phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
3mo ago
I think it has a pretty huge impact. These are the numbers:
- X / Twitter has 100 million US users. It has about 500 million global users. 40% of them are daily users. So 40 million daily US users, about 1 of every 8 Americans.
- Facebook has 250 million US users. 2/3 of FB users are daily active users. So 170 million daily FB users, about half the US population.
- Fox, by far the most watched US TV network, news gets ~2 million primetime viewers.
1/8 Americans is a lot of Americans. No, not as much as FB, but I do agree with OP in that stuff on X seems to percolate a lot better than on FB / Snapchat / IG etc. I can't think of any one organization or app or newspaper that is (recently, last 10 years) more impactful on US political discourse. Maybe the NYT, but even they only have 11 million subs or 3% of the US population.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
If it that competitiveness is innate, then it is a biological phenomenon and a biological advantage for men. Otherwise it could not be innate. So what you're arguing doesn't point to a biological advantage for women, it says the opposite.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
The ad apps, while simple and presumably beneath an intellect of your caliber, make value for the capital employing them. Yet you do not think that the people who make said apps should be paid based on the value they provide the capital employing them:
The people I'm talking about being overpaid...the ones who don't understand shit about computers but get paid $150k+ to stack frameworks on top of frameworks until hey presto the compiler shits out yet another CRUD/advertising app.
But you, the noble quant, should be judged by that same value. And in fact you are underpaid for your value to the capital employing you:
Quants are underpaid relative to the value we generate for the capital employing us
UK tech developers (amongst which group I count many friends) are artificially prevented from moving to greener pastures, which is exactly what is happening.
Have you considered that maybe its because all your really talented British developer friends aren't actually really talented? Maybe they are actually kind of dumb? Like there is this supposedly really lucrative thing they can do, its so easy they can "shit it out", they don't even need to know how computers work, they have the app store in the UK so they don't even need to be in California, but like... they don't actually do it?
Just because the rest of the developed world shoots itself in the foot with regards to overregulation which leads to US companies winning by default doesn't mean they deserve their excess profits any more than a monopoly that doesn't get challenged deserves its excess profits.
There it is. Its you. Claiming to know who deserves what. That's what it always boils down to.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
What do you mean by "solve" at Deity? what's the trick?
Pick bablyon / korea / poland. The strat is tall + science. Get 3 to 4 cities ASAP. Trade resources to get gold per turn to buy settlers. Get a few workers out, then library in each city. You should have national college in your capital before turn 100. Your early game army should be compound bow. Tech tree wise you are basically just going for the science techs (library, university, public schools), and secondarily growth techs (for more pops and therefore science). You should overtake the AI in tech around the industrial age.
The problem is that this is very boring, there is basically only one way to win. All games on Diety start out the same way, see above. There is no building wonders, no early aggression (unless cheesing), no culture or religion. All game mechanics are ignored except for science maxing. There is an optimal way to play, and its also the only way you can win on Diety. So its boring, there is no player choice, even they tech tree path and order you take is more or less decided before the game starts. Same with army: you will go archer -> compound bow -> xbow -> gatling gun and then bombers. If you don't, you will die. It also relies on the AI being dumb and the player easily cheesing them (trading early res for gold, predictable diplomacy, total inability to fight on water).
Also some starts are mega OP and can decide the game for you - salt + plains is OP, jungle + luxury a restart.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Taiwan has 2% of China's population and 5% of their GDP. They are not able to defend themselves alone in any protracted conflict, either an invasion or blockade. It is unknown if and to what extent the US will support them, especially with Trump soon to be in office. If the Chinese decide to blockade and bomb Taiwan I don't know if even direct US support could stop them. The US Navy has not been able to stop the Houthis from shutting down Red Sea shipping, and the Houthis do not have 1% of the resources the Chinese have.
