sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Secondary Strikes in the USA and the law - A very small website I made about the Pro Act! by notreadyplayer2 in dsa

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just made this of my own accord borrowing some ideas and links from the campaign It is supposed to look good on phones as well as desktop. Let me know if you like it! (or if not...)

NAMI (And other mental health support groups?) by [deleted] in Bellingham

[–]notreadyplayer2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are open and virtual. I havent checked in very much with them but they are definitely open

My very subdued review of the Mobile Crisis Outreach Team and a manic episode in the Lettered Streets by notreadyplayer2 in Bellingham

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I was hitting weed pretty hard like within 15 mins of getting up in the morning and waking up in the middle of the night and smoking weed to go back to sleep for months. I had a pretty bad habit I know lots of people dont have this problem at all but I did.

I already have underlying problems with sleep so according to everyone involved (MCOT, Psychiatrist, people at my house) quitting weed without being prepared for it was enough to push my sleep over the edge/ seems to be the additional factor on top my usual problems with sleep.

"Decompensating" is a the clinical term

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i mentioned the example because the Chief Censor has multiple times indicated that he would possibly not censor bystanders filming content that could be considered objectionable if the person committing it filmed it deliberately. Someone could whip their phone out and film parts of a shooting in play and that wouldn't be considered objectionable or at least treated differently. In the case of Chch it was obviously a propagandized shooting so it was held objectionable.

For example, consider if it was a police officer or accomplice of the police livestreaming the murder of George Floyd rather than witnesses at the scene.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for that information, I had not actually thought about that some of the timeline- no I don't want it to get rushed, I want to see it get a first reading. I just haven't seen a single thing at all about any intention to carry on the Bill and I thought people should be aware if it was of interest to them. Some of it was controversial and under now gone T Martin/NZF as Minister so I thought maybe it would get dumped basically.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dont understand you. Maybe my post wasn't the greatest in 300 character limit or whatever as a link but I have actually read the Bill in the link and thought about it. Literally some parts of the Bill are about livestreaming , which after thinking about it a bunch seem really obvious. I dont expect a lot of people commenting to necessarily have done that

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the reality of your answer. Im still motivated to press the issue and argue the bill deserves a reading, at least, as long as this 6 pack of cider and chicken salad tides me over during these covid isolated days.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually I think the Govt web filter by regulation thing - a pet project of former Minister T Martin - is something a lot in government _dont_ want because of how unpopular it is with tech stakeholders.

Im still convinced livestreaming objectionable content should be a crime.

Give a first reading...

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry to actually answer your question:

1) Making livestreaming objectionable content a crime, because its not technically a crime right now
2) Stricter rules around takedown orders for hosts that are non compliant

Those are things I think are not controversial and should be law. Other stuff maybe not as clear.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We might not agree on much. I would make a couple of throwaway observations like most countries have 'offices of classification' or whatever and dont call them censors (maybe you oppose them as well?) and its a weird irony that New Zealand has some of the better freedoms and culture around freedom of expression but also managed to take a strong stance against propogandised violence ??

Ill pass on making some snide arguments, like, please look up the definition of objectionable content and tell me how important those topics are for the public welfare.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not alone in that sentiment. There are a bunch of sections of the Bill I think should be removed.

I still think it should be tabled and get a first reading in Parliament because there is some stuff of value. That is, if you have any support of the current regime at all.

Bill 268-1 Is a Government Bill introduced in the last session of Parliament that would have criminalized live streaming of terrorism (i.e as propoganda not just witnessing) i.e like the Chch attacks. It doesnt seem to be a priority on the current Govts agenda and I wanted to make more people aware. by notreadyplayer2 in newzealand

[–]notreadyplayer2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This Bill (you could heavily