Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 107 17.0%
  • Science

    Votes: 21 3.3%
  • Culture

    Votes: 131 20.9%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 369 58.8%

  • Total voters
    628

CWCchange

ǝƃuɐɥɔƆMƆ
kiwifarms.net
Will he get a(nother) street or park in a shitty Detroit neighborhood (which is ninety-five percent of the city) named after him, or will this be another excuse for rioters to destroy stuff on Devil's Night?
 
Last edited:

AlexJonesGotMePregnant

And a teardrop emits from Reshiram's eye
kiwifarms.net

Clones of Alex Jones

By the power of water filters we are legion
kiwifarms.net
Quebec court rejects appeal of challenge to British royal succession law

Published Monday, October 28, 2019 5:40PM EDT
Last Updated Monday, October 28, 2019 5:41PM EDT


MONTREAL -- Quebec's top court has rejected a case that sought to challenge the rules governing ascension to the British throne and get Canada's law on royal succession declared unconstitutional.
In a decision published Monday, the court ruled that the Quebec Superior Court justice who first heard the case did not err in rejecting the claims.
The conflict dates back to 2011, when leaders of Commonwealth countries agreed to modify the succession rules so that a woman can become queen if she is the oldest heir to the throne. Before the change, a woman would have been passed over in favour of her younger brother.

Law professors Patrick Taillon and Genevieve Motard argued that the change, which was enshrined in Canadian law in 2013, amends the Canadian Constitution and should have required the consent of the provinces.
In his 2016 decision, Justice Claude Bouchard invoked "the rule of symmetry," which means that the person designated king or queen of the United Kingdom is automatically Canada's monarch.
In a decision rendered today, Quebec's highest court agreed with Bouchard that the change in law did not require Ottawa to amend the Canadian Constitution.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct 28, 2019.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: millais

Slappy McGherkin

Bartender? Make that a double.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Girlfriend charged in Boston College student's death after telling him 'hundreds of times' to kill himself

Just to put faces to this tragedy... 47,000 texts... KILL YOUSEF!!!!
He shoulda just kicked her in the cunt after the first text and walked away. Dumbass.

 

Super-Chevy454

kiwifarms.net
After Morris Dees and Richard Cohen, another left the SPLC. I guess Heidi Beirich wants to grab some money then the SPLC stored in offshore accounts when karma will bite her.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/southern-poverty-law-center-intelligence-project-chief-heidi-beirich-stepping-down-in-latest-shakeup ( http://archive.md/clJil )

The leader of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project is stepping down amid an ongoing leadership shakeup at the anti-hate organization.
Heidi Beirich will leave the SPLC, ending a 20-year run with the organization, she told staffers Monday. Her exit follows several resignations and terminations of SPLC leadership this year—including its cofounder, who was fired amid sexual harassment allegations, and a deputy legal director who said the organization had “more work to do” to guarantee a respectful workplace.

Beirich has worked for the SPLC for 20 years. An expert on the neo-Confederate movement, she led the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, which produced much of the center’s front-facing journalism including its Intelligence Report magazine and Hatewatch blog. In a Monday memo to staff, she cited the two-decade anniversary as a reason for her departure.
“It was with a heavy, heavy heart given how deeply I care about this work and all of you amazing people,” she wrote. “As some of you may know, I reached my second decade here (yikes I’m old!) in September and I’ve felt for a while now that it may be time for a change for me. It’s been a long and intense last few years for me, especially since Trump graced us with his presence and then with the challenges here at SPLC, and I am ready for a break and, after a few months of Netflix, a new start.”

In a statement, Beirich said the SPLC's publications would carry on in her absence.
"I’m proud of the work we have done and the work that SPLC will continue to do to shine a spotlight on hate and extremism, including continuing our Year in Hate report, our Intelligence Report magazine, the Hatewatch blog, our investigative projects and we are now looking into opportunities to expand into new media," Beirich wrote.
The SPLC’s intelligence-gathering arm is only one component of the organization. The center has brought civil rights lawsuits for decades, and in June won a $14 million judgment against the publisher of a white supremacist website who led a harassment campaign against a Jewish woman and her family.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: millais

keyboredsm4shthe2nd

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES! GRIND THEIR BONES INTO DIRT!
kiwifarms.net
Girlfriend charged in Boston College student's death after telling him 'hundreds of times' to kill himself

oh god the cringey "died by suicide" tumblrism actually went through. Whether or not you're in your right mind when it happens, you're still committing an act.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AnOminous

Judge Holden

Corpsefucker
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Ok niggas, im just dropping in to this thread to alert any who are not aware that some extremely dramatic rumblings are being heard in the direction of Kotaku and Deadspin....