The only way I see an independent Taiwan in 2040 is if they develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The GDP and manpower gap simply do not matter if Taiwan has them, this is the only way they can defend themselves. Whether or not they have the collective will to do this, I don't know. But its either that or get annexed, so my guess is that they will.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Look, I think that the larger point everyone is trying to make is that whatever scheduling issues you are running into (24 hour shifts, 80 hours weeks), they will get much better if there are more doctors. There may be some good reasons, such as handoffs during surgery, to avoid a straight up 8 hour clock in / clock out, but that can be worked around. Somewhat trivially: if you are mid surgery and your shift is done then just finish the surgery. Keep doctors on salary, but keep them on 8 hour shifts with the expectation that they are to leave when the patient is stable or a hand off is feasible and negligibly bad.
But 24s are often more popular than the alternative. Often the alternative is something like working 16 hours a day 7 days a week. No or less days off. After a 24 you get home between 6am-12pm and get to sleep until the next day. Or run errands while fucked on sleep deprivation.
The point is that there are not two (insane) options. There is a third option, hire more doctors and spread out the hours. Doctors might make less pay, but now they don't have to work 24 hour shifts. I think almost all doctors would take that trade off, and that seems like a great trade off for the patients as they don't have sleep impaired doctors attending to them.
From the outside - it looks like you are defending this system that you and no one else wants. Why? Why do you want to work 24 hour shifts? Why do you defend this system where you have impaired doctors attending to patients, as if there are no other options? Even without more doctors - why not do whatever the NHS apparently does, which is 13 hour shifts?
phosphorus2
3mo ago
I wouldnt work 24 hour shifts in the first place, and I'd be pissed if I found out that a doctor who was seeing me and potentially making huge decisions or recommendations about my health was 23 hours into a shift.
Anyways, average seems to be somewhere in the 50s of hours per week. Increasing the amount of doctors such that they no longer have to work stupid hours seems like a no brainer, I would easily take a ~30% pay cut to go from 55 hours to 40 and not have 24 hour shifts. No idea why doctors wouldnt either.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1385440/physicians-work-hours-united-states/
phosphorus2
3mo ago
If you cut doctor salaries in half and double the number of doctors, you have improved physician lifestyle at the expense of compensation but not changed costs at all.
This is only true if you also cut the hours doctors work.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Its not really "nsfw" vs "trigger warning", its the context in which it is used. I see "nsfw" used almost exclusively in the context of warning what a hyperlink connects to - something porographic, or gore, or something that would literally run into a workplace IT web filter. "Don't click this if you want to avoid getting on a workplace IT naughty list", not "don't read this if you are especially offended by topic X". I can also understand its use in the context of a content warning for children, to not have them exposed to something that parents would not want them to be yet.
While I do think you are in good faith, and you're using "trigger warning" in good faith, I don't think the entire concept of "trigger warning" is in good faith. Those that want such warnings want their issue to be elevated to a special and sacred status. That whatever they are offended and traumatized by deserves a ritual acknowledgment before it can be discussed.
When you adopt this language it is accepting this insane frame: that good faith words can be harmful, and that we ought to change our thoughts and behavior to avoid that harm.
Adding a trigger warning to whatever I want to say is legitimizing their frame and enabling their neuroticism.
This is probably my biggest issue with Scott, he argues very well and logically and convincingly within a frame. But the frame is fundamentally wrong. See his writing on this:
I like trigger warnings. Trigger warnings aren’t censorship; they’re the opposite of censorship. Censorship says “Read what we tell you”. The opposite of censorship is “Read whatever you want”. The philosophy of censorship is “We know what is best for you to read”. The philosophy opposite censorship is “You are an adult and can make your own decisions about what to read”.
Censorship does not just say "Read what we tell you." It also says "Write what we tell you and how we tell you." It says "Think how we tell you." The words can be trauma and violence frame is unworkable, there are a near infinite amount of things to be offended about. Arguments should stand and fall on their own merits, their own internal merits, not those of some moral superstructure.
They say that “Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to overcome PTSD”. They point out that “exposure therapy” is the best treatment for trauma survivors, including rape victims. And that this involves reliving the trauma and exposing yourself to traumatic stimuli, exactly what trigger warnings are intended to prevent. All this is true. But I feel like they are missing a very important point.
YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
Because this is where it leads. Someone claiming that not censoring yourself is somehow psychotherapy. As if we need an MD to adjudicate acceptable arguments. Reject the moral superstructure. Don't let people impose it on you and us by being neurotic.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/30/the-wonderful-thing-about-triggers/
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Trigger warning - this is related to pornographic material
Not to be rude, and off topic, and I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I just dont get trigger warnings. Why is "trigger warning: [your trigger here].........[your trigger]" less triggering than [your trigger]? I get "nsfw" on a hyperlink that is risqué or etc., but it is never used this way and pro tw is justified pretty different anyways. But is triggering even a real thing? Is the idea that someone is just so porn addled that they cant even see the words "onlyfans model" lest they just start jerk jerk jerking? Every time I have seen it used, the writer will not cover something (allegedly) traumatic in an callous and likely triggering way. But obviously holocaust_rape_groyper will be covering that topic maximally toxic and awfully and they will not be warning the reader it might trigger them, so what does it even do? It just seems so empty and performative. Especially on a forum to discuss controversial things.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
With insurance, premiums can just go up next year, and employers and individuals will just have to pay. Insurers have no real incentive to even negotiate drug costs downward.
I don't think this is true, insurers do have a real incentive to negotiate on costs. Here is a basic insurance model, this is about where the money is going from premiums.
Payouts for care (by law an insurer must pay out 80% of premiums collected, the 80/20 rule): 83%
Overhead: 11%
Profit: 6%
I am justifying this model with the below link. You can quibble with the percentages I have assigned, I just guessed at them but they are approximately true.
Now take 2 insurance companies, Company X & Company Y. X negotiates it's drug prices, it gets its drugs for say ~70% of the cost that company Y gets its drugs. This reduces the amount company X needs to spend to provide the same amount of care, now X can either pocket that savings as profit or increase their market share by reducing their premiums. Company X is more effective at giving care, that money goes somewhere. I don't think this is a perfect model, negotiating will likely mean that X has comparatively more overhead vs Y. But I am assuming that companies act in their best interest and wouldn't spend eg $2 to save $1, which is a pretty good assumption.
I think that your model ("With insurance, premiums can just go up next year") really only makes sense when there is only one player in a market and they can do whatever they want, or when the costs of switching insurers are huge. Which I don't think is the case at all.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
If Biden tried to end the war on these terms Trump would immediately excoriate him for being weak, and he'd be right.
What is the reality of Ukraine's position in the war? Is it in a strong position or a weak one? What is the reality of the US's position in Ukraine? Is it in a strong position or a weak one? What is the reality of Russia's position in the war? Is it in a strong position or a weak one?
Ukraine wants to retake their territory. Below is a war map. Ukraine has not had control of Donestk, Luhansk and Crimea since 2014. And everything not those areas, basically from Mariupol to Kherson, is separated from Ukraine by the Dnieper River. Ukraine has not taken much ground, when the US gave them a bunch of our equipment it did not move the needle. A lot of it got blown to bits. So a weak position to get what they want.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375
The US wants Ukraine to retake their territory. And from the above, they are in a weak position as well. I do not see much of a will for escalation. It does not seem all of the sanctions crippled Russia. And from a strategic prospective, we have driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. I do think that we will get them into NATO if a deal is cut, but that is just my guess. So overall a weak position to get what we want, at least out of the war.
Originally it seemed that Russia wanted to either annex Ukraine or set up a puppet government, but now I think they're just trying to secure Crimea and get what as much pro Russia Ukrainian territory as they can. Looks like they are in a very strong position to do this, the have de facto accomplished this, so they are in a strong position.
