#but every time I see a tweet or a complaint about it being ‘all speeches’ I just want to be like

[redflagtag01]

finalboybyers is heart_byers on Twitter (tw: rape, pedophilia, and abuse).

When they post about Henry and Will, likening them to Father and Mother, Hades and Persephone, Hannibal and Will, Lestat and Louis, Villanelle and Eve, and other romantic fated pairs, they're trying to semi-subtly get more people on the Henwill train.

Don't believe me? Take it from Yarrow themselves (Tweet's date is May 20 and their first Tumblr post is soon after on June 5):

They don't censor their tweets in any fashion and they have a public account, which makes them easy to find when conducting a regular content search about either character, the cast, or simply looking in the Quotes of popular tweets. You don't have to be a proshipper or devils sacrament attendee to find them—they're out there in the open.

They're a proshipper that enjoys child/adult relationships, uses pictures of Noah where he is as young as eleven in their fantasies, ships Henry and Will romantically, and habitually posts explicit sexual and romantic content about them, all of which feature both Will and Noah as minors.

The ages listed on both accounts and their general speech patterns are the same. They post about the same parallels, same ideas, and same desires for the pair. They react to the same things and share their same findings at similar times. Their Tumblr is practically the exact same as their Twitter, just with more sugarcoating, denial of this behavior, and less explicitly romanticized rape.

I found that they tend to post first on Twitter and then refine it into a more elaborate post on Tumblr, but not always. Here are some examples:

It's the same user. If you can stomach that content and decide to see for yourself, then you'll note the similarities listed above and many more (assuming they don't go private or change usernames). Seriously, you will find every parallel and complaint on both accounts, as well as the same typing style and manner of speaking.

Using pictures or the likeness of real minors should never accompany such fantasies. They don't use drawings with no resemblance to real children; that is a real child plastered all over their account(s), and his name is Noah Schnapp. They're using his likeness from when he was a minor, anywhere from eleven to sixteen, when picturing Will and Henry as a couple, as one can see based on their Tweets. Here are some examples (Likes, Retweets, and one of their own) to get the point across swiftly (though they do have their own similar Tweets too):

If you wouldn't feel comfortable with someone thinking of any random non-famous child that way, why would it be okay in this instance?

The fact that they romantically ship Henry/Vecna/001 and Will is clear from the way they speak about them in their Tumblr posts and Tweets, the way that they liken them to romantic ships or dynamics while admitting to there being a romantic element (which is in line with their many Tweets, some below), but just in case you weren't already aware… now you know.

If you're turned on by minors and/or enjoy thinking of them in that way, then you need to seek help. Pedophilia can't be cured, but it can be treated with therapy. That isn't a kink—it's a paraphilia that is one act upon that desire away from being a psychiatric disorder. You wouldn't even have to interact with a child to reap criminal consequences; just producing or consuming any visual depiction of their engagement in a sexual act is a crime itself—and yes, that includes fan art and cartoon depictions.

Most people understand there's a difference between fiction and reality—ergo, enjoying the drama of a fictional abusive ship does not mean you support abuse in real life. However, things change when real minors are involved in sexually explicit materials. No child should be spoken of or viewed that way by adults that should and do know better. Noah could not have consented to have his pictures, or his likeness, used in this manner, and he likely still wouldn't. Children cannot consent and have the right to exist in the world without being sexualized by adults.

Will is fictional, but Noah is real and his underage likeness is the face of their fantasies. Artwork of Will engaged in sexually explicit conduct would be illegal and considered obscene under the federal law of the United States. Such content is illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess, and those convicted could be fined and imprisoned. Historically, this has even extended to textual depictions, too.

There's a reason why it's prohibited on many platforms, why these specific proshippers get suspended and have to remake accounts multiple times, and it isn't because evil conservative "antis" are "kinkshaming" the oppressed proshippers again. The material they produce and share is obscene by legal definition. They're not only picturing Noah's underage face in their mind and their works when they romanticize Will being raped and groomed, but they're proving that by always using pictures of him when he was underage, and only those underage pictures.

Yarrow admits to having interest in and consumed such prohibited materials, as noted by this Liked Tweet, and their own admission (one of many):

The fact that Will is a child and was played by someone with a baby-face is a deliberate and crucial part of the appeal to these people. The corruption of a child's innocence and naïveté, tarred by sexual exploit, sinister intentions, and his lack of consent, is all Henwill's charm (and they say this themselves in Tweets added below). It doesn't work if Will is aged up to an adult and that's why he never is in their fantasies. He has to be a child, helpless and pure and preyed upon, and he has to look like Noah's eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen year old self.

They know that it's pedophilic and that's what they like about it. That's the entire point (again, see for yourself beneath the cut). That's why they shamelessly Tweet about it, but deny it here on this platform, where they [hopefully] are not among like-minded company.

I've included an array of tweets that show they do not view Henwill in a platonic fated enemies fashion and never have—no matter how many times they deny this now. You may notice similarities between those Tweets and their posts, how they "refined" their Tweets into something more palatable, as I mentioned earlier. Read at your own risk, but this should be available for viewing to all unless they change their Twitter handle, go private, or delete/unlike them.

There will always be people who become involved after being exposed to this content, but if you already liked to think of children that way, then there wasn't anything anyone could've done to deter you. Pedophilia is resistant to treatment—a Tumblr post wouldn't have cured you and you would've found this eventually. Still, I have blocked out usernames to prevent further exposure. With this post, I hope to inform others who don't share this paraphilia and who were unknowingly helping spread their thinly veiled pedophilic content.

If you cannot stomach explicit pedophilia or rape, then do NOT continue reading this post or visit their Twitter.

[botanyone]

FYI: Preparing for a post-Twitter future

FYI: Preparing for a post-Twitter future https://ift.tt/QPHsrgX If you follow us on Mastodon, LinkedIn, Threads or Twitter, you might have seen us sharing links from botany.fyi. What’s going on? The answer is that we’re preparing for a post-Twitter future for the Week in Botany. The Week in Botany has, for the past few years, been a compilation of links to items on Botany One and to the most popular items being shared on Twitter. It goes out every Monday. Originally, there were ways of automatically tracking what was getting shared on Twitter, and compiling the newsletter was relatively easy. Then Twitter bought the best tool and shut it down, making life a little more difficult. Then they shut down most of the other tools and, most recently, started hiding the links on Twitter to make it difficult to see what was being shared. At the same time, Twitter, like other social media platforms, has a problem with hate speech. However, unlike other social media platforms, Twitter seems to think the best way to reduce complaints about hate speech is to crack down on those who complain. People are starting to move away from Twitter, which is fine. But they’re not moving to one specific platform, so tracking what’s popular on social media needs more work, and this is why there’s botany.fyi. Botany.fyi is a link shortener. I can shorten a link to a paper so https://hyperborea.org/journal/2023/12/do-not-taunt-the-native-plants/ becomes https://botany.fyi/aVpFcK. Now, when I share this link to social media, whatever network I use, the click passes through botany.fyi and a counter goes up by one. This allows me to add up the activity from all the networks, including Twitter and see what is popular in terms of having people interested enough to click through to a story. But if I’m including clicks from Twitter, how does this prepare the newsletter for a post-Twitter future? The answer is that we’ve already had some interesting results. For the first week of the experiment, the click count from Mastodon was over eight times the clicks we got from Twitter. This is a mild surprise, as we have 16 times more followers on Twitter, but maybe it shouldn’t be. Twitter penalises tweets with links that take people off-site away from adverts. If the links we share tend to get hidden, then presumably yours do too. You can argue about whether or not Twitter is dying or dead, but it’s certainly increasingly irrelevant to any conversation that isn’t about Twitter or Musk. You can find Botany One on Mastodon @botanyone@botany.social. We’re also on LinkedIn and Threads @botanyone_en. The post FYI: Preparing for a post-Twitter future appeared first on Botany One. via Botany One https://botany.one/ December 04, 2023 at 12:54PM

[novelconcepts]

Every time I see someone complain about the wealth of monologues in Midnight Mass, I just want to shake them and whisper, “It is a direct reference to Catholic homilies. It is. It is a direct reflection of the heart of a Catholic sermon.” Every character is granted the ability, regardless of what they believe, to offer the audience their own sermon. Science. Experience with abuse or addiction or bigotry. Hopes for the future. Forgiveness. Every character is given the chance to reflect back to the audience, via a homily, the heart of what’s going on in their world.

It is intentional, y’all.

[gstqaobc]

'I still don't believe Meghan': Piers Morgan tweets defiant Churchill message and says he stands by view that saw him quit GMB - as Susanna Reid tells morning viewers 'it's going to be very different' without him

Ranvir Singh will host Good Morning Britain with Susanna Reid today - the day after Piers Morgan stormed off

Mr Morgan faced a social media campaign over comments he made about Harry and Meghan's interview

He faced a huge online backlash after he said he 'didn't believe a word' of the Duke and Duchess' Oprah talk

Twitter users responded by sharing links to Ofcom and gave instructions on how to complain to TV regulator

Ofcom today announced it was launching an investigation following the raft of complaints from Twitter users

MailOnline editor at large, who has helped show to record ratings, had blazing row with Alex Beresford

They were discussing the Sussexes' interview with Oprah, where the couple accused Royal Family of racism

Piers Morgan today doubled down after quitting Good Morning Britain by tweeting that he still doesn't believe any of Meghan's incendiary claims to Oprah in a defiant message sent as the show began without him with Strictly star Ranvir Singh in his chair.Susanna Reid admitted it will be a 'very different' programme without her co-star of five years and told viewers this morning that he had been a 'voice for many of you' through Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic.Mr Morgan sensationally quit the show on the day it scored record ratings after he told viewers he 'didn't believe a word she [Meghan] said' to Oprah and branded her 'Princess Pinocchio' after an interview where the Duchess said she was suicidal while five months pregnant and accused the Royal Family of racism. His views sparked more than 41,000 complaints made to Ofcom.

Just after the show began at 6am this morning he tweeted to his 7.8million followers: 'On Monday, I said I didn’t believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview. I’ve had time to reflect on this opinion, and I still don’t. If you did, OK. Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on. Thanks for all the love, and hate. I’m off to spend more time with my opinions'.

He also shared a quote by Britain's greatest prime minister Winston Churchill, which said:  'Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage'.

On an extraordinary day for the show he also walked off set live on air after the show's weatherman Alex Beresford accused him of unfairly 'trashing' Meghan, branding him 'diabolical' and saying: 'I'm sorry but Piers just spouts off on a regular basis and we have to sit there and listen'. Mr Beresford was not on screen today, with Laura Tobin presenting the GMB weather this morning.

Hours later Mr Morgan quit, with his supporters defending his views and claiming his exit is more bad news for free speech and a sad indictment of cancel culture in Britain after critics including Labour MP Dawn Butler encouraged people to complain to ITV and Ofcom. Others have questioned whether GMB's viewing figures will hold-up without its star, who helped add a million new viewers in his time on the show.

After Ranvir Singh, a GMB reporter and star of Strictly last year, stepped in for Piers today, Susanna then gave a short speech on the tumultuous events of the past 24 hours.

Ms Reid said: 'A number of people will know the news and many of you will not and will be surprised that Piers Morgan is not here this morning. Now, Piers and I have disagreed on many things and that dynamic was one of the things viewers loved about the programme.

'He is without doubt an outspoken, challenging, opinionated, disruptive broadcaster. He has many critics and he has many fans. You will know that I disagreed with him about Meghan's interview. He himself clarified his comments about her mental health on the show yesterday.'

Reid said there are 'many voices' on Good Morning Britain and 'everyone has their say'. She added: 'But now Piers has decided to leave the programme. Some of you may cheer and others may boo.

'He has been my presenting partner, Monday to Wednesday, for more than five years and during Brexit and the pandemic and other issues, he has been a voice for many of you and a voice that many of you have railed against.

'It is certainly going to be very different but shows go on and so on we go.'

Ranvir Singh, Reid's co-presenter for the morning, replied: 'Well said.' She described Morgan as a 'big character' and said 'many viewers will be absolutely gutted'. Singh called Morgan 'Marmite' and acknowledged his role in Good Morning Britain's success. Ms Singh is amongst the favourites to take the job, but said: 'I was here anyway, don't read anything into this, I was here anyway. I've shifted seats on this brand new desk'.

