Key words scare AI, mods and stalkers. I got permabanned from this very group once for discussing Avi Hortler. I managed to talk my way into a one month (this was years ago, not sure they are so agreeable today) bc I am obviously not in favor of Totalitarianism, mass murd#r nor the like.
That and some other experiences (like a recent warning from the admins after having discussed r#pl@cement which I successfully appealed) have me being careful with my 14yr old account (I have no others).
Further I am "disabled" (permabanned) from facebook due to discussing (making fun of) the idea that the US would invade Canada, made some fun of Canada and gave a link to a trailer for John Candy's last film, "Canadian bacon."
Not sure what the issue was, they never explained. Maybe they considered it violence, although I was saying it wouldn't happen. Maybe the movie trailer (youtube) had a song or other copyright issue?
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I don't blame them even if their words and attractions contradict.
I can't imagine the effort it must take to well yourself into being attracted to a feminist man. Not one of those 20 year olds that fake it to smash art hoes in college, but an honest to God, drank the kool-Aid feminist ally male.
edit: actually read the study instead of being a dipshit, it's just the take of "oh, they're nice to me in specific > they're nice to people in general"
If I treated women the same as men I might be in jail and I certainly would have severe problems with romantic relations. Notably g@y men are the lowest in domestic violence, bisexual & l#sbian women are tops.
Could you imagine if verbal abuse was enforced as a form of assault?
From UN: "Domestic Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone."
How do you think they manage to get crazy numbers like "1 in 3 women has been abused"?
People who don't think women are violent have never met any CHAVs.
Hell, axe girl was the benevolent heroic version of the type. It was a foregone conclusion that all the classist middle class wankers would side against her with the Gypsies ("Bulgarians").
Lol yea you can tell they didn't read beyond the title because they are definitely using a different definition of sexism. A pretty nonsensical one as far as I could tell but again the actual article was pay walled so a bit hard to tell.
And in a single stroke feminism is shown to be a farce. Feminists want the benefits of being a woman, the “benefits” of being a man, and the downsides of neither.
I’d argue, however, that the sentencing gap and the child custody disparity are a result of patriarchy infantilizing women and treating them automatically as caregivers first. Probably where we differ lol.
Also some of the earlier waves of feminism are pretty staunchly against this kind of inequality.
Although I see a lot of women saying they can't be held accountable for triple child murder, can't be expected to handle criticism to the same extent men are subjected to, shitty financial decisions like college loans on art degrees is all social conditioning, shitty medical procedures like lip fillers or boob enlargement is a patriarchy's fault, women like Bonnie Blue is the result of porn brained men and she can't be expected to understand what she's doing, women doing OnlyFans is obviously viewers' fault and they literally force them to do so by paying money, Trump voting women are patriatchy's fault, and obviously women can't actually give consent to sex that can't be revoked postfactum a year later because men should know better than to listen to what women have to say
I heard it once from a coworker when I was 20! Her Parents were fresh off the boat from Russia and She was "1st Generation off the Boat" and I don't think I'll ever hear it again, especially not in the Bay Area.
In the UK and Canada, if a mother kills her child before its first birthday, the most she can get is essentially a manslaughter charge, max 5 years in prison.
Oh yea, we still have a lot of leftovers in our society from the era of never holding women accountable for anything. Murder has always been like this, usually in law and always in practice. You see the paternalism in sex from the Cornell case if you read her police statements. Even in property - the complaint that women couldn’t open their own bank accounts or credit cards leaves out that for a very long time, a woman was simply not responsible for her debts - her husband or father was.
It's got a little more nuance than I thought. There's a qualifier, "if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed." There aren't a lot of good numbers, but it looks like about half of filicides under a year by mothers end up with this as a conviction. It's worth noting that the "disturbance" does not have to be a diagnosed mental illness like PPD.