So if the US and Ukraine are in a weak position, then accepting weak peace terms would be an acknowledgement of reality more than creation of it. Ukraine is going to lose territory, Russia is going to gain it, Joe Biden forcing a deal is just recognizing this fact. I don't see this war as in our interest, or at least in our interest at the price tag, so I think Joe should be weak and sign the deal. That is the right call for US interest, and we should work to drive the Russians and Chinese apart. Obviously team NATO would want the best possible deal they can get, but if they are in a weak position to take (retake) what they want by force then why would they be able to take it through negotiation? I don't think they could.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
I don't trust the state to throw up its hands and say, sorry the best we can do is hand out X year sentences to everyone until they're 40. Thankfully this isn't proposed. For the person on their 12th conviction? I don't know what else can be done. Either accept the trade off (more criminals more crime), ship them to Australia, or some Prospera-style project where Progressive Abolitionist, Inc. can run their own rehabilitation experiments
CA 3 strikes law was a good balance of trade offs, and targeted at violent felonies. You can set criteria for who gets out of prisom at 40.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
I did go back and reread the paper. "Openly lies" was not very charitable of me, and there is an interpretation of it that supports what she says. I just think its a very bad interpretation, to the point still makes me question her and the authors integrity.
The claim is this, from the top line summary. Basically that while incarceration does reduce crime via incapacitation (Section 8), it also causes more crime inherently (Section 9). And that these effectively cancel each other out:
The crux of the matter is that tougher sentences hardly deter crime, and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase their criminality after release. As a result, “tough-on-crime” initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run.
So the question becomes: does a reasonable reading of Section 9 say this? I do not think it does, and I think its very weak to the point of dishonesty to claim it does. There are 13 studies examined, here is the summary.
9.14. Summary: Aftereffects The preponderance of the evidence says that incarceration in the US increases crime post-release, and enough over the long run to offset incapacitation. A quartet of judge randomization studies (Green and Winik in Washington, DC; Loeffler in Chicago; Nagin and Snodgrass in Pennsylvania; Dobbie, Goldin, and Yang in Philadelphia and Miami) put the net of incapacitation and incarceration aftereffects at about zero. In parallel, Chen and Shapiro find that harsher prison conditions—making for incarceration that is harsher in quality rather than quantity—also increases recidivism. Gaes and Camp concur, though less convincingly because in their study harsher incarceration quality went hand in hand with lower incarceration quantity. Mueller-Smith sides with all these studies and goes farther, finding modest incapacitation and powerful, harmful aftereffects in Houston; but modest hints of randomization failure accompany those results.
Some studies dissent from the majority view that incarceration is criminogenic. Roach and Schanzenbach find beneficial aftereffects in Seattle—a result that is also subject to some doubt about the quality of randomization. Bhuller et al. make a more compelling case that incarceration reduces crime after—in Norway. Berecochea and Jaman, one of the few truly randomized studies in this literature, also looks more likely right than wrong, and is also somewhat distant in its setting, early-1970s California. And there are the two Georgia studies (Kuziemko and Ganong), which upon reanalysis no longer point to beneficial aftereffects, but still do not demonstrate harmful ones either.
Aftereffects must vary by place, time, and person. But the first-order generalization that best fits the credible evidence is that at the margin in the US today, aftereffects offset in the long run what incapacitation does in the short run.
Ok so of the 13 studies they looked at, some say more prison makes people commit more crimes when they are released. Some say that more prison makes people commit less crimes when they are released. Some say that more prison doesn't have any effect people committing crime when released.
Positive aftereffects, count of more crime studies: 9.3!, 9.4!!, 9.9
Negative aftereffects, count of less crime studies: 9.1, 9.7, 9.8, 9.11, 9.12!!!!
Zero aftereffects, count of same crime studies: 9.5!!!, 9.6, 9.10, 9.13
Not clear aftereffects, count of little predictive value: 9.2
I did really only skim these, so possible I misassigned some. But I think it is very clear that from the studies reviewed they have no idea the impact of incarceration on recidivism. Very curious how aftereffects can vary by place, time and person so much and still offset the results of incapacitation. Looks very unclear to me, and given the highly concentrated nature of criminality this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that being incarceration is criminogenic such that it cancels out the effects of incapacitation. No idea how the author comes to the top line conclusion they do. Wonder if it has anything to do with this:
The Open Philanthropy Project has joined a latter-day criminal justice reform movement. It too is motivated by the belief that something is wrong with the state’s use of punishment to combat crime. Something is wrong, in other words, with those pictures. Higher incarceration rates and longer sentences, along with the “war on drugs,” have imposed great costs on taxpayers, as well as on inmates, their families, and their communities (Alexander 2012).