It came after 55-year-old Mr Morgan shocked viewers by walking off camera during a heated on-air row with weatherman Alex Beresford, saying 'I'm done with this' after being challenged on his position of the Duke and Duchess by his co-star. Afterwards ITV CEO Carolyn McCall - who formerly worked for the left-wing Guardian newspaper - said that the broadcaster's media and entertainment MD Kevin Lygo was speaking to Mr Morgan.And last night it was announced that Mr Morgan had quit the hugely popular ITV show - which he co-hosted with Susanna Reid.An ITV spokesman told MailOnline: 'Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add.'It is understood Mr Morgan had been asked to apologise for his remarks which had been criticised by mental health campaigners but had declined.It brings to an end his six-year long association with the breakfast show, which he originally joined as a guest host in 2015, during which time he has made it must-see TV with a strong of exclusives and his strident opinions.Ironically it came the day after GMB recorded its highest ever viewing figures in the wake of Megan Markle's blockbuster Oprah Winfrey interview.It also came on the day that he had followed up with an agenda-setting interview with her father Thomas in which Mr Markle had taken aim at 'snotty' Harry, defended the British people and Royals against her claims of racism and revealed that he felt she had betrayed him, not the other way around.Earlier Morgan, who this evening Tweeted a picture of himself with former manager David Ferriter and the message 'trust your gut', also addressed his previous comments regarding the Duchess's mental health.Yesterday, he was criticised by the charity, Mind, after saying he 'didn't believe a word she said'. I wouldn't believe it if she read me a weather report,' he added.Today he addressed these remarks and said: 'When we talked about this yesterday I said as an all-encompassing thing I don't believe what Meghan Markle is saying generally in this interview and I still have serious concerns about the veracity of a lot of what she said.'But let me just state for the record on my position on mental illness and on suicide.'On mental illness and suicide these are clearly extremely serious things and should be taken extremely seriously and if someone is feeling that way they should get the treatment and the help they need every time. Every time.'And if they belong to an institution like the Royal family and they go and seek that help they should absolutely be given it.'It's not for me to question if she felt suicidal, I am not in her mind and that is for her to say.'My real concern was a disbelief frankly and I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this and if I'm wrong it is a scandal, that she went to a senior member of the Royal household and told them she was suicidal and was told she could not have any help because it would be a bad look for the family.'If that is true a) that person should be fired and b) The Royal family have serious questions that need to be answered.'But it was not enough to stop a wildfire social media campaign against him that resulted in 41,000 complaints to TV watchdog Ofcom by last night who announced they had launched a probe under their 'harms' code. The campaign featured an avalanche of tweets which criticised the host and supporting Meghan - some sharing direct links to the Ofcom complaints page. Among those launching criticism at Morgan were Labour MP Dawn Butler, who copied in the Twitter page of ITV to her Tweet.

In her social media post, which shared a comment from Mind criticising Morgan's remarks, she asked: '@ITV what have you decided to do?'Another Twitter user said: 'It took me about seven minutes to complain to fill in the Ofcom online form to complain about Piers Morgan's disgusting behaviour on mental health and race issues. It's not much, but if enough people complain they have to do something!' One Twitter user - who said: 'I am determined to get Piers off GMB Lolz. Which petitions do I need to sign?' - received a response with a link to the Ofcom complaints page.Their decision to act was in stark contrast to what happened with 24,500 people complained about dance troop Diversity's BLM-inspired routine on Britain's Got Talent last year when the watchdog refused a probe and said: 'We carefully considered a large number of complaints about this artistic routine, an area where freedom of expression is particularly important.'Diversity's performance referred to challenging and potentially controversial subjects, and in our view, its central message was a call for social cohesion and unity.'Any depictions of violence by the performers were highly stylised and symbolic of recent global events, and there was no explicit reference to any particular political organisation - but rather a message that the lives of black people matter.'Mr Morgan is also Editor at large for MailOnline and writes a twice weekly column for the website. A spokesman for MailOnline said: 'This is a very sad day for British free speech and one ITV will come to regret very quickly. We stand by Piers 120%.'  LOADS MORE ON THE DM

WELL HE HAS CERTAIN MADE HIS OPINION CLEAR AND MANY AGREE, MYSELF INCLUDED! EVEN GIVEN PAST ERRORS HE IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR TAKING SUCH A PUBLIC STANCE!

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

[gayathreya]

regarding this post lol since i’m not the op and didn’t wanna spam it with lengthy takes if nobody wanted a long reblog chain

unetherealfeelings said: this makes complete sense and i would love nothing more than for some real LGBTQ representation but honestly speaking i don’t trust our country or the industries top filmmakers to make a solid film. The main reason i don’t see such a thing happening is because big stars such as vijay, ajith and even suriya are precisely that stars. The day they are regarded as actors and not stars i think will be the day we get to see content that’s plot and character driven rather than the nonsense we get now. These stars are more interested in giving what the audience what they want, an aggressively mysognistic hero who mansplains and harasses women while fighting “social causes” and apparently ending all the wrong in the world. And even if they somehow miraculously made such a film i would be scared at see how much they might fuck it up. The consequences of screwing up LBGT relationships in mainstream media are grave especially in the times we live and the extremist government and its followers. At the end of the day tho I think we are better off wishing queer representation from art house films that are actually interested in creating complex characters worth caring about. Maybe if these films are done right, we could be hopeful of such change in mass films :/ Having said that i think it’s so adorable to see queer characters being played by big stars, just imagining Suriyas eyes or Madhavans smiles has me soft HAHA

i definitely agree that tamil stars are very backward compared to stars from, say, the malayalam industry (both prithviraj and nivin pauly playing openly gay characters warrants praise ngl), and they’re way more concerned about their family and kids audience and stuff and how their image is projected to the masses. hence, the unending commercial potboilers we are made to witness year in and year out from them with only a little differentiation 

BUT i do say that suriya is a completely different type and level of star in relation to vijay and ajith. i can’t see the latter 2 doing anything in this capacity, but suriya is.. idk.. he’s somewhere in limbo with this. he’s the only big tamil star to have openly acknowledged and thanked a lgbt fanpage in his name, he liked a lgbt positive tweet when india repelled the law criminalising them, he’s the only one to have given money multiple times to trans groups during this lockdown period and made no grand air or speech about it. somehow, i CAN see him playing a queer character on screen, and his image is less massive than vijay or ajith, for which i am perpetually thankful, cos i never want him to become as huge as vijay or ajith in terms of this. of course he will still be cautious about it and i don’t present him to be some gay rights king championing lgbt discourse, but it’s a start and i definitely see him as the most feasible top star who could plunge into doing something like this on screen, because we know 2 reasonably big and important things in this context; in that 1) he’s very much aware of these issues, and 2) he’s 100% not homophobic/transphobic, and is an ally, neither of which we can surely claim about other stars in the industry cos we just never see them talk or engage with anything like this the way suriya has done

there’s always a possibility of messing up in tamil cinema when someone is pioneering a lgbt film with a big name, but i’d be more forgiving of it if they actually try? and then try again, and again. this is why i am not very interested in arthouse or small indie tamil films in this cos these films do not make a splash or is viewed by the masses. i think a big name attached to a project being openly queer in a film would do more wonders for pushing dialogue in this, even if it’s not a perfect film and there’re things i’d potentially take issue with. i’d still very much rather a top hero do it and they have proper lgbt consultants on set and with the script for sensitivity issues than wish for a small budget flick with unknown names that’d wash out of cinemas in a week or get little to no limelight imo. 

primarily because i am ok with a normal mass, commercial film too if the hero is queer. it does not matter to me, i don’t need every lgbt film to be like... deep and philosophical and talking about long seated societal issues. if i have to see suriya play a simple village dude beating up bad guys but his romance interest in the film is another man and they still have cute song and dance sequences, sure, i’d take it, no problem. it can be made within the exact same template we’ve all come to know and love except it’s not heterosexual (or cis, cos i’d be happy with a trans woman lead romance story, too). i guess for me the fundamental thing is not whether the film is ‘’mass or class’’ or anything like that, i want a big star face on it doing it genuienly and sincerely more than i want it to be done perfectly right with no complaints.

*COUGHS* vijay sethupathi pls be suriya’s boyfriend.. thank u, ;__;

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to The Spin Cycle, a semi-regular look at how the impeachment inquiry is being sold to the American public by Washington-types �� both those who are looking to oust the president and those looking to save him.

The most marked quality of the last three years of American political life is the sheer number of news-making events that have occurred. Those events and their aftermath can be near-impossible to keep track of.

Impeachment has only complicated things, which is impressive, since the facts of the Democrats’ inquiry into President Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine seem relatively straightforward. But of course, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one — the founding fathers were vague about what “high crimes and misdemeanors” meant, perhaps so that generations of lawyers could earn their nut figuring it all out.

Impeachment, as it turns out, is really about politicians selling the public on the facts as they’d like them interpreted; it’s a public relations operation as much as a constitutionally-allotted power. We decided it makes sense not just to keep track of the inquiry’s pile of evidence, but to also track how politicians are interpreting that evidence and how the public responds to their spin. We are interested, in other words, in how the facts get laundered.

The facts are themselves crucially important, of course. But finding the truth in politics often means wading through ankle-deep, barnyard-sweet bullshit. The spin. The grandstanding. The press conferences in front of helicopters and flags.

So let’s be organized about this and lay things out as they are on October 11, from facts to spin to public opinion.

The inquiry’s central facts

If the Ukraine impeachment scandal was a dish of Chicken Kiev, think of these facts as the chicken breast, pounded thin under the pressure of high-wattage political scandal: On July 25, President Trump had a call with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. During the call, Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. Text message exchanges between Trump officials and advisors to Zelensky later revealed that the Trump administration was in negotiations to secure the investigation — the Americans dangled a visit to the White House as bait. Around the same time, the White House blocked $400 million in aid to Ukraine, suggesting that the Ukrainians may have faced additional pressure to comply with Trump’s request.

An ever-expanding cast of characters animates those central facts. There’s the CIA whistleblower whose formal complaint about Trump’s call with Zelensky allowed all of these facts to be spilled out into public view — he’s the herbed butter of the Chicken Kiev, bursting with flavorful information. (Ok, I’ll stop.) He has been followed in recent days by a new whistleblower, who reportedly has first-hand knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine interactions.

And just this week, two associates of the president’s lawyer and America’s (former) mayor, Rudy Giuliani, were arrested and indicted for violating campaign finance law. The indictment says they helped funnel foreign money to candidates for office. The men, American citizens born in eastern Europe, appeared to be part of a pressure campaign to remove the American ambassador to Ukraine — reportedly at the behest of Giuliani — from her post.

The political spin

The Democrats

The Democrats are waging a two-front war of sorts: one in the hearing rooms of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the other on the 2020 campaign trail.

On the Congressional front: In her September 24 speech opening up the impeachment inquiry, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “The president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.” She was saying the president has already committed an impeachable offense and that we already have the evidence of him doing so. No spin needed.

Of course, “no spin needed, just the facts” is a spin of its own. “Every new piece of information has corroborated the basic facts, which are devastating for the president,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney told the Times, in a perfect demonstration of the restrained (for now) party line.

To reinforce their fact-gathering mode, on October 4, Democrats sent a subpoena notice to the White House for documents relating to the Ukraine dealings. Failure to comply, the letter said, “shall constitute evidence of obstruction.” Other administration officials have since received subpoenas, as well.

On the campaign front: Democrats running for president have caught onto the idea that the de rigueur line on impeachment is “the facts speak for themselves.” Speaking at a campaign event on October 5, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who has run a campaign based on what she’d have you believe is a core Midwestern ethos of not rocking the boat, said, “I think that all of us believe that the evidence is there.”

Joe Biden has been slow to stir up big news when it comes to the impeachment drama, perhaps because it’s his family’s name being dragged through the scandal. But on October 9, Biden called clearly for the president to be impeached, not just to be investigated, which was further than he’d gone in his previous comments on the matter.

The Republicans

There’s a lot going on here. It started out a little messy but a couple of weeks in, the party line on the impeachment inquiry seems to have coalesced into, “It’s a partisan witch hunt!” and stall, stall, stall.

On October 8, the White House counsel wrote back to congressional Democrats’ document subpoenas with an elaborate, eight-page long “hell no.”

Calling the inquiry “constitutionally illegitimate,” the White House is refusing to cooperate. On the substance of the call with the Ukrainian president, the letter concludes, “The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry.” The State Department also prevented Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a key player in the text message exchanges, from testifying before congress.

Trump, for his part, has spent the past few days trying to normalize the call with Ukraine and his requests to a foreign government to interfere in a U.S, election by investigating one of his political rivals. Trump’s 2020 campaign has released an ad that spins the phone call as innocent and the impeachment inquiry as an effort to overturn the results of the 2016 election. His Twitter timeline is a litany of tweets about the supposedly partisan nature of the whistleblower’s complaint, making liberal use of the phrase, the “Do Nothing Democrats,” and calling for Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to be impeached.

Perhaps the most interesting twist, though, is the mixed response of Fox News. Tucker Carlson, a fanatical Trump supporter, co-wrote a column in which he said, “Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent … there’s no way to spin this as a good idea.” On Oct. 10, the New York Times reported that Attorney General Bill Barr had a private meeting on October 9 with Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox’s parent company. (“Succession” writers, take note.) The morning after the meeting, Trump tweeted angrily in a response to a Fox poll that found 51 percent of Americans think he should be impeached and removed from office. So, all is not well in the right’s political-media nexis; the inquiry is setting teeth on edge, not least the president’s.

How’s it all playing?

All in all, there’s more noise coming from the Republican side of things. For now, though, they’re not winning the public opinion battle. According to our impeachment tracker, support for impeachment has only strengthened over the past couple of weeks. At this writing, 49.3 percent of Americans support it and 43.5 percent oppose.

So for now, the Democrats’ arguments are convincing more voters than Republicans’. But I’ll be interested to see whether the White House efforts to stall and delay will create the impression that Democrats are unfairly persecuting the president. Even Republicans’ and independents’ support of impeachment has increased in recent days, though, according to the polls.

Given a Democratic debate coming up next week, it’s unlikely that Trump will have any reprieve from the talk of his impeachment. We’ll be keeping our eyes glued to his Twitter, and our ears perked for the emerging talking points.

[charmingturkeysandwich]

On Series Finales

(I need to get this out of my head)

(I have so much to say about narrative structure vs. audience opinion)

People always have very strong opinions on series finales. Obviously. It’s the culmination of years of investment in something. Because of this you’re never going to make 100% of people happy. Each of us is invested for different reasons; we connect with different characters. What we “like” is always going to differ. 

