OCR manual itself explicitly states that incapacitating health circumstances do warrant waivers.
I filed a second case in March 2022, providing further context for "lateness (1)." OCR made me wait a year and half and then dismissed the second case but this time not for "lateness (1)," but for "lateness (2)." I was incredulous! They rejected my second case because I had not filed it within the first sixty days after the university's process ended. They ignored the fact that OCR rules would not have allowed me to file the second case within 60 days of October 2021 because my first case was still active back then. Thus, OCR unfairly manufactured a reason to reject my case after making me wait 18 miserable months.
In short, their behavior has destroyed me and I am beyond despair. I composed a document highlighting the injustice of OCR's handling of my case for the past 2 1/2 years and filed a third case six months ago. I also secured sworn expert testimony from a psychologist attesting to the severity of the crippling symptoms that had caused lateness #1. I shared everything with OCR over six months ago and still the wait continues and I am falling apart. I have lost three years of my life because of the terrible behavior of OCR and it's just killing me. I cannot afford a lawyer and so court litigation is out of the question and besides given that it's been over three years since the events of the case occurred, the statute of limitations has hopelessly expired as well. Therefore, my only possible option is to stick with OCR and I'm begging for some help and want to know if there are other people who've experienced something similar.
Here is an analogy to clarify the injustice. Imagine you filed your taxes on April 15th and the IRS told you you had until December to amend your taxes and get your refund but then the IRS did not finish processing your taxes until February the next year, by which time the amends period has already expired. Thus, the IRS never gave you a chance to make the appropriate amendment to your taxes so you get nothing.
2024.05.11 19:40 Emergency-General-44 Keep your passwords safe! Fight dissinformation around Urvins ComputerShare implementation
 | Jump to the TL;DR if you aren't in for analogies I'll try to summarize and address some of the concerns I've seen around. submitted by Emergency-General-44 to GME [link] [comments] Q: Is Urvin handling our passwords securely? A: Depends on your level of trust. Let's talk first about brokers and Computershare. In this saga, I believe many of us have learned that there is a key difference. ComputerShare is trusted by GameStop shareholders because it does not have a clause in which if they go bankrupt, your shares might get sold. Don't get me wrong. Broker shares don't disappear. Usually, But here is the personal question for all: Do you want to risk it? What's your risk tolerance? Would you go through the time and pain of DRSing? (yes, it's not that hard for some, but it's still a barrier. And we know that has prevented some from doing it) The general consensus? Do not trust brokers with your shares What about crypto? Not your keys, not your coins! (Basically do not trust the broker fully) From a cybersecurity point of view, introducing more parties that handle information is a threat. It introduces more "attack surface". How does that relate to the ComputerShare integration they have? Well to connect securely, you need to log in through ComputerShare and the suggested kind of authentication flow is called oAuth. Usually opens a pop-up of the service you need to log in. That way you do not hand-over your credentials to someone to operate with, but directly to the service necessary. It proves to Urvin you are the owner of the account and the service (ComputerShare) would share with them details about your position and name (f.ex.) but will not share with them your account/password. What does Urvin use instead? MX.com It's another service that you give your account and password to, for them to access your information and pass on to Urvin. It introduces a middleman. Why has it been done like that? ComputerShare does not offer OAuth. Additionally in their terms of service they have written that you agree to not let anyone collect and aggregate your account information. Using a service like that threatens the termination of your investorcenter account (I don't know what that means or what happens to your shares. They are probably fine but you would be unable to use the web portal?) OAuth flow to log-in with Google to \"yourwebsite.com\" (we need one like this from ComputerShare, to allow users to log-in on Urvin) ComputerShare has been very receptive to suggestions. If you want a 3rd party solution like that of dlauer to have secure access, then ask them! https://www.computershare.com/hk/en/send-us-suggestion These things take time, so I wouldn't expect it to happen soon. But for me, the risk outweighs the benefit of a shareholder community and I will patiently wait for them to implement a different way to do things. I don't know what the termination of your account means to your share in case you are found to break their ToS, but if we want to see a service like this, we need to ask them to amend their ToS to allow for developers access to their API. IMO. Anyone skeptic about this situation is right. The introduction of a third-party in authenticating is not worrying, but it does not sit well with what the community has uncovered about brokers. Anyone saying that this is fine is right also. MX is used by big players and (hopefully) are not easily compromisable. However attacking Dlauer and Urvin, or brushing off others opinions and thinking their view is correct is narrow-visioned and should try to be more understanding of others concerns and opinions. EDIT: Formatting and styling TL;DR Urvin uses a third-party to handle user credentials when logging-in ComputerShare. If you trust brokers to handle your shares, you may as well trust someone else to handle your ComputerShare access. But it brings another layer of uncertainty and until ComputerShare offers OAuth, I would personally stay away. |
2024.05.11 16:50 The-Garden-Salsa Excluded from will via deathbed codicil witnessed only by family members.
