aquafunkalisticbootywhap

  • 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • D.A. and sheriff have argued their positions provide them immumity from civil lawsuits.

    No! No, no, nonono, NO! FUCK YOU. “I’m just doing my job” is not a “get out of jail free” card, and certainly doesn’t excuse you from defending your actions. You use the courts to ruin other people’s lives when you deem it appropriate? You’d better damn well believe your conduct while doing so is subject to the same processes- criminal and civil. Forget the sheer arrogance of thinking differently -

    if you’d think about it for half a second, you supposed justice system experts -

    the whole damn thing doesn’t work otherwise! Who is going to bother listening to you, holier than thou police officers, when you say the rules don’t apply to you!? Are you somehow fucking stumped why people just mysteriously don’t like cops? THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT IS A BIG REASON WHY. When you plainly act like the expectactions we hold for each other don’t apply to you, you sound like you think you’re above the law. You’re not royalty, you’re not nobility; you are citizens, just like us.

    these were choices y’all made. choices have consequences. own your shit. we DO NOT pay you to be mindless law enforcing robots- exercise better judgement next time. you want respect for the difficult job you do? rationally defend your actions OR as you’ve somewhat tried to do, apologize, and then show you’ve learned from your mistakes. this “I can’t deal with/the system can’t deal with the idea that people make bad choices so lets just act like everyone is infallable” is ruining, just RUINING any hope we have of continuing to be a functioning society pulls hair out in frustration



  • This is similar to to how the two major US political parties fail at effectively creating constant, essential evolution of laws in the name of representing ideals.

    Candidates that can not, by the very foundational nature of their stated goals and beliefs, form coalitions with other candidates in order to ensure constant progress, create disfunctional governments that fail their citizens. Systems of choice should tend towards the choices that best represent the most widely agreed upon ideas. If those systems are in place, citizens who willingly choose extreme idelogical candidates that denounce compromise and coalitions are getting exactly what they voted for- a government that is doomed to fail.

    We need moderate candidates focused on representing the majority of their constituents, and we need voting systems in place that favor moderate candidates. Any system that favors moderate candidates - say candidates that, while maybe not any majority’s first choice, but the second choice of a majority of the same people - is favorable to first-past-the-post, which has allowed exteremism and obstructionism to thrive in our legislative bodies.

    The question becomes, do the citizens have that system in place, a system where moderate voices can thrive? If they do, are there those in positions of extreme wealth and power who would benefit from convincing the rest of us that voting for extreme, obstructionist candidates is best? Are those people possibly exploiting the system to create disfuntional governments that protect their wealth and power?

    That’s whats happening in the US. Regulatory capture and mass media control, for example, are tools used to convince citizens the war is between us, distracting us from their benefitting from our disfunctional government. These few push the idea that obstructionism and extremism is our only choice, lest you be seen as the enemy. The true enemy is clearly those that care more about themselves and/or their espoused ideals than society at large, a society doomed without a constantly evolving goverment keeping corruption and consolodation of wealth and power in check.



  • downvotes are not to express disagreement!

    so many comments here about adding regulations and “this should be illegal” and, yes, those may be a valid way to curb this behavior

    but customers willing to leave a company for bad behavior, customers wary of new products without asdurances they wont just become useless, non-reusable e-waste could also effectively curb this behavior

    just because you want to outsource all of your product and company research to a law or regulation, and want to be able to blindly buy products and just hope the company doesn’t make bad choices in every regard but quartly profits doesn’t mean it is the only effective check & balance


  • The way I understood it is a commercial for McD in the US isnt required to have real food; a commercial for McD’s “whatever” has to have the actual item being advertised, but can be so meticulously crafted, you’d never see one like that in the wild. A commercial for a grocery chain, for example- most/all of of the food you see is props made to look like the most appetizing food youve ever dreamed of.

    Who knows if this is enforced. NPR and PBS stations are specifically prohibited from “sponsorship” messages mentioning a specific product or service, and they’ve been ignoring that for decades.