That doesn’t mean that calling something a “bad” finale is all about taste or who you ship or stan or what have you. Sometimes the episode simply fails the narrative it built. Being disappointed in something because of a narrative failure can’t be written off as “you just wanted a happy ending and that was never going to happen.” Especially with modern dramas, bittersweet is the happiest we can really hope for. Even comedies usually have some painful episodes leading to the end. I don’t think anyone is expecting TV shows these days to end like Disney movies. Hell, Disney movies sometimes don’t end like Disney movies anymore.

Anyway, enough babbling. Here’s the thing: in fiction - as in life - expectations are everything. Many writing choices the writers, directors, and producers make will set up these expectations. When they’re not met, people are cranky. And for valid reasons.

1. Where you start a story is important. 

An often ridiculed series finale is How I Met Your Mother. The pilot focuses on Ted falling immediately in love with Robin. And the “twist” is all “oh, that’s not your mom; that’s Aunt Robin!” But there’s a reason it started there. Yes, technically, you can argue the reason is because Ted ran into the mother at Robin’s wedding, so meeting Robin was important. But they chose to continue to focus on Robin/Ted the whole fucking series. So technically it made sense narratively for him to come back to her in the end. Somewhere along the way I tweeted the show and said it should be called How I Met Your Aunt Robin, because it truly was more about her than the mother. So, yes, people were pissed when she died and it was “all for nothing.” But despite the title... it was never really her story. So in this way, I defend the ending. It fit the story that they told. They began with Robin. They continued to focus on Robin. Why wouldn’t he “end up with” Robin?

2. Pacing matters - and heavily influences expectations

In How I Met Your Mother, you have a day-to-day, usual kind of sitcom for 7 seasons. Then all of a sudden, a 48-hour span of time is spread out for an entire season! This was jarring and I found it to be tedious. Jack Bauer is not here; the world is not at risk. We do not need a minute by minute account of these two days. In this way, I think the whole last season is a disappointment. 

It also served to adjust our expectations. OK I just watched 20 episodes of how much Barney loves Robin - this must mean something. NOPE! Divorced in one episode. An episode, mind you, where they flew through years of their lives. After drawing out two days. For a whole season. They put a couple decades in, like, a half hour. In this way, How I Met Your Mother failed narratively. The pacing sucked and it made us expect something different from the finale. In this regard, I fucking hated that show and want my time back.

Pacing is super important to Game of Thrones, AKA the reason I can’t get series finale essays from running through my head. You’re set up in a world that is medieval-esque. There are no airplanes and Ubers and the magic doesn’t seem to have evolved into teleportation or the like. Everything was slow in the beginning, for many seasons. Conversations were at the forefront. It was  a social game. It was about the people, first and foremost, even though the stupid sword-y chair was important, too. That was the plot. Likewise, in the beginning, people weren’t protected by plot armor. Remember, GoT so fantastically shattered our collective expectations for a show, but in the most organic, realistic way. We were carrying the expectations of other dramas with us and projecting them on this show, assuming Ned was “safe” because he was our lens - at least, more so than anyone else. He was the protagonist! He might be tortured, but he surely wasn’t going to be beheaded. Wrong! He was. That and its fallout allowed us as viewers to fully commit to a whole new set of expectations.

But then as time went on, travel just kind of... happened. Things that should have taken a whole season happened in a scene! And with no kind of acknowledgement. Additionally, that initial slowness built us up to have HUGE payoffs. Think of all the tiny things that led to the disaster/amazing episode that included the Red Wedding. They built us up and they met that slow burn hype. In later seasons, they have ridiculous outward hype over the white walkers and Night King, over confrontations between Cercei and her potential killers (Jamie, Arya, etc.) The pacing led us to believe that these things would conclude in a deep and meaningful way that justifies the time we spend watching and theorizing on our own. When you suddenly hit fast forward through the good stuff, it’s jarring! And you lose character development.

And, oh, the plot armor thing. We were led to believe this show wasn’t like other shows. No one was safe. So someone please explain to me how exactly half (or more) of the named characters survived the battle with the undead?! Sam was basically crying in a pile of bodies. Jon was hiding behind a rock from the Ice Dragon who had just blue-flamed down a giant fucking wall. Brienne and Jamie had been on the front lines of that second wave. But their (and others’) plot armor was simply too strong. We were betrayed by the “new” expectations that I, for one, deeply respected. Gore is not my thing - I often had to look away and hum through certain scenes over the seasons - but to know that there were always consequences and that the stakes were always high and unpredictable... that’s what made this titty-fest bloodbath worth it! Take away its uniqueness from all other shows, and you’re just left with some really violent almost-porn. 

3. We watch your show for characters, not shock value

OK, yes, some people enjoy the big reveals and that’s kind of why they signed up to begin with. My brother cannot get over some of the CGI scenes and battles, so I get it. But for the most part, every story is rooted in the characters. You could take the most exciting story on the planet, in the most intricate world, but if you put boring ass people in it, no one will care. We’re invested in the characters and we want them to be consistent. And if they change... well they better change slowly, the way that actual people usually do. Redemption arcs are common in fiction - more common than in real life, sadly - and they can really pay off. As can whatever you call the opposite of that. Falls from grace? I’m not sure. Either way - slow is key here. Drop hints. Build it into their character. It’s a gruesome comparison, but if a frog jumps into boiling water, he jumps back out; if he’s in cool water and you gradually heat it up he will eventually boil to death. This is how falls from grace should occur. The character doesn’t just jump into boiling water. It doesn’t hold up.

Dany is obviously the big one here. I’m not arguing that it would be possible for her to become the Mad Queen and torch King’s Landing. But I’m saying that maybe at least a time or two before her little tolling bells meltdown we should see her saying “fuck the innocent people.” We should have seen her violence spreading beyond people who deserved it. The writers should have presented us with more moments that signaled she cared more about power than actually breaking the wheel. Her character was too consistent for too long (go back to pacing and expectations and where the story began) for her to have a turn like that and for it to be satisfying and accepted.

Similarly, Jamie’s abandoned redemption arc didn’t make sense to me. Drop us some hints that he’s still hateful above all else, maybe, before you have him just up and revert at the mention of Cercei dying... a thing he clearly had to realize was coming well before that moment.

There were complaints about this same thing with Barney from HIMYM, along the lines of “seriously we sat through a season of him redeeming himself (and truly, he started before that) just to watch him go back to banging any under 30 with daddy issues an episode later?” Honestly, that one makes a little more sense. He was problematic even at his best! And they did show that he tried to not be that guy - he and Robin were married for a year or two (offscreen, of course) before the divorce. The biggest problem with HIMYM wasn’t the characters - it was the pacing! It changed our expectations and left many disappointed. 

And finally, For God’s sake you don’t always need a crazy twist.

And maybe this falls to the producers and not the writers. They want viewers. They want coverage. They want listicles on Buzzfeed. And both HIMYM and GoT got them! But at what cost? The reason we didn’t get any lead up to Dany turning is because they wanted to shock us. The reason that they didn’t have some of the strongest theories come true is because they wanted to shock us. Shock has been used well in this series to this point. Masterfully, even! But this wasn’t masterful. This was the showrunners playing God instead of letting things happen organically. Some twists make sense after you look back and notice the buried hints. Some twists make sense because there were things that you as the audience didn’t know yet. But other twists are only shocking because they’re out of character, unrealistic, or just plain dumb. We didn’t get much after the twists except some speeches that honestly sounded like the showrunners themselves speaking to defend their choices. Awkward.

Another series finale that disappointed many fans with its twist was Lost. I never watched, but, I mean, if I watched a whole series just to have it never have been real, I would have been pissed. I was terrified that OUaT was going to do that - that in the finale we’d find out it had all been a dream little Emma was having at a group home or some shit. Fans are invested in long-running series - especially those with supernatural/sci-fi words - and to pull the rug out from under them like that is just... rude. And massively disappointing. You mean we speculated ourselves to death for nothing?! 

What people want from a series finale is an ending of this chapter of the characters’ lives that honors the past and acknowledges the future. There’s a reason that series finales often do something to bring it “back to the beginning.” It’s satisfying! I love that the last thing that we saw the Friends do is go get coffee together. That’s how it started! But after that coffee, they were off to the next part of their lives. I love when they get a little self-aware/meta in the last episode, like when Cory says, “Boy Meets World, now I get it.” And then he and Topanga were moving to New York City. Back to the beginning/the roots... but also going somewhere new.

My point in all this is simple: usually when there’s a massive uproar over a series finale, it’s not just petty people being mad their fave didn’t get the ending they wanted. It’s usually a sign of a problem in the writing, whether it be the writing of that last episode or of the series in general. 

Everyone’s opinions are valid and their feelings are real. But when the writing is bad/lazy/shoddy/too focused on a few scenes they’d clearly imagined before writing the finale/clearly leaving certain plot holes or opportunities for spinoffs even when it doesn’t necessarily make sense... people notice.

(And, oh, do they let you know it.)

[escapewithmewzic]

Week 7:Twitter’s susceptibility to trolls and hate

Troll??

Troll in the social media world means a person who creates discord or conflict on the Internet by posting messages that are controversial and provocative in order to start fights or evoke emotional response from people on the Internet or in simple words,to offend them. Yes it is unfortunate that this kind of terrible people exist. #sadfactoflife .However,to make things worse,the Internet has provided these people the platform to spread hate and malice easier, with almost no consequences in the real world.

If you’re an active social media user, chances are that you’ve experienced trolling in one way or another.

Trollers and the rest of the fandom argue that the insults,threats or provocations are merely forms of mischief and humour and emphasizes on the freedom of speech but for many,the personal nature and the ferocity of the abuse verges on hate speech.Given the right to free speech does not mean you should do it.

Trolling in its extreme form can be a criminal offence. Sean Duffy posted offensive videos and messages on tribute pages on young people who died and one of his unfortunate target was Natasha MacBryde, a 15 year old who was killed by a train. One of his insensitive and thoughtless messages he left on the Facebook page was ‘I fell asleep on the track lolz”.The consequences for being an insensitive idiot : he was jailed for 18 weeks.

Unlike the trolls you see in fairy tales, trolls on social media lurks in the open instead of under bridges or in caves, they wait for the best time to come out with every keystroke,striving to provoke and incite hatred.

According to a research done on comments on CNN, there are two major factors that influences people to troll and the first factor is a person’s mood. It was found that people who were in negative moods were much more likely to troll and this is in sync with the mood patterns of humans which ebbs and flows with the day of week and time of day.

The research shows that trolling happens least frequently in the morning and most frequent late at night. It does not stop there but the heights of trolling is at its most frequent on Mondays.

A discussion’s context is the second factor. I’m sure all of you agrees with this or may have seen this “banter” happening on Facebook or Twitter. Posts that begins with a “troll comment” are more likely to be joined by other users compared to posts that does not begin with such comments. Not only that, the more troll comments there are, it attracts more and more troll comments from users. Trollolol.

It was possible to forecast when a person is going to troll approximately 80% of the time by using machine learning algorithms.The two factors put together is a much stronger indicator of trolling compared to pointing out specific individuals as trolls. Basically,trolling occurs more due to the influence of nurture which relates to the person’s environment compared to any inherent trait.

Ordinary people like me and you *winks* can also be influenced to troll as such behaviour can rub on others.It is due to the emotional response to such comments perhaps written by someone who woke up on the wrong side of the bed leading to comments that reacts towards it and end up having heaps and heaps of troll comments! *tragic*

If such behaviour is left unchecked, trolling can end up becoming the norm in the society.Predicting when trolling will happen can be done better by understanding possible factors that leads to such act.

However, it is vital that we know how to differentiate a troll comment and a comment from someone who just need some help in communicating their ideas better.

The findings of a study shows that high percentage of online abuse happens on Twitter and this is probably due to the anonymity of the platform when compared to other social network sites like Facebook which require users to present their real identity.A study done on 134,000 abusive mentions on social media showed that 88% of them happens on Twitter and the remaining small percentage happened on Facebook and other sites(Edwards 2015). 

A British TV host Sue Perkins, quit Twitter after receiving death threats due to other people’s opinion that she might be a good replacement on Top Gear in place of Jeremy Clarkson.This occurrence of famous people leaving Twitter due to death threats happens very often and the stats of it happening on Twitter compared to Facebook is just beyond words!

I’m sure the question that pops up is why does Twitter face this problem and Facebook does not?It is related to “real identity” where other social network sites require you to show who you really are and this does not really work on Twitter especially.Anybody can sign up with a fake name and an anonymous email address.A trend I find on Twitter are accounts created with a famous person’s name and the content are filled with disses and spiteful comments and so called “banters”.

Facebook prevails when it comes to troll removal. Even though all platforms allow a person to report behaviours that are abusive,Facebook’s follow up is the strongest. You have full control over the comments on your Facebook page where a deleted comment will be vanished from everybody’s eyes unless the troll decided to repeat the same thing. Accounts that are created with fake names or accounts created for the sake of harassing purposes are taken down quickly.I’ve experienced an imposter of myself messaging my friends for a verification code and my friends and I reported the account and in a few minutes,the account was immediately removed!

