Page 70 of 79

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:30 pm UTC
by Grop
It seems quite certain to me that, once out of jail, someone is very likely to do crimes again if they don't have access to a job (that is not super alienating). Society has to either hope that people have learned something in jail, or to have them die there (but then what would be the point of jail?).

Some secrecy seems necessary in the former case.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:20 pm UTC
by morriswalters
sardia wrote:Then your wife, sableeagle, and you wouldn't be stressed out.
You would be mistaking me for someone else. I'm not stressed out. It's like being hit by an asteroid, I can't avoid it so I don't worry about it. But the hive mind does.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:49 am UTC
by orthogon
morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:Then your wife, sableeagle, and you wouldn't be stressed out.
You would be mistaking me for someone else. I'm not stressed out. It's like being hit by an asteroid, I can't avoid it so I don't worry about it. But the hive mind does.

That's delicious. I think sableeagle was a parenthetical vocative, not an item in an Oxford-commaed list.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:29 am UTC
by Soupspoon
This is why I'm against Oxford Commas. Best just to rewrite (semicolons, etc), if there's confusion, and stick with the normal confusion of commas in all non-terminal conjunction-string positions1 with subclause-delimiting ones. (Which can be edited out, also, just as deiberately I edited one in to the above.)

Request thread title change to "The Darker Side Of Grammar" plz. Kthnxbye!


1 "A and B and C and D" => "A, B, C and D". You never do "A, and B", outside of clausing an aside, so why "… C, and D"?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:35 am UTC
by morriswalters
I feel like a little kid who doesn't understand a dirty joke. However I answered the right thought.
Then your wife, sableeagle, and you wouldn't be stressed out.
On the off chance I have some glimmer, here's what I think.

Then your wife, sableeagle, and you wouldn't be stressed out.
Then your wife, sableeagle, and you wouldn't be stressed out.

Here, down in the middle of nowhere, we say yall wouldn't be stressed out.

In case the glimmer was an hallucination, forget I said anything.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:47 am UTC
by orthogon
Soupspoon wrote:Request thread title change to "The Darker Side Of Grammar" plz. Kthnxbye!

Just "Dark Grammar" would sound even cooler. A bit like "dark matter" but with overtones of the "Dark Web", too.

I thought Sableeagle nailed it, really. We're not talking about banning people from a wide range of jobs because we fear they can't be trusted generally; we're just saying that perhaps they shouldn't be hired for certain specific jobs that very directly relate to the crime for which they were convicted.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:06 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
The Economist wrote:On August 8th Kenyans will pick a president, governors, MPs and senators. Yet instead of being excited about the chance to elect a new government, many are terrified. On July 31st Chris Msando, the chief technician in charge of the electronic voting system, was found dead in Nairobi, the capital, his arm broken and his body displaying signs of torture.


Article here.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:35 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Tell me why we should have to track every felon for years? To make sure they don't get hired in a job they might not be suited for? When the tools exist that can deliver that capacity to your computer screen in moments. It only costs money.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:35 am UTC
by sardia
morriswalters wrote:Tell me why we should have to track every felon for years? To make sure they don't get hired in a job they might not be suited for? When the tools exist that can deliver that capacity to your computer screen in moments. It only costs money.
agreed, denying felons jobs is counter productive.
It's like guns or cotton swabs. It feels good when you use them, but they cause now harm then good in the long run.
PS either I'm getting old, or you're especially cryptic today.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:07 am UTC
by pogrmman
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Tell me why we should have to track every felon for years? To make sure they don't get hired in a job they might not be suited for? When the tools exist that can deliver that capacity to your computer screen in moments. It only costs money.
agreed, denying felons jobs is counter productive.


This is hitting the nail on the head -- if prisons are supposed to rehabilitate a person, they shouldn't be discriminated against for jobs. If they are, that implies (at least to me) that the prison system does not rehabilitate, and exists only to punish.
In my opinion, part of the reason recidivism is high among former prisoners is because they can't get work. There are certainly other factors, but adding on difficulty to get a job must make it quite a bit harder to return to a "normal" life after incarceration.

