|
Young Freud posted:Isn't this always the thing, at least in America? All the right-wingers are crowing about Islamic terrorism and taking the fight to ISIS, but, given how ISIS got formed and expanded via foreign fighters and support, have any of them picked up a gun, a plate carrier, and ammunition and taken off to Syria? No. They'd rather have the U.S. military get involved. I also suspect age is a big part of it. Human beings have a pretty limited window where they can physically take part in an armed conflict before they literally age out of it. A lot of these guys couldn't do it, they'd require too many naps.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
geonetix posted:A bit late but That's what background checks are for. Those are still allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
axeil posted:What the fuuuuuuck. I remember there was a John Doe thing where people were insistent that there was a 2nd person involved and that said person was a darker skinned/middle eastern person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Long Francesco posted:
Is the Donnie edit : Also jfc on Nug making GBS threads his pants being worse than I thought, da gently caress. PhazonLink fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:23
|
|
that's pretty good. 
|
Tarezax posted:That's what background checks are for. Those are still allowed. Right, what's the difference? Plainly asking the person applying for a job instead of checking it with an agency?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Lote posted:Then he'd be commiting perjury as a private citizen. They can also hold him in contempt if he outright refuses. Can't plead the Fifth if you have immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
geonetix posted:A bit late but It's probably still possible to do a public records check, but this stops them from disqualifying applicants who lie about irrelevant convictions. Like, they'd never interview you if you said you got arrested during occupy during an NYPD sweep, but if they're ready to sign you and find out, they might end up not caring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
geonetix posted:Right, what's the difference? Plainly asking the person applying for a job instead of checking it with an agency? There's a lot of variation but (for example) you might have an abuse and neglect registry to see if nursing home workers had histories of violence, but not check for, say, immigration status, or passing bad checks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that's not really the jury it's the public reaction - i bet most black people celebrating oj's acquittal knew he was guilty as sin they just wanted to see the system get hosed for once. You can't really disqualify race as a factor if something happens in America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump won't be pardoned or stand trial. Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wait, what? In the Cuba speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Usually you can ask for specific crimes that impact the job-- duis for driving gigs, for example. Or fraud for positions touching embezzlement. Many advocate a ban on asking criminal history before the interview stage to allow the applicant a chance to explain and contextualize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
geonetix posted:Right, what's the difference? Plainly asking the person applying for a job instead of checking it with an agency? Yes, and disclosing can often disqualify someone regardless of circumstance. Many companies also ask, then run a background check anyway. An applicant could list 'yes' to the criminal disclosure but not have anything come up on a background - they didn't understand that the crime was expunged for instance - and get themselves disqualified; or vis-versa - the applicant checks 'no' but a petty traffic misdemeanor or felony possession shows up on the background check and automatically disqualifies them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Raylen posted:As others have noted, it's not the fact that he's a coward for dodging the draft. He's a coward that espouses that we should be killing people with military force but he doesn't want to get his own hands dirty because he was a MOTHERFUCKING BADASS ROCK GOD or some dumb poo poo at the time. gently caress him. And capping THAT off with "…But if I DID go, I'd be the biggest badass ever, and earn everyone's respect, and my team would be the toughest EVER." He's basically the GOP rolled up into one greasy, stupid piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:You can't really disqualify race as a factor if something happens in America. cosby's mistrial is almost certainly a gender thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
geonetix posted:Right, what's the difference? Plainly asking the person applying for a job instead of checking it with an agency? It's historically been a way to exclude poor and minority workers from jobs in a way that isn't explicitly because of their class or race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
geonetix posted:Right, what's the difference? Plainly asking the person applying for a job instead of checking it with an agency? The intent is to prevent an interviewer from being able to leverage against the interviewee about something that is not a potential criminal threat. E: skylined! Has the right of it. RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:cosby's mistrial is almost certainly a gender thing. It's also a class thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump won't be pardoned or stand trial. I maintain that his story ends alone in a bunker contemplating a pistol. Moments later, a guard outside hears a muffled bang.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
