yogurt-boat-69

[yogurt-boat-69]

Finding out that Frances Dana Barker Gage, a white woman, rewrote Sojourner Truth’s famous speech to be more stereotypically “Southern slave” (complete with slurs and misspellings like dat, dere, dey) when Sojourner Truth was actually from New York and spoke only Dutch until she was almost ten and wouldn’t have actually sounded that way linguistically and decidedly did not use the phrase “Ain’t I A Woman?” at all is…whew. And on top of everything, she embellished details about Sojourner Truth’s life (like the number of children she had/how many of them were sold into slavery), wrote that ST said that she could take beatings like a man, and the reception of the speech in the room (she claims ST was called a n*gg*r, earlier accounts say the room was welcoming).

Lmaooo peak white feminist antics.

[yogurt-boat-69]

Finding out that Frances Dana Barker Gage, a white woman, rewrote Sojourner Truth’s famous speech to be more stereotypically “Southern slave” (complete with slurs and misspellings like dat, dere, dey) when Sojourner Truth was actually from New York and spoke only Dutch until she was almost ten and wouldn’t have actually sounded that way linguistically and decidedly did not use the phrase “Ain’t I A Woman?” at all is…whew. And on top of everything, she embellished details about Sojourner Truth’s life (like the number of children she had/how many of them were sold into slavery), wrote that ST said that she could take beatings like a man, and the reception of the speech in the room (she claims ST was called a n*gg*r, earlier accounts say the room was welcoming).

Lmaooo peak white feminist antics.

[yogurt-boat-69]

interesting that no other manifesto has ever been banned to my knowledge except one that criticises corporate america. very telling what reddit is choosing to ban here. was the unity a little too scary?

[yogurt-boat-69]

Planning for a flight now consists of planning out how to document the legal violations the airline is inevitably going to commit.

[yogurt-boat-69]

Such timing.

Goes to show the insurance companies don't need the money.

[yogurt-boat-69]

[yogurt-boat-69]

Quinceañera

[yogurt-boat-69]

Pipi The Barn Owl (Female, b. July, 2020, located in the Czech Republic). Pipi has a gene mutation called Melanism that is 100,000 to one and is an undue development of dark-colored pigment in the skin or its appendages and is the opposite of albinism.

[yogurt-boat-69]

If humans were reconstructed from nothing but bones, they would 100% give us fur. The idea of “hairless except for the top of the head where the hair is actually the longest in the entire animal kingdom” would never come up

[yogurt-boat-69]

Imagine having a government that wasn't explicitly being paid by corporations #jealous

They can’t even give a straight answer.

[yogurt-boat-69]

[yogurt-boat-69]

There's this thing that lawmakers do that really blackpills me on ever having long-term effective legal systems.

Like, ok, look at this case here. The gist is this: a woman kills her ex-boyfriend and then flees to canada to avoid arrest. Shortly after arriving in Canada, she announces that she's pregnant with her ex's child. She and her lawyers fight the attempts of the US to extradite her back to stand trial. The victims parents go to canada to fight her on custody. The courts find there is sufficient evidence to arrest her locally and award custody to the grandparents. But she's granted bail, on the theory that she's not really a risk to the public (true, in all likely hood). Being on bail, she gets custody back. She drowns herself in the ocean, taking her 13 month old son with her.

This is obviously a horrific scenario, and bill C-464 was introduced to rectify this: it adds language to broaden the reasons for denial of bail. To be fair, the actual language is fairly anodyne, essentially saying "don't grant bail if they're a threat to children." Like fine, whatever.

But the fact of the matter is, she probably should have been granted bail. She wasn't a threat to the public, the only person she was a threat to was her son, and that was easily rectified by not granting her custody. The problem with the legal system here isn't bail, it's the court's obsession with "keeping families intact." She has been credibly charged with murdering her son's father, she should absolutely lose custody while that plays out in court.

But all of that is secondary to the actual problem of criminal charges taking years to prosecute. Bail is absolutely a necessity to safeguard and cushion abuses of the legal system because otherwise false accusations and false arrests ruin lives. This is an area where it would protect victims to simply enforce basic rights of the accused to a speedy trial. That would dramatically reduce the damage of false accusations, and would reduce the window of opportunity bail gives to those who are guilty and who do pose a threat to others.

A bunch of things went wrong in this case, but this woman being not being locked up for years while the accusations against her moved glacially through the legal system wasn't one of them. Bill C-464 that was passed in response to this case does little to make anyone's lives better: the courts are still forced to trade off against "is this guy a risk to the public?" vs "hey, what if this guy is innocent and we lock him up for 3 years for no reason, that'd be bad, right?", the bill just weights one side of the debate when any effective legislation would focus on reducing the need for that debate.

It's just. It's maddening. The right thing to do, the actual effective thing that would do the most good, would be to protect the rights of the accused---you could kill two birds with one stone. But the only angle that ever gets any play is "should we be even harsher or not?"

[yogurt-boat-69]

[yogurt-boat-69]

I wouldnt be surprised if the terrorism charges also is used in some way to prevent a fair trial

[yogurt-boat-69]

[yogurt-boat-69]

luigi mangione, the SUSPECTED (innocent until proven guilty) united healthcare shooter, has been charged with terrorism. that’s right. a man who supposedly shot ONE SINGLE PERSON is being charged with terrorism. because in america, billionaires lives matter enough that a SINGLE rich man’s death is considered a terrorist act against this country. think about that.