and i will see it repeated endlessly online over the next several years, paired with a lot of “serves them right” style comments.

it doesn’t help women or anyone else.

this is not the way forward.

fucking gross.

edit - i work with dv victims/victims of abuse. tell me why your “lol comment” is any better than the shit women tell me every day they hear from their abusers?

which truth is that, that no one hates women like other women?

look at the current climate, i see a lot of woman-hating from all sides, including supposed allies on the left looking for a scapegoat. the oversimplified victim-blaming of dumping our president-elect at the feet of women (again) demonstrates very little understanding of gendered power dynamics and very little effort to build coalition.

to this i would add the threads blaming racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and the poorly educated.

do you want less suffering in the world, or are you no better than the right in looking for someone to blame, and someone whose suffering you can enjoy because, “they asked for it, they voted for it, they deserve it?”

as i just said in another comment, it scares me to see this shit AGAIN.

this narrative is not making women any safer!

i really love seeing this narrative again. i watched it last time he was elected, now i’m watching it again. it’s the left’s own brand of mysogyny, and it’s not making women any safer.

there was a story here recently about a lot of scamming happening on truth social. so yeah.

i would absolutely try this.

i eat a LOT of kraut, probably five days a week. also enjoy sardines and mayo on toast with capers. followed by kraut, which pairs well with the salty capered dregs left in the sardine tin.

profit

ut = hook 'em, a&m = gig 'em

he’s a parent.

probably after 9/11, but i already had questions as a kid connected to the cold war.

i would add tomatoanus for speedruns. really appreciate that he makes a point to remind people to be kind to themselves.

no, but i noticed water faucet handles all outside of tubs and showers

it’s satire.

i don’t mind the humor, because good lord it’s so damn depressing otherwise.

edit - just saw the news, my comment is moot, i suppose.

let me try this another way. i don’t agree with the statement that a is currently causing b, because i don’t see a happening. b has some other cause.

i don’t think pushing for Biden is leading to a Trump win, because i don’t see many people pushing for Biden. i see a lot of people (social media, talking heads, news outlets) complaining about Biden.

if Dems and progressives want to defeat Trump, well, you coulda fooled me because that’s not what their behavior accomplishes. it looks like a great many are weakening and undermining our current path to success. right now, with no compelling alternative, that means a Trump win.

as far as i can tell, we can support Biden or continue to shoot at our own feet in a panic which only makes the opposition stronger.

because we don’t beat dumbfuck if people don’t get out to vote. for all their asshattery, republicans get one thing right - they tow the party line when it counts. by contrast, dems have been projecting increasing hysteria and doubt over the last several weeks. how does that motivate anyone?

i think AOC cares about results. the results aren’t going to be good if dems don’t get it together and vote for Biden or whichever politician gets the nomination. doesn’t even matter at this point who it is.

i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i’m tired.

i will just point out this, for anyone reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/

i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven’t read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it’s garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.

i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can’t predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.