Hello,
My Grandmother passed back in August 2021. Her will originally had designated that her estate be divided amongst her children. My father unfortunately passed several years prior to her, however she never made any adjustments to the will and the portion of the estate that was to go to him. Instead, it was to pass to his heirs, my brother and I.
On her death bed, she supposedly wrote a codicil to amend her will and designate my father's widow (not my mother) as the beneficiary in our place, cutting us out of the will entirely. I have a picture of the handwritten codicil, and it was witnessed only by family, two of which were direct beneficiaries and one of whom was married to one of the beneficiaries. We were quoted with Section 72-2-525, MCA, however that seems to imply the signing of a will. Does that include Codicils to said will, or are they distinct from one another?
At the time, we were told that this was perfectly legal in Montana, but it always rubbed me wrong and I didn't want to try to stir up a bunch of drama in the wake of our grandmother's loss.
However, as time has gone on, there's been a lot more suspicious behavior and I'm starting to wonder if what they did was actually legal. Does Montana allow for wills to be amended by individuals directly benefitting the will, without any sort of third party witness? Her original will also stated, and I quote, "I intentionally make no provision for any relative, heir, or beneficiary except as is provided explicitly herein."
I'm not sure how far reaching a codicil can be, and if altering any and all terms of the will are legal. Something just seems really fishy to me about this whole situation, and I'm starting to wonder if we were maliciously cut out from the will against our Grandmother's will. When our father originally passed, our step mother also took everything and my brother and I were left out of the will there as well.
Thank you for your time. I can provide more information if necessary. This all took place in the state of Montana, for reference.
submitted by The-Garden-Salsa to legaladvice [link] [comments]
My Grandmother passed back in August 2021. Her will originally had designated that her estate be divided amongst her children. My father unfortunately passed several years prior to her, however she never made any adjustments to the will and the portion of the estate that was to go to him. Instead, it was to pass to his heirs, my brother and I.
On her death bed, she supposedly wrote a codicil to amend her will and designate my father's widow (not my mother) as the beneficiary in our place, cutting us out of the will entirely. I have a picture of the handwritten codicil, and it was witnessed only by family, two of which were direct beneficiaries and one of whom was married to one of the beneficiaries. We were quoted with Section 72-2-525, MCA, however that seems to imply the signing of a will. Does that include Codicils to said will, or are they distinct from one another?
At the time, we were told that this was perfectly legal in Montana, but it always rubbed me wrong and I didn't want to try to stir up a bunch of drama in the wake of our grandmother's loss.
However, as time has gone on, there's been a lot more suspicious behavior and I'm starting to wonder if what they did was actually legal. Does Montana allow for wills to be amended by individuals directly benefitting the will, without any sort of third party witness? Her original will also stated, and I quote, "I intentionally make no provision for any relative, heir, or beneficiary except as is provided explicitly herein."
