A supervisor should understand the concept of respecting people’s boundaries. You could always say something like “Hey I’m not really in the mood to talk right now” or “This isn’t something I want to talk about”. Just a fair warning if you do this, you might get labeled as the odd one the same way you mentioned if you go to HR (the HR one would be a bit worse if I’m being honest).
Except my comment wasn’t regarded the California DoJ. It was regarding Kamala Harris. She spearheaded the initiative to take down the site. She talked about it and used it as a talking point on how tough she is on human trafficking. Except, what actions did she actually take on human trafficker’s? Why go for the platform that is easily replaceable and not the actual people perpetrating it? All she ended up doing was creating an environment that is less safe for sex workers and victims of human trafficking.
There has been one temporary ceasefire with hostage releases.
And there have also been instances of Netanyahu sabotaging getting hostages released as well.
Also remember the recent ceasefire for vaccinations.
You mean for polio right? The disease that started spreading because of Israel’s commitment to depriving children of basic human rights like clean water and healthcare, right? The same ceasefire where Israel has been reported not allowing vaccinators to enter right?
There are a string of other events that happened because of successful diplomacy.
And there’s a longer string of events of unsuccesful diplomacy on the Israeli side. I’ll also remind you that this list doesn’t start from October by the way.
Israel’s message to Hamas since the beginning of the war has more or less been: surrender or die.
Israel’s message to the Palestinian people is to simply die. Let’s not confuse what’s actually happening here.
Netanyahu never does anything in good faith. He is all about his personal advantage.
Oh, so you agree he’s untrustworthy?
You know, instead of going from “Harris did address it” to “Climate change isn’t important”, you could have just said “I didn’t read the article so thanks for pointing out the actual message of the article, here is why I agree/disagree with it”. You know that’s a completely ok thing to say, right?
If it’s enforced it kind of loses it’s charm and appeal, no?
Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.
Given the events of the past 8 months would you say Netanyahu, and by extension the Israeli government, have been negotiating in good faith and actively trying to end the war?
It’s been brought up in previous debates as well. Again, the article mentions that. The message of the article is how little it gets addressed given how much of an important topic it is for voters. Even if it does get brought up in the debate saying “The amount of time for it as well as the points made were not enough” is still a very valid thing to say and that’s what the article is about.
Well if Israel says that then it must be safe for him. …Right?
The article is more of a critique on the political landscape surrounding climate change in America for the past 20 years. It mentions all the presidents since Bush and how the talk has changed but the fact that it’s still not enough. Despite it being a big issue for voters.
But for more than 20 years, the networks running the presidential debates — and the candidates on the debate stages — have decided that climate change is simply not critical enough to voters to warrant substantial attention. Never mind that more than a third of voters in the U.S. say that global warming is “very important” to their vote, or that an additional 25 percent say they would prefer a candidate who supports climate action — to pundits, climate change is an ancillary issue. Very soon, however, this will have to change. Polls show that climate change is a top issue for young voters in particular, and that 85 percent of young voters can be moved to vote based on climate issues.
It does critique her stance on fracking but I consider that fair game since she did vote for it and advocate for it in the debates.
As Kate Aronoff wrote for The New Republic, Harris could have put forward a number of facts about fracking’s failures, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. Oil and gas companies depend on billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, for instance, including a massive bailout during the pandemic in 2020. “Fossil fuel companies thought [fracking] was too expensive to be worth doing until the federal government poured billions of dollars’ worth of funding into basic research and tax breaks,” Aronoff wrote. “But leading Democrats, including Harris, seem incapable of talking about the downsides of fossil fuel production.”
This is not a situation in which everyone, including oil and gas companies, can get a slice of the climate solutions pie. Science shows that fossil fuels must be phased out expeditiously for the health of the planet. But the severity of this crisis — and the aggressive action necessary to abate it — is not adequately captured in Harris’s debate response. In fact, her embrace of fracking and her focus on boosting oil and gas development alongside clean energy production is emblematic of one way in which Democrats and past Republicans have historically overlapped on the climate issue.
You’re kind of missing the point of my comment. I wasn’t talking about why didn’t they go after the actual owners. I was talking about why they didn’t go after the human traffickers using the site. The article goes in depth about how it did nothing but make it worse for the people stuck in the situation where they are forced to sell their bodies.
Last month, after a meandering legal saga in that follow-on case, the website’s 76-year-old co-founder was sentenced to five years in prison on a federal money-laundering charge. He reported on Wednesday to begin serving his sentence, while his lawyers appeal.
That was the co-founder. Not the actual perpetrators.
Kind of reminds me of Ron Perlman not gonna lie. Maybe because of the shading and shape of the mouth area?
What kind of judge signs off on a request to keep a teen treatment facility open after a girls death and the regulators saying “They haven’t done enough to improve so we’re revoking their license”?
The thing that gets me is that if prosecutors like Harris know that sites like this is used for human trafficking; where is the bragging that they helped take those people down? Just like the article states, all they did was take down the site and let the actual offenders roam free. Everyone knows how flexible and versatile the internet is. Take down one site and several take it’s place. When you brag about taking down a site and not doing anything about the reason why the offenses on the site exist, then you’re just working to score political points.
EDIT: In case it wasn’t clear in my comment I want to stress that I am commenting on why prosecutors like Harris brag about taking down these platforms without ever bragging about taking down the human traffickers using said platform. I am not criticizing her for not going after the owners. I know she went after the owners. The article talks about it. But it also talks about not doing much to actually helping the people who need help.
It’s a capitalist invention and, therefore, will be used for whatever capitalists deem it profitable to be. Once the money for AI home assistants starts rolling in, then you’ll see it adopted for that purpose.
A 1 year suspended sentence for having hundreds of CP pics on his phone? That’s just ridiculously low.
A 2 week training period?? Sounds more like Israel is using people stuck in a desperate situation to serve as cannon fodder.
You’re supposed to dip your genitals into it to dry after washing it in the sink idiot.
This is Israel’s version of de-escalating an escalating conflict. Disgusting animals.