I understand that private entities can control what speech is put on their media. But is that a wise idea not to air alternative points of view on huge powerhouses such as Youtube, facebook, Twitter Etc?
I'm thinking specifically of this Plandemic lady. I, personally, have not viewed her video. I'm not interested in her particular point of view. I have never felt the need to investigate every conspiracy theory out there.
I do think there is a lot of paranoia in sothat might be well earned. Social media such as facebook and Youtube wield enormous power and influence over public opinion.
The government has pulled a lot of sneaky tricks on the public over the years. I don't trust them. I also don't trust the Chinese government.
I don't trust large pharmaceutical companies or the mega-corporations. Their lust for money, power and influence is insatiable.
Should we give social media giants, who practically hold monopolies on the public form, the abilities to shut down conspiracy theories? I'll bet there are some true ones out there.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
1 hour ago, NICU Guy said:
Such as "We should just disband the Minneapolis police department and replace the police officers with social workers"?
I don't think that was suggested. The idea is to defund the overfunded police department and put social programs in place of the overfunded police departments. Police departments should not be deployed for school discipline, problems resulting from poverty, homelessness, etc. And they suck at that stuff.
Camden NJ defunded the police department with excellent results.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, NICU Guy said:
Such as "We should just disband the Minneapolis police department and replace the police officers with social workers"?
You would have to flesh out that quote for me...who said it in response to what question...but yeah, threatening the funding for a group could certainly be an example of using language to threaten a threatening group...in my opinion. That's the nature of political warfare.
I'm guessing lots of that money could be more beneficially spent. It's definitely getting attention and the opposition will beat the protestors back with that notion. Everyone knows that blacks don't control the purse strings in America.
The idea is to defund the overfunded police department and put social programs in place of the overfunded police departments. Police departments should not be deployed for school discipline, problems resulting from poverty, homelessness, etc. And they suck at that stuff.
I agree that the police are tasked to deal with issues that do not require armed officers to respond, such as crowd/traffic control at auto accidents or noise complaints from a teenager having a party when parents are gone. That would allow the armed officers to respond to scenes that may be dangerous (robbery/shootings/ burglary). Overfunding implies that they have more funding than is needed to keep crime under control. Since Minneapolis has a high crime rate, I doubt that they have it under control.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
9 minutes ago, NICU Guy said:
I agree that the police are tasked to deal with issues that do not require armed officers to respond, such as crowd/traffic control at auto accidents or noise complaints from a teenager having a party when parents are gone. That would allow the armed officers to respond to scenes that may be dangerous (robbery/shootings/ burglary). Overfunding implies that they have more funding than is needed to keep crime under control. Since Minneapolis has a high crime rate, I doubt that they have it under control.
Overfunding creates excessive policing which blights neighborhoods and leads to more poverty and ironically more crime. Camden, NJ was one of the most dangerous cities in the nation, and it benefited from defunding its police department. Minneapolis is most certainly excessively policed, as evidenced by recent events.
You would have to flesh out that quote for me...who said it in response to what question...
"In the absence of a formal plan for the new system, council members have said they can’t answer those questions without community feedback. But Jeremiah Ellison, the Ward Five council representative, promised on Monday’s call that the police department would not be abolished before an adequate replacement plan was in place."
They (council members) may have a different definition of disband and abolish, but according to my definition of those terms, it means eliminating the police dept.
Abolish: Formally put an end to.
Disband: break up or cause to break up and stop functioning.
I do not believe there is systemic racism in all police departments. There may be a few racist cops or bad cops in every department, but that does not necessitate the disbanding or complete dismantling and rebuilding of all police departments. Better training and elimination of union protection of bad cops would be of benefit . I also believe that there are cops that are not physically fit to be street cops. If a suspect is running away from them or they get in a physical altercation with them (initiated by the criminal), they may tend to use deadly force. Requiring an annual physical fitness test may also curb some of the "excessive force" incidents.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 minutes ago, NICU Guy said:
"In the absence of a formal plan for the new system, council members have said they can’t answer those questions without community feedback. But Jeremiah Ellison, the Ward Five council representative, promised on Monday’s call that the police department would not be abolished before an adequate replacement plan was in place."
They (council members) may have a different definition of disband and abolish, but according to my definition of those terms, it means eliminating the police dept.
Abolish: Formally put an end to.
