Lyft’s new feature lets women and non-binary riders request their driver’s gender
Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 773Joined 2 yr. ago
Permanently Deleted
Honestly from everyone I have talked to these dating platforms make the dating scene worse across the board. It basically makes every individual meet up a lower investment and the amount of choice means more individual scrutiny because there is more one to one comparisons, FOMO that the best option is just a little further on and women eventually get driven to giving up on romance entirely because of pickup artists and so many bad actors.
Quiting and being done with all of those, deleting them is the first step. You want to eliminate the things that keep bringing your mind back to the idea you are missing out.
Then I recommend doing things to extend that platonic friend group. Even amazing guys get stuck if they allow their irl social lives to stagnate. Get out there and take some classes in something that could interest you. Volunteer for events, say yes to weird things. Aim to have more plutonic friends first. When people can sense you are desperate for romance they can pick up on that way too early and sometimes they will have to weigh the possibility of having to shoot you down before they even get to know anything about you or like you. That fear of having to hurt someone's feelings keeps a lot of people pretty standoffish about any kind of relationship, platonic included.
Releasing your expectations is not a bad thing. You are not giving up hope. New social settings and groups give you a chance to present yourself differently. Sometimes if you are stuck with the same group you get pigeonholed into being the same person you were back when you made those friendships and it could be making you low key miserable. Use this as a chance to experiment and build new, more informed and experienced versions of yourself from scratch.
If you scroll through incel forums or read the research papers regarding their communities this particular kind of rape and forced birth revenge is an outright fetish in those communities supported by a shameful amount of anime porn that services that particular fantasy.
Rendering women to breeding stock is definitely the more widespread concern but I am not sure calling it further insentive for rape is actually all that off base.
In Canada, yes stuff like joint surgeries can take a little longer to queue... But I have never actually known anyone to die on a waitlist and the turn around for things like cancer is pretty short.
The trade off is stuff like there was a friend's Dad that needed an emergency medical transfer from a smaller rural hospital. They did it by helicopter ambulance and he spent just shy of three months in hospital in intensive care. He didn't have any additional medical insurance but his family never needed pay for anything. Furthermore the hospital contracted with a hotel near by so his family could stay in a nice place walking distance to the hospital for around 20 bucks a night.
We as a country have a very small population, about the population of the state of California spread over more land mass than the entirety of the US and then some. There are challenges with that and the fact our dollar is weaker so it's overall less lucrative, but the turn around regarding knee surgeries make a lot of sense once you realize that. Changing our system to a pay-per-play would not necessarily alleviate the wait times.
Gunna be pedantic a sec and point out that "liberalism" is by it's foundation capitalist because it uses capitalism as it's default assumption. The high level of afforded consideration on personal property rights outside of government interference and emphasis on an unrestricted market are features of that philosophy. Conservative ideology is actually also by it's nature based on libralisml as its base and the American Liberal party is actually... Still on the whole basically the same ideology just with a socialist coat of paint.
A lot of the regulations on capitalist functions come from socialism. The branch of it that embraces a sort of mixed system where regulations keep the public safe from unchecked capitalism while still keeping the structure of capitalist architecture is "market socialism"
However since Americans treat the Liberal party like it is socialist, Conservatives derogatorily because they equate socialism as a slippery slope to communism (despite a history of market socialism causing a great deal of stability in the past) and Liberals as something to be weeded out because it's idealism threatens the internal kickbacks of supporting unfettered capitalism... Hence why socialist friendly candidates are usually turned into backseaters through the Democrat's process of elimination for the big ticket seats.
So it actually benefits the media to treat liberals as the far left and occasionally be in their corner and treated as the only other valid share of the political "marketplace" of ideas. Because liberal ideology and the Liberal party are not nessisarily a hazard to capitalism. Everything to the left of that gets little air time.
I mean it works pretty decently in Canada. We have two ways of becoming a police officer and two systems. The College route is a two year program that focuses on police sciences, psychology, ethics and law. Then there is the RCMP route where you get shipped off for intensive training where you live millitary boot camp style for 6 months for a concentrated version with some physical training and then basically get a cadet status to be apprenticed out to a detachment.
Municipalities can choose to either have a police department run by them or to contract a federal detachment of the RCMP. The RCMP are only on the hook to solve federal law and bylaw enforcement is largely outside their perveiw. They are however cheaper for a Municipality because they are paid for in part by provincial government and 30 percent of their cost comes from the federal level.