I'm not sure how far reaching a codicil can be, and if altering any and all terms of the will are legal. Something just seems really fishy to me about this whole situation, and I'm starting to wonder if we were maliciously cut out from the will against our Grandmother's will. When our father originally passed, our step mother also took everything and my brother and I were left out of the will there as well.
Thank you for your time. I can provide more information if necessary. This all took place in the state of Montana, for reference.
2024.05.11 14:13 zeaqqk Lucky Tran on Twitter: "This North Carolina bill is ridiculous. It justifies punishing protestors for blocking emergency vehicles, yet bans wearing masks for health reasons. This bill is dangerously anti-public health and restricts people's ability to protest and exercise their First Amendment right
 | submitted by zeaqqk to COVID19_Pandemic [link] [comments] |
2024.05.11 11:07 LeonTh3Champion Runic Island Lore?
*rises from floor* ... I'm okay.
Followin up my previous post about the Battlepass, there is more to be said! So much potential lore already in the works! Oh how this excites me.
Let's get thinkin, shall we? Strap in, this it'll be a long post.
From this text, this is the lore behind the Runic Island's creation. Which does put into perspective on what it actually is and fleshes out the lore in ways I didn't even think was possible.
https://preview.redd.it/2u74wepifrzc1.jpg?width=899&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=469964a5efefc58f908396547f07c5a2e32ada27
Perhaps this is Verdrok making this place as to honor those that fell in the war, as if to make amends for the amount of bloodshed and suffering the war had caused. It is the Doodle that represents Reality.
The line
Now let's look at the other lines from this mysterious entity (Who I believe to be Verdrok since it was heavily involved in the war)
This entity seems not to create more hostility and pain but only wants to preserve history and honor what was loss. Which I believe to be Verdrok (Like please be more lore relevant you are the winner of the war why are you not mentioned more)
And the last line.
There are so much things possibly going to be said in this Runic Island substory. And I'm going to track down every last bit of it once it releases.
submitted by LeonTh3Champion to DoodleWorldRBLX [link] [comments]
Followin up my previous post about the Battlepass, there is more to be said! So much potential lore already in the works! Oh how this excites me.
Let's get thinkin, shall we? Strap in, this it'll be a long post.
From this text, this is the lore behind the Runic Island's creation. Which does put into perspective on what it actually is and fleshes out the lore in ways I didn't even think was possible.
https://preview.redd.it/2u74wepifrzc1.jpg?width=899&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=469964a5efefc58f908396547f07c5a2e32ada27
Perhaps this is Verdrok making this place as to honor those that fell in the war, as if to make amends for the amount of bloodshed and suffering the war had caused. It is the Doodle that represents Reality.
The line
"The Doodles themselves... simulacrums. My special magic. They are recreations of Doodles that went extinct as a result of the war. For all intents and purposes, they are living and breathing beings."This line alone confirms and clears up so many things. First of all, Doodles are confirmed to be living and breathing beings and not just paper that move. Second of all, whoever this... being that created these simulacrums, which means "an image or representation of someone or something" and "an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute" Thirdly, they were recreated which explains why they can be extinct and still be around.
Now let's look at the other lines from this mysterious entity (Who I believe to be Verdrok since it was heavily involved in the war)
"So much wanton loss of life. We need to honor the fallen. A snap shot, no, a recreation if you will. It will be called the Runic Islands."This line confirms that whoever this is, is tied to the war, like I just said. Especially since a lot of people were lost or killed during the war all that time ago. (Which y'know if Joseph does end up releasing Somniere, another war could be unleashed which... is bad if you couldn't tell.)
"We can't bring the deceased back to life. But we can preserve their memory. They shall be made into stone guardians. These stone guardians will forever guard this idealistic paradise."This line goes with the motif of loss that DW has been setting up, like I've been saying time and time again that Charles is trying to bring back Rebecca since her death is constantly mentioned. And with how even this entity can't even bring people back, only being able to preserve their memory. Which puts in how tragic the Runic Islands truly are, like this isn't just some random place disconnected to the main plot but actually tells the history of it. The echos of war and how this place was made to honor what was loss.