Trolls value anonymity and seldom confirm their emails or phone numbers and they tend to use the default photo on Twitter which was formerly the famous egg icon.The egg icon was dropped as it has become heavily associated with online abuse which is not fair to those genuine users who are new and have not selected their profile photo.Accounts created to harass others are often not personalized as they don’t really have the time to.However, you can exclude these trolls from your feed by simply going to the Privacy section and select Notifications and mute people who uses a default photo and users who hasn’t confirm their phone number or email.With just a few clicks,you can change your feed from being exposed to all the toxicity.Yes they are still roaming free but why would you care if you can’t see them. Ignorance is bliss. *sometimes*

Twitter is making changes to address abuse and malicious automated accounts in the face of criticism it doesn't do enough to curb harassment and manipulation on its service.

Each week,there has been a dramatic rise in the creation of spam or automated accounts on Twitter. Nearly 10 million potential fake or spam accounts were created weekly, identified by Twitter’s machine learning tools.This is an increase of 3.2 million in September.

Twitter announced new rules where users who wants to join Twitter are required to either confirm a phone number or an email address when signing up on Twitter.Twitter hopes to reduce spam accounts’ visibility by removing their accounts from engagement counts and follower figures unless they confirm their identity(Musil 2018).

Jack Dorsey,Twitter’s CEO asked users for recommendations on how to fix the platform after recognizing that Twitter can be extremely toxic and that his team and he had underestimated the consequences it can have in the real-world. He recognized and has witnessed harassments,abuse,armies of trolls, manipulations and divisive echo chambers that are increasing.

Particularly over the past few years, Twitter takes the center stage for various abuse such as death threats, attack mobs, revenge porn and privacy violations.

Some ways to handle trolls :-

1)Handle them with humour

IMO, humour is the best weapon a person can have! By making light of a troll’s tweet, you’re basically acknowledging and defusing the situation simultaneously.

A grocery chain in the UK, Sainsbury’s, responded to a criticism regarding their chicken sandwich in a lighthearted manner and their response is top class.What’s important here is they did not ignore the customer’s tweet.They apologized,recognized the problem and replied in a witty manner.They managed to turn a criticism into an engagement opportunity.

2) Feed them with facts

A way to debunk trolls and their ‘tales’ is with facts and ‘tales’ here can include rumours and posts with false information or inaccuracies. Do you guys remember when Apple released the iPhone 6 and there were posts and rumours about it bending in your pocket?Thus the birth of the hashtag #bendgate with a lot of trolling on the side.

Many trolls lurking in the Internet was very creative about it and inspired to post their version of it.

Apple took a stand and responded to the criticisms by admitting that it could bend but wouldn’t normally happen with normal use.(obviously anything can bend/break with such force that you don’t usually do to a phone LMAO) #BendGate turns out to be a much ado about almost nothing and Apple received only 9 complaints and openly shared the stats. Addressing the issue head-on was Apple’s tactic to stop further controversies(Rampton 2015).

P.S. I personally think the best way is to just ignore the trolls. 

References

Edwards, J 2015, ‘One statistic shows that Twitter has a fundamental problem Facebook solved years ago’, Business Insider, 17 April, viewed 23 October 2018, <http://uk.businessinsider.com/statistics-on-twitter-abuse-rape-death-threats-and-trolls-2015-4/?IR=T>.

Musil, S 2018, ‘Twitter ramps up effort to combat abusive bots,trolls’, CNET, 26 June, viewed 23 October 2018, <https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-ramps-up-effort-to-combat-abusive-bots-trolls/>.

Rampton, J 2015, ’10 tips to dealing with trolls’, Forbes, 9 April, viewed 22 October 2018, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/04/09/10-tips-to-dealing-with-trolls/#1b4703bf54f4>.

[patriotsnet]

Why Do Republicans Stand Behind Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-stand-behind-trump/

Why Do Republicans Stand Behind Trump

Senate Republicans Are Not Going To Convict Trump

Donald Trump: Some Republicans did not honor their pledge to stand behind Trump

It is not likely there are enough votes to convict Trump. President Biden himself said in an interview on January 25 that Democrats did not have the votes in the Senate to convict Trump. Even though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was not sure how he would vote, signalling the first significant break between Trump and the most powerful Republican in the Senate, he and 45 Republican senators voted on January 26 in favour of a motion proposed by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to dismiss the impeachment trial. The strategy behind this motion was to question the constitutionality of convicting a former president, another first in American history. Only five Republicans opposed the measure. This is the most glaring indication that nowhere close to 17 Republicans will vote with the Democrats to convict the former president.

Moreover, Trump has threatened political retribution against those GOP members of Congress who support impeachment. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump and his closest aides were in discussions about creating a new Patriot Party to challenge Republican candidates. However, Trump recently disavowed these reports and reassured Senate Republicans. Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota relayed to Politico that The president wanted me to know, as well as a handful of others, that the president is a Republican, he is not starting a third party and that anything he would do politically in the future would be as a Republican.

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to.;

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. Pollsfound an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump.;

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

Trump Breaks Silence With Cpac Speech

Most notably, these state and local parties launched a barrage of censures or other forms of condemnation not long after a violent pro-Trump mob inspired by the former presidents lie about a stolen election and egged on that day by Trump himself stormed the Capitol intent on disrupting Congress as it formalized President Joe Bidens win. Many of the efforts were aimed at the small number of Republicans who voted in favor of impeachment or conviction after House Democrats moved swiftly to impeach Trump on the charge of “incitement to insurrection.”

In Louisiana, the state GOP censured one of its U.S. senators, Bill Cassidy, moments after he voted to convict Trump. North Carolina’s state GOP passed a similar measure aimed at Sen. Richard Burr just days later.

In Illinois, Larry Smith, chair of the LaSalle County Republican Party and a leader in the effort to censure Rep. Adam Kinzinger after he voted to impeach Trump, told NBC News that local GOP leaders in his state are overwhelmingly still pro-Trump, and that the detractors amount to a splinter group by comparison.

I think they’re stunningly naive or have completely misread the tea leaves, he said of Republicans who believe they can leave Trump behind.

He pointed to comments from Kinzinger in The Atlantic in which the lawmaker expressed hope that the segment of the GOP base ready to move past Trump could grow to 35 or 45 percent by the midterm elections.

Read Also: What Cities Are Run By Republicans

Why Dont Republicans Stand Up To Trump Heres The Answer

Rep. Mark Sanford

If youre still flummoxed by the abject servility of congressional Republicans, by their refusal to confront Trump and stand up for American values, check out last nights primary election in South Carolina. The purging of Mark Sanford says it all.

Sanford is a long-serving conservative lawmaker who typically votes with his party, but on a few public occasions, he has actually dared to suggest that Trump is not the supreme very stable genius that the deluded Republican base deems Trump to be. The result: Sanford loses his job.

For the inexcusable sin of speaking his mind about factual reality, the Republican base voters in Sanfords House district threw him out last night, handing the GOP nomination to a far-right Trumper who repeatedly denounced Sanford as disloyal.

This is why rank-and-file Republican lawmakers refuse to speak out. Theyre afraid of their own constituents. Its Trumps party now, and the constituents in red districts virtually worship the guy. Forget about putting country over party, because its actually worse than that. Sanfords colleagues wont put country over career. Theyll vow that what just happened to Sanford will not happen to them.

As conservative commentator Erick Erickson said today, Mark Sanford losing in South Carolina is pretty much proof positive that the GOP is not really a conservative party that cares about limited government. It is now fully a cult of personality.

I stand by every word.

Why Do Republicans Continue To Support Trump Despite Years Of Scandal

It was late September last year when a whistleblower complaint revealed that President Trump had tried to force the Ukrainian government to investigate Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Within moments the scandal captured headlines. What followed was months of back and forth as Republicans supported the president while the Democrats used their political capital to get him impeached.

But this was not the first time ;;or the last time ;the president was caught in the middle of a scandal.;Since the impeachment trial that followed the Ukraine incident, episodes from The New York Times uncovering unsavory details from President Trumps tax returns, to his questionable dismissal of multiple Inspectors General, to his refusal to clearly condemn white supremacists have all sparked widespread media attention and partisan fighting in 2020.;

Although with his polls dropping, some Republicans may finally be distancing themselves from the President, the question has been regularly asked the past four years: why do the Republicans continue to support the President despite these troubling charges being leveled at him? And, what is it that the Democrats stand to gain from repeated allegations?

;In addition to demonstrating how polarization accelerates scandals, the paper also found that:;

Read Also: Which Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump Today

Trump Is Still A Force In The Party

After the 2012 elections, prominent Republicans sharply criticized Mitt Romney and his campaign. Democrats did the same to Hillary Clinton after 2016 and sometimes included former President Barack Obama in their criticisms, too. For a political party to change direction, it nearly always has to distance itself from past leaders.;

Or put another way: For there to be an autopsy, there has to be a dead body.

Republicans’ Choice: Stand With Trump Or Risk His Wrath

Trump has already informed at least two GOP lawmakers of his dissatisfaction with their defense of his racist tweets.

Sen. John Cornyn prides himself on winning a large share of the Latino vote in Texas, campaigning in the Asian American community and running ads in three languages. Its a crucial strategy for a Republican in a diverse state and one that is sharply divergent from President Donald Trumps approach.

So as Cornyn seeks reelection next year with Trump on the ballot, hes making sure that he isnt dragged down by the presidents more inflammatory politics, exemplified again this week by his racist tweets telling four liberal Democratic congresswomen to go back to where they came from.

I dont have any trouble speaking to any of my constituents. They dont confuse me with whats happening up here in D.C., said Cornyn, who has gently criticized Trumps battle as a mistake that unified Democrats. I know we are consumed by this here, but it doesnt consume my constituents when I go back home.

Its a common refrain for Republicans trying to deflect a Trump-fueled firestorm and highlights the dilemma that the party will face for months to come.

GOP lawmakers, especially those facing potentially tough reelection bids, need to create independent identities to win over Trump skeptics. But if they break too fiercely with the president, he and his grassroots supporters might turn on them, with disastrous political consequences.

Also Check: How Many Seats Do Republicans Have In The Senate

A Clue About This Difficult Political Surgery

Reuters: Yuri Gripas

Trump is like a drug Republicans are yet to find a way to kick. By most accounts, few Republicans in Congress want him back, and many believe that if a secret ballot had been held in the Senate on the weekend, more than the required number of 17 would have joined with the 50 Democrats to convict him and ban him from holding office in the future.

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell’s speech condemning Trump as “practically and morally responsible” for the deadly January 6 attack on Congress by his supporters, offers a clue about the difficult piece of political surgery he is now trying to perform.

“Seventy-four million Americans did not invade the Capitol,” McConnell said. “Hundreds of rioters did. Seventy-four million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did. Just one.”

Have Expressed Reluctance Or Misgivings But Havent Openly Dropped Their Backing

Why military veterans stand behind Donald Trump

Paul Ryan and John Boehner, the former speakers of the House: Both have expressed their dislike of the president, but have not said whom they will support in November.

John Kelly, a former chief of staff to the president: Mr. Kelly has not said whom he plans to vote for, but did say he wished we had some additional choices.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: She has said that shes grappling with whether to support Mr. Trump in November. She told reporters on Capitol Hill in June: I am struggling with it. I have struggled with it for a long time.

She said: I think right now, as we are all struggling to find ways to express the words that need to be expressed appropriately, questions about who Im going to vote for or not going to vote for, I think, are distracting at the moment. I know people might think thats a dodge, but I think there are important conversations that we need to have as an American people among ourselves about where we are right now.

Mr. Sanford briefly challenged the president in this cycles Republican primary, and said last year that he would support Mr. Trump if the president won the nomination .

That has since changed.

Hes treading on very thin ice, Mr. Sanford said in June, worrying that the president is threatening the stability of the country.

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Also Check: Which Republicans Voted Against The Budget Resolution

Why Are Republicans So Afraid Of Voters

There is no both sides do it when it comes to intentionally keeping Americans away from the polls.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues. It is separate from the newsroom.

As of Sunday afternoon, more than 93 million Americans had cast a ballot in the November elections. Thats about two-thirds of the total number of people who voted in 2016, and there are still two days until Election Day.

This is excellent news. In the middle of a global pandemic that has taken the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Americans, upended the national economy and thrown state election procedures into turmoil, there were reasonable concerns that many people would not vote at all. The numbers to date suggest that 2020 could see record turnout.

While celebrating this renewed citizen involvement in Americas political process, dont lose sight of the bigger, and darker, picture. For decades, Americans have voted at depressingly low rates for a modern democracy. Even in a good year, more than one-third of all eligible voters dont cast a ballot. In a bad year, that number can approach two-thirds.

Why are so many Americans consistently missing in action on Election Day?

For many, its a choice. They are disillusioned with government, or they feel their vote doesnt matter because politicians dont listen to them anyway.

Republicans Almost Won In 2020

To torture this autopsy metaphor even more: Theres a good argument that the party is still very much alive.

Historically, parties have done more self-reflection and been more likely to change course when theyve hit electoral low points. In the 1988 presidential race, Democrats carried only 10 states and Washington, D.C., and that loss was their third consecutive failed bid for the White House. In 2008, Obama won the popular vote by 7 percentage points Republicans didnt even carry Indiana. So of course the parties were ready to rethink things after those defeats.

