I mean, this isn’t good obviously, but it also doesn’t feel like news.
The US military employs almost 3million people. I challenge you to grab a broad swath of 3 million people and not have a few neo-nazis in the bunch.
Which isn’t to say that it’s okay or should be tolerated. Just that, like, it isn’t news. Or, at least, not any more news than “Nazi sypathizer exists on earth” is news.
Idk man, he’s a public figure. Like, would we be this mad if Kamala accidentally leaked her phone’s contact list (names only, no numbers)?
And to be clear, it’d be another thing entirely if he had, like, secret government sources in his contact list or something. But I don’t see anyone saying that as far as I can tell. It’s just his personal friends and contacts.
Nah, Venmo contacts are often based off of your phone contacts. So that’s probably just a list of people he has saved to his phone (who also have Venmo).
And even if you did have to pay someone for them to show up, it still doesn’t seem like much of a scandal. It’s not like someone in the contact list was “drug dealer” or something. Who cares if he venmo’d a coworker $20 for lunch?
Idk man. Like, leaking your phone’s contact list probably isn’t the best thing ever, but it’s hardly a huge deal imo.
Fair, but I didn’t see any contacts that were terribly surprising or concerning.
I mean, I think most people on Venmo have it set this way. It’s the default. I wouldn’t call it inept.
It’s not privacy focused for sure, but then, using social media in any capacity isn’t. I’m unconvinced this is crazy worse.
Sure, but that’s not a scandal. You could call Trump’s Twitter follower list the same thing.
It says none of their actual transactions was visible, just their friends lists. And Venmo has a long history of trying to be the “social media” of paying people.
So, like, I’m no fan of the guy, but ik confused why this is news? I can probably see his followed people on Twitter too, but that’s not a scandal. If there aren’t any sketchy payments or anything, what’s the issue?
If I saw this, I think I’d take and eat one? Like, I do love a good raisin…
How do you differentiate what you’re calling psychological torture here from just bog standard negative anticipation?
Is it psychological torture if I tell a child that we’re going to the doctor because they need to get their flu shot? They have to sit and live with that dread for the whole ride over.
If this is in some way a difference of kind, what differentiates them? What is the key characteristic that separates the two?
Is the only difference one of degree? That hurting someone in this way just a little bit is fine, but there’s some amount of damage that makes it unacceptable?
Or is it that the ends justify the means? That it is psychological torture to tell a child about the flu shot, but that the need to get the shot outweighs the negative of the torture? If so, and if someone truly believes that capital punishment is correct in a given case, why would the same argument not be valid?
Why is this superimposed on a screenshot from Quest 64, lol?
I’m betting 5-4 in favor of throwing this out.
Gorsuch came down hard on Bostock, which makes me think he’d be skeptical of overturning Obergefell (which he wasn’t on the court to rule on originally).
Roberts is married to process well enough that I don’t think he can find it in himself to violate stare decisis on a case he was actually chief justice for, even if he did vote against the first time. Plus a lot has changed since 2015, and the court took a hard swing right. The dude has always kinda been that middle man referee, so I think that’s another drop in the “would shoot this down” bucket.
That only leaves Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Barrett. Alito and Thomas will always vote for the craziest possible position, so they’re right out. Kavenaugh and Barrett are more of a coin toss, but I lean towards them having their own, separate dissent if Bostock is any indication (which Kavenaugh dissented on, but not with Alito and Thomas. Barrett had yet to join.)
So my gut is that this isn’t going anywhere. I’d honestly be surprised if the supreme court even took it up.
We’re there police snipers at a student rally shooting at people? When did this happen?
Quick math says that’s about a 19-20% return annually for the 10yrs since 2014.
The average APY of the S&P 500 over the same time period was about 11-12%.
So definitely way outperforming the market, though maybe achievable with one or two good picks on individual stock?
Definitely not a good look regardless.
I think it might be a bit of a bold assumption that everyone who thinks Biden is too old to do an effective job and should step aside is a huge Trump supporter.
There are plenty of people who hate Trump with a passion that thinks Biden isn’t up to the task of winning this election.
It seems counterproductive to pay for tickets to go see a comedian just to protest heckle.
Like, you just gave that man money to yell at him. I’m sure he’s drying his tears with the dollar bills.
I feel like the narrative surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has changed enormously since I was a kid.
I remember learning that, while tragic, the number of lives lost in the bombing paled in comparison to the numbers of lives being lost and that would be lost in winning the war by conventional means. That it was a way to minimize further bloodshed.
I’m not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?
I’m mostly just trying to figure out what caused the shift.
Genuine question. The sign in the thumbnail says, “We want Palestine to be liberated.” What does that mean?
Is it advocating for the dissolution of the state of Israel? Like, “liberated” implies the removal of an occupier, no?
It can’t just mean “stop the murders,” right? Like, if that’s the case it was say to liberate the “Palestinians,” not “Palestine” right?
I just ask because I feel like the messaging on this is a bit all over the place at times, and calls for the abolishment of the state of Israel seem a bit extreme to me, and I’m trying to figure out if that’s the actual stance people are taking.
The other guy is probably being a bit over the top, but your initial comment was kinda anti-Semitic, no?
Like, if I was reading a comment thread about black people and responded, “but is it as funny as eating fried chicken and watermelon,” I don’t think someone would be out of line saying, “are you asserting that all black people just eat fried chicken and watermelon?”
And then saying the thread isn’t about them isn’t exactly absolving the initial comment is it? The comment would still be racist, no?
Idk man, that guy got disproportionately hot about it I think, but your initial comment was a bit rough too, right?
Pennsylvania. This happened in Pennsylvania.
Took me a not inconsiderable amount of time to validate that.
Figured I’d post it in case others wondered what state this was in. It just keeps using the county name.
I mean, the Army is on the record in the article as saying that the behavior would not be tolerated and that they are investigating. He’ll probably get UCMJ’d. I think “without repercussion” is strong.
Should there be more protections to detect this stuff early? Maybe. But, like, that doesn’t feel like as flashy a headline I guess.
And idk, should the Armed Forces have people actively monitoring all their personnel’s private lives 24/7? Seems a little much to me.
I’m just having trouble figuring out what the takeaway is. What “repercussions” do you want to see here? He gets punished in some way? Cause odds are good he will, if they can figure out who it is (since the Guardian didn’t share the name with the Army, per the article.) So what’s the story?