They aren't saying that humans should literally drink out of dog bowls, they're saying that it takes significantly less effort/care to put a dog bowl out than to get human quality water available for, ya know, humans. Hence, it is NOT 'better' treatment than humans get...
The point is, we think humans deserve more than dogs, but it's easier to care for dogs the meager amount they need, so what ends up happening is we care for dogs that minimum amount and we don't go to the lengths we would need to to help humans in the same way.
You can't both interpret it as treating dogs better than humans AND simultaneously clear that offering the humans the same thing as dogs would be horribly insulting. Those two things are incompatible. We treat dogs worse than humans, but dogs are happier with less.
I have a hard time believing this is a comment in good faith. Nobody is out there saying we want to import the Taliban.
I mean it was such a foolhardy errand to go there. The best thing we could have done is just made it easier for people who wanted to leave there, to do so. Otherwise, there is no point trying to force a country to change its entire culture and ideology to be more like yours, unless we want to bring military-backed colonization back.
They... threatened her... with showing them... raping her?
I mean, I understand that it is horrible for her, it's revictimizing her and probably traumatic. I see how it works as a threat.
But how on earth is it good for them.
In that scenario in particular, it's more likely you can rehabilitate someone who at 15 got sucked into those actions by being part of a gang if you remove them from the gang and set them on a better path. I'm not saying I condone those crimes obviously it is completely heinous, but that a 15 year old can never be more than a rapist? Putting him in jail with adult felons would be more likely to make him one of them for life. I think youth probation is too light but jailing them for years is also only likely to make them commit more crimes, long jail time won't teach him anything but how to be a better more networked criminal.
If the goal is to isolate someone from society who simply cannot be in it, a serial rapist or murderer etc, that's one thing, lock them away and throw the key away. For rehabilitation, we as a society believe minors are not fully formed and have a chance to see their path change.
The anecdote is kind of true (they did find a moth and tape it up with the caption "first actual bug found in computer") but it was noteworthy/funny because we were already using 'bug' as a term to mean flaws/glitches in the system. However, that incident (of finding a real bug) did happen and may have inspired the term "debugging".
That's Admiral Grace Hopper to you. The "chick" had a phd in mathematics and mathematical physics from Yale, designed one of the first machine languages which was the basis for many others, and developed one of the first ever compilers. She was a bona fide genius and probably brought computing forward by years. Of course, it's hard to measure any individual's effect on a field, but... hers was big.
When Hopper recommended the development of a new programming language that would use entirely English words, she "was told very quickly that [she] couldn't do this because computers didn't understand English." Still, she persisted. "It's much easier for most people to write an English statement than it is to use symbols," she explained. "So I decided data processors ought to be able to write their programs in English, and the computers would translate them into machine code."
And this was while being born in 1906.
High altitude guides on Everest earn more in 2 months than a majority of Nepalese earn in an entire year. That said, to some degree, no amount of money is worth the risk. Guides spend their money sending their kids to school so their kids don't have to become guides.
by all account it seems it was consensual
I mean, no, quite literally not by all accounts. By the woman's account on one occasion she had a UTI and he penetrated her while she was asking him to stop because it was excruciatingly painful then kept going while she was screaming in pain.
The nanny left after three weeks and made a police report months later. The NZ police commentary is that they are investigating. So it's up in the air but it's certainly not "by all accounts" all consensual... it's "by Neil Gaiman's account" consensual.
I mean... because according to her it wasn't all consensual? They allege that it was painful and violent. One partner says at one point she had a UTI and was begging him to not do it because it hurt and he kept going and left her in excruciating pain. That's assault. The UTI detail in particular.
The cops can't really do anything about that. It's literally he said she said. If your boyfriend/partner assaults you in that way, you do not realistically have legal recourse. You can try but ultimately it's people going "well you were having consensual sex with him" "maybe he just didn't hear you" "did it really hurt that badly" "well you didn't immediately try to claw his eyes out so it can't have been that terrible" "well you stayed with him so it can't have been that traumatic" "well sometimes sex is painful" "being inconsiderate in a moment doesn't make him a monster" and assorted other phrases which ultimately excuse rape. I believe them. I suspect many more women will be coming forward in the months to come. I'd love to be wrong and for these to be lies.
They procure his voice messages to the nanny in the podcast. He absolutely had a sexual relationship with her in his own words. Now, according to him it was all consensual, but in and of itself groping and digitally penetrating your nanny under any circumstances is still pretty questionable.
We're not saying it should be illegal and they should be tarred and feathered we're saying it's fucking gross. Which is our prerogative, as theirs is to continue fucking as young as legally possible as long as they desire with no legal consequence.
There are TONS of things people can do which are not illegal and still get publicly shamed. I don't really see the issue with treating it like someone eating their earwax. They can keep doing it, we can keep shuffling away.
I mean his voice messages to her are in the podcast. That's as original as it gets.
I'm sure you have at least one r*pist you don't know about among all the people you have ever worked closely with or been friends with. Statistically it must be true.
His voice messages to the victim are literally in the recordings
I agree the podcast creators are being scummy but they do have real content. What he admits to is having "made out with" his kid's nanny + digital penetration "consensually"... which is pretty shady in and of itself.
The podcast literally has his voice messages to the victim in them. You don't have to like the people breaking the news.
There will be when people listen to it, all the evidence is his voice memos to the women
Wildly embarrassing how excited I was that he interacted with me on Bluesky now
His voice messages to her are in the podcast that's why it's in podcast form because the receipts are voice messages. He admitted to having a sexual relationship. He did not admit to anything being nonconsensual or coercive obviously
Right? I mean freakin Arnold Schwarzenegger literally had a child with his kid's nanny and he's doing fine.
Bruh he had a month, it wasn't like she was having emergency surgery that day. If it was an immediate emergency of course. But he had a month to prepare anything at all. You're telling me that for a full 350 waking hours his wife is the unreasonable one to expect, like, one of them spent thinking about the anniversary beyond "I'll deal with that after I come back"? Come on.
He could've said "when I get back we'll go for a picnic at that place where we had our first date and I'll book a babysitter now for the evening we go out", taken 30 minutes to do that and put it on their calendar, and been a hero beloved by all. And, yes of course she should also support him helping his sister in her time of need.
The point is, this is not a scenario where he HAD to pick between caring about one person versus another person. It's not like they're dangling from opposite ends of a bridge and he can only save one. It's not a no-win situation where it's impossible or even that hard to step up.
Now, of course there are additional things that might change context. Maybe she's got a history of being impossible to please. Or maybe he's just generally been a neglectful spouse and this cemented it in her mind. We have no idea and can only go off of what he said.
Yes, and if people in India were upset with him for it that would be their prerogative. So...?
But it's not really more dignity, it's less dignity. Nobody would offer a homeless person a dog bowl of tap water and if they did that would literally be denigrating.
That explains where the dog bowl went.
mildlyinfuriating