sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Wait, so now Alito gives a shit about oversight??? Guess it's "oversight for thee, but not for me."

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 93 points 3 days ago

“I was knee-deep in it,” Gore said about the local connections to the billionaires. “I guess I was just too naive. I should have known better.”

YES, YOU SHOULD HAVE. There's only so many different ways we can spell this out for you. Now your job should be to campaign relentlessly for Democrats up and down the ballot, because they're clearly the only ones who give a shit about public education, students, and teachers.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago

Indeed, and while they might have been initially furious at the snub, this is going to wind up being VERY good for business. Now they have an incredible story to tell, complete with mystery and intrigue that consumers love. Their marketing department must be salivating right now.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah his whole tirade is ludicrous and he sounds like an absolute asshat, but someone reportedly vandalized his home, and that's crossing a very big line. He should shut the hell up about whatever he thinks "leftwing fascism" is, and they should stop vandalizing people's homes.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 34 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, what does "defeat" even mean in the age of nuclear war?

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

"Competition for THEE, not for ME."

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, that lawful purpose. Self defense. It's not just "any" or "a" lawful purpose. Self defense goes to the very heart of the Heller ruling.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This still allows bolt action for hunting, revolvers and shotguns for defense. That should be plenty. If you’re spraying a dozen+ rounds in your own home for defense you’re more of a danger than an intruder at that point.

I mean, it allows this kind of semi-automatic shotgun, but not this kind of semi-automatic shotgun. Those firearms are functionally indistinguishable, but somehow that little grip thing makes one more deadly than the other. As a lefty hunter and outdoorsman, this kind of bill is absolutely ridiculous security theater that doesn't meaningfully change the risk and/or damage from mass shootings but makes other people feel better, somehow.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

They conclude that "the human remains used in the book’s binding no longer belong in the Harvard Library collections, due to the ethically fraught nature of the book’s origins and subsequent history". You'd really do much better engaging with the argument they've actually made, rather than the one you think they're making.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If the immediate family of the person donated it, sure.

But even still, it's not about what my opinion is. They have a committee who reviews these things case by case, and they're making recommendations about their archives based on historical context, educational value, and the individual being studied.

edit to add: Gage himself engaged with Harvard, and he wasn't held against his will. He knew he was a subject of analysis, and his family willingly donated his remains to an educational end. The two are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say their thoughts are one way or another after just skimming or Ctrl+Fing the document for less than 3 minutes. Furthermore, Gage's own family donated his skull to Harlow, and Harlow donated it to Harvard, so with the exception of Gage himself the transaction was consensual. Plus Gage gave the tamping iron to Harvard Medical School personally, so there's not as much ethical gray area with his case as there would be with someone who's remains were taken without anyone's permission. That doesn't seem inconsistent at all, especially since most of the recommendations in the report hinge on acknowledgement of humanity and historical context, rather than focusing on a binary conclusion about whether or not remains are ok to keep.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They put together an entire report on human remains in their collection back in 2022 if you want to read their thoughts on the matter:

https://provost.harvard.edu/files/provost/files/harvard_university-_human_remains_report_fall_2022.pdf

210
submitted 10 months ago by Blackbeard@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
0

A place for all things college basketball.

view more: next ›

Blackbeard

joined 11 months ago
MODERATOR OF