orcrist

The long story makes it even worse. The cops were responding to a 911 call for a white man who was causing a big problem. They got there and talked to that person, and that person said that the black man across the street started it, or some such story. For reasons unknown (racism? lunacy?) the cops decided to take the word of the actual suspect, who would obviously lie to avoid getting in trouble.

Then the cops lied on the police report. They said the victim had resisted, but they didn't give him time to resist before beating him. They attacked him less than a second after getting out of their car. Even if he had been able to hear, he would have still been beaten down. In the police report, they say he attacked them, but a quick view of the video proves it's the opposite.

Yes, there are theoretical situations where cops need to use force right away, but the facts here don't support it. A he-said-she-said situation where nobody is armed or fighting or running away, that's a quick legal analysis. And even if hypothetically there were justification, they lied on the police report, which only shows that they knew it was wrong.

And after beating him down, and after his girlfriend explaining that he's deaf, the cops still spoke as if he could understand them, and they refused to let the girlfriend use sign language to establish basic communication. To me, this last point feels worse than everything else. They simply refused to see him, or his girlfriend, as human beings that ought to be treated with any kind of basic respect.

They're telling you it's morning.

In my experience, only the minority of professors reply to such emails. Perhaps you've had better luck than I.

There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it's true.

... Come on. At least pick an issue where they are weak. This one is not even close.

Why don't you go for immigration or campaign financing or housing or health care? Those are softer targets.

Of course it will get votes. Reminding people of basic human decency is a time honored campaign tactic, especially when the opponent is being a giant jerkface.

Yes it does sound like that. The title doesn't suggest that he actually committed crimes. Sorry!

All is a big word. Maybe too big. But the general idea is neat.

That's generally false. But even if it's true, all the boss has to do is argue that medium-term profits will be generated by whatever policy they want to adopt. Since nobody knows the future, they might be right, and they're legally rock solid.

In other words, the duty to increase value produces unfalsifiable policy claims. So it is meaningless.

The Pirate Bay will always be with us.

Yes, of course some companies are using it. That's what the article is about. The point I'm making, and it matters to employees in Japan, is that if employers want to use this strategy and avoid losing lawsuits, they have to be very careful about exactly what they do. Many judges have and continue to side with employees over employers. But filing lawsuits is expensive and time-consuming, and somewhat risky financially because you might lose, so sometimes companies get away with these shady tactics.

And depending on how much money you were making, you might just be better off using a couple of months of that boring time to prepare your resume and apply to other jobs, and then quit once you've lined one up.

Anyway, if your boss does this to you, and you go to your union and that doesn't work, and you eventually hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against them, the judge is going to ask the company to justify all of the decisions they made. If the company says that they're trying to convince the employee to quit out of boredom, you will win your lawsuit. If the company can provide some kind of plausible explanation for the adjustment in the duties that they're asking you to do, the specific facts are going to come into play, and you might win or lose, depending on them.

There's a lot more that we can add to that. Washington politics are so amazingly dirty, they have been for decades, everyone knows it, and Trump is different from other people. He's actually even dirtier than most career politicians, but he feels different from them.

You also have the problem that some government institutions are corrupt and big business is very corrupt. It's easier for people to imagine that conspiracy theories are true when they can openly see badness happening around them left unchecked. For example, if I watch on TV or YouTube and I see a court case where the prosecutor, lead detectives, and the judge are all incredibly biased and some of them are bad liars, then I know something is wrong with that courthouse. I might extrapolate and conclude that something is wrong with all courthouses. Which is to say, I've become more vulnerable to conspiracy theories because real bad behavior is left unchecked.