If it is I think the term needs to be reviewed. In fact if people want to get sensitive about their racial identity then they need to focus on the actual words and tone.
Especially when it seems like alot of the time people are called racist or sexist for sharing a viewpoint that in their view is accurate.
For example, whenever I run into drivers that don’t react to a light change I have noticed it tends to be a woman with a phone in her hand.
I’m sure someone would take issue with my experience listed above, but I feel like I should have the right to make such a comment without backlash, because in my experience that observation holds true.
My point is I feel like context and history are important.
I have to be honest 100% of the games I play with loot boxes don’t let you trade the rewards. So that is different because to me loot boxes are just a different way to get cosmetics that I can’t buy with real money from other ppl. That means I don’t view them as having value to anyone but myself.
> Especially since every case makes it’s way in front of a judge.
This is not at all true, at least in the sense that it provides a major check on police mistakes or abuse.
You can spend a great deal of time in jail, literally decades in extreme cases, just by being charged with a crime -- no conviction needed. Criminal penalties in the US are so extreme, and conviction rates so high, that there is a huge risk in going to trial. Even if a person is innocent and/or the evidence is weak, the incentives often push them to accept a plea deal; and that's exactly what we see. The vast majority of cases reach a plea deal and never come to trial.
A case eventually making its way to a judge isn't really a counter-argument to how much power police have.
Things like asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, etc. are all pretty strong arguments that police have too much power. Not to mention all of the cases where someone innocent is killed by police, where the victim doesn't get to go in front of a judge because they are dead.
To expand on this, plea deals are most common for poor defendants. The police convince a magistrate to set cash bail the defendant can't pay, and the defendant has the choice of taking a guilty plea for a "lesser charge" or sitting in jail for months until the case can be tried, at which point they are defended by an overworked, overwhelmed public defender.
In many cases, the potential sentence for these cases is exceeded by the time they would actually spend in jail waiting for the trial; even being found guilty would result in time served. In these cases, the plea deal is literally a lesser sentence than being found not guilty.
That is true, I’d be more curious about the food source evolution. Even in this article the writer pointed out that it was a tradition and that sourcing the wasps was getting harder each year due to pesticides. Does this mean culturally they have moved past eating wasps and moved on to more “normal” food sources? I’ve never thought of eating insects as a primary source of food for a culture unless they were poor and couldn’t afford better foods.
When I look at the history of the Netherlands there's always been a ton of good farming land available (no mountains!) and the North sea is teeming with fish. Starvation was a rare occasion but in times of war or flooding people ate anything that moved.
You can't really say it's "more normal" to not eat insects. That's cultural relativism bias. "unless poor or couldn't afford better" again cultural relatvisim bias. Stop that, it's jarring.
I have not had that experience, generally I don’t see ads thanks to adblockers, and the platform just works and supports almost 100% of all apps. It is also fast, and I’m sure Linux could be faster but I feel it’s lacking features and support for most games and software that I use (making it easy to see why it could run faster).
If anything pops up on my screen that I didn't explicitly consent to for that time (i.e. reminder, downtime notifications) I consider that an ad. Software asking for an update while I didn't explicitly open it = same shit.
In other words every distraction that tries to get my attention that I haven't asked for is something I consider very very annoying.
No, I think most of us though google was a more innovative company that could create a way to share that many results, feels more like an EA move where google stopped trying years ago and just went into search maintance mode.
Especially when it seems like alot of the time people are called racist or sexist for sharing a viewpoint that in their view is accurate.
For example, whenever I run into drivers that don’t react to a light change I have noticed it tends to be a woman with a phone in her hand.
I’m sure someone would take issue with my experience listed above, but I feel like I should have the right to make such a comment without backlash, because in my experience that observation holds true.
My point is I feel like context and history are important.