! 9.3 does not actually look at how long prisoners are in prison, it only looks at security levels. Why is it in here?
!! 9.4. Similar to 9.3, this only looks security levels, and only among those that return to prison. Nothing about if they commit more crimes, or even if those in higher security commit more or less crimes. It just asks "if they were in a higher security level prison, does someone who is reoffend do so faster or slower than in lower security." Say only 1 of high security prisoner reoffends, but he does it in a day after release. If 100% of lower security releasees reoffend, but they all do it longer than 1 day after release, then this study says its more assignment to a higher security prison causes releasees to go back to prison faster.
!!! 9.5 - this one was actually very weakly more crime, but author says it is so weak he is counting it as 0
!!!! 9.12 - original study said strong negative aftereffects, author reanalyzed and says ambiguous. Maybe this goes in zero.
I do wish we could figure out real rehabilitation methods for those that could be receptive. We can program people to think and believe lots of things. Norway, Denmark, and Japan all have seemingly more successful release programs. Although, I have read on Wordcel Substacker #300 differences in recidivism may not be as stark as they are made out to be as commonly understood.
I think to a large extent we already have figured this out, and there really was not much to figure out to begin with. Being receptive to rehabilitation is the battle, that is all it takes, that is rehabilitation. Someone is rehabilitated when they don't want to do crime anymore, and then they go out and don't do crime anymore. Maybe we can program people to think and believe things, but we cannot program people who do not want to be programed. They will just do what they want. But really there is nothing much to program - just don't do crimes.
It is largely forgotten in these conversations that we are asking for the bare minimum. Do not steal, do not be violent, pay your taxes. People refuse to cooperate, they make active and conscious choices to break the law in ways we (almost) all agree are unacceptable, and it suddenly turns into this vexing social problem of "why?" or "how do we fix this". As if something is wrong with us, society, and not them, the criminal. I think that we as a society need to get over asking "why" here, we should realize that it is the simple answer: they want to. They are the problem, they need to fix it. And if they don't want to fix it then they can stay in the cage for the agreed upon time.
To speak to the larger conversation, which I don't necessarily think you are arguing: When we have a conversation about rehabilitation, who is this conversation centered on? It is the criminal. Whose interests should the criminal justice system serve? Is it the criminal's? Or is it society's? I do think that rehabilitation needs to be a large part of the conversation, but the frame always needs to be on society and what is best for us. The conversation cannot just center on rehabilitation, it needs to include incapacitation. The conversation needs to be centered on what is best for society. Clara, and most progressives, ignore this.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
Clara's core argument is that longer sentences do not decrease crime, so vote no on 36.
Californians - at least, those of us in big cities - shouldn’t have to tolerate the current rate of retail theft. But the decreased sentences of Prop 47 didn’t cause this crime, and there’s substantial evidence that harsher criminal penalties won’t decrease it. So what should we do?
The paper she links says the opposite, Clara just chooses to ignore the sections that don't agree with her:
8.6. Summary: Incapacitation versus standard release Surveying these studies of incapacitation relative to standard release reveals a few patterns:
• All find incapacitation.
• Incapacitation emerges more clearly for property crime than violent crime. Possibly this is merely because some of the policies studied (in the Netherlands and California) focused on people convicted of property crimes. But it may also be that the propensity for violence is more evenly distributed in the population, so that incarcerating some people does less to contain it.
Clara is not an honest person. She does not seriously engage with the question "do longer sentences decrease crime." She selectively engages in the question in such a way that points to her favored outcome. She openly lies about the content of papers she uses to argue her favored outcome.
