Pretty sure I didn’t say that. Both parties ensure you work for the rich. They just do it differently. So not identical. Think of it like a choice of two roads. One southwest, and one southeast. They go to different places, but they both go south. So overall, it’s going to get warmer.

Oh, and asking a question that poses your incorrect interpretation, then calling it stupid… is really saying your interpretation is stupid. What’s the problem with just asking a clarifying question and skipping the insult? This isn’t reddit.

I guess whoosh. You just couldn’t get past the list to see the point.

It’s called a list. We are talking about an organization with a trillion $ budget. They do lots of disjointed things. And I threw a little humor in. I am such a terrible person, I know.

Thats the problem. You can go through all the pain to move to an alternative, but eventually it enshitifys too. You could go open source, but those solutions rarely have the polish to get the large quantity of users needed for niche communities. And most users won’t understand why they are better anyway. So it’s just a horrible cycle.

First, I vote. But here is a take… I have heard countless people say that if you support the nazi’s in anyway, you are a nazi. Ok, so the entire US government serves the purpose of enriching the wealthy, empowering other governments to commit genocide, countless war crimes (well before trump), keeping people poor, ensuring healthcare is always expensive, and enabling car rental companies to not have the car you reserved and be penalty free, while if you don’t show, you pay them. So by voting you are participating in that government, which means you are responsible for all that.
Seems like a neat trick they came up with when they started having votes. You think you have a say, but really it’s just an illusion.

My childhood heros were the cartoon heros of the 80’s. And they all turned out to be lieing to us the whole time. Saying things like “evil never wins”, “crime doesn’t pay”, and all that. They were really just trying to reduce the competition.

There was video from what looked like a body cam. It was out shortly after the incident. I believe the article had some as well. Needless to say, boiling water is not life threatening. How can it be argued that they feared for thier life.

Well, the trump doj has had a hard time get the grand jury to indicte. But that is just because they are trying to bring ridiculous cases and have incompetent lawyers. Lol. But I get what you are saying. I am saying the people on that grand jury need to ignore what they are being told and vote to indicte. The story was big enough that they couldn’t have been unaware of it before they were picked. But yes, our legal system is a joke.

I would love to put all the blame on the police… but the frand jury refused to indite? Who the hell were those people? What is wrong with them. Ignore the judges “instructions”. Vote to indite. These things won’t stop until you stand up for what is right.

Do you need an image circling the second question? How does “on the epstien files” change the explicit question from what it says to be about are the people in the files guilty?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Failure to look deeper then what you expected to see is why these problems with terminology and communication exist.

I see the problem here. Read the original post. Like click on the picture. The post is about journalist making up thier own terminology which in their opinion is to intentionally minimize the criminality of the actions. It is really complaining about the reporting, not the crimes themselves. It bigger than just the epstein files. And it is rampant in all reporting on rape cases.
So why do they do it? In large part, because of the lack of agreed upon terminology, they have to make up terms that are less serious to avoid getting sued for implying crimes that didn’t actually take place.

Oh gotcha. My obscure point there was intended to be that if it is all called rape, but in some places, some of those thing categorized as rape aren’t illegal or even abnormal (child marriages for example). Then when people here rape their first thought will be “what sort of rape”. Better terminology can change that first thought to “what a bastard” in more minds for more cases.

Yeah, but that law depends on the local jurisdiction. In the us, by state

The post litterally contained “why is the press inventing the term…” I mean it is right there inviting a terminology discussion. But also, the lack of proper termonology has given defenders of rape an argument to distract from the crime. I want that taken away, and I want it clear what they did so people don’t just wave their hands and say… “but was it really”…

The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don’t have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don’t automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn’t want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.

Removed by mod

Also… I would argue many 18 year olds aren’t mature enough for a lot of decisions. Yet magically, convincing one to have sex is no longer a crime. The brain doesn’t finish developing until the early 20’s. I a, not saying the age of consent should be 21, just that it’s a nuance our terminology and laws don’t cover well.

I disagree. Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.

True, but better terminology would still help ensure proper punishments. Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.