I, admittedly, don't know much about this, but I thought I'd add my two cents.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:39 am UTC
by morriswalters
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Tell me why we should have to track every felon for years? To make sure they don't get hired in a job they might not be suited for? When the tools exist that can deliver that capacity to your computer screen in moments. It only costs money.
agreed, denying felons jobs is counter productive.
It's like guns or cotton swabs. It feels good when you use them, but they cause now harm then good in the long run.
PS either I'm getting old, or you're especially cryptic today.
No, I'm getting old. It's a finite problem.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:28 pm UTC
by Zohar
pogrmman wrote:This is hitting the nail on the head -- if prisons are supposed to rehabilitate a person, they shouldn't be discriminated against for jobs. If they are, that implies (at least to me) that the prison system does not rehabilitate, and exists only to punish.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The largest obstacle in former incarcerated people's ability to get a job is discrimination against them in the commercial sector. I'm not saying the prison system is doing a goo job rehabilitating - it's not - but I don't see how it's to blame for this specific aspect.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:10 pm UTC
by trpmb6
You also can't tell me there aren't jobs that you personally don't want to see a felon in. For instance, I'm guessing it's not in a Bank's interest to have a former bank robber working as a teller. Or someone who committed identity fraud working at a call center for a credit card company.

I think you're conflating the issue of excessive incarceration for petty crimes (ie, felony convictions for a small amount of a drug) with other felonies that absolutely warrant a reason for denying someone a job. The real issue here is a legislative issue dealing with our simplification of crimes into either misdemeanor or felony and not a) having more categories for appropriate crimes and b) creating mandatory minimums for non-violent crimes (I have varying views on this second part, but that's not for discussion here). This is why we, as a nation, need to address criminal justice reforms. Courts are forced into things like mandatory minimums by law. We could also do better in defining various crimes. A felon is a felon is a felon doesn't work well in the real world. The single mom who wrote a series of bad checks because she was down on her luck and trying to feed her kids that gets charged with bank fraud (lets say she's a repeat offender because normally this would be a misdemeanor) who gets a felon label is not equivalent to the guy who got caught with a couple dime bags in a school zone who is not equivalent to the guy who robbed a bank at gun point.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:13 pm UTC
by Liri
@Zohar: Employers discriminate in large part because prisons do a poor job rehabilitating. The re-offending rate is pretty high. Getting a stable job would probably lower it, but Why take the risk? is the thinking.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:34 pm UTC
by Zohar
I'm guessing people are wary of hiring a felon just because they're a felon. I'm not sure what could be done to the prison system to change the perception of people outside of it. Even increasing the budget for correctional education in prison so that every inmate (who's there for long enough) would come out with a GED program or a college degree, while an excellent step, I'm not sure how much it would change public perception.

Personally I would try to invest more on creating programs that connect former inmates with community resources - helping them create a support network around them once they go out, helping them find jobs, get education, etc.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:38 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The biggest step would be to protect business owners from lawsuits for hiring felons. You know how every time you hear about "store clerk fights off robber" it always ends with "and the clerk was fired"? That's because if it happens a second time but someone is injured, the company will be held responsible.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:40 pm UTC
by Sableagle
We have a day-release system here where prisoners get taken from prison to work and back by bus (and the prison takes a share of their money to fund the bus, the extra custody ppl and everything else or maybe gives some to victims of the original crimes or something) so that they already have jobs before they get out, and they get occasional day passes as well so that they can do things like arrange somewhere to live, set up banking, redecorate, get furniture, meet their families, find a good route to walk a dog or whatever it is they need to do.