geonetix posted:A bit late but Because having a criminal history does not make a "bad person" in and of itself. People do stupid things, people make mistakes, people atone, people learn. Oh, and the police/justice system make mistakes as well. When you're the hiring manager for a company getting tens or hundreds or applications per day, the first step (if a computer hasn't already done it for you I mean) is to weed out applicants. Aside from the usual things like "does he or she have a degree" and "how black sounding does this person's name sound" (I joke but it's actually a serious problem), you might also just toss out all of the applicants where they ticked off the "yes" to "have you been convicted of a crime?" because hey you've got hundreds of other applicants to choose from so why bother with this one? People with criminal histories are already disqualified before they ever even talk to a recruiter which is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
geonetix posted:A bit late but Because punishing people further for crimes they have already been punished for is an awful thing to do and is a major reason people go back to crime. Lacking options in a society that will not let their past go, their past becomes their future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Because having a criminal history does not make a "bad person" in and of itself. People do stupid things, people make mistakes, people atone, people learn. Oh, and the police/justice system make mistakes as well. When you're the hiring manager for a company getting tens or hundreds or applications per day, the first step (if a computer hasn't already done it for you I mean) is to weed out applicants. Aside from the usual things like "does he or she have a degree" and "how black sounding does this person's name sound" (I joke but it's actually a serious problem), you might also just toss out all of the applicants where they ticked off the "yes" to "have you been convicted of a crime?" because hey you've got hundreds of other applicants to choose from so why bother with this one? This, and also, as people of color are disproportionately victims of a racist criminal justice system, it's yet another way to keep them out of jobs without explicitly violating equal opportunity employment laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I looked into that case, and its got a lot of problems for the prosecutors. People can react to trauma in weird ways of course and we shouldn't condemn or exonerate someone just based on that, but the woman in this case called Cosby dozens of times after the incident, and had some long conversations running all the way up to 45 minutes. Older people on the jury are going to be like "if he raped you, why are you having long in-depth conversations with the man afterwards?" This just really frustrates me. Why does calling someone who (allegedly) raped you mean you're not guilty? Rape can happen in marriages, and there's probably a lot of talking after such an incident in a marriage. It's about the lack of consent of the victim once during the crime - whatever their feelings before or after are immaterial. There's some doubt in this particular case about those calls - both Constand and Cosby were involved with Temple university (this is how they met), so it's plausible they were all business related. https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story is a good read about a particular case of rape - one woman was raped and reported the crime to local police, and they eventually brow-beat her into saying it was made up. Then she was prosecuted for making up said crime. But then the same man raped another woman in another town where they did a full investigation and eventually caught him. Sometimes our criminal justice system really drops the ball on sexual assault, but I just don't know how to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/876116146717696001 You see, the switch toward systemic reviews under Obama cause complaints to skyrocket and overwhelmed the office leading to long delays. The new procedures will really cut back on the workload, which will be a blessing under the requested budget cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
ekeog posted:This, and also, as people of color are disproportionately victims of a racist criminal justice system, it's yet another way to keep them out of jobs without explicitly violating equal opportunity employment laws. Probably one of the weirdest/worst examples of this is the whitewashing of the weed industry in CO (and CA?). There's a news article called whitewashing the green gold rush that's about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:cosby's mistrial is almost certainly a gender thing. The very fact that he's black means that it's both at once, plus other factors because he's rich and a cultural icon. Such cases always play out differently than when the defendant is white, and recognizing that doesn't diminish the incredible misogyny of the way they play out. See also: Mike Tyson ( rape trial edition), Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/st...f50e3ee5240fbef
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
ekeog posted:This, and also, as people of color are disproportionately victims of a racist criminal justice system, it's yet another way to keep them out of jobs without explicitly violating equal opportunity employment laws. Yep, and for me in particular it matters because in college I was arrested for allegedly underage drinking and minor in possession of alcohol at a beach party. I was taken to jail or prison or whatever that evening and pleaded to underage drinking for fines and had to attend a course on the dangers of underage drinking. Anyway, to this day I'm still confused and conflicted about how to answer questions about whether or not I have a criminal record. I mean I think I do because I'm sure there's a record of it somewhere? But it was like ten years ago man and I have no idea anymore. I'm always conflicted with the fact that if I answered yes then my resume would get automatically tossed, despite the fact that I'm not sure if it's true and even if it was true it's loving drinking at a party at 19 years old. But I worry that if I said no and the recruiter decided to Google my name or whatever, it might come up and then I'd have lied about a petty stupid thing and probably be disqualified. See if you can explain to a person why you said yes ("oh silly me, I was 19, you know how college was") then it's not a big deal. But when asked upfront with a yes/no answer, there's no amount of explanation that will help because they're just going to skip your resume and go on to the next guy who holds the exact same degree as you with similar or better job qualifications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