In contrast, Trump would have won reelection had he done only about 1 percentage point better in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and about 3 points better in Michigan. Republicans would still control the Senate had Republican David Perdue won about 60,000 more votes against Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgias Senate runoff. A slew of court rulings that forced the redrawing of House district lines in less favorable ways to the GOP helped the Democrats win several seats otherwise, Republicans might have won back the House. Add all that up, and 2020 wasnt that far from resulting in a Republican trifecta.;

Also, Republicans did really well in state legislative races and gained ground among Black and Latino voters nationally .

related:What Did CPAC Tell Us About The Future Of The GOP? Read more. »

Don’t Miss: Which Republicans Voted For The Resolution Today

Dire Rhetoric Used To Describe Democratic Political Opponents What’s At Stake In Country

During the second impeachment trial, the core of the House impeachment managers’ case was this: Trump’s extreme rhetoric about the presidential election being “rigged” incited a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol.

Every Democratic senator and seven Republican senators bought the argument, voting to convict Trump. In both the House and Senate, even Republicans who did not vote to impeach or convict Trump, respectively, criticized his rhetoric and actions surrounding the election.

But at CPAC, while there were few mentions of Jan. 6, several speakers’ rhetoric was similarly inflammatory as they described political opponents in extreme terms and painted a dire picture of a nation led by Democrats.

During his speech, freshman Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., delivered a line eerily similar to one Trump gave on Jan. 6, when the former president said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“If we sit on the sidelines, we will not have a country to inherit. If we do not get involved and say that it is our duty to make sure that our country is responsible, that our country doesn’t take away our liberties, then my friends, we will lose this nation,” Cawthorn said. “The Democrats, my opponents and adversaries on the other side are brutal and vicious and they are trying to take away all of our rights.”

Opinion: Why Are Republicans So Afraid Of A Fair Fight At The Polls

THE CORONAVIRUS pandemic has left state leaders scrambling to run a fair election this November. Ramping up absentee voting is the most sensible response, but unfortunately it also is becoming a partisan choice. President Trump continues to spew disinformation about the supposed dangers of mail-in voting, some state Republican leaders are refusing to make voting easier, and party officials are fighting states that are trying to do the right thing.

There is NO WAY that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent, President Trump tweeted May 26, accusing California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, of proposing to send ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there. In fact, voter fraud of any kind is rare, and states that conduct all-mail-in elections, such as Oregon and Utah, have not seen widespread fraud. Mr. Trump may have been spurred by a lawsuit the Republican National Committee filed May 24 against Mr. Newsom, demanding that the courts stop the governor from distributing absentee ballots in California. That lawsuit, too, is built on fearmongering.

If Republicans fear that enabling more people to vote will hurt them, they should offer more attractive policies and candidates and stop trying to suppress the vote, in California and everywhere else.

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Twitter content

Twitter content

More Great Stories FromVanity Fair

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are Currently In The Senate

[sgreffenius]

I have occasionally compared the atmosphere on college campuses - and for several years now, off college campuses - to China’s Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. Chinese culture and politics had one truth at the time: Mao Zedong Thought. It had at least three methods to enforce Mao Zedong Thought: murder, imprison, and re-educate. Often the second and third methods were indistinguishable.

All of these methods depended on people denouncing each other. Reasons for turning on your neighbor might have nothing to do with Mao Zedong Thought. A common reason was fear that your neighbor might turn on you first. If you were first, your neighbor would receive a visit from the Red Guards, not you. You kept yourself and your family safe. Your willingness to turn someone in confirmed you as an asset to the enforcers.

Mao Zedong propaganda art during the Cultural Revolution, 1967.

Observers of totalitarian societies call this condition atomization. You break down normal, healthy bonds of community among people, to the point they no longer trust one another. “See something, say something,” is not an innocent public affairs message from public authorities who need your help. It’s an attempt to turn an entire society into a nation of snitches.

How did it happen that so many college campuses now have mechanisms in place to submit anonymous complaints about professors online? How did it happen that college campuses permit you to submit an accusation of sexual assault against a fellow student, with no due process for the accused? How did it happen that college campuses enforce speech codes so restrictive that free speech no longer exists at these institutions?

How did it happen that administrators up and down the line, including the provost and president, support these changes. These changes contrast so sharply with previous images of academic freedom, that one parent asked, “Why would I spend tens of thousands of dollars every year, to send my son or daughter to a totalitarian sleep-away camp?” You want to attend college for an education, not re-education.

Even professors take pride in their re-education skills. The more you take the correct line, the more you protect yourself from being canned for having said or written the wrong thing. Your colleagues and students regard you as a good person - beyond suspicion - if you teach course content they approve. If they do not regard you as part of the in-group, they will pounce on something you tweet, or something you utter in class that might be offensive. Once an accusation appears, prepare to be suspended mid-semester, never to teach on that or any other campus again. Once denounced, you will not find another job.

These methods have found their way into corporate environments. We see re-education programs there as well, centered on themes of white privilege, white guilt, white fragility, white supremacy, white values, white cultural appropriation, white man’s burden, white Western Civilization, white you-name-it. Run a workshop with the word white at the beginning of the title, promote it to businesses who want to demonstrate their forward-looking company culture, and get rich.

You do not need to know a lot. You just need to convince the suits that you can re-educate people. That is the great goal. In fact, it is the path to unity. When everyone thinks the same, people will stop fighting each other. They will stop offending other people via micro-aggressions. They will not assert their white privilege, because once you know the truth - that you are a toxic, offensive, and benighted individual - you will have nothing to assert. Think as I do, authors of workshop books and anti-racist tracts suggest, and we need not disagree about anything.

Companies and individual want to place themselves on the right side of these questions, which in this case means the dominant side. Persuasion does not occur in a re-education workshop. When you bring the 1619 Project into your classroom, so you think teachers and school administrators do so to promote freedom of expression? Hardly.

Politics, research, and learning cease to be arenas of persuasion, doubt, comparison, evaluation of evidence, discernment, and judgment. These activities evolve away from humane understanding, toward enforced re-education programs. We see in the last fifty-five years of Chinese history how well homogeneity of thought works in that country. It will work no better in the United States. Whatever methods dominant groups use to enforce right-think, these efforts necessarily fail, because you cannot indefinitely suppress people’s innate desire for freedom.

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/social-concerns/finding-common-ground/

Finding Common Ground

(Because of the events of last week, I feel this blog bears repeating.) Few would argue against the notion that under Donald Trump’s Presidency, American democracy has been tested at all levels of government.  How far that testing has gone is a cause for concern for many. Recently, Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the U. S. Senate, fired a salvo across the bow of the U. S. Supreme Court, threatening Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch about their upcoming votes that might overturn abortion rights in an upcoming Louisiana case.  “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Chief Justice Roberts responded with a warning of his own. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”  Meanwhile, the outgoing President, Donald Trump, a man who has shown contempt for the courts, stirs the pot with his tweets over with Schemer’s outburst. If abortion were the sole issue at stake, the country might survive the bloodletting, but other issues, like gun control, First Amendment rights, and religious freedom are also at stake. People on the political far left and right are accusing one another of redefining the Constitution. To find a middle ground is difficult because so little trust exists between  factions. A form of brinkmanship has settled among us like poison gas. The threats, the defiance, the acts of violence along the political spectrum begin to sound less like demands to right a wrong and more like the crazed cacophony of a society longing for extinction.  Witness the Christian singer who, despite the pandemic, defends his open-air concerts as an expression of his religious rights. His model is obvious. Trump’s assault on the peaceful transfer of power gives the singer license to pervert the norms of religious freedom.    Finding common ground with those of bad faith takes more than a stretch. As of yet, I have no idea how to accomplish it.  Still, those of good faith, despite a difference of opinion, must try. To that end, I decided to read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s words about conservatism in his speech of November 12, 2020, to the Federalist Society.  Let me admit I have no law degree but read his comments as a  citizen to whom the law applies—someone who, through representative government has a voice in determining what is a reasonable and unreasonable law.  That voice has belonged to every citizen since the tea party rebellion in  1773 when our forbearers raised the cry, No taxation without representation. Alito began his speech by explaining the role of a conservative judge: “to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law.” I suspect a liberal judge like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would reply Alito had defined the role of every judge.  If so, then I had found common ground. Nor did I imagine Ginsberg would object to Alito’s description of current conditions in the country. That  “…tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply”  I also agree. Intolerance has put the rule of law under pressure. Alito added the current pandemic had exacerbated the difficulty.   “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.” Here, I disagree. Age takes its privilege for I lived through the deprivations of World War 11, a duration of 7 years. By contrast, the pandemic of the past several months only requires that we wear masks, wash our hands, and practice social distancing. Nonetheless, Alito was correct in his next observation that in a time of crisis, power flows to the executive branch of government.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the nation in his palm when I was growing up. Fortunately for the country, he was an honest broker with good intentions. He resisted the temptation to promulgate excessive emergency regulations that drew power to himself at the expense of our fundamental freedoms.     To describe the appropriate use of executive power, Alito discussed a 1905 Supreme Court ruling concerning a Cambridge, Massachusetts ordinance. It required citizens to submit to vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak.  Alito argued the high court’s decision to uphold the ordinance was correct because it “targeted a problem of a limited scope.” I admit his conclusion puzzled me. How size affected individual rights or the notion of equal treatment under the law was unclear. Nor did his discussion of other cases further illuminate.  For lack of time and space, I  touch upon only one of his examples to illustrate my confusion. Like the smallpox case, it addressed individual rights versus the rights of a community. A gay couple brought a complaint before the court against a baker who’d refused an order for their wedding cake. He cited his religious objection to homosexuality as his reason.  Offended, the couple sued the man and in court their attorney argued religious freedom was no defense because it could be used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust …” Alito conceded to his audience that the attorney had a point. Claims of religious freedom could be used to serve bigotry. But in the baker’s case, the judge saw “no evidence that anybody has been harmed.” Cakes were readily available elsewhere in the community. I gasped at Alito’s conclusion, however. Did he fail to see that availability wasn’t the issue? At stake was the question of equal treatment in the public square. A business open to the public must serve all customers alike. No person should suffer the indignity of being turned out of an establishment on the off-chance the proprietor held views contrary to those of the customer.  Yet Alito thought so well of his argument that he circled back to insist the injured party in the case was the […]

[newstechreviews]

Election night was not the party Trump had wanted, and he’s been complaining bitterly about it ever since—and trying undermine faith in legitimate election results along the way. As the first returns came in, high-top tables had been arranged in the East Room along with dozens of neatly arranged chairs and a podium set up for a triumphant speech in front of a field of American flags. When Trump finally came out shortly after 2 a.m. on Nov. 4 he didn’t have a victory speech loaded into the TelePrompter, but he gave one anyway.

In rambling remarks delivered largely off the cuff, Trump falsely claimed to have won the election, surprising his staff. “As far as I’m concerned, we already have won it,” Trump said in the East Room of the White House, looking away from the TelePrompter screen and toward the cameras.

Trump largely stuck to that posture on Thursday, sending his staff scrambling to keep up with his tweets to “STOP THE COUNT!”, falsely saying he’d won states like Pennsylvania and Georgia where votes were still being counted, and claiming widespread voter fraud without evidence. State and local officials run the counting of votes, and the certification of election results, not the President. Trump spent the day between his White House residence and the Oval Office and directing his campaign officials to fight the results where he was trailing Biden.

The President then appeared in the White House briefing room on Thursday evening to falsely contend that he’s being scammed out of a victory. He unspooled a litany of complaints. He blamed a conspiracy of “big media, big money and big tech,” for interfering in the election against him. He falsely called mail-in voting a “corrupt system,” when there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud. “This is the case where they’re trying to steal an election and they’re trying to rig an election,” Trump said, speaking with a scratchy voice from the podium bearing the Presidential Seal.

Evan Vucci—APWhite House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany closes a notebook used by President Trump following his remarks on Nov. 5.

Despite calling for counting to be stopped earlier in the day, Trump used to the appearance to contradict himself, saying he wants “every legal vote counted,” but adding that “we think there’s going to be a lot of litigation.” He said again that he would challenge results to the Supreme Court, which could only happen if his legal challenges are heard and denied by lower courts. “If you count the legal votes I easily win. If you count the illegal votes they can try to steal the election from us,” Trump said, though he provided no evidence that votes had been cast or counted illegally.

“His supreme skill has always been to create a reality by bullying and creating a narrative and this is probably the first time in his life that it is not working,” says Heather Richardson, a historian at Boston College.

“He’s throwing things against the wall hoping that something sticks,” says Lauren Wright, a political scientist at Princeton University. “He figures if there is any chance he can sow enough doubt to either buy him time or get Republicans on his side or somehow sway the system to somehow start working in his favor, then it’s worth it.”

Trump’s false claims of voter fraud, which academic studies show is extremely rare in the U.S., take aim at the very foundations of the democratic system, Wright says. “The outrage surrounding it is appropriate because our democratic institutions rest on people believing our election outcomes,” says Wright.

In step with Trump’s defiant posture, his campaign has set in motion a prepared legal strategy to challenge close races, launching lawsuits in key battleground states. On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers asked to join a pending lawsuit that is before the Supreme Court. The case, brought by the Pennsylvania GOP, is attempting to block an extension that allows lawful mail-in ballots to be counted, so long as they arrive within three days of Election Day. On Thursday, the Trump campaign filed a suit in federal court in Pennsylvania to ensure GOP poll watchers are able to monitor vote counting. The same day, Trump campaign legal challenges in Georgia and Michigan were rejected by lower courts.

