kryptonianCodeMonkey

Didn't read it as a teenager, but had I done so I'm pretty sure that Nineteen Eighty-Four would've fallen into that category. The protag is insufferable and sexist as hell. Never even bothered finishing that one. After the 2nd or third clandestine meeting to fuck the manic pixie dream nympho I was struggling to care anymore.

I never could finish 1984. I got maybe halfway through it and was like 25% interesting world building, 25% a sad, bitter, sexist person lamenting the way of things (particularly that be can't just fuck every woman, but also the lying totalitarian goverment) but also having no spine to even consider doing anything about it, and 50% him sneaking around to fuck some horny manic pixie dream girl against the rules. Unfortunately, id have probably enjoyed it more if I had read it at 16

internal bleeding to the torso

Not in his torso. They're almost certainly just talking about a fucking bruise.

Schumer is alllllmost ready to write that strongly worded letter. He can practically taste the envelope glue.

That's not true. You can't kill someone with one of those Airzooka air blasters. Damn it I've tried. But yeah basically everything else...

OK so two things.

1. They say "may" because it is not definitive that there is a causal link. It could just as easily be (and frankly, likely might be) a reverse cause where growing depression makes you less inclined to worry about purchasing and preparing whole foods yourself, or that the link might be correlated to another cause like financial troubles which cause both depression and more cheap and convenient food choices. Maybe the food does cause depression but that is not yet conclusive.

2. "Processed food companies are fucking criminals" so... there's a lot to unpack here. Are you suggesting that they KNOW it causes depression and make it anyway? Or even that they intentionally make it cause depression? Because there is absolutely no reason to think that, if it even provably did. They're guilty of contributing to the general unhealthy dietary habits and all the other ethical problems that come with a profits over people business model that applies to nearly every capitalist business. But that doesnt seem to be the source of your comment.

This is valuable research and is a step towards understanding how food and mental health may be connected. But you are jumping to all sorts of conclusions, my guy.

One of the most evil in the history of the US government. Which, frankly, it's a high bar.

They are legally vulnerable. The problem is that libel/defamation requires several specific tests to prove, some of which often dont apply to such situations.

1. They have to make a factual assertion that is demonstrably untrue. It cant be just an opinion. (This one heavily depends on the specifics what is claimed)

2. It must be publicated or otherwise spread to a third party. (This one obviously is the easiest test in this case)

3. The claim must clearly be of and concerning the plaintiff, i.e. the one claiming to have been defamed. (Again, this one depends. When they are talking about "these people", "the protesters", etc. but not specific individuals, this gets very hard to prove they were even including any specific individuals)

4. If the person claiming defamation is a public figure, they have to prove they either knew their claim was untrue or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth. If they are a private figure they have to prove that they at least acted with negligence when making their claim, meaning they didnt take reasonable steps to verify information. (This can also be a sticking point as they may claim that they had "good sources," like the federal government, that verified their claims)

5. The claim has to have caused actual damages to the person, such as if their livelihood was harmed or receiving death threats. It can't just be their feelings hurt or people being mad at them. (Again, situational for the people, their job, their situation, and the reactions of others.

Personally I think actual damages is a bad bar because that depends on factors beyond the defamer's actions. I think the bar should be the reasonabulity of the risk of damages, instead. Like they should've known calling someone a looter may lose them a job, regardless of whether the actually lose a job or even had one already, right?

But anyway, a lot of the lies they tell have just enough wiggle room to claim that it fails on at least one of these tests. Like maybe they weren't make a specific claim of fact was demonstrably untrue, or they were stating opinion but phrasing it as fact. Or maybe they made a claim about the actions of a group that was true of some, but not all of them. Or maybe they made specific claims of criminal activity and get to claim they verified it with a "reliable" source, like the DOJ or FBI. Or maybe the person can't prove material damages were caused from the defamation. And then of course, in all of these cases, the defamed must actually seek out justice by bringing suit against the defamers, which plenty do have the money, time or know-how to do.

I highly doubt that any justice will come at scale after this unless huge class action suits are filed, but the Supreme Court has weakened class actions too.

They can bullshit you to death.

And they often do. Literally.

According to two U.S. Officials briefed in his medical condition.

So... not a primary source, not an unbiased source, not a named source, from an administration that's shown to be a demonstrably unreliable source, and laughably contrary to the objective evidence that the vast majority of people have seen directly. "Two fucking guys - don't worry who, exactly - in the government with an agenda to justify their actions and policies just lied through their teeth to obfuscate the obvious truth in order to protect a murderer from consequences and keep their base from feeling bad for the victims of their deployment of unqualified violent racist kidnappers into areas full of perceived political enemies." Fucking "BREAKING" news, indeed.

I follow Paula Dean's advice when it comes to butter. And only that one subject.

You should remember that if you are in a similar situation, what the law says may or may not matter. If a law enforcement officer is going to break the law and his colleagues do not stop them right then and there, for your personal safety it is usually in your best interest to comply as minimally as possible, but protest loudly and often about it. Make it clear that you are complying only under threat of violence or arrest. If the justice system works as it should, you can hopefully get compensation for having your rights violated and hopefully consequences for the violator (though qualified immunity is a bitch, so... don't get your hopes up too high). But if you fail to comply and have your body permanently damaged or lose your life, there's no true compensation for that. Take care of yourself first.

The most important tip I have to ensure that your case is taken seriously in a case like this is to record absolutely everything you can. At your first possible opportunity, submit an official complaint against the officer with as many details as you can ACCURATELY recall (do not lie, exaggerate, or include any information that you arent certain about. If they have footage disputing your claims, that may be entirely damning to your case) and a FOIA request for all information and body camera footage from your interaction as well. If you were hurt, seek out medical treatment for any injuries you sustained, no matter how seemingly minor at the time, and have them thoroughly documented. Seek out legal representation (some legal organizations exist specifically to combat abuses of the state, like the ACLU. Contact them and others directly too), and actually sue. It will take up a lot of your time for months or years, but the only way you get justice is to put in the work. Spread the body came footage and your own as far and wide as possible. Contact the local news with your story, post the videos online, send the videos to police critical youtubers that have a following and can boost awareness, and generally make it impossible to ignore for the city. As bullshit as it is, you will probably have to have the backing of overwhelming evidence of police misconduct AND public outrage in order to actually receive justice.

And sometimes that doesnt matter anyway. You also have to remember that law enforcement are only limited by the law in as much as others hold them to the law. If their coworkers, leadership, and the justice system do not enforce the law against law enforcement, then nothing prevents them from breaking the law. Protect yourself accordingly. That is the most important thing.