An honest reckoning of this question needs to consider incapacitation - when someone is locked in prison they cannot engage in crimes outside of prison. I have yet to see an explanation for the below two facts.
-
criminality is extremely concentrated, it is the same people being arrested over and over again. https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1647031826202935300
-
people who are released from prison will the majority of time go on to commit more crimes.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/recidivism_and_reentry/
It is extremely clear that criminality is very concentrated. It is the same people being arrested over and over again, of course keeping them locked up longer will decrease crime. When they're let out they usually reoffend. They reoffend at such rates that it is impossible to believe that letting them out will not increase crime.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
The idea that refugees have to apply for asylum in the first safe country comes from a misreading of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which says that refugees can't be penalised for illegally entering a country if they are crossing from a dangerous country to the first safe country. But a refugee doesn't cease to be a refugee just because they illegally cross from one safe country to another - the second safe country can prosecute them for illegal immigration but this doesn't solve the problem that you can't (without violating the Refugee Convention) get rid of them without finding another safe country willing to take them.
My understanding is from the below link, which states (emphasis mine):
What is the Dublin Regulation? The Dublin Regulation determines which country is responsible for considering an application for protection. An asylum seeker can only have his or her application considered in one of the Dublin countries.
The main rule is that an application will be processed by the first Dublin country the asylum seeker comes to. If the asylum seeker applies for protection in another Dublin country, he or she will be sent back to the country that has already considered his/her application or that is responsible for considering the application.
Maybe I am misreading, so I encourage you to post on it.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
To be clear - I do recognize "rights of people with a legitimate claim to asylum". I just think that right is legitimate when applied to Olga and her kids from Ukraine, and illegitimate when applied to Mohamad and his cousin/wife from Pakistan.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
As an analogy, taxes are a legal way for a government to get funds from its citizens. Suppose that one European country refuses to collect taxes from someone. Should this give another EU country the licence to just confiscate property of some other party at gunpoint, because 'taxes are already suspended in the EU'? Clearly not.
I think a better analogy would be if the EU agreed to set a minimum tax rate for the EU budget and all signed a treaty that said as much. What happens when, say, Germany decides to not enforce the minimum tax? What gave Germany license to suspend their treaty obligations to pay tax? Why should Poland listen to the EU when the EU tries to selectively enforce the tax treaty? Ok now what gives Germany the right to not ensure fair asylum claims (a fair asylum claim means actually getting them kicked out when they do not qualify)? What gives the EU the right to selectively enforce a migration treaty on Poland?
I will also point out that the EU, and every country, already has a license to just confiscate property at gunpoint. It is called taxes. What happens to those who do not pay taxes? Men with guns come to confiscate their property. Yes the payee generally gets a good deal (civilization) out of this. But force or threat of force is the driver behind the transfer. Confiscating property at gunpoint is what taxes are, EU countries already have this license.
I was not saying 'give money to migrants'. I was saying 'spend money on migrants', which is different. At the end of the day, the migrants in Belarus were shipped there with the explicit goal of annoying the EU. Given the general regard for human rights in Belarus, it seems safe to assume that these migrants can be put under enough pressure that they believe that their lives will depend on reaching the EU, and risk their lives in the process. Under such circumstances, push-backs are ugly affairs.
The migrants all made a conscious and free choice to go to Belarus, and then to either sneak in or lie to the EU about what danger they are in back in their origin country. If any danger to the migrants exists in Belarus it is because they choose to put themselves in danger. The migrants put themselves in this situation, if the EU wants to tell itself it has a legal obligation to fly them back then fine. But I think how it is now is a bad system because those that stand to benefit from abuse of the system (illegal migrants) do not currently pay the full costs for that abuse (getting back home), so they should change the law. It would seem ideal to me (and Poland) by scrapping the right of asylum entirely.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
If you are referring to the Culture series by Ian Banks I have not read it, so the reference goes over my head.
If you are unsatisfied with his view on laws, might I suggest Heinlein? I find it more realistic.