"But what about the items they possessed? They shall be given out to anyone who can prove their mettle. It is better they are used. The runestones... created from the power of fallen Doodles."Goddamn- Okay first of all, this tells us that the person who made the island made the guardians give out items there as to not to be left to rot. As if giving purpose to the place. Second of all... so the energy from Runestones is essentially dead Doodles- goddamn. I thought they simply got their power sealed away, but I suppose there would be doodles that fall during the war and those survived simply got their power repressed. Like Portia is using soul energy to create artificial runestones. Which is so fucking dark.
This entity seems not to create more hostility and pain but only wants to preserve history and honor what was loss. Which I believe to be Verdrok (Like please be more lore relevant you are the winner of the war why are you not mentioned more)
And the last line.
"The one thing I don't understand. Why do the islands shift around? That wasn't my idea. I'm afraid. Something is trying to steal my islands."With the mention of a mysterious force teleporting you back every time you end your run, it's seems like that entity and the one who created the Runic Islands are two separate enitites.
There are so much things possibly going to be said in this Runic Island substory. And I'm going to track down every last bit of it once it releases.
2024.05.11 02:50 ddgr815 Michigan green amendment would make clean air and water a right
A proposed state constitutional amendment introduced in the Michigan House in April would put the right to clean air, water, soil and a stable climate on par with other fundamental liberties like the freedoms of speech and religion.
The Michigan Green Amendment, introduced by Rep. Rachel Hood (D-Grand Rapids), follows the passage of amendments in Pennsylvania, Montana and New York that have been used to fight environmental threats like PFAS contamination and hydraulic fracking in residential neighborhoods. More than a dozen other states are also considering such amendments.
“The goal is to make sure that our government is making better decisions so that our fundamental rights are protected,” Maya K. van Rossum, founder of the nonprofit Green Amendments For the Generations, told Planet Detroit. The amendment could offer legal recourse for residents whose right to a healthy environment is infringed upon and protect state laws from federal environmental rollbacks.
Pennsylvania’s green amendment has helped environmental advocates secure important victories in recent years. Although the state's Environmental Rights Amendment was enacted in 1971, it didn't have much impact until 2013, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cited the amendment in its decision to overturn a requirement that municipalities allow oil and gas developments in all zoning areas.
In 2018, former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf referred to the amendment in an executive order creating the state's PFAS action team, which was followed by the state setting limits on two common types of PFAS in drinking water.
Pursuing green amendments at the state level could be far easier to pass than a federal constitutional amendment and win substantial protections for residents, van Rossum said.
"When it comes to environmental protection, states have a tremendous amount of authority," she said. Indeed, on issues like regulating PFAS chemicals and addressing vehicle emissions, states often lead the way in adopting stricter environmental protections.
Green amendment advocates argue that the approach establishes a framework integrated into state policymaking, protecting residents from environmental threats and preventing problems before they arise, as opposed to passing laws against individual environmental threats.
Washington state Rep. Debra Lekanoff (D) previously said an amendment would ensure that “every environmental policy that you build (in) Washington state, every regulation, everything you build across the state, every fiscal note you invest in Washington state is adequately providing the healthy environment."
However, some have argued that green amendments could lead to litigation that blocks essential projects. The New Mexico Legislature’s Legislative Finance Committee said in a 2023 report that a green amendment could potentially be used as a "roadblock to pursuing clean energy projects as part of New Mexico’s renewable energy transition," and that, "the legal uncertainty the amendment could create might result in costly litigation that could impact the financial feasibility of certain energy projects."
In response, van Rossum said New Mexico's proposed amendment could actually help clean energy projects defend against legal challenges because of the clause requiring the state to safeguard a stable climate.