At the same time, as Trump continued tweeting angrily and trying to cast doubt on the integrity of the election on social media, his campaign leadership escalated their own verbal attacks. During a call on Thursday, Trump’s campaign manager Bill Stepien agreed with the President’s baseless assessment that there is wide-spread fraud going on in the vote count. “Exactly what the President said would happen is happening,” Stepien said. “The Democrats’ lying, cheating and stealing is running rampant all over this country.” Campaign senior adviser Jason Miller warned, without evidence, of “corrupt and crooked localities that are run by partisan Democrats” that threaten to “pull a fast one on the American people.”

Declaring victory in a state or nationwide doesn’t make it true, and even Trump’s allies have called the President out on his rush to declare victory. “There’s just no basis to make that argument tonight. There just isn’t. All these votes have to be counted that are in now,” Chris Christie said on ABC News about Trump’s remarks early Wednesday morning. “I disagree with what he did.”

Sean Spicer, Trump’s first White House Press Secretary, said Thursday in an interview on SiriusXM that he hasn’t seen evidence of voter fraud on a scale large enough to effect the outcome of the race. “I haven’t seen any evidence of it. And again, I don’t think it helps his case,” Spicer said.

Other Republicans who have held their noses and put up with Trump see some solace that the Senate seems on track to remain in GOP hands and that the election wasn’t a Democratic blow-out. “People are happy that the ideas he stands for have not been repudiated,” a Trump Administration official says, adding that few who work for him see him as a great manager, unlike previous beloved Republican leaders. “It’s not the same as if Reagan had lost.”

Ultimately, Trump will fold, says the official. “He’s built an image of himself as a fighter,” the official says. “It’s a lot of bluster that will peter away in a week or two once those court battles die down,” the official says. “I don’t think people will be dragging him out of the White House in January.”

Trump’s eldest son Don Jr. spent part of the day prodding Republicans interested in running for President in four years to support Trump’s effort to fight the results. “The total lack of action from virtually all of the ‘2024 GOP hopefuls’ is pretty amazing,” Trump’s son tweeted, adding that GOP presidential hopefuls “have a perfect platform to show that they’re willing & able to fight.” President Trump, he wrote, “will fight & they can watch as usual!”

Within an hour, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and former South Carolina governor and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley both tweeted lukewarm messages about the importance of counting legally cast votes. “All votes that are *legally* cast should be counted” and there’s “NO excuse” for poll watchers to observe ballot counting, wrote Cotton, adding a link for donations to the Trump campaign’s legal defense fund.

Trump “and the American people deserve transparency & fairness as the votes are counted,” Haley wrote. “The law must be followed.”

— With reporting from Tessa Berenson

[swiztothistay]

Open Letter to the Grey’s Anatomy fans, cast, and crew:

I’ve been a Grey’s Anatomy fan since 2005. I’ve had my Twitter account since 2009. I remember the ‘good old days,’ like in 2013 when Ellen Pompeo first joined Twitter and would tweet super random things and loved interacting with us. The Grey’s Anatomy fandom is (for the most part) an incredibly supportive community that I’ve generally enjoyed taking part in. I’ve met some of my best friends there. However, in recent years, particularly since 2015, I have noticed an increasingly negative side of that community.

As it stands right now, the Grey’s fandom on Twitter is an incredibly toxic environment and appears to consist of whiny, entitled teenagers who seem to think it’s acceptable to direct their complaints about characters and storylines to the cast, writers, and/or crew involved. Let me be very clear about this point:

It’s not acceptable. Period.

These are people who dedicate their lives to creating stories and characters for us as fans. They work 18+ hour days an awful lot of the time. Much of the cast has remained and continues to remain at Grey’s because of the fans. However, as of late, fans show absolutely no respect for these people and it continually astounds me how you treat them. You have all contributed to a fandom that has successfully alienated the cast and crew of a show you all claim to love. Caterina rarely tweets. Jessica doesn’t interact with any of you, and in fact unfollowed most of the fans she did follow. Justin avoided Twitter for months. Ellen can’t be asked 95% of the time, and I truly believe that this is a direct result of supposed “fans” either a) simply being incredibly rude [yet expecting respectful responses back?!?!], or b) complaining because storylines on the show aren’t going as you would like them to.

Recently, one fan (jokingly?) tweeted Krista Vernoff, who has only recently returned to Grey’s as an executive producer, that they would “burn down her house” if she didn’t do right by their 'ship.’ Threats like this are not a joke to these people – who have had to deal with incidents such as fans showing up on their doorsteps and calling their phones, for example. Fans like that have instilled fear into the hearts of this cast. You have no boundaries and zero respect for their privacy. The cast, though being celebrities, are everyday people like us. They are entitled to their privacy. You don’t get to demand access into their lives simply because you are a fan. Stop acting like it’s your God-given right.

To the many MerDer fans I know who have a tendency to slut-shame Meredith for being with other men since Derek: that’s simply not fair. It has been two years since his death for us as viewers, and longer in the Grey’s timeline. While I admit, as a diehard MerDer fan myself, it pains me to watch Mer move on, I think it’s important to realize that Meredith (and all widows) have every right to move on – on their timeline, and at their choosing. You wouldn’t slut shame a widow in your own life, would you?

To the many “fans” who once loved MerDer, once loved Patrick as much as they love Ellen, who now bash Patrick for leaving: you have NO reason to consistently bash a man who, despite your best attempts at denial, helped make Grey’s Anatomy what it was. For years, Ellen Pompeo and Patrick Dempsey were the face of the show. MerDer is a huge part of pop culture and even if a person didn’t watch the show, chances were they could identify MerDer, or at the very least Ellen and/or Patrick. Simply put, you don’t know what happened. No one, except the members of the cast who were on set at the time, know what happened. It’s likely we will never know. And, we are not entitled to that knowledge. Really, it’s none of our business. Shonda and the rest of the cast and crew are done talking about it. You need to be too.

To the fans who tweet negative things about a character simply to get a rise out of others: we all see how you do this and then play the victim when said character’s fans go on the defense. You just create more drama and add to the toxic nature of the fandom. It’s ugly. You try and then claim how “you don’t know me” and how “I’m a good person.” Well, do the rest of us a favor and show us that so-called good character through your ACTIONS. If your timeline is full of you calling other fans words I will not repeat here, it’s hard to assume you are a decent person. It’s really not that hard to keep your mouth shut if you don’t like someone or something. I’m guessing though, that most of your parents never taught you that principle of “if you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it at all.” However, the same goes for those who jump to the defense of their favorite characters - be respectful or don’t say anything.

To the MANY so-called fans who, for the past nine months, have consistently slandered Ellen Pompeo, who send her hateful comments every time she tweets about racism, who call her 'Ms. Reverse Racism’ (among other things), and then cry victim when Ellen responds in kind, congrats! You have created a culture where it’s seen as “cool” to hate the star of your favorite show, to tear her down, and to tear her fans down. It’s clear you also enjoy actively seeking out her fans who continue to support her and harassing them as well. You also have been caught tweeting hateful things to lay people who aren’t involved in the Grey’s fandom but have met her, and that is completely and utterly vile.

It is also quite evident to many of us that those who attack Ellen and call her a reverse racist do not fully understand the issue at hand. Ellen has three biracial children. Her husband is black. You cannot honestly think that, even as a white woman with privilege, it doesn’t strike fear into her heart that perhaps one day her husband might be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong law enforcement officer(s)? That her children won’t experience racism and hatred on the playground or in class one day? A mother’s heart bleeds when her children are in pain. Ellen wants better for her children than what is happening in America today. She is 100% an ally and is on the right side, fighting against racism and discrimination every day – despite your extremely misguided opinions. She is also not wrong in that racism comes in many forms. It occurs at a systematic level, at a community level, at an individual level. The issue is FAR more complex than you all make it out to be – it is not, for lack of better words, a black and white issue. There are many issues at play here.

Yes, sometimes we have to educate those fighting on the front lines with us. Rather than attacking someone for using the wrong words, educate them. And by educate, that does not mean attacking them, calling them fat, calling them a white bitch, etc. As Krista herself said, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. The way to educate your allies is with kindness, empathy, and respect. You also might have more success if you were respectful - rather than being disrespectful and expecting Ellen’s respect back. She is not a woman who respects those who disrespect her. Respect is earned. You are not automatically entitled to it. Don’t alienate your allies. Ellen has a huge platform and is using it to raise awareness of so many important social justice and environmental issues. And if you don’t like it, or if you take issue with which emoji colors she uses…there is a handy little unfollow button at the top right on her profile. There is also a block button, where you won’t be privy to anything she tweets. Make use of these.

In recent weeks, some of my own friends have left the fandom because they could no longer handle the toxic environment. For their own mental health and well-being, they had to leave. That’s sad. These people love the cast, they love the characters, but they no longer feel safe expressing that anymore. This feeling of not being safe has also come about as a direct result of “group chat” accounts, where multiple people have access to the same account. These people use these groups as a medium to publicly post their “jokes” - many of which are in fact harmful. Your group chat accounts aren’t cute. You can claim that the intent was a joke all you want, but that doesn’t negate the harm you do. You don’t get to say hateful things and then dictate how others respond, under the claim that “it’s a joke.” Be more conscious of your words, and how they have consequences, unintended as they may be. Truthfully, it is much easier to simply think about the things you say than to undo the harm, regardless of your intent.

Ellen, in her 2016 speech accepting the award for 'Best TV Drama’ at the People’s Choice Awards, said that “Our show is about understanding, and compassion, and tolerance, and kindness. And those are themes that we could all use more of.” Let’s make this fandom reflect that as well. Be kinder to the cast and crew and show them some respect. Be kinder to each other. Be more accepting. We all have different favourite characters and different reasons for having those favourites. We each bring different perspectives and experiences to the table. Let’s try to recognize that and create a culture of respect for each other. It’s perfectly fine to disagree on things. What’s not okay is to brutally attack each other, to treat each other with rudeness and hatred. At the end of the day, we all love the same TV show: Grey’s Anatomy.

Finally, on behalf of the 99% of the Grey’s fandom to whom 1% gives a bad name, I would like to extend my apologies to the Grey’s Anatomy cast, crew and writers for the behavior of this small group of fans who have overtaken our fandom and appear to represent us. There is a vast majority of fans who are incredible people that greatly respect and admire the work you all do. We are just outshadowed by the negative. It’s time for that to change.

Look what you made me do. Adriana (@swiftxgreys on Twitter)

[newstfionline]

People Don’t Actually Know Themselves Very Well

By Adam Grant, The Atlantic, Mar. 1, 2018

When Donald Trump tweeted that he was a “very stable genius,” he was accused of lacking self-awareness by journalists and comedians. But the truth is that no one has perfect self-awareness--you probably believe more than a few things about yourself that are false.

Whether it’s in trying to land a job or impress a date, people spend a staggering amount of time making claims about themselves. It makes sense: You’re the only person on earth who has direct knowledge of every thought, feeling, and experience you’ve ever had. Who could possibly know you better than you? But your backstage access to your own mind sometimes makes you the last person on Earth others should trust about it. Think of it like owning a car: Just because you’ve driven it for years doesn’t mean you can pinpoint when and why the engine broke down.

Sixteen rigorous studies of thousands of people at work have shown that people’s coworkers are better than they are at recognizing how their personality will affect their job performance. As a social scientist, if I want to get a read on your personality, I could ask you to fill out a survey on how stable, dependable, friendly, outgoing, and curious you are. But I would be much better off asking your coworkers to rate you on those same traits: They’re up to 12 times more accurate. They can see things that you can’t or won’t--and these studies reveal that whatever you know about yourself that your coworkers don’t is basically irrelevant to your job performance.

Humans’ blind spots are predictable: There are certain types of traits where people can’t see themselves clearly, but others where they can. The psychologist Simine Vazire asked people to rate themselves and four friends on a bunch of traits, ranging from emotional stability and intelligence to creativity and assertiveness. Then, to see if they had predicted their own personalities better than their friends had, they took a bunch of tests that measured these traits.

The good news: You have some unique insight into your emotional stability. In the study, people outperformed their friends at predicting how anxious they’d look and sound when giving a speech about how they felt about their bodies. But they did no better than their friends (or than strangers who had met them just eight minutes earlier) at forecasting how assertive they’d be in a group discussion. And when they tried to predict their performance on an IQ test and a creativity test, they were less accurate than their friends.

People know themselves best on the traits that are tough to observe and easy to admit. Emotional stability is an internal state, so your friends don’t see it as vividly as you do. And although people might not want to call themselves unstable, the socially acceptable range is fairly wide, so we don’t tend to feel terribly anxious about being outed as having some anxiety. With more observable traits, we don’t have unique knowledge. If you’re a raging extrovert or a radical introvert, we don’t need to ask you--we can pick it up pretty quickly from your impromptu karaoke performances or your complaints that your husband types too loudly. And with the most evaluative traits, you just can’t be trusted. You probably want to convince everyone--and yourself--that you’re smart and creative.

This is why people consistently overestimate their intelligence, a pattern that seems to be more pronounced among men than women. It’s also why people overestimate their generosity: It’s a desirable trait. And it’s why people fall victim to my new favorite bias: the I’m-not-biased bias, where people tend to believe they have fewer biases than the average American. But you can’t judge whether you’re biased, because when it comes to yourself, you’re the most biased judge of all. And the more objective people think they are, the more they discriminate, because they don’t realize how vulnerable they are to bias.