One idea for reducing discrimination: put everyone "on the system" and make background checks a routine part of every job application. As long as the servers aren't going to crash every Monday afternoon with all the applications they're asked to process, it'd mean employers are checking for ineligibility due to past convictions without ever knowing there is a past conviction unless it's relevant, so the bank never finds out their new teller has previous for supplying medical marijuana, the rape crisis centre never finds out their new security guard has previous for driving without insurance when he was 15, the dog-walking agency never finds out their new hire has previous for conspiracy to steal seven litres of mint choc chip ice cream and so on. Of course, the felon with previous for identity fraud may be trying to get around that one, but he or she's just as likely to try to get around the current system too, right?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:02 pm UTC
by ucim
Sableagle wrote:put everyone "on the system" and make background checks a routine part of every job application.
In other words, make general suspicion societally acceptable? No, count me out. If you're actually innocent, you should not be treated as a suspect by default.

Jose

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:38 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Surely there's some space between "No one should ever hire a felon" and "No one should be able to consider any past crimes when hiring for a job" where we can fit a position like "Maybe certain jobs are inappropriate for people convicted of certain crimes", isn't there?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:23 pm UTC
by morriswalters
Sure there is. We filter like this constantly everywhere. Hospitals vet their staff for convictions for possession or use. Retail and Banks also look at your criminal record. And most of them will use people with records depending upon the details. I have never had a company not ask me if I had a criminal record. But if you hire a guard, or a company that fills that need, one would assume that they were there for a purpose and that someone was vetting the guards against that purpose. Rape Center, Guards? Does the center share in the responsibility? Perhaps I expect too much.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:08 am UTC
by sardia
gmalivuk wrote:Surely there's some space between "No one should ever hire a felon" and "No one should be able to consider any past crimes when hiring for a job" where we can fit a position like "Maybe certain jobs are inappropriate for people convicted of certain crimes", isn't there?

We should allow some discrimination against felons because research shows that employers must discriminate. If you don't let them discriminate against felons, they'll discriminate against races instead. It's a really disheartening study.

I rather see studies first proving that discriminating against felons in the jobs related to their crimes matters. I googled it, and it might matter because a single rapist often commit a bunch of rapes. Though it doesn't say if it matters if they got caught. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... od-crimes/
This shows that convicted sex offenders aren't likely to reoffend.

I would say that the more white collar the crime is, the harsher we should be on letting felons have jobs. You steal something? Have a job. You steal billions from everyone by working for goldman sachs? Don't get a job.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:42 am UTC
by Soupspoon
sardia wrote:I would say that the more white collar the crime is, the harsher we should be on letting felons have jobs. You steal something? Have a job. You steal billions from everyone by working for goldman sachs? Don't get a job.

Heading in the right direction, for the right reasons... (The sensible cop, that is. Not so sure I can extend that to the guy he helps.)

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:34 pm UTC
by Chen
sardia wrote:I would say that the more white collar the crime is, the harsher we should be on letting felons have jobs. You steal something? Have a job. You steal billions from everyone by working for goldman sachs? Don't get a job.


No, this is just as bad. White color crime needs to be properly punished. The fact people go to jail for some sort period of time and manage to hide their assets are a problem. Ill gotten gains? When you've paid it all back (plus sufficient punitive damages to those affected) then you can get out of prison. But once you are out of prison, you should be able to reintegrate.

Even with non-white color crime, the problem is prisons don't rehabilitate. And every felon appears to be judged by statistics rather than individually. Oh you're 70% likely to commit the crime again? Sorry can't risk it even if you happen to be in the other 30%*. We tend not to allow that type of discrimination based on statistics for other characteristics.


*numbers just made up for this example.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:25 am UTC
by idonno
Chen wrote:Even with non-white color crime, the problem is prisons don't rehabilitate. And every felon appears to be judged by statistics rather than individually. Oh you're 70% likely to commit the crime again? Sorry can't risk it even if you happen to be in the other 30%*. We tend not to allow that type of discrimination based on statistics for other characteristics.


*numbers just made up for this example.