She has also argued that green amendments could protect states from rollbacks in federal regulations. The prospect of a second Trump presidency could give this argument more urgency as the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations advocate for shrinking the Environmental Protection Agency and directing its focus away from the climate crisis.
States frequently pass constitutional amendments. The last amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1992, whereas Michigan passed three in 2022 alone.
In Michigan, a constitutional amendment can be passed either by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the legislature, at a constitutional convention or with a ballot initiative.
Passing such a measure with a ballot initiative may be more likely given the closely divided legislature.
But van Rossum said that, for now, the important thing was to educate lawmakers and voters about what such an amendment would mean, which could also lead to a push for a federal amendment.
"Going state by state by state gets us critical protections in the near term and also allows us to undertake the education and the organizing needed to ultimately succeed at the federal level," she said.
submitted by ddgr815 to Michigan [link] [comments]
The Michigan Green Amendment, introduced by Rep. Rachel Hood (D-Grand Rapids), follows the passage of amendments in Pennsylvania, Montana and New York that have been used to fight environmental threats like PFAS contamination and hydraulic fracking in residential neighborhoods. More than a dozen other states are also considering such amendments.
“The goal is to make sure that our government is making better decisions so that our fundamental rights are protected,” Maya K. van Rossum, founder of the nonprofit Green Amendments For the Generations, told Planet Detroit. The amendment could offer legal recourse for residents whose right to a healthy environment is infringed upon and protect state laws from federal environmental rollbacks.
Pennsylvania’s green amendment has helped environmental advocates secure important victories in recent years. Although the state's Environmental Rights Amendment was enacted in 1971, it didn't have much impact until 2013, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cited the amendment in its decision to overturn a requirement that municipalities allow oil and gas developments in all zoning areas.
In 2018, former Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf referred to the amendment in an executive order creating the state's PFAS action team, which was followed by the state setting limits on two common types of PFAS in drinking water.
Pursuing green amendments at the state level could be far easier to pass than a federal constitutional amendment and win substantial protections for residents, van Rossum said.
"When it comes to environmental protection, states have a tremendous amount of authority," she said. Indeed, on issues like regulating PFAS chemicals and addressing vehicle emissions, states often lead the way in adopting stricter environmental protections.
Green amendment advocates argue that the approach establishes a framework integrated into state policymaking, protecting residents from environmental threats and preventing problems before they arise, as opposed to passing laws against individual environmental threats.
Washington state Rep. Debra Lekanoff (D) previously said an amendment would ensure that “every environmental policy that you build (in) Washington state, every regulation, everything you build across the state, every fiscal note you invest in Washington state is adequately providing the healthy environment."
However, some have argued that green amendments could lead to litigation that blocks essential projects. The New Mexico Legislature’s Legislative Finance Committee said in a 2023 report that a green amendment could potentially be used as a "roadblock to pursuing clean energy projects as part of New Mexico’s renewable energy transition," and that, "the legal uncertainty the amendment could create might result in costly litigation that could impact the financial feasibility of certain energy projects."
In response, van Rossum said New Mexico's proposed amendment could actually help clean energy projects defend against legal challenges because of the clause requiring the state to safeguard a stable climate.
She has also argued that green amendments could protect states from rollbacks in federal regulations. The prospect of a second Trump presidency could give this argument more urgency as the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations advocate for shrinking the Environmental Protection Agency and directing its focus away from the climate crisis.
States frequently pass constitutional amendments. The last amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1992, whereas Michigan passed three in 2022 alone.
In Michigan, a constitutional amendment can be passed either by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the legislature, at a constitutional convention or with a ballot initiative.
Passing such a measure with a ballot initiative may be more likely given the closely divided legislature.
But van Rossum said that, for now, the important thing was to educate lawmakers and voters about what such an amendment would mean, which could also lead to a push for a federal amendment.
"Going state by state by state gets us critical protections in the near term and also allows us to undertake the education and the organizing needed to ultimately succeed at the federal level," she said.