While this is definitely something people should be doing, doesn’t the attorney general only act out if they get enough complaints, or if the complaint stands out in some way?

Will they actually work with someone to resolve their specific complaint every time?

From what I’ve seen, at least the BBB will try to specifically address your issue with the company and is probably a much easier process to carry out before trying to take things further.

Or is there something about using the BBB that would prevent you from filing a complaint with the attorney general, or prevent you from going further with something like a lawsuit?

if not the BBB, then who?

Definitely not a movie night, you don’t get much of a chance to really know the other person from that, and if either one of you decides that the other is crazy it makes it a little harder to dip out.

Ideally something simple that’s good for getting to know the other person while being able to leave at any time. Coffee, shaved ice, frozen yogurt, etc. Then a walk through a park or along a beach, or just sit down/people watch, and discuss your interests to see if either of you are interested in a second date.

The sad thing is, his case is not unique. Way too many people are convicted for crimes in the same way where some “cell mate” has heard the other person confess to crimes, and then the “informant” gets rewarded.

We seriously need to change how things are done especially in cases where the only evidence is from incentivized informant testimony.

If the Missouri governor won’t pardon him, shouldn’t Biden be able to pardon him? Hopefully enough noise is made that he takes notice.

Unfortunately we’ve all seen this play out before where someone who can prove they are innocent is still executed.

I’ve got to say, I’m disappointed in Lemmy for the amount of upvotes you’re receiving for a comment as sickening as this.

Killing someone just for revenge should never be the answer. That’s the kind of tactic that makes dictators and fascists what they are. The desire to watch something like that is even more alarming.

Always great to have an actual lawyer weigh in on something like this.

I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.

Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?

I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

Username does not check out.

I’m fairly certain that I checked it out on Kbin.Social about a month or two back and it still worked then, but Kbin.Social is currently down for maintenance, so I’m not sure.

How long ago is “quite a while”?

Former Redditors are used to upvotes/downvotes being private by default.

But this really depends on the user. Most reasons for this would be privacy related reasons.

• Some users vote differently knowing that their votes are public. If they want to vote freely they would consider an option like this.

• To combat profiling from others/corporations.

• To avoid certain users that take downvotes way too seriously.

That might be a setting specific to that instance. With other kbin instances it is possible to see reduces (or at least you have been able to do so in the past).

Maybe there’s been a recent update to all kbin instances so that the reduces tab is no longer clickable?

It doesn’t hide downvotes… It just calls them “Reduces”

If you want your upvotes/downvotes to actually be private, create a seperate account that only votes and never comments/posts.

Agreed. Traditionally, “gaslighting” is specific to cases where a manipulator tries to convince the other person that they are crazy over time. The end goal is to make the other person doubt their reality so much that they will only rely on the manipulator. Basically, it’s a conscious attempt to brainwash someone.

This comes from a story where a “husband secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lighting but insists his wife is imagining it, making her think she is going insane.” All so that he can steal from her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting#cite_note-8

Unfortunately many today misuse this term to mean something closer to the definition of “lying” or when someone is trying hard to influence you…

Hold up… there is a staircase going upstairs behind the couch!

Yeah, that shark was definitely trying to eat that turtle…

Anyway, the top comment from YouTube is useful:

They put two different clips together. The original is that the turtle was saved from being eaten by the tiger shark, and then after they released the turtle miles away from the shark, the turtle swam down, grabbed a jellyfish or something to eat, and brought it back up to try and “share” his snack with his rescuer. It was adorable. And they showed the entire thing from start to finish in that one, showing it was the same turtle, and the same man right after the rescue.

• @athenadaudelin1993 [11 days ago]

Somewhat similar, this might be a fun thread to ask if anyone has experienced Synesthesia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

You saw what happened to some of the witnesses that were on our side, they were literally crucified by this man who looks like an angel but he’s really a devil.

“Literally”… You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Civil asset forfeiture in the U.S.

We’re supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty” but they get around this by saying that they’re essentially accusing the money (or car/home or whatever) of being used for crime. Then they confiscate it and the only way to get it back is to go to court and prove that your money is innocent.

The fact that cash/possessions can be taken away from you at anytime by federal agents (or by police in almost every State) without having to follow it up with any sort of case to prove that a crime occurred is ridiculous. And on top of that you can’t get the money back that you spent on attorney fees, so it’s pointless to spend money on an attorney if what was taken was less than a few thousand dollars.

Most people don’t know that this can happen or don’t seem to care enough because, “it would never happen to me, right?”

https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/

I think you’re misunderstanding what the Forward Party is. You can be a part of any side of the political spectrum and still fall in line with the Forward Party.

The only thing that the Forward Party cares about is overhauling the voting system with something better: RCV, Star, Approval, etc.

They don’t take a stance on much of anything else.

And in terms of priority, any candidate endorsed by the Forward Party has my initial vote. If multiple candidates in the same race are backed by the forward party, then I will start digging in deeper to figure out which one I want to vote for.