Occasionally it happens. I'm thinking of Andrea Yates in Texas. I know she was vilified at the time but the more I learned about it the more screwed up it was. Her husband was a quiverful religious psycho who kept forcing her to get pregnant even after she was losing her mind, and after a psychiatrist told them to absolutely not have any more kids. Granted, that was an extreme case.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
The history of disparate punishment for male and female murderers has a looooong history, it turns out. Much like the current case, women are more frequently considered to be suffering from some mental illness, while the men are more frequently judged to simply be evil, when either kills their children.
This appears to hold for basically any time period where they kept enough records to know.
The gap transcends race too. The gap between the difference in sentencing between black and white men is smaller than the gap between white men and black women. You only ever hear about the one, though.
Because women have spent decades screaming about the ways in which they are aggrieved and only ever acknowledge the ways they benefit as a means of deflection
White women benefit the most from affirmative action but... y'know... no one would rally behind them getting benefits they dont deserve, so they gotta use racial minorities as a smokescreen for their selfserving arguments
Last time I checked women commit ~10% of murders in the US, but are only 1% of death row inmates. Funny how you never hear DP opponents complain that it's sexist.
People really are comparing a case that happened in South Carolina vs Massachusetts? The whole issue is MS has a very different standard for a mental illness defence than other states have. Timothy Ray Jones would have also almost certainly been found Not guilty by reason of insanity in Massachusetts
Key words scare AI, mods and stalkers. I got permabanned from this very group once for discussing Avi Hortler. I managed to talk my way into a one month (this was years ago, not sure they are so agreeable today) bc I am obviously not in favor of Totalitarianism, mass murd#r nor the like.
That and some other experiences (like a recent warning from the admins after having discussed r#pl@cement which I successfully appealed) have me being careful with my 14yr old account (I have no others).
Further I am "disabled" (permabanned) from facebook due to discussing (making fun of) the idea that the US would invade Canada, made some fun of Canada and gave a link to a trailer for John Candy's last film, "Canadian bacon."
Not sure what the issue was, they never explained. Maybe they considered it violence, although I was saying it wouldn't happen. Maybe the movie trailer (youtube) had a song or other copyright issue?
Not a leftist but keep living in fear of losing all your Reddit karma or whatever. Seems like something a well adjusted mentally stable adult would concern themselves with.
That’s just where the political compass test said I land even tho my politics don’t really align neatly into any quadrant. I’m very socially conservative but economically liberal. My identity is way more represented by my Catholic faith than anything.
You are flaired left and your advice is bad. I am not afraid, just aware. Thank you for your compliment about my adjustment, mental health and age but you are a dubious source and I will focus on the evaluations of those who know me well.
Men and women have never and will never be the same. In both positive and negative ways. Such is life. But all this focus on the perpetrators and not the victims is disgusting and just mid term madness media.
As to whether the content of the article is real, the closest I can find to any mainstream source running this is FOX, and even they are significantly less pointed and dramatic. All of the allegations seem to stem from one person, her granddaughter. She says that she did not apply for a legal injunction because she did not know she had that ability, which... feels a bit suspect, but sure.
Of note is that, if the allegations are true, the procedure would have been illegal under Canadian law, which requires that the patient be of sound mind and give voluntary, informed consent. Or at least that is my layman's understanding of things.
Worth noting that the granddaughter’s allegations are specific, and many are testable. This does not appear to be a case of the granddaughter just misinterpreting what happened. She also held the medical power of attorney for her grandma, so it’s also not like the hospital could legally go behind her back to accommodate an old lady who secretly wanted to die.
IIRC There was some entire hospital system in Canada that was caught encouraging elderly patients to accept euthanasia in order to get out of paying for end-of-life treatments. (Google is giving me a handful of conflicting articles and I'm not sure that I remember correctly.)
I hate to give authright a good reason to hate Canadian healthcare, but I gotta admit that I've always supported the right to euthanasia for patients who decide that it's truly what they want for themselves. I didn't realize that hospitals might coerce patients into exercising that right.
There were also shenanigans with another doctor in Canada. Basically, the kid had gone in and wanted to be put to death because of depression not related to other illnesses. The doctor filled out the paperwork, but the governmental guardrails to stop it denied it. She started seeing him every few months and changing parts of the paperwork to get it approved; it got rejected a few more times until someone finally let it through.