Any time a trait is easy to observe or hard to admit, you need other people to hold up a mirror for you. Romantic partners and close friends might be more informed, because they’ve observed you more--but they can also have blurrier vision, because they chose you and often share that pesky desire to see you positively. You need people who are motivated to see you accurately. And I’ve come to believe that more often than not, those people are your colleagues. The people you work with closely have a vested interest in making you better (or at least less difficult). The challenge is they’re often reluctant to tell you the stuff you don’t want to hear, but need to hear.

Over the past few months, I’ve learned a lot about how to overcome those barriers. While recording a podcast, I invited myself into some unconventional workplaces. I was surprised that in each workplace, they made it a big priority to help people gain self-awareness--sometimes it was even part of their performance evaluations. And I walked away with new insights on how people can see themselves more clearly.

One: If you want people to really know you, weekly meetings don’t cut it. You need deep dives with them in high-intensity situations. When I talked with a crew of astronauts who went to the International Space Station together, I found out that NASA prepared them by sending them into the wilderness for 11 days together. Their guides promptly let them get lost, and they said they came out of that experience knowing each other better than colleagues they’d worked with for years. At Morning Star, a leading tomato-paste plant that has operated successfully for decades without a single boss, I was stunned to discover that the founder often interviews job applicants at their own homes for three to five hours.

Two: Looking under your own hood at what makes you tick and writing it down can provide a useful reference. I’ve seen a growing number of managers write their own user manuals to help people understand what brings out the best and worst in them. But it’s even better to have the people who know you well write your user manual for you. On a visit to the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, I got to see people rate each other daily on up to 77 different dimensions. It sounds intense, but it forces people to be honest with themselves. And at Morning Star, employees get to write their own job descriptions based on how they plan to contribute to the company’s mission that year. But they have to get their closest colleagues to buy in on it, and then their coworkers rate their performance and determine their salary.

Three: Put yourself in situations where you can’t ignore feedback from multiple sources. In studies, one friend is only a little better at gauging a person’s intelligence and creativity than they themselves are; four friends are significantly better. When I infiltrated the writers’ room at The Daily Show, the host, Trevor Noah, told me he makes up 90 percent of his stand-up comedy on stage. He just starts riffing on topics and gets instant input on what’s funny from a whole crowd. And at Bridgewater, the ratings are weighted by how believable your colleagues have proven themselves to be in each domain. When five of your close colleagues have a track record of being highly organized and they all say you’re not, it’s tough to argue that you’re right and they’re wrong.

Imagine if the White House were organized this way. Presidents are rated all the time in public-opinion polls, but they’d learn a lot more if their own teams evaluated them. Since stability is an internal state, as long as he’s not clinically unstable, President Trump might be able to weigh in on it accurately. But he--like everyone--probably can’t see himself clearly when it comes to traits that are clearly desirable or undesirable, like intelligence.

The first rule of intelligence: Don’t talk about your intelligence. It’s something you prove, not something you claim. As comedian Patton Oswalt quipped about humor, the only person who goes around saying “I’m funny” is a not-funny person. If you were really funny, you’d just make people laugh.

So if I wanted to know how smart political candidates were, I wouldn’t bother with an IQ test. I’d just ask one question: How intelligent do you think you are?

The real geniuses will know it’s not their place to judge.

[ladystylestores]

Atlanta mayor announces series of police reforms: Live updates | News

The United Nations’s top human rights body agreed to a request from African countries to urgently debate racism and police brutality on Wednesday following unrest in the US and beyond over George Floyd’s death.

The killing of Rayshard Brooks by Atlanta police on June 13 reignited a push for protest in the city. Atlanta initially saw heavy protests after the death of George Floyd, prompting calls from public officials and celebrities for peaceful demonstrations. 

Floyd, a Black man, died on May 25 after a policeman knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. His death sparked calls across the US for policing reforms and triggered global protests.

Here are the latest updates:

Tuesday, June 16

05:25 GMT – New York police officers sickened after drinking tainted milkshake

At least three police officers from New York fell ill and were hospitalised after dining at a popular restaurant chain in Lower Mahnattan, according to a news report. 

The three officers reportedly found substance, “believed to be some sort of cleaning solution or disinfectant” mixed in their milkshake drink, NBC News reported. 

“When New York City police officers cannot even take (a) meal without coming under attack, it is clear the environment in which we work has deteriorated to a critical level,” a statement from a police union said.

04:45 GMT – Black Lives Matter banner removed from US embassy in S Korea 

A man walks near a giant Black Lives Matter and a Gay Pride banner at the US Embassy in Seoul on Sunday [Lee Jin-man/AP]

A large Black Lives Matter banner has been removed from the US Embassy building in South Korea’s capital three days after it was raised there in solidarity with protesters back home.

The banner was put up Saturday, with Ambassador Harry Harris tweeting that his embassy “stands in solidarity with fellow Americans grieving and peacefully protesting to demand positive change.”

But the banner was removed Monday and another banner commemorating the Korean War was on display on Tuesday.

The embassy said the banner’s removal was meant to avoid any misperception that it aimed to encourage donations for certain unspecified organisations.

Harris “wanted to highlight the enduring American values of racial equality, freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully protest,” the US Embassy said in a statement.

“However, the Ambassador’s intent was not to support or encourage donations to any specific organisation. To avoid the misperception that American taxpayer dollars were spent to benefit such organisations, he directed that the banner be removed.”

03:28 GMT – Australia to probe arrest of Aboriginal man

An Aboriginal man, whose violent arrest by South Australian Police, was caught on video, has been released from custody with all charges dropped, reports said, as police launched an investigation on the incident.

Henry Noel, 28, has been released from the Port Adelaide Police Station, after a social media video appeared to show an officer striking him several times during an arrest on Monday night. 

A person familiar with the case told NITV that Noel had “really bad injuries to his face, his arms, his legs.”

#Breaking – South Australian police launch investigation following a social media video appearing to show an officer striking an Aboriginal man several times during an arrest last night @SBSNews pic.twitter.com/PlLxIwt4Tb

— Jarni Blakkarly (@JarniBlakkarly) June 16, 2020

03:05 GMT – Trump to sign order creating police database

A senior administration official says an executive order that President Donald Trump is expected to sign on Tuesday would set up a database for tracking police officers who have complaints about excessive use of force in their records.

The official says the administration wants to keep officers with complaints in their record from moving from one police department to the next.

The president’s executive order comes as lawmakers work quickly in response to outrage over the death of George Floyd. Senate Republicans are also poised to unveil an extensive package of policing changes.

02:45 GMT – New York City to disband plainclothes anti-crime units

New York City’s police department is disbanding the type of plainclothes anti-crime units that were involved in the 2014 death of Eric Garner and have long been criticized for aggressive tactics, Commissioner Dermot Shea announced.

The NYPD’s anti-crime units, which focused primarily on seizing illegal guns, were responsible for a disproportionate number of shootings and complaints, Shea told reporters after meeting with top deputies to discuss the move.

Garner died when an officer enforcing a ban on the sale of loose cigarettes used a chokehold to wrestle him to the ground.

About 600 officers working in the unit will be given new assignments.

02:21 GMT – Seattle City Council votes to bar tear gas, pepper spray

The Seattle City Council has voted unanimously to bar police from using tear gas, pepper spray and several other crowd control devices after officers repeatedly used them on mostly peaceful demonstrators protesting racism and police brutality.

The 9-0 vote came amid frustration with the Seattle Police Department, which used tear gas to disperse protesters in the city’s densest neighborhood, Capitol Hill, just days after Mayor Jenny Durkan and Chief Carmen Best promised not to.

A federal judge on Friday issued a temporary order banning Seattle police from using tear gas, pepper spray, foam-tipped projectiles or other force against protesters, finding that the department had used less-lethal weapons “disproportionately and without provocation,” chilling free speech in the process.

01:54 GMT – Feds to review cases into hanging deaths of 2 Black men

Federal authorities will review local investigations into the hanging deaths of two Black men in southern California to determine whether federal law was violated, The Associated Press news agency reported quoting officials.

Local authorities have said there is no evidence of foul play in the deaths of Robert Fuller in Palmdale and Malcolm Harsch in Victorville and early indications point both to suicide, but sheriffs have pledged to continue to investigate the cases.

The announcement follows weekend protests, which were prompted by the initial determination of suicide as the likely cause of death for Fuller.

People who participated in a town hall hosted by Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva on Monday also voiced concerns that Fuller and Harsch may have been lynched. The callers denounced what they described as a rush to judgment and urged investigators to look into the possibility that hate crimes were committed.

01:14 GMT – Family of Rayshard Brooks demands criminal justice reform

Pleading through tears Monday, the family of a Black man killed by Atlanta police outside a drive-thru demanded changes in the criminal justice system and called on protesters to refrain from violence amid heightened tensions across the US three weeks after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis.

An autopsy found that 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back late Friday by a white officer who was trying to arrest him at a fast-food restaurant for being intoxicated behind the wheel of his car. Brooks tried to flee after wrestling with officers and grabbing a stun gun from one of them.

“Not only are we hurt, we are angry,” said Chassidy Evans, Brooks’ niece. “When does it stop? We’re not only pleading for justice. We’re pleading for change.”

The Brooks family and their attorneys spoke to the media on Monday days after Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by police at a Wendy’s restaurant parking lot in Atlanta [Ron Harris/AP]

Monday, June 15

20:50 GMT – Second man charged in death of retired St Louis police captain

A second man has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting of retired St Louis police Captain David Dorn during a pawn shop break-in that followed a night of violent protests.

Dorn’s death on June 2 came on a violent night in St Louis, where four officers were shot, officers were pelted with rocks and fireworks, and dozens of businesses were damaged.

A man named Mark Jackson was charged with second-degree murder, robbery, burglary, stealing and three counts of armed criminal action.

Stephan Cannon was earlier charged with first-degree murder, robbery and other crimes. Both men are jailed without bond. 

20:45 GMT – Activists create petition calling for justice for Rayshard Brooks

Activists created an online petition demanding justice for Rayshard Brooks. The petition has gathered over 52,000 signatures. 

20:00 GMT – Atlanta mayor announces series of police reforms

Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms announced immediate reforms within the police department, including orders requiring police officers to de-escalate situations and imposing a duty to intervene when officers see another officer using excessive force.

Bottoms said that when she saw the death of Rayshard Brooks, she said she could not wait for an advisory council to come up with recommendations to reform the police.

“It was clear that we do not have another day, another minute, another hour, to waste,” she said.

She said the police must find a better way to handle confrontations, and said she is heartbroken over Brooks’ death.

“It pissed me off, it makes me sad, it makes me frustrated, and there’s nothing I can say that will change what happened Friday.”

19:39 GMT – New Jersey police ordered to release names of disciplined officers

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S Grewal issued an order requiring all law enforcement agencies in the state to begin publicly listing officers who commit serious disciplinary violations. 

The order mandates “every state, county, and local law enforcement agency in New Jersey” to annually publish a list of officers “who were fired, demoted, or suspended for more than five days due to a disciplinary violation, with the first list to be published no later than December 31, 2020”, according to a release issued the attorney general’s office. 

“Today, we end the practice of protecting the few to the detriment of the many. Today, we recommit ourselves to building a culture of transparency and accountability in law enforcement”, Grewal said in the release.

The order is meant to build public trust, according to Colonel Patrick J Callahan, superintendent of the New Jersey State Police. 

“By releasing the names of State Troopers who committed serious disciplinary violations, we are continuing the long, hard work of earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve”, Callahan said. 

17:28 GMT – Demonstration reaches Atlanta capital building, mayor says use of force needs review

The “March on Georgia”, organised by the state’s NAACP, reached the capital building in Atlanta on Monday. Demonstrators delivered a list of demands to the state legislature. 

These demands included ending Citizen’s Arrest and Stand Your Ground laws, among other measures regarding voter disenfranchisement, which are “necessary to end systemic racism in the criminal justice system and voter suppression in Georgia”, the organisation said in a release. 

VIDEO: The #MarchOnGeorgia has arrived at the Georgia State Capitol Building. #Atlanta #BlackLivesMatter #ATL #AtlantaProtest #Protests #gapol @FOX5Atlanta @Georgia_NAACP pic.twitter.com/FrR06GupMn

— Billy Heath III (@BillyHeathFOX5) June 15, 2020

The march came as Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms she would issue a series of administrative orders to accelerate a review of policing in the wake of the police shooting of Rayshard Brooks.

Bottoms, speaking at a city council meeting, said it was “abundantly clear” there was a “comprehensive need” to take a look at the police department’s use of force and the training of police officers.

16:08 GMT – Black Lives Matter banner in Seoul removed after Trump complaints 

A large “Black Lives Matter” banner draped on the outside of the US embassy in Seoul was removed on Monday after President Donald Trump expressed his displeasure about it, two people familiar with the matter told the Reuters News Agency.

The banner was hung on the front of the mission building on Saturday as the embassy tweeted a message in support of the anti-racism campaign across the US and worldwide in response to the killing last month of Floyd.

The banner was seen as a rare show of open support for the Black Lives Matter movement by a Trump appointee, Ambassador Harry Harris.

Embassy spokesman William Coleman reiterated that Harris’s reason for putting it up was “to communicate a message of solidarity with Americans concerned with racism”.

Bloomberg News reported earlier that both Trump and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were displeased about the banner.

