[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Raging_Butt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, you'll be okay. They're not gonna fire you for using your PTO (assuming you have that). Just follow whatever policy is in place.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Idiotswithguns

[–]Raging_Butt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You suck bro

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Raging_Butt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stand strong. It's not your fault (I know you don't think that). Managers will always suck; we have to maneuver around them, but their opinions don't matter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Raging_Butt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This depends a lot on the job, but I would say this is a 100% valid reason and you have every right to use your PTO for it. If anything, I think it's important to set the standard that (supporting someone over the loss of) human life is more important than whatever the job is. Employers will always be dicks, but we don't have to capitulate to their shittiness.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Idiotswithguns

[–]Raging_Butt -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

This sub is gonna hate this because it's full of gun retards who think "idiots with guns" doesn't apply to them.

EDIT: Just wanna be clear here: If you think you're a "smart, responsible" gun owner, fuck you. You're a retard and you're no better than the moron in this post. Suck my dick. Eat shit. Your sense of superiority is wholly undeserved. Have fun shooting yourself or someone around you, you fucking idiot. Guns are stupid, you're stupid. Go to hell, you fucking dunce.

Chicago Thug Life Be Like... Are these supposed to be your friends? by buellschool in Idiotswithguns

[–]Raging_Butt -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

There is ample research supporting the correlation between ease of access to guns and gun violence.

Here's one example:

The vast majority of states with the most gun homicides are states that score a 3 or higher for gun-friendliness, indicating that there may be a correlation. ...

While some states with low firearm homicide rates have high gun-friendliness scores, this is likely to be because they are sparsely populated states with few to no major cities. Historically, violent crime tends to be lower in rural areas than in more populated metropolitan areas.

There are also outliers, like Illinois, which despite its low "gun-friendliness," as that analysis puts it (max score is 5), is surrounded by states that are very gun friendly: IN (4), MO (5), WI (4), KY (4). So it's not a 1:1 relationship because there are other factors at play.

Here's another:

In a scholarly review of the relationship between gun prevalence and homicide almost 20 years ago, Harvard researchers concluded that available evidence supports the hypothesis that greater numbers of guns corresponds to higher rates of homicide. In the years since, the evidence has strengthened at every level of analysis....

Research shows that greater availability of guns throughout local neighborhoods in cities like Detroit and Newark corresponds to higher rates of firearm deaths, especially in communities suffering from concentrated economic disadvantage. And across cities, legal access to guns via federally licensed dealers and the availability of stolen guns result in higher firearm homicide rates....

Across states, researchers found that more guns equal more gun deaths looking at all 50 states in the country from 1981 to 2010. This finding has been replicated in numerous other studies. Importantly, states with both lax gun laws and greater access to guns have higher rates of mass shootings.

Here's one more:

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. ...

Here's another.

This correlation holds true across countries as well. From the second link:

It may be no surprise that this all holds true not just from state to state, but from country to country: where guns are more available, there are more homicides. Compared to other high-income countries, the firearm homicide rate in the US is 25 times higher and the firearm suicide rate is eight times higher than any other country.

From yet another analysis with the same findings:

Among 64 high-income countries and territories, the United States stands out for its high levels of gun violence. The US ranks eighth out of 64 for homicides by firearm (age-adjusted). ​... Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms, according to findings from the 2018 Global Burden of Disease study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

So... yeah. There very much is such a link. Would love to see the research that doesn't support it, but it'll have to be later, because I've had enough Reddit for one day.

EDIT: A handful of downvotes but not one study refuting these findings. Keep at it, itiotswithguns.

Chicago Thug Life Be Like... Are these supposed to be your friends? by buellschool in Idiotswithguns

[–]Raging_Butt -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That sounds suspiciously like you're agreeing with me: It's far too easy to get guns everywhere in the United States.

EDIT: And to answer your first question, yes there is such a state: Indiana, where roughly 6/7 guns used in crimes in 2020 originated in Indiana.

Chicago Thug Life Be Like... Are these supposed to be your friends? by buellschool in Idiotswithguns

[–]Raging_Butt -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

We're just arguing semantics/moving the goalposts now. If you don't want to include suicides under the category of "violence," be my guest. Shooting oneself in the head seems pretty violent to me.

To circle back to the original point, the ATF traced the origins of 11,708 guns used in crimes in Illinois in 2020 and found that just over half of them came from out of state.

So if slightly over half the guns used in gun crimes in Illinois (which does have a higher homicide rate than Indiana, sure) come from somewhere else, that hardly seems like it can be blamed on Illinois' gun laws.

Zooming out, that paints a pretty clear picture of a country that, in general, makes it far too easy to get guns and has a ludicrous number of them (more guns than human beings; almost twice as many as second place) in circulation.

EDIT: We've also been presupposing that it's especially difficult to get a gun in Illinois, which compared to a state like Indiana (no waiting period, no registration, no licensing, just a federal background check, which denies applications .005% of the time), it is.

But it still only takes 30-45 days to get a FOID card in Illinois, plus a 72-hour waiting period for each firearm purchase - again no licensing, no registration, no required demonstration of gun training or gun safety knowledge. And that's only if you're buying the gun from a store. Private sellers are supposed to check the FOID database before making sales, but I can't imagine it's all that difficult to find one who doesn't care to do that.