The accountability is I think a little better than hiring people with just a GED. The investment of time and education makes a difference particularly since there's a pretty heavy emphasis on de-escalation models of policing up here. Having an officer actually draw their firearm up here much less point it at a person is a shock.
I shudder to think of the alternate timeline where I gave up on my dream and became a Mountie.
I think the issue being remarked on is while yes therapy helps one better manage and attempt to do everything within an individual's power to react to something (include minimizing contact) there are enough stressors beyond people's individual locus of control that no matter how personally resilient one becomes misery is still a natural outcome. Therapy attempts to address underlying causes... But ultimately it still places the burden of fortitude on the person. If the situation merits more fortitude than person is capable of even at their best then the solution lies beyond that individual's training to respond to it and must be addressed at the source. Hence the phrase "Treats symptoms, not the cause" is catch-phrasy and not by all means technically correct, but encapsulates this frustration at having to constantly be the one expected to exert constant personal effort to be okay while the source problems, which are often cultural/social in nature, are treated as immovable constants and continue being a source of inhumane conditions.
At this point it is obvious to me that you have not listened to anything I have said. Your authoritarian stance is incompatible with a model of compassionate de-escalation and you are more interested in being right on the technicality of law. Discussing this with you further is a waste of effort.
So we agree that excessive force is still a thing in the US! Ah good I had no bloody clue what you meant about "people not running away fast enough" but you interpreted me saying that all peaceful avenues of resolution including retreat being exhausted before life or body threatening violence is justified.
The process of justice should be secondary to the safety of citizenry and dynamic in it's application. If you are treating someone who passed a counterfeit bill or performed some act of petty theft like they have surrendered all of their rights and put them in a place of danger or kill them because of it then you have put the process of law and authority before people and thus the cart before the horse.
And you are permissive. Listen to yourself and all the comments here which argue that the cops had every right to kill this woman. None of it considering how a family was shattered for something so mundane as two bottles of wine and the hurt egos of a couple of officers who felt right cornering her in her car and yelling at her until she was flustered enough to make a mistake. Literally a two second mistake. She might not even have hit the gas, she might have just taken her foot off the brake. You condone this. In your heart of hearts what is right is a just is a dry calculation that has no empathy for people who do not behave when they are scared. How a single slip up justifies their death and exonerates these officers. If a jury thinks like you then these officers WILL go scott free. That is permissiveness. That is why your police are going to do this again and again and never be incentivized to be better and to properly de-escalate where possible. If the municipalities whom these cops are employed by aren't moved to step up and enforce upon their officials and police that this is not okay then the easiest course is to just do what they were doing before. Nothing ever gets better and more people will die for stupid reasons.
You are assuming a lot here. The USA also procecutes victims for not running away fast enough and causing harm to their attackers. There is a history of people in your country as well who have been charged after defending themselves from a violent assault / rape / murder attempt even in states with more protected self defense clauses
( non exhaustive examples : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/marissa-alexander-released-stand-your-ground.html
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/20/how-far-can-abused-women-go-to-protect-themselves)
So I posit that your concept of how law works in the case of self defense is a lot more similar between our two countries than you think. The difference lies in how much power and authority we grant police as a society. Here becoming a cop is either a 2 year standardized college course or a 6 month intensive boot camp for RCMP hopefuls as a primer and then an apprenticeship cadet program working under a seasoned officer. The techniques taught as absolute basic are soft skills, psychology, critical thinking, legal knowledge as well as self defense and weapon skills. While they are granted some extra authority over a regular citizen for the most part their rights are the exact same as any regular citizen in terms of how excessive force works.
Your citizenry's permissiveness in wild west style police justice kills people needlessly. It's the people's expectations as a whole that grant them the sort of powers of an occupying military force. The entire model of policing is needlessly dangerous and values following orders more than people's welfare.