The U.S. Embassy stands in solidarity with fellow Americans grieving and peacefully protesting to demand positive change. Our #BlackLivesMatter banner shows our support for the fight against racial injustice and police brutality as we strive to be a more inclusive & just society. pic.twitter.com/Y4Thr2MRdw

— U.S. Embassy Seoul (@USEmbassySeoul) June 13, 2020

15:48 GMT – Family of Rayshard Brooks calls for reforms, ‘justice’ 

During a news conference on the killing of Rayshard Brooks, his family called for “drastic change” in the Atlanta Police Department. 

“The trust that we have with the police force is broken,” Tiara Brooks, Rayshard’s cousin, said at the news conference. 

“True justice will never prevail” because Rayshard will not come back, Tiara said, calling for demonstrations to continue in order to make sure another case like his will not occur. 

Lawyer L Chris Stewart, who is representing the Brooks family, questioned whether there was an acceptable definition of justice. He presented what he said were photos of vehicles that had been shot by police during the fatal incident. “It should never have happened,” Stewart said.

A man and two children mourn at the site of a Wendy’s restaurant where Rayshard Brooks, 27, was shot and killed by police in a struggle following a field sobriety test [Dustin Chambers/Getty Images/AFP]

Rayshard’s widow, Tomika Miller, said she wanted to thank everyone for their protests and support. 

Miller called on protests to remain peaceful, as the family wants to “keep his name positive and great”. 

The news conference ended suddenly as one of Brooks’s cousins broke down at the mention of his funeral. The man departed in tears, saying: “I want y’all to know, you took my cousin from me … you took the wrong person,” presumably speaking to the Atlanta police.

14:03 GMT – Supreme Court will not consider ‘qualified immunity’ case 

The US Supreme Court declined to hear a number of cases involving a legal defence called qualified immunity that can be used to shield government officials from lawsuits including police officers accused of excessive force.

The justices rejecting appeals in cases that had been pending before the court for months involving qualified immunity including a dispute over whether officers in Tennessee can be sued for using a dog on a man who says he had surrendered.

The decision to reject the cases comes as a national spotlight is once again trained on the police’s use of force after the death of George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have been pulling together their own versions of police reform legislation.

12:45 – Alabama to place removed Confederate statue in a museum 

A Confederate statue removed from Alabama’s port city earlier this month has been relocated to a museum, the city’s mayor said.

The History Museum of Mobile has received the bronze likeness of Admiral Raphael Semmes, which stood in the middle of a downtown street near the Mobile waterfront for 120 years until June 5, and “will develop a plan to protect, preserve and display” the statue and “place it into the appropriate historic context”, the city’s mayor, Sandy Stimpson, said on Sunday in multiple Twitter posts.

The decision involved input from city council members and “involved conversations with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office”, Stimpson said on Twitter.

Another Confederate monument has been taken down: Mobile, Alabama removed the statue of a Confederate admiral from its pedestal last night. https://t.co/Au0eaIEu8W pic.twitter.com/NgDaoMNb84

— John Bowles (@JPBowles) June 5, 2020

Attorney General Steve Marshall had sent a letter to the mayor after the statue’s removal saying the city could be subject to a $25,000 fine for permanently moving the statue, an action that would violate a state law protecting monuments more than 40 years old, AL.com reported.

The statue was dedicated in 1900, the year before Alabama ratified a Constitution that established white supremacy in the state by essentially disenfranchising Black people and poor white people.

12:35 GMT – British PM praises Black Lives Matter demonstrator who carried suspected far-right protester from danger

The instincts of the Black Lives Matter protester who emerged from chaotic scenes in London carrying an injured white man, suspected of being a far-right demonstrator, during scuffles with counterprotesters on Saturday represented the best of us, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s spokesman said.

Patrick Hutchinson has been hailed a hero for carrying the injured man over his shoulder, an image that has gone viral on social media after it was taken by a Reuters photographer.

“Patrick Hutchinson’s instincts at that moment represent the best of us,” the spokesman told reporters.

10:40 GMT – Black Americans disproportionately die in police Taser confrontations: Reuters 

As police confront protesters across the US, they are turning to rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas and other weapons meant to minimise deaths.

But some are using a weapon that has the potential to kill: The Taser. When those encounters have turned fatal, Black people make up a disproportionate share of those who die, according to a Reuters analysis.

‘RIP Rayshard’ is spray-painted on a sign as flames engulf a Wendy’s restaurant where Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by police on Friday evening following a struggle in the restaurant’s drive-through line [Brynn Anderson/AP Photo]

Reuters documented 1,081 cases through the end of 2018 in which people died after being shocked by police with a Taser. At least 32 percent of those who died were Black, and at least 29 percent were white. African Americans make up 14 percent of the US population, and non-Hispanic whites 60 percent

09:22 GMT – UN rights council agrees to debate on racism, police violence

The United Nations’s top human rights body will hold an urgent debate on allegations of “systemic racism, police brutality and violence against peaceful protests” in the US on Wednesday, a statement said.

The decision by the UN Human Rights Co un cil followed a request last week by Burkina Faso on behalf of African countries, it said in a statement on Monday. 

“The death of George Floyd is unfortunately not an isolated incident,” the letter said. 

#HRC43 has opened & starts w/ GD on item 5. It was decided that an urgent debate on the current racially inspired #HumanRights violations, systematic #racism, #PoliceBrutality & violence against peaceful protests to take place Wednesday, 17 June at 3 p.m. https://t.co/wUEEG9n2Bg pic.twitter.com/8SYNTgRThD

— HRC SECRETARIAT (@UN_HRC) June 15, 2020

Catch up on previous updates here.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/3d2FsQV

[zibizuba]

People Who Quit Their Jobs in the Best Way Possible

var h12precont = 'h12c_300x250_' + Math.floor(Math.random()*1000000); document.write('

'); (h12_adarray = window.h12_adarray || []).push({"adcontainer":h12precont,"placement":"c9d6b99f00114c5a436a0f497c7bb182","size":"300x250","type":"standard","width":"300","height":"250","name":""});

An inventory of a few of the most memorable methods staff have ever stop their jobs. Have you ever ever spent a nasty day at work fantasizing of all of the intelligent, confrontational, and basic methods to say “take this job and shove it?” Have you ever ever daydreamed in regards to the look in your boss’s face if solely you would ship the quitting speech of your desires? Nicely get able to reside vicariously by a gaggle of oldsters who really did what most disgruntled employees solely dream of. Whether or not they spelled it out in an incendiary public announcement or employed a full band to accompany their speech, every of those staff reached their breaking level and embraced it. We’ve acquired resignation letters written on muffins, farewells constructed into video games, and even musical performances by people who stated farewell with aptitude. Not each ex-employee you’ll see right here was so well mannered nevertheless, so beware the occasional F-bomb or bare goodbye as you wade by these outstanding examples of bridge-burning.

Residing as much as Inconsistency

Although their identify’s been redacted, this nameless worker lives on as a hero to disgruntled staff in all places. After receiving what they felt was unfair suggestions, this particular person determined to offer their boss just a little suggestions of their very own.

The postscript is particularly priceless, as the remainder of the letter’s subtext lastly simply turns into textual content.

When is a BRB Signal Not a BRB Signal?

As you may see from the signal they left behind, this was not the day to mess with this worker. Sadly, the corners their boss tried to chop don’t seem to have been value it. Let this be a lesson to frugal enterprise homeowners in all places.

This Tech Man Confirmed His Bosses the Error of Their Methods

Although unidentified, the tech man who created this error message will likely go down in historical past for his epic resignation. After lastly determined he’d had sufficient, the witty internet designer put his abilities to good use, even giving his employers a tongue in cheek second likelihood with a “renegotiate” button.

Actually the Sweetest Resignation Letter Ever

Chris Holmes could have written the tastiest resignation letter of all time when he stop his job as a border agent at Stansted Airport to pursue his dream job of proudly owning a bakery. The aspiring baker delivered the tasteful and attractive deal with to administration, who then fairly probably turned the one bosses on the earth to answer a resignation letter by consuming it.

Behold! Karma at Its Best

Generally a boss who abuses their energy really will get what’s coming to them. The three staff who wrote this had sufficient and determined to offer karma just a little shove in the precise course, apparently closing up store in the course of the day.

Declaring Independence from Taco Bell

Former Taco Bell Shift Chief Adam was upset to study that, regardless of working for 22 days straight, his request for break day on the 4th of July had been denied. Decided to have a good time America’s independence with some fireworks of his personal, nevertheless, he channeled his frustration into this public declaration worthy of historical past.

Punctuality: Not Simply For Staff Anymore

As you may see from the word displayed on the shop’s entrance door, Joe had merely had sufficient of following guidelines that the boss didn’t suppose went each methods. The “Assist Needed” signal provides some good context.

Better of all, Joe’s rapidly written word was the reward that stored on giving: the later the boss was, the extra individuals discovered precisely why the doorways had been locked.

The Chipotle Revolt

In September of 2014, the employees of a Pennsylvania Chipotle was pushed to the purpose of revolt by what they known as a “borderline sweatshop” surroundings. The staff later cited circumstances that included 11-hour shifts with no breaks or alternatives to eat lunch or dinner.

Chipotle responded by sending a company supervisor to speak to the vexed crew about precisely what had gone flawed on the location.

The Icing on the Cake

If it’s going to be profane, it would as properly be scrumptious. It appears this disgruntled Baskin-Robbins worker had iced their final cake. Whereas the execution could not have been tactful, it’s a must to admit, it’s uncommon to see an expletive-laden resignation that can be a tasty dessert.

You Can Change Your Personal Indicators From Now On

Just like the Taco Bell resignation, however even a bit extra indignant, this employee felt the necessity to not solely declare their bitterness by the enterprise’s light-up signal, but additionally caught the shock just a little bit additional by telling his boss to put in writing his personal rattling indicators.

A Prehistoric Goodbye

Generally the easiest way to stop a job you hate is by giving your former employers a parting reward alongside together with your resignation letter. This worker determined his farewell reward could be a drawing of a dinosaur, which additionally acted as his two weeks discover.

A Playable Resignation Letter

When developer Jarrad Farbs determined to stop his job at a serious Australian online game firm to pursue impartial growth full time, he discovered an lovely solution to break the information to his co-workers. Fairly than a chilly resignation letter, he developed a brief Mario Brothers Flash sport which broke the information alongside Mario’s journey.

At its conclusion, the sport learn, “You gave me a paycheck, an unbelievable venture, and a world-class crew to study from. However my princess is in one other citadel.”

A Goldman Sachs Government Stop with the World’s Most Public Resignation Letter

In March of 2012, Goldman Sachs Worker Greg Smith not solely knowledgeable his bosses he’d be resigning, he shared the information with the world. In a New York Times Op-Ed, Smith revealed his disgust with the corporate for creating an surroundings that put revenue above individuals, even their very own prospects. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and COO Gary Cohn responded with an internal memo which was eventually printed in WSJ‘s “Deal Journal.”

An Ode to Borders Books

You understand all these offended stuff you suppose at work however by no means say? Nicely, when the workers of 1 Borders location discovered that the shop would quickly be closing, they figured they could as properly earn their unemployment. They concocted and posted “Ode to a E-book Retailer Loss of life,” an indignant record of complaints about prospects that just about instantly turned a want success basic for pissed off retail staff the world over.

To the Excessive Seas!

This resignation email is fairly commonplace to start with, that’s, till it takes a fast left flip when the worker broadcasts he’s determined to satisfy his desires of being a excessive seas pirate, and that he can be accepting purposes for his First Mate quickly. Confused? A bit bit. However nonetheless very a lot impressed.

A Poetic Twitter Farewell

Jonathan Schwartz, the previous CEO of Solar Microsystems, determined to announce his departure from the company in a really public and poetic method, by not solely resigning on Twitter, but additionally by doing it with a haiku. Nothing flawed with including a contact of sarcastic class once in a while.

Learn My Cheez Whiz

Fed up together with his place as a clerk at a Seattle grocery retailer, an unnamed worker reportedly confirmed up on the scene someday to drunkenly announce his resignation. Apparently he was in no state to really kind up his resignation letter, so he proceeded to do the subsequent smartest thing and write out “I stop” on a retailer window utilizing Cheez Whiz.

Greatest Driveway Chalk Ever

This message left scrawled on someone’s driveway was written by a landscaper who had grown just a little bored with cleansing up their weeds.

The Rooster King Takes What’s His

When this Florida Burger King worker stop his job, he took extra than simply his closing paycheck. The person, who’s Twitter deal with is @zealot, additionally took every last chicken nugget the fast food joint had within the freezer. He tweeted an image of his loot with the caption, “TODAY WAS MY LAST DAY WORKING AT BURGER KING SO I TOOK ALL OF THEIR NUGGETS, F*** IT.” Followers dubbed him the Rooster King, and helped the tweet go viral (it has since been eliminated). Right here’s hoping he acquired to maintain these nuggets.

Using a Rainbow Vaccum Outta There

Tom “T-Bone” Amellino left his job in essentially the most optimistic method potential – by using out on a rainbow taking pictures vacuum. Scent ‘ya later dead-end job, I’ll see you on the finish of the rainbow!

Concerning the creator: Viral Luck

Inform us one thing about your self.

Associated

Artykuł People Who Quit Their Jobs in the Best Way Possible pochodzi z serwisu PENSE LOL.

source https://pense.lol/people-who-quit-their-jobs-in-the-best-way-possible/