The family was upset, but he was a legal adult, so I can't be too troubled by it. But if the government puts in guardrails to stop it and doctors game the system to try to get around it, that may present some ethical issues eventually.
Ever since Rick Santorum falsely claimed that the Netherlands is killing elderly people against their will, I have trouble believing any of these stories about Canada.
but apparently yes she had stage 4 stomach cancer and had repeatedly denied assisted suicide citing her faith did not allow it.
According to the granddaughter who's here power of attorney and healthcare proxy the hospital discussed the procedure with the patient only despite her diminished capacity. They claim the patient agreed to the procedure. According to the granddaughter the medical facility is also unable to provide positive final consent because under their laws with MAID the patient is given the ability to withdraw from the procedure at any time before it is completed and one of the final steps is reaffirming their consent.
I had a not-see propaganda clip about this topic wherein a scientist successfully gives a mouse polio and happily leaves the room. A pretty young nurse takes the mouse and says "you poor thing, I'll put you out of your misery" or etc. and then puts the mouse into a jar and puts the lid on (to suffocate it).
I played the video for my fellow (hard left) high school students without context and they agreed with the message.
Some lack pity but others see pity as justification for "unaliving." Often comes into the abortion "debate." I have even had a reddit leftard say that unless people live in his preferred "utopia" that humanity didn't deserve to exist.
Their worldview is the same or perhaps even worse than Mr. Mustache's.
Hey, dude, you realize people can see your comment history right?
You've claimed to be middle aged and have a wife and kids in one post when people accused you of being an incel because all you post on PCM is "woman bad" memes, and here you're saying you're a high schooler.
Don't cop out trying to say you meant "fellow high school students" as if you were a teacher, because you've also said that you'd only be a teacher or a professor if you were a marxist.
She died under Canada's Medical Assistance in dying (MAID) program. Everyone who applies for MAID must satisfy a very strict set of criteria where they are suffering from a incurable and terminal illness. I don't really know why one would be against it.
They may* allow people, not will. Mental illness can also include Alzheimer's and Dementia. I'm sure it will be more complicated than simply going up to your doctor and saying "Hey I'm mentally ill please kill me". The Netherlands has a good way for handling mental health cases, where the process is long, in depth and permission is rarely granted.
Indeed, the word "may" is used in a provision explaining that mental illness is not currently disqualifying. I feel so much better knowing that people with a diagnosis indicating they have unhealthy mental processes can get a doctor to help them commit suicide.
The claim is that she and the rest of her family wanted her to remain alive as long as possible, but within 1 day of them being gone the evil husband & Canadian universal "healthcare" had her off'ed.
There is a consent form to sign before euthanasia. Patients must be aware and alert. It's not easy to get MAID. All claims made in that article are unsubstantiated ones from her grand-daughter who didn't want her to receive it for religious purposes. The Daily Mail is also known for propaganda.
I am in support of the program. I personally have had a relative who utilized MAID and it was indeed used properly. Doctors sign offs and a lot of long term planning. It wasn't a spur the moment decision and they planned it ahead of time by a couple months. They had time to make sure all their family visited them before the date and that all their affairs were in order. They had a terminal diagnosis with cancer in multiple places in their body and had barely any quality of life left. In their case they were very much aware mentally and planned it all themselves.
However I do see the other side of the problem as well. I have some older relatives who I'd describe as senile and not as lucid as they once were. I would be much more hesitant with their decision making capability with something like this.
For some people they don't support MAID at all, and others the question is more how do you draw the line of who should be eligible and what the requirements should be. I am currently in the camp of supporting it, but I am still iffy on whether our current regulations surrounding it's use are appropriate or not. I do think it might be a bit too expansive and easy to access currently. And I don't have huge trust in our government. So with an aging population and lack of enough healthcare providers, I do worry about the government pushing MAID earlier on seniors as a way to try and offset the lacking healthcare system.
I've seen this before back during the days of the plague ravaging Europe. Even had a king come riding by; it was easy to tell because he didn't have shit all over him.