They may gain the legal justification needed to avoid prison in the States but here in Canada they would be fucked and they would have had the legal duty to retreat. The duty of police here is to merit only so much force as is required in a situation for all parties to get to safety and reassess if the situation merits any harm. Even if someone takes a swing at you with a weapon lethal force is only justified if all other potential options for resolving the conflict have been exhausted. Since she was rolling very slowly the potential threat to life was low. The officer had time to both draw and aim a weapon which means he also had time to remove himself from the psth of the car. Also the scope of the percieved crime comes into play. It was a non-violent supposed theft of property. Here unless someone has seen the uninterrupted process of selection, concealment and removal from property the crime is not chargable. Stores however are able to ban customers from their premises based on the criteria of suspicion of prior theft. So an arrest made under the circumstances of incomplete suspicion of theft would likely just fall apart in court. Escalating to yelling at her and making her feel her life is threatened in the first place for such a mild offence would have been considered at least a little dodgy. Ideally here police are supposed to utilize means to de-escalate conflict. Losing their cool for a minor charge and escalating the conflict to yelling even if the case was airtight would have been seen as a need to retrain them.
Here's what thia would have looked like in my country. They would have stated the person was under arrest and was to leave the vehicle, tell them the legal consequences of resisting arrest but to do so in a calm.way that keeps the situation safe for all. If the cost to safety of themselves and the public of enforcing the arrest is too dangerous given the nature of the crime then any force applied would be potentially considered improper use of force. Since the he only thing endangered is a small amount of property the authority of the officer neither of those things are worth more than the safety of all involved. Legal ramifications can happen safely elsewhere after everyone has cooled off. They had the tools to do that.
The police here would not be justified. The limitations of their powers are that their first duty is to the safety and to protect the lives of the public and themselves. Their authority to command is entirely second to this. The question of "were there ways to resolve this safely for all parties without a non-violent resolution" would be asked. But even if something is lawful does not make it just.
Regardless of ruling, what happened here is essentially that these officers placed more value on an inflated idea of their authority than the safety of themselves and the woman. They placed themselves in the path of harms way for a percieved stolen property under $50. They shot someone and effectively killed two because they felt justified doing so for a charge of property under $50. Their first reaction they made to being lightly jostled by a car was not to remove themselves from her path and pursue the charge later with the tools they had or even to draw a weapon to warn her to stop and give her a second chance of compliance. Their first reaction was to draw take a second to aim and then fire a lethal shot. At the end of the day she was killed for an improper reaction to authority over a tiny amount of property that the police valued more than her safety.
If that is the society you want I am at least glad that I don't have to live in it. For a country that calls itself "land of the free" the powers you give to police is inhumane.
Rhe police had her license plate number. Her physical description. They had the nature of her offence being a non-violent crime. The car did not quickly accelerate and the police officer against all common safety advice put himself in the path of the vehicle.
That his first action was to pull a gun and fire and not just get out of the way and approach the problem at a later time in a less heated situation is excessive force. Back when I worked security I watched lots people pull this stunt on police officers before and surprise - none of them got shot and none of the police got hit by a car and everybody still got their resisting arrest charge at the end if the day.
If you are scared enough your psychological reaction is to stay in a place of safety or to flee and cars provide the opportunity to both... Which is why you aren't supposed to put yourself in the path of someone's potential escape with your body. People are panicy animals who can divert entirely to basic instinct, particularly when they are hurt or in a lower estimation of being able to defend themselves like pregnancy.
This is an example of someone killed because of bad police training and decision making that ignored entirely how scary even normally benign police interactions can be to black women. If she was worried about harm to her baby because of the police's habit of putting people forcefully on the ground or slamming them against cars she would be placed under extreme distress having one yell at her to leave her car like they meant to do her violence.
The police here created wholecloth the "need" to shoot this woman. From the moment they started escalating, blocking her route of egress and not taking the moment of thought to ask if this could not be de-escalated and addressed later safely given the minor nature of the complaint.
Not saying that I am blaming her. The people who hurt her were definitely not good people... Just saying that I feel weird about her being called "poor woman" - like it minimizes the guts of what she did.
Weirdly I don't know if I could class her as a "poor woman" ? She was the one who set up all the objects on the table which included ones that were potentially lethal and she specified the parameters of the piece and very specifically could have stopped the performance at any time by moving of her own volition and speaking. She went into it accepting her own murder as a potential outcome and was committed to carrying on regardless of what happened. It being an art peice would not have protected a participant from a murder charge while assult charges have to be made by the victim of the assault... So there was at least that.
While she may not have been able to account for the long term psychological effects and may have had some initial optimism that people would not choose the darker options made available... I think terming her a "poor woman" might actually be dismissive of the actual volition and personal grit she had in the construction and performance of the piece? While it may have been ballsy to the point bordering madness dangerous stunt performances where athletes risk death for their audiences are a thing and those performers go in with the same expectation of potential fatality.