But the victims of the Salem witch trials were innocent and falsely accused. Wouldn't portraying Hilary that way be saying she's been a blatant victim of a supreme injustice?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Isn't this always the thing, at least in America? All the right-wingers are crowing about Islamic terrorism and taking the fight to ISIS, but, given how ISIS got formed and expanded via foreign fighters and support, have any of them picked up a gun, a plate carrier, and ammunition and taken off to Syria? No. They'd rather have the U.S. military get involved. No. Not always the thing. It is -a- thing, but not always the thing. Chicken Hawks are not universal, but numerous enough to have a name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Isn't this always the thing, at least in America? All the right-wingers are crowing about Islamic terrorism and taking the fight to ISIS, but, given how ISIS got formed and expanded via foreign fighters and support, have any of them picked up a gun, a plate carrier, and ammunition and taken off to Syria? No. They'd rather have the U.S. military get involved. According to some of those western anarchists, right wing crusaders do occasionally show up in Syria to fight ISIS but either get turned away or choose to go back home once they find out that Rojava is a socialist army.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:
RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Not even "The Crucible", just a recreation of the Salem witch trials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Pretty sure Salem did all their executions by hanging and yeah, to innocent people, but sure why not
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Jeanne d'arc also burned on a stake. Sainthood for Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin, consider consulting a lawyer about that old conviction. It might not count anymore, or the lawyer might be able to get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton: "More Weight!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:This just really frustrates me. Why does calling someone who (allegedly) raped you mean you're not guilty? Rape can happen in marriages, and there's probably a lot of talking after such an incident in a marriage. It's about the lack of consent of the victim once during the crime - whatever their feelings before or after are immaterial. There's some doubt in this particular case about those calls - both Constand and Cosby were involved with Temple university (this is how they met), so it's plausible they were all business related. I'm gonna quote something I wrote a while back about the PWR BTTM accusations, and it's agreeing with you here. Basically, someone didn't understand why the accuser would still be in contact with or even sleep again with the perpetrator, and said that their story wasn't adding up because of it. So I tried to explain why that's not good evidence of the accuser lying. "Trauma and sexual assault affects everyone differently. Unfortunately, sometimes the choices made immediately after are attempts at rationalizing what's happened. That can include yes, still sleeping next to someone. Or even sleeping with them again. The brain reacts to trauma in weird, nonsensical ways sometimes, but that doesn't make it any less traumatic or any less real. As for reporting, again, many people choose not to report, as reporting is often a really awful experience -- you have to go over the incident again and again, the physical examination means you're subjected to a stranger touching you, the rape kit might never get tested, and in some cases, an examination may be inconclusive (especially in the case of rescinded consent). Plus, trauma means you might not remember things correctly, you'll be asked why you didn't fight or run (because most detectives aren't aware that trauma has three reactions -- fight, flight, and freeze). And in the end, even with reported assaults, conviction is kinda rare. And sometimes it takes time and space for a survivor to fully comprehend that what they experienced was sexual assault. Sometimes a really long time. This is compounded when the assaulter is someone the victim knows (which is the vast majority of cases)." Trauma does weird things, basically. And we aren't robots and I'd say most of us don't act rationally in the face of it, and that's ok. But it does make prosecuting harder, unfortunately  There's a really good seminar for LEO about the trauma reaction of freeze (vs flight/fight), and the memory issues, especially compounded when any drinking has occurred. If anyone is interested, I'll try and dig it up -- it's really worth listening to. Edit: https://www.nij.gov/multimedia/presenter/presenter-campbell/Pages/presenter-campbell-transcript.aspx There's the presentation, with transcript. It's a good listen/read. Gnossiennes fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Hillary Clinton: "More Weight!" Crushed to death by her extra popular votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
business hammocks posted:It's probably still possible to do a public records check, but this stops them from disqualifying applicants who lie about irrelevant convictions. Like, they'd never interview you if you said you got arrested during occupy during an NYPD sweep, but if they're ready to sign you and find out, they might end up not caring. Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's a lot of variation but (for example) you might have an abuse and neglect registry to see if nursing home workers had histories of violence, but not check for, say, immigration status, or passing bad checks. Gotcha. Thanks. So it's basically to eliminate 'bullshit blanket rejections'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:17
|
|