0·
10 days agoIt works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
ObjectivityIncarnate
- 0 Posts
- 25 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Your opportunities in life are absolutely dependent on your wealth. Those hoarding wealth are stealing opportunity from everyone.
What if the wealth you possess was created by you? Wealth isn’t zero sum, it’s created all the time (and at a rate literally not achievable simply by underpaying employees, to pre-refute the expected response). The implied premise of ‘because they have it, we don’t have it’ just doesn’t hold any water.
Also, it doesn’t really make sense to call it ‘hoarding’ when it’s largely/all invested in businesses that run within the economy. To hoard something is to keep it isolated–investments in publicly-traded companies can never truly fairly be called “hoarding”. You could only fairly call the funds kept in back accounts etc. unspent ‘hoarded’.
Uh, women graduate college at a rate much higher than men in the US, this is total bullshit, lol.
0·16 days ago| will
i də notIs this a bot with bad OCR? What’s with all of the weird characters?
Is the point meant to be that women don’t build off of their previous work as much as men? lol
Powerful
This “science meme” needs more science and less meme, imo, lol
Now go look up the incidence of domestic violence in the general population, and see if you still feel so smug in saying that, lol.
There are few things more frustrating, politics-wise, than seeing someone who you presumably fundamentally agree with on issue X, fuck everything up by exaggerating or fabricating evidence.
It’s better to get called out by someone who isn’t interested in doing anything but correcting them. Could easily be fuel to completely reject the premise if it was someone else.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn’t. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That’s all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you’re spreading bullshit in support of it, that’s your own damn fault. If you’re right, you don’t have to lie to prove it.
i really don’t care if it’s a misleading or misquoted stat.
I’m frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it’s bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don’t belong in civilized society.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H…, Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as ‘violent incidents’ a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn’t indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, ‘Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.’ Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study “indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent).” A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to ‘getting physical’ (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.
As for your claim that “nobody” steals for their baby
Congrats on contradicting the absolute literal interpretation of what was obviously hyperbole, I guess.
imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.
That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.
No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.
And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?
This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.
Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.
The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.
Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.
Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol
This would be a scandal. It would be a news story. Please, give a link to a single time this has ever happened, because of all the things that never happened, this happened the least.
I’ll do you two better. Only took 15 seconds of Googling, after all:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-formula-targeted-organized-retail-theft-rings/story?id=13293485 https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-news/three-accused-of-stealing-12000-worth-of-baby-formula-from-across-knox-county/ https://www.newsflare.com/video/635785/thieves-steal-7k-of-baby-formula-from-supermarket-in-just-20-minutes
Time to find out if you’ll admit you’re wrong, or if the smug ignorance continues.
No one shoplifts formula to feed their own baby, they steal it to literally scalp it to those who actually do need it, at a fat markup, after conveniently draining the store’s supply so they’re the only source.
They’re not Robin Hoods sticking it to the Big Bad Corporation. They’re profiteering scumbags.
“Female” is a descriptor of sex (element of anatomy), not gender identity (element of consciousness). Considering that:
It’s not transphobic to use a sex adjective to refer to homologous body parts that are naturally inherent to that sex, it’s just matter-of-fact. For example, only males/females are capable of suffering from prostate/ovarian cancer–and this population includes trans women/men.