Rumblings of the Gawker variety....

While I dont want to jump the gun, a search of both "kotaku" and "deadspin" on twitter show a fucktunne of extremely pissed blue checkmarks and some ultra jubilant pre-emptive gravedancing

Since i will be sleepin in a few hours I charge whomever is reading this to keep an eye on things and should these rumblings turn to verified vindication, reveal the happy news to the farmers here.

Ready the crab emojis and coding careers advice...for soon we may feed on the sweet tears of a thousand ex soymedia drones
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Ok niggas, im just dropping in to this thread to alert any who are not aware that some extremely dramatic rumblings are being heard in the direction of Kotaku and Deadspin....

Rumblings of the Gawker variety....

While I dont want to jump the gun, a search of both "kotaku" and "deadspin" on twitter show a fucktunne of extremely pissed blue checkmarks and some ultra jubilant pre-emptive gravedancing

Since i will be sleepin in a few hours I charge whomever is reading this to keep an eye on things and should these rumblings turn to verified vindication, reveal the happy news to the farmers here.

Ready the crab emojis and coding careers advice...for soon we may feed on the sweet tears of a thousand ex soymedia drones
It's HABBENING!

1572388425638.png


h/t to Ethan Ralph's Twitter.
 

greengrilledcheese

Free, White, and 21
kiwifarms.net
Why America needs a hate speech law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/ (http://archive.vn/qCQss)

Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.

When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

It is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn’t just protect the good guys; our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society. In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia’s Internet Research Agency planted false stories hoping they would go viral. They did. Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.

The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem. When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea — an outright lie — he knew our media would report it, and we did.

That’s partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era. The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called “the marketplace of ideas.” This “marketplace” model has a long history going back to 17th-century English intellectual John Milton, but in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.

Milton, an early opponent of censorship, said truth would prevail in a “free and open encounter.” A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy. Somehow, magically, truth would emerge. The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair.

On the Internet, truth is not optimized. On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work. A 2016 Stanford study showed that 82 percent of middle schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and an actual news story. Only a quarter of high school students could tell the difference between an actual verified news site and one from a deceptive account designed to look like a real one.

Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?

Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?

All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect.
 

Super-Chevy454

kiwifarms.net
Why America needs a hate speech law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/ (http://archive.vn/qCQss)

Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016.

All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect.
All speech is not equal, I wonder if some speeches are more equal than the others? Richard Stengel should be careful for what he wished for.
 

SiccDicc

See you next fall...
kiwifarms.net
A pregnancy craving led a longtime vegetarian to eat a hamburger — and change her career.

Tammi Jonas, a 49-year-old Australian, had been a vegetarian since she was 19-years-old. Jonas maintained a meatless diet until she became pregnant with her third child.

During the pregnancy, she had a strong craving for a hamburger. Jonas had become “dangerously anemic” while carrying the child, forcing her to rely on iron supplements because of her meatless diet.

When the iron supplements became less effective, she broke down and grabbed a hamburger.

“I was at work one day and just thought: ‘A burger would fix this,'” Jonas said in an interview with 10 Daily.

She had red meat once per week to keep her health up throughout the pregnancy, but the habit didn’t go away when the child was born. Jonas decided that if she was going to continue to eat meat, she wanted to ensure the animals were respected.

“I never thought it was immoral to take an animal’s life for food,” she explained. “I’ve always been comfortable with my place in the food chain, but I thought it was immoral to treat [animals] cruelly, to not allow them to go outside and breathe fresh air and to be confined in crowds in sheds.”

Jonas decided to become a butcher, raising animals on her own farm. She started by raising pigs because they were the “worst treated in industrial systems.”

"I feel the most justified in eating the meat when I know they had no fear, no pain, they were just alive, and then they were dead," she explained.

She noted that her version of farming doesn’t harm the environment. Jonas warned climate activists against condemning the consumption of meat as a whole.

"Hats off to you if you don't want to participate in any livestock production but try not to have too hard a go at those of us who are trying to restore landscapes with livestock and doing a much better job of it than your vegan impossible burger," Jonas said.

Several Democratic presidential candidates have supported policies that could reduce red meat consumption as part of their climate policy.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
What he means by this is the plebs shouldn't be able to say shit that disrupts the precious narrative of fake news scumbags like him. And the piece of shit is willing to trash the Founders' legacy because Orange Man Bad.

All speech is not equal.
And some is more equal than others. Like highly privileged propagandists for garbage like Time.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino