Or the NAACP blowing a bunch of hot air. The first incident in their warning, about Tory Sanford...there's no info on the internet about it. None. Except a link to their warning. The second incident in their warning was Mizzou where the campus president tweeted out the KKK was running amok on campus terrorizing students. No one was running amok. No one was terrorizing students. I quit reading it after that.
I don't understand what their issue is. The act states that someone claiming they were discriminated against has to prove that discrimination actually occurred? As opposed to what, just taking their word for it?
From reading the bill provided, linked in the link, says that the new requirement seems to be that you must file a complaint of discrimination within 180 days of the actual act of discrimination you are filing a complaint about.
Looks like the girl who encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide is only getting 15 months in jail. The article states the judge wants her to be able to be rehabilitated. I'm not sure you can rehabilitate a sociopath. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/us/texting-suicide-sentence.html
Pretty sure you're just stereotyping mental illness and not really doing anything toward promoting the positive public perception thereof. A bit hypocritical, no? The idea that the judge basically acknowledged prison is not a good place for rehabilitation is interesting, and in my opinion correct. She should be fine after the proper therapy. He won't be though.
I'll strongly disagree with you that I'm stereotyping those with mental illness. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people with mental illness don't encourage others to commit suicide. And if she does have a mental illness it is sociopathy.
I don't give a fuck what illness she suffers from, she may as well have killed him with her bare hands, 2.5 years is a joke. Fuck her.
I didn't read any of the transcripts of their conversation. I heard it was pretty bad and nasty on her part. Still, he was the one who did the deed and took his own life - ultimately it was his decision to sit in his truck. I don't see how more than 15 months can be justified - and there's still the argument that she shouldn't have been tried for manslaughter at all - if we want to say we still believe in personal responsibility.
The transcript was pretty awful on her part. But I agree, manslaughter might be much since she didnt directly kill him. She should still be held responsible in some regard, but I think this was more about the court wanting to make an example of her vs. justice.
It wasn't just her convincing him to do it-- it was him getting reluctant or quitting, which made her enraged and she would badger him into suicide again. And again. And Again. Hundreds of times. I've seen or even imagined anything like it. She's cold, unblinking, reptilian evil and I wouldn't care if she becomes roadkill tomorrow. She IS partially, directly responsible for his death. And with appeals and red tape, she probably will never see a jail cell.
This seems like a battle that keeps being fought. People look at hate literature to see if it inspires violence and if a DA can link some writing to an act of violence, its not uncommon I don't think for the person who authored the literature to be held liable for the violent acts. Right now I'm thinking of the Turner Diarias and American Neo-Nazi's I think the Carter case is much different though because she gave him explicit orders to do this, and was relentless in her pursuit. That could be equated to someone ordering someone to commit a violent act, just this time that violent act was towards themselves. If you order someone to act violently towards others thats a crime, but if you order someone to act violently towards themselves its not? I really think that is the question that needs to be asked and thought about.
It might be a bit of a stretch to compare the two, but how is what she did different than what Manson did? He never actually killed anyone, he convinced others to do it. While Carter didn't actually kill him, the transcripts sure seem like he might still be alive if she wasn't texting him.
Manson got his hands dirty, he didn't kill directly. He did participate the other deadly home invasion, but nobody directly died by his hand. But you have a point. Plenty kill by word (using money, charisma, intimidation or lies) instead of hand: Mob bosses are murderers for ordering killings, Spouses are murderers for hiring hitmen, quacks are murderers for talking their patients into suicide. (I'll avoid easy political examples). The question is: how dirty do you have to get your hands to qualify as a "killer"? And is the killing just or unjust? In this case, it's unjust. There is a line somewhere and with it will always be the debate on where to draw it. On social media, most people want Michelle Carter to burn. But most people on social media are awful. I think two years is... something. Considering I thought she'd skate, and considering looking at her, this waifer-thin package of lizard-like sociopathy is like staring into the eye of Satan himself; I'm kind of glad somebody decided to say "You know what? Fuck you. YOU had a hand in this." She might not serve it at all, but in extreme cases like this might serve as deterrent to impulsive, sneering idiots who have no regard for the quality of life and are willing to ruin one just to benifeit the uselessness of their own social status. Wait two more years when she's old enough to really let it worm in and realize that popularity is a youth thing, and then it doesn't matter at all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/ Interesting article about the generation after Millennials. I can subscribe to some of these notions, and "no screen time" needs to be a fucking thing for most people. Social media seems to be a startling correlation for poor mental health. I noticed I feel much better after limiting Facebook to professional groups, and LinkedIn these days is largely a toilet. It's interesting, and a poignant example of technology being widely adopted and it's effects poorly understood.
Anyone been keeping up with the Google drama and the employee manifesto? The guy was just fired. Here's the full text My thought is, when it comes to these kind of opinions, just keep your mouth shut at work. Even if you're right you're still wrong. Google is a private company and can do whatever they want. The ex-Google engineers I work with said that he's basically right regarding his criticism of the diversity rules. And I was mostly with him until he started talking about how women are more neurotic and are better suited for the arts and humanities. What a cringey/tone-deaf thought to express. I suppose firing him proves his point in a way, but at the same time if a company's culture isn't a good fit for you, why are you working there?
There is no generation after millennials because millennials are not having children. Smartphones are definitely more curse than blessing, but that's shooting the messenger. Social media is the real culprit, we waste SO MUCH mental energy worrying about stupid shit, or how we're perceived by people we couldn't give two fucks about IRL. It's a 24/7 stressor for those who invest their lives into it. Teenagers never get a chance to really be themselves, they have to be ON at all times. I got bullied in the 8th grade, and as bad as it ever got at least I knew once that bell hit 3p I could gtfo. In a social media world, with my whole identity attached to some MyBook profile? No respite.
And just to address a pet peeve of mine: what the fuck do they mean, "post-Millennial"? Have we even defined millennial yet? That's a goalpost sitting on rollerskates, to be pushed back and forth by every author with a demographic to chase. Personally I think it should be exclusive to kids born '95 or later, who've never known a world without internet.