Disband: break up or cause to break up and stop functioning.
I do not believe there is systemic racism in all police departments. There may be racist cops and bad cops in every department, but that does not necessitate the disbanding or complete dismantling and rebuilding of all police departments. Better training, and elimination of union protection of bad cops. I also believe that there are cops that are not physically fit to be street cops. If a suspect is running away from them or they get in a physical altercation with them (initiated by the criminal), they may tend to use deadly force. Requiring an annual physical fitness test may also curb some of the "excessive force" incidents.
So they said it would not be abolished...before a replacement plan was in place. I guess they get to figure that out for their community and they've decided that their police dollars are counter productive and better spent in other ways. But maybe someone living somewhere else knows what's best for them or is convinced that they NEED para-militarized and violent police consuming a huge percentage of their tax dollars. .
For something to be voluntary, people must be able to choose yes or no on that particular thing. The terms of service are not voluntary because we can't choose no on any of the terms of service. They are a boundary for behavior, which if violated, will result in an admin removing your post or possibly banning you from the site.
The usual argument is that the fact that you can just choose not to be a member makes the TOS voluntary. But it doesn't. Being a member is voluntary, the TOS are not.
Nah. You could choose to not agree.
Nobody forced it on you or coerced you. Ergo, voluntary.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
Membership is free and voluntary but conditional upon acceptance of TOS. No obligation to accept, no pressure.
Right. Like I said, membership is voluntary, but terms of service are not voluntary for members, they are mandatory.
I'm not making any statement on whether it is right or wrong that TOS are mandatory. Just that TOS are in fact mandatory and not voluntary.
Why is this important? It's not important for this example. But it is an important concept to reinforce, because people are continually coerced into fake contracts that are not really contracts at all, but simply terms that are put forth by people in authority who have literally all the power in the situation. We enable oppression when we fail to acknowledge when something is truly involuntary, even though it may be stated as voluntary.
It's especially important that we have this conversation here because this is an issue for nurses, who are forced into "contracts" that are ipso facto indentured servitude arrangements wherein to quit their jobs they must pay out a sum of money to their employer. You are vulnerable to this if you believe that you have voluntarily entered into this arrangement by your misunderstanding of the concept of voluntary. That's one way they dominate you.
And that's essentially why I seem to be quibbling this point.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, FolksBtrippin said:
Right. Like I said, membership is voluntary, but terms of service are not voluntary for members, they are mandatory.
I'm not making any statement on whether it is right or wrong that TOS are mandatory. Just that TOS are in fact mandatory and not voluntary.
Why is this important? It's not important for this example. But it is an important concept to reinforce, because people are continually coerced into fake contracts that are not really contracts at all, but simply terms that are put forth by people in authority who have literally all the power in the situation. We enable oppression when we fail to acknowledge when something is truly involuntary, even though it may be stated as voluntary.
It's especially important that we have this conversation here because this is an issue for nurses, who are forced into "contracts" that are ipso facto indentured servitude arrangements wherein to quit their jobs they must pay out a sum of money to their employer. You are vulnerable to this if you believe that you have voluntarily entered into this arrangement by your misunderstanding of the concept of voluntary. That's one way they dominate you.
And that's essentially why I seem to be quibbling this point.
Yeah...I refused to sign a bad contact. We have that option. What we don't have a choice in is whether or not we will submit to pre-employment drug testing...we must submit to that search into our privacy if the company wants it.
Most of us need a job but don't need social media platform access.
I agree that the police are tasked to deal with issues that do not require armed officers to respond, such as crowd/traffic control at auto accidents or noise complaints from a teenager having a party when parents are gone. That would allow the armed officers to respond to scenes that may be dangerous (robbery/shootings/ burglary). Overfunding implies that they have more funding than is needed to keep crime under control. Since Minneapolis has a high crime rate, I doubt that they have it under control.
Kind of like ER nurses taking care of patients with pimples and wanting pregnancy tests.?
.thumb.jpg.e7b5bd336d518053002d5b4dbeef882b.jpg){kind=small}
FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN
2,325 Posts
I don't think that was suggested. The idea is to defund the overfunded police department and put social programs in place of the overfunded police departments. Police departments should not be deployed for school discipline, problems resulting from poverty, homelessness, etc. And they suck at that stuff.
Camden NJ defunded the police department with excellent results.