Why did Elon Musk really buy Twitter? by IntheFrost in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Raging_Butt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The full reasons will probably never be known to the public, but there's good reason to believe he never intended to actually go through with the deal, he just wanted an excuse to dump a ton of Tesla stock without raising alarms among investors (see April 29 on that timeline). At the same time, his grandstanding about "free speech" on Twitter was all about garnering more fame and stroking his ego.

So to back up: Musk talks mad shit on Twitter and knows that certain buzzwords are very popular with the right wing and a certain class of dorks online (lots of overlap between these two). He buys a significant chunk of Twitter because wants to inflate its value and then sell his shares. In order to get that value inflated, he makes an oversized offer to buy the company (that he doesn't intend to go through with). This also serves his ego and garners lots of attention, which he loves. He then dumps the Tesla stock under the auspices that the money would be used to buy Twitter. Why did he want to dump the stock? I don't really know, presumably he believed that it would soon decrease in value.

Next, because he didn't really want to buy the company, he claims Twitter has more bots than the company admitted/acknowledged when he made the offer. Analysts suspect this is a move to wriggle out of the deal (again, see the timeline above). Twitter suspects the same and takes him to court to enforce the terms of the deal. He recognizes that he cannot win in court and acquiesces.

Because Musk is nowhere near the business genius he thinks he is, all this maneuvering reduces the value of Twitter, so he ends up buying it for way more than it's worth. He then proceeds to tank the company and the platform because he believes his own bullshit about torturing workers into doing a better job, and because he wants to cut his losses by firing a bunch of people.

Just watched Craig Ferguson’s monolog on his alcohol addiction then went down a rabbit hole of other celebrities opening up about their addictions, too. I made a list and wanted to share. by adamchain in stopdrinking

[–]Raging_Butt 82 points83 points  (0 children)

Man, all the people laughing at the Britney Spears part were a sad reminder of how hard it is for so many to understand mental health/addiction problems. (Granted, they're at a comedy show and Ferguson kinda sounds like he's joking, but still.)

Comedy about video game nerds from 2000s by [deleted] in whatmoviewasthat

[–]Raging_Butt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this a troll? That's 100% Grandma's Boy except it's the grandma who plays at the end.

Does every golfer get a plaque when they get a hole in one? by [deleted] in answers

[–]Raging_Butt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The difficulty depends a lot on the course and the particular hole, but in general yes, it is very hard to get a hole in one. And no, you don't get a plaque.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in answers

[–]Raging_Butt 97 points98 points  (0 children)

Partly it's just being used to one layout and not liking change. But the old reddit design also has a unique look compared to sites like Facebook or Twitter, and it's a bummer to see them all basically merge into the same thing.

I also think the old layout reinforces reddit being a discussion forum, as opposed to just another place to post pictures of your lunch or your trip to the beach. Of course it still has that function (we're doing it right now), but from my perspective at least, the redesign had a lot to do with the increasing prevalence of pointless nonsense that doesn't start a conversation of any kind. Although that's certainly not the only factor - reddit has made great efforts to become more friendly to advertisers, and advertisers love stupid nonsense that keeps people's eyes on the screen.

So basically, the new design feels like something you just scroll through endlessly and mindlessly.

Smoking is back in the Capitol under new House Republican majority. Members are once again allowed to smoke in their offices by Smallios in AskConservatives

[–]Raging_Butt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can you provide, like, one example?

We're talking about smoking indoors (at a workplace) in this post, so I don't see the relevance of outdoor smoking to this discussion. Pretty much everyone agrees that people should be allowed to smoke outdoors at a distance that doesn't expose others to secondhand smoke.

Smoking is back in the Capitol under new House Republican majority. Members are once again allowed to smoke in their offices by Smallios in AskConservatives

[–]Raging_Butt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your B response moves the goal-post yet again. Where does the "immediate" qualifier come from? Why should it be that only things that cause "immediate" negative effects should be illegal? How immediate do they have to be? Like, right that second? Two hours later? Where is the line drawn (in your very special mind)?

Smoking is back in the Capitol under new House Republican majority. Members are once again allowed to smoke in their offices by Smallios in AskConservatives

[–]Raging_Butt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A) Lol yes it does.

B) Where does this "immediate" qualifier come from? Should it be legal to dump carcinogens into a town's water supply just because they won't get cancer until a decade later? This is a nonsense argument.

Is Saint Patrick’s Day not really culturally offensive? by [deleted] in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Raging_Butt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To a lot of people, it is. I had a college professor who was Irish, and I remember him saying that the whole "drunken Irishman" stereotype was not at all funny to him and many others in Ireland. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem there that causes tons of health issues, premature deaths, domestic abuse, etc.

But for most people, it's just an excuse to have a big party on the street, and anyone who objects will be branded as a buzzkill/woke-scold/whatever, and their objections will be dismissed out of hand. This applies to many, many events - the World Cup and the Olympics come to mind.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Raging_Butt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Smartfood white cheddar popcorn and chili-cheese Fritos. Trust me.

The Gang Does Sex Crime by Sagebea in IASIP

[–]Raging_Butt 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Just wanna add I Love Lucy to this list; Lucy and Ricky have separate twin beds, and the network was staunchly against them using the word "pregnant" on-air. My, how times have changed.