Major Reid paused to touch the face of an old-fashioned watch, "reading" its hands. "The period is almost over and we have yet to determine the moral reason for our success in governing ourselves. Now continued success is never a matter of chance. Bear in mind that this is science, not wishful thinking; the universe is what itis , not what we want it to be. To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives — such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force, if you will! — the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force ."
phosphorus2
5mo ago
The right to asylum is not something you can suspend at will.
The right to asylum has already been suspended in the EU, the catch is that it is suspended in favor of the refugees. They get all the protections of the asylum laws, they follow none of the obligations.
The laws say "you must apply in the first safe country" - doesn't happen.
The laws say the asylum seeker must be fleeing persecution or serious harm in their country of origin - almost none of them are.
The laws say that asylum seekers must be returned to the first safe EU country they arrived in for said country to decide asylum - this never happens.
The laws say asylum seekers must return when their case is denied - almost none of them do.
If others can selectively apply the asylum laws why can't Poland? What justification does the EU have for enforcing this law when the EU itself doesn't follow it?
Yes, this will mean that for every plane ticket that Belarus buys (or makes some migrant pay for), the EU will also need to pay for a plane ticket, but realistically that is the only way out of the situation. We do not want to compete with Belarus in "who is better at terrorizing delusional migrants", because that game can only be won by shooting more unarmed civilians than Belarus is willing to shoot.
This is a false dichotomy between "give migrants more money" and "shoot migrants". Might I humbly suggest a third option, which is to simply not offer rights and money to outsiders in the first place?
phosphorus2
6mo ago
If there were any HIPAA violations involved, well... I wouldn't count on an investigation from the federal government.
ProPublica's website has the below addendum, it is not included on RawStory.
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-abortion-ban-amber-thurman-death
How We Reported the Story
ProPublica reporter Kavitha Surana reviewed death records and medical examiner and coroner reports to identify cases that may be related to abortion access. She first reached out to Amber Thurman’s family and friends a year ago. The family shared her personal documents and signed a release for ProPublica to access her medical information. The maternal mortality review committee reviewed Thurman’s case at the end of July 2024.
Interesting to me is the article's inclusion of Will Brewer, lobbyist from Tennessee. Yes, a totally different state than the death.
The state’s main anti-abortion lobbyist, Will Brewer, vigorously opposed the change. Some pregnancy complications “work themselves out,” he told a panel of lawmakers. Doctors should be required to “pause and wait this out and see how it goes.”
The above quote is the only time Brewer is mentioned in this particular article, and I got the feeling that ProPublica butchered whatever Brewer actually said. So here is what is the full quote, (with emphasis mine) courtesy of...Kavitha Surana via Oklahoma Voice:
When Tennessee Republicans introduced a bill to give doctors more protection to offer terminations when a pregnant patient faced a condition that could become life-threatening, Will Brewer, the lead lobbyist for Tennessee Right to Life, testified against it, arguing the patient’s condition needed to deteriorate before a doctor could intervene.
“There are issues with pregnancy that could be considered an emergency — or at least could possibly be considered an anomaly or medically futile — that work themselves out,” Brewer, who has no medical training, testified on the House floor. “I’m not talking about an eleventh hour, you know, a patient comes into the ER bleeding out, and what do we do? I’m talking about (a situation when) there is a condition here that some doctors would say constitutes an emergency worthy of a termination and other doctors would say, ‘Let’s pause and wait this out and see how it goes.’ I wouldn’t want the former to terminate when the latter says there’s room to see how it goes before this is urgent enough.”
So Brewer explicitly says that he wants to allow an exception in Thurman's exact situation! And Kavitha, the ProPublica reporter, knew he wanted an exception for this exact situation because she quoted him saying exactly so in an article she herself wrote less than a year ago! All on top of the guy being from a totally different state! Why include this detail in the article?
Age is a factor. But I think it is more the structure of the sites. Reddit and FB are too siloed and too moderated, things can't get enough reach to really take off into the public consciousness.
I know very little of Tik Tok so I can't comment.
More options
Context Copy link