News Stories Which Highlight the Structure of the System

[Cain]

Also, I refuse to click to verify this, but he's apparently wearing an Iron Cross in his most recent video.

[The Johnny]

Close, but not quite?

[altered]

That’s MORE than close enough.

[Cain]

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty close. Also apparently not his first time wearing it.

For fun, one of the first things that comes up when you search Iron Cross is...the ADL's database of hate symbols.

[Faust]

https://twitter.com/cute_lukey/status/1083466656830144512?lang=en

Its the same stupid Hoodie he has been wearing since his trip to japan where he is on video buying it

He literally went on reddit and said "which charity should I give money to" and they posted that, then after the video other people flooded in saying the ADL have the following problems, you should have been more careful choosing a group that persecute palestine bla bla. Should have just gone to oxfam or children in need or something.

His fans fucking around with the charity is definitely the alt-right, but I feel sorry for him for this one, because once again I think he is retarded more than anything else

[Cain]

I would generally agree with that assessment but that he's so overly solicitous of his alt-right fanbase on so many occasions, time and time again is I think significant.

On the other hand, "attractive to someone who is effectively brain-damaged" sounds about right for the alt-right. After all, Tila Tequila (who literally suffered brain damage during surgery) is a big fan of their ideas. And Hitler.

[Faust]

PewdiePie I don't think is attracted to their ideas though, he is attracted to their clicks, their subs and the attention that brings. He is a complete narcissist who plays down how much his view and sub count means to him but then will go out of his way to farm drama (from other youtubers as well as controversy).
That said he comes across as genuinely horrified at being invoked at the Christchurch shooting and stopped the "subscribe to pewdiepie" meme

[Doktor Howl]

That said he comes across as genuinely horrified at being invoked at the Christchurch shooting and stopped the "subscribe to pewdiepie" meme

I don't think he actually cared at all.

[Junkenstein]

That said he comes across as genuinely horrified at being invoked at the Christchurch shooting and stopped the "subscribe to pewdiepie" meme

I don't think he actually cared at all.

Pretty sure he cared a lot about the possible loss of revenue.

[Junkenstein]

The thing is that runs directly counter to what training and their editors tell them to do.

Journalists are told they need to create a narrative out of events, because if they just deliver facts, or even deliver a boring but factual analysis, people don't like it.

There needs to be some kind of regulation on this. Like a law saying that if they create a narrative they wouldn't be legally allowed to call it news without also having a big disclaimer informing the viewer that it's a bunch of bullshit

Fox found the loophole decades ago. It's "entertainment" not news. That's part of the reason they can spout nonsense and not get sued every half hour.

[Fujikoma]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/10/12/watch-video-shows-fort-worth-police-officer-fatally-shoot-woman-inside-her-home/

And people wonder why the Black Lives Matter movement exists... maybe because of shit like this. Sucks but it seems being black is punishable by death in this country, no judge, no jury.

[Bu☆ns]

"I will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel me to do so," he told parliament. "I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone else in the last 88 days that I have served as prime minister: that further delay would be bad for this country, bad for the European Union and bad for democracy."

So b-job is doing the dog-whistles now?

[Juana]

The Supreme Court Gives Police a Green Light to ‘Shoot First and Think Later’

The Supreme Court just ruled that a police officer could not be sued for gunning down Amy Hughes. This has vast implications for law enforcement accountability. The details of the case are as damning as the decision. Hughes was not suspected of a crime. She was simply standing still, holding a kitchen knife at her side. The officer gave no warning that he was going to shoot her if she did not comply with his commands. Moments later, the officer shot her four times.

“Shoot first and think later,” according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is what the officer did.

As Sotomayor argued in dissent, the court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes means that such “palpably unreason­able conduct will go unpunished.” According to seven of the nine Justices, Hughes’ Fourth Amendment right to not be shot four times in this situation is less protected than the officer’s interest in escaping accountability for his brazen abuse of authority. According to Justice Sotomayor, “If this account of [the officer’s] conduct sounds unreasonable, that is because it was. And yet, the Court ... insulates that conduct from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.”

Worse yet, this decision wasn’t a surprise. And it certainly isn’t an aberration.

In fact, it is just the latest in a long line of cases in which the Supreme Court has decimated our ability to vindicate constitutional rights when government actors overstep. And when law enforcement oversteps, as was the case with Hughes, the consequences can be devastating.

As Professor William Baude explains, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity prevents government agents from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless the violation was of ‘clearly established’ law.” If any reasonable judge might have deemed the action permissible, the law is not “clearly established.” Essentially, if you want to sue a police officer who you think violated your constitutional rights, you first have to convince the court that what happened to you was so outrageous that no reasonable person could have thought it was okay.

This makes excessive force cases a steep uphill battle. Such cases turn on the Fourth Amendment — a constitutional right that is notorious for its murky and context-specific contours. So proving a Fourth Amendment violation is hard enough on its own. When you have to prove a “clearly established” violation, the task becomes all but impossible because the Supreme Court keeps raising the bar. This further disempowers those injured or killed by police, and their surviving families.

SURPRISE.

[Doktor Howl]

The Supreme Court Gives Police a Green Light to ‘Shoot First and Think Later’

The Supreme Court just ruled that a police officer could not be sued for gunning down Amy Hughes. This has vast implications for law enforcement accountability. The details of the case are as damning as the decision. Hughes was not suspected of a crime. She was simply standing still, holding a kitchen knife at her side. The officer gave no warning that he was going to shoot her if she did not comply with his commands. Moments later, the officer shot her four times.

“Shoot first and think later,” according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is what the officer did.

As Sotomayor argued in dissent, the court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes means that such “palpably unreason­able conduct will go unpunished.” According to seven of the nine Justices, Hughes’ Fourth Amendment right to not be shot four times in this situation is less protected than the officer’s interest in escaping accountability for his brazen abuse of authority. According to Justice Sotomayor, “If this account of [the officer’s] conduct sounds unreasonable, that is because it was. And yet, the Court ... insulates that conduct from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.”

Worse yet, this decision wasn’t a surprise. And it certainly isn’t an aberration.

In fact, it is just the latest in a long line of cases in which the Supreme Court has decimated our ability to vindicate constitutional rights when government actors overstep. And when law enforcement oversteps, as was the case with Hughes, the consequences can be devastating.

As Professor William Baude explains, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity prevents government agents from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless the violation was of ‘clearly established’ law.” If any reasonable judge might have deemed the action permissible, the law is not “clearly established.” Essentially, if you want to sue a police officer who you think violated your constitutional rights, you first have to convince the court that what happened to you was so outrageous that no reasonable person could have thought it was okay.

This makes excessive force cases a steep uphill battle. Such cases turn on the Fourth Amendment — a constitutional right that is notorious for its murky and context-specific contours. So proving a Fourth Amendment violation is hard enough on its own. When you have to prove a “clearly established” violation, the task becomes all but impossible because the Supreme Court keeps raising the bar. This further disempowers those injured or killed by police, and their surviving families.

SURPRISE.

I warned everyone about this in 2003, and everyone thought I was making jokes.   

[The Johnny]

THINK BAD - SHOOT GOOD.