It was real and loaded. The actor was commited to any outcome including being murdered on stage.
The audience first tested the waters and gradually escalated to more extreme forms of violence. When the violence started the audience factionalized into those who were committed to stopping her from being shot, arguing and shaming aggressors or physically stepping in.
While I don't know if I can condone the piece ethically it certainly says more about human nature than most art pieces.
Umm... I hate to tell you this but this is propagating some pretty harmful misinformation...
The reactions to medications are actually more closely tied to the hormone balance and body fat distribution of a person than their sex. It's a common issue in the trans community where birth certificates are non-updatable that a doctor will prescribe meds for a person's birth sex but because they are fully transitioned through HRT they get the effects more common to their phenotype presentation. This means that treatment is more commonly in line with their gender identity because of their hormonal medication and other procedures like an orchiectomy that make a person more similar to where they transitioned to then where they transitioned from.
With trans paitents by and large the safer way to behave is to go with the "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and talks like a duck... If you are in a pinch and can't ask them for specifics because they can't talk - treat them like a duck." While a lot of doctors aren't super well versed in trans specific healthcare it remains a huge problem inside the community for trans women particularly being dosed like cis men which often means they respond like cis women to a lot of different things which is on average a little more scary because meds often linger longer than is expected in trans women's tissues just like cis women. Sometimes this causes some cascading problems.
Pharmacology wise the way trans folks react to different medications is still a bit of a frontier science... But dollars to donuts "just treat em like their birth sex and call it a day" is way too simplistic a take. The lived experience and often physical nature of gender do not stay nicely behind a cordon marked "politics". Trans ignorance in healthcare can be very scary for someone whose endocrinologist has informed them what they should be given and treated like and then some hotshot resident could just decide to not listen should the trans person in question be placed in a position where they are in extreme distress and have to self advocate and educate the person caring for them on what may be the worst day of their life.
As a Canadian this is what I fear for my American friends. While I have heard lots of people whine about how people "die on wait lists" in the Canadian system that really hasn't been my experience. While yes things like joint surgeries and electives can take a while I have had relatives of friends flown via helicopter ambulance from small towns for month long stays for serious stuff at the drop of the hat at no cost to the family.
Anything seriously life threatening has gone into treatment immediately. Hospice stays are mostly covered so compassionate end of life facilities cost half of what a dirt cheap hotel does. The cost to the taxpayer for healthcare is, determined by tax bracket is tiny. If I make $80,000 it costs me about $350 for the year.
Because it's a drain on the government's bottom line there's a lot of harmful food additives that are banned in Canada because the ethos is that it is unlawful for businesses get to make profit at the expense of consumer health if people can not be easily informed of the health risks. The Covid Vaccine was also given a lot more push society wide because the beggaring and allotment of resources away from the healthcare system for preventable incidents directly effects everyone.
Deciding that healthcare is a right has society wide advantages. People will do anything to stay alive a little longer including beggar themselves so it makes sense that adding business interests into that market to jack up the prices for profit is just unethical imo.
Aa the ban only applies to uniformed and armed cops and not plain clothed off duty ones they seem to be more outraged by the lack of convenience.
They seem to have wheeled out their Victorian fainting couch over the barest hint of being told to respect a PTSD trigger safe space for people who have been terrorized by uniformed and armed people. Oh the bigotry! (snerk)
It would not be required as off duty cops or non-visble ones are allowed. The ban is only on uniforms and guns which makes sense given thw article states some of the employees and regular clientele come from war torn places or have PTSD triggers around uniformed officers.
Technically nothing. There is no gatekeeping in being non-binary along the lines of presentation. But you claiming this as a passenger does not effect the other passengers who are made to feel safer by the adoption of this option. A fair number of female drivers in the service are also still likely to drive for male clients regularly anyway.
However if all drivers have protections for drivers to shut down abuses by scummy clients who use the opportunity of a temporarily captive audience to be disgusting towards drivers then this overall becomes less of a concern.
Almost all forms of accommodation leave certain paths open for abuse by bad actors. Erring on the side of the person who needs additional help participating in society is usually the more ethical choice because while a bad actor can be a pain there's usually already laws on the books or policies that can be enacted that allow you to deal with one. For the person seeking accommodation the cost of not having access can mean the world becomes a smaller and/or more dangerous place because of reasons that have nothing to do with them. In some ways that can emotionally be looked at as "letting the assholes win".