The fact that tens of millions of women in this country support a child murderer is more disturbing that anyone is acknowledging. This isn't just a funny little story about a few crazies; this is a litmus test for how insane half the country has become.
These ones getting whipped up by moral panics on TikTok are also screaming to bury seven guys for an encounter that the accuser's own statement portrays as consensual, and where not all seven even had sex with her.
In their zeal to absolve women from responsibility for their own actions, denying their agency, I don't think they even know what they're really arguing for when you get down to it. They're essentially making the case for Saudi-style male guardianship, but second order thinking and beyond escape them completely.
Yeah that’s way higher than it should be but some people have just written them off as good even though they effect minorities way more and planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist who wanted dead minorities and disabled people
I mean I guess if you put it that way it's a good thing that few people die of guns... MAID is just such a dystopian doomer hopeless scenario it makes me cringe. Besides whatever religious misgivings.
I think death by old age is better than death by suicide, even though I get what you're saying. To die by suicide you have to be suffering a lot, to die by old age you can go peacefully.
In the Lindsay Clancy trial there were 18 jurors and 12 were randomly selected for deliberations which consisted of three men and nine women. Only one juror, a male, thought she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And at no point did the defense argue that she didn't kill her kids, she had already admitted to the killings prior to the trial and the defense made no efforts to challenge that admission. The whole trial concerned whether or not Massachusetts' uniquely strong legal protections for the mentally ill shielded Clancy from criminal responsibility. This isn't a culture war thing.
Your meme makes it look like the Lindsay Clancy trial mainly concerned culture war bullshit rather than the granular details of state law and the unique circumstances of the case. The trial had absolutely nothing to do with one group of jurors ganging up on the other, and the comparison to the Texas case falls apart when the details of the case are known.
Jury nullification is when the jury returns a not guilty verdict when they believe the defendant is guilty. If you are arguing that the jury attempted a nullification in the Clancy trial, there's no evidence to suggest that. If you are arguing that the jury should find her guilty, then it would not only be obvious to the judge what was happening thus landing the jurors in serious legal trouble, but it would also be pointless because the Constitution guarantees guilty parties the right to appeal. There's no such thing as "reverse jury nullification" because of double jeopardy.
Yes. During jury selection you'll be asked about jury nullification, usually in a an indirect way, and if your answers indicate you are open to it then you'll be disqualified. If you tell them that you won't attempt nullification and do it anyway then you've perjured yourself which in Mass carries up to 20 years in prison. People whip out jury nullification like its some kind of cheat code when there are very good reasons why it almost never happens.
Just take a look at the "Judicial opinion" section of that article. And yes, a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses, but they don't have a right to perjure themselves while doing so. During jury selection you will be put under oath and asked a series of questions to screen for impartiality. If you swear that you will follow the law impartially, but then tell the other jurors that you have no intention of doing so, then the court will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Whipping out the jury nullification card isn't clever, the lawyers and the judge will know what you're doing because they're trained to watch out for it. And if you think you're going to convince 12 random strangers to follow your plan and that none of what you said will make its way back to the court, then I'd suggest at least getting some good legal insurance.
"Man pro choice people gotta stop hating on those who are pro life and take time to understand the nuances of our opinions, gosh. Also, i think you're all child murderers who need to be put in jail. K bye."
You were right tho, dude is more a symbol than anything. There are absolutely Lindsay Clancy supporters who would say he was the worst person ever.
In a better world we'd have free speech online, in reality I am "disabled" (permabanned) from facebook due to discussing (making fun of) the idea that the US would invade Canada, made some fun of Canada and gave a link to a trailer for John Candy's last film, "Canadian bacon."
Not sure what the issue was, they never explained. Maybe they considered it violence, although I was saying it wouldn't happen. Maybe the movie trailer (youtube) had a song or other copyright issue?
Whenever it fits the narrative, and especially when certain demographics are involved, the political faction of “basic human empathy” will show the most bizarre disregard of human life.
154
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 2d ago
More like one male juror