I think there is a difference between discriminating based on past actions vs attributes and discrimination based on past actions is actually incredibly common. Sure, if you got to know a highschool drop out, you might learn that they are a reliable hard worker you can count on but have you ever tried to fill a position by getting to personally know several applicants? How about multiple positions? It sucks but it is not feasible to expect hiring decisions to be made on a personal basis. They have to look at your history and take a best guess at how good an employee you will be and past actions are a much fairer basis than things like gender or skin color.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:47 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
It's also liability and insurance issues. Let's say you hire the ex-con. But then there's an issue, such as the ex-con getting into a fight with a customer. Greedy attorneys will have raging erections during the civil case, and you will end up paying out bigtime. So you hire the less competent non-ex-con instead...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:08 pm UTC
by natraj
btw nazis literally busy murdering people in charlottesville.

earlier in the day they were beating people in the head with sticks / flagpoles and pepper spraying people, while the police stood by and watched. once the nazis had moved on from attacking people the police interfered with medics providing care to the bleeding victims. (no article on that, i am on the ground here and was one of the medics involved.)

then later in the day after numerous other clashes also ignored by the many cops around, they step it up to murder.

been kind of a day. really glad the upstanding men and woman of the charlottesville pd have been around to protect the free speech of these murderous fascists. i have blood on my clothes from the fruits of their excellent priorities.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:04 pm UTC
by Mutex
I've been trying to get my thoughts together to post a response about this but just... fuck.

It reminds me of when Jo Cox was assassinated (UK Remain-supporting politician killed by a pro-Leave man with mental issues). Just can't believe it finally came to that.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:23 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Mutex wrote:killed by a pro-Leave man with mental issues

Funny how the "mental issues" thing becomes an inextricable part of the narrative whenever a terrorist is white.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:09 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
I suspect they apply to an equivalent proportion of non-white terrorists, too. But as various controlling influences in these people's lives are exactly as dismissive of psychologists (and as eager to instead embed their own philosophies onto the damaged psyche) as your average high level Operating Thetan, you end up with underdiagnosed and uncorrected mental disjoints. The labels we add to them, however, are rarely objective, universal and unblemished by us vs them prejudice. I would imagine even my own clumsy interpretation is faulty in meaningful ways, so please move on - nothing to see here.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:00 am UTC
by morriswalters
It isn't like this is anything new, or novel. The last time it ended in 3 million casualties. We seem to be wanting to start it again. If the left wants to win, they need to bring more people and guns. Don't be stupid. The next time, if you want to go down this road, let the white guys be the ones crying when the lights go out. Leave them bleeding on the ground. And while your at it, infiltrate the police and the army. So they can't be used against you. The right has done this already, you're behind. Good luck.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:19 am UTC
by Soupspoon
So, a car causes clearly deliberate mass injury and death, very much Assault With A Deadly Weapon, with many witnesses. A few hours later, a helicopter crashes in circumstances not yet established. Or at least publicly revealed, whatever information your own briefings might contain, but I'm guessing little of import (because you didn't try to share anything).

Apart from general and extremely ambiguously-aimed mentions of troubles, promises of support, threats and deliberately vague calls for the return of the absent unity, the first actual mention of the tragedies, above, is of the mysterious helicopter crash. It was then thirty five minutes later, after someone appears to have poked POTUS into making further condolences towards the victims of the prior incident. Normal condolences, however, not the deepest ones previously offered. And vague "regards" and the phrase "so sad" that he normally reserves as an insult - but at least it's something.

Mister President, please promote the genius who prodded you. He (or she) is probably the best person you (or your country) have in your coterie, right now, and cannot be underestimated as an asset. Although you probably should have let them write the tweet for you, also. Don't forget to give them your Twitter password, to expedite their usefulness.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:51 am UTC
by DaBigCheez
Oh gee. Condemning the violence "on many sides", hm, Mr. Trump? That somehow manages to be even *more* depressing than the usual headline doublethink of "suspect killed after confrontation with police firearm discharge" being printed in place of "cops shoot dead someone they stopped for no reason"...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:42 am UTC
by The Great Hippo
DaBigCheez wrote:Oh gee. Condemning the violence "on many sides", hm, Mr. Trump?
Don't judge him too harshly; he just didn't want to be insensitive. Nazis have feelings, too.

Also, yeah, the first news feed I watched about this went out of their way to emphasize how 'non-violent' the police were. I guess they saw the Nazis doing their 'job' for them and figured, 'oh, hey, cool; they got this, let's just take the day off'.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:01 pm UTC
by Dauric
DaBigCheez wrote:Oh gee. Condemning the violence "on many sides", hm, Mr. Trump? That somehow manages to be even *more* depressing than the usual headline doublethink of "suspect killed after confrontation with police firearm discharge" being printed in place of "cops shoot dead someone they stopped for no reason"...


At least some national leaders are willing to call out the perpetrators for what they are.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:08 pm UTC
by Liri
Dauric wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:Oh gee. Condemning the violence "on many sides", hm, Mr. Trump? That somehow manages to be even *more* depressing than the usual headline doublethink of "suspect killed after confrontation with police firearm discharge" being printed in place of "cops shoot dead someone they stopped for no reason"...


At least some national leaders are willing to call out the perpetrators for what they are.

I realized halfway through that I was relieved that Sen. Cruz and co. were denouncing white supremacists.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:01 pm UTC
by Mutex
Liri wrote:
Dauric wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:Oh gee. Condemning the violence "on many sides", hm, Mr. Trump? That somehow manages to be even *more* depressing than the usual headline doublethink of "suspect killed after confrontation with police firearm discharge" being printed in place of "cops shoot dead someone they stopped for no reason"...


At least some national leaders are willing to call out the perpetrators for what they are.

I realized halfway through that I was relieved that Sen. Cruz and co. were denouncing white supremacists.

Same, it's depressing how much even Cruz seems like a calm, sane voice of reason these days. Comparatively.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:26 pm UTC
by sardia
When I first read this on Fox, they made it sound like the whole place was in chaos, and not a planned attack by Nazis.
It wasn't until later that I realized it was a domestic terror attack by whites nationalists.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:16 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Should we remember Robert E Lee as the guy that opposed secession from the US, advocated Johnson's Reconstruction, supported black education, and even evicted white students from Washington College who had been harassing black people, in order to discredit the right wing extremists?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:50 pm UTC
by Sableagle
natraj wrote:btw nazis literally busy murdering people in charlottesville.


Trump wrote:We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.


Andrew_Anglin wrote:He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us. No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good. God bless him.


Image

David_Duke wrote:I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror and remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists.


CNN wrote:The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website, needs to find another domain name provider after GoDaddy gave it the boot following a derogatory story about the woman killed at the Charlottesville, Virginia, rally.

The site, which calls itself "The World's Most Genocidal Republican Website," registered its name with GoDaddy -- but GoDaddy doesn't host the Daily Stormer's content.

Nevertheless, the company said it wants nothing to do with the site following a piece on Heather Heyer. Heyer died after a car rammed a crowd of counter-protesters gathered to oppose a "Unite the Right" rally of white nationalist and other right-wing groups.

An article posted on the Daily Stormer called Heyer "fat and a drain on society."
"Despite feigned outrage by the media, most people are glad she is dead, as she is the definition of uselessness," the story said. "A 32-year-old woman without children is a burden on society and has no value."


"Did you shoot that man?" "Yes, your Honour." "Did you shoot him on purpose?" "Yes, I did, your Honour." "Why?" "He was giving a nazi salute." "Case dismissed. You're free to go, and thank you for your service."

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:53 pm UTC
by Jumble
Trump condemns 'evil racism' in Charlottesville.

Clearly it's shameful that the president of the United States had to be forced into condemning fascist-saluting racists and KKK members (is it just me or did 400+k US citizens die defeating the fascism these 'patriots' are celebrating?) but I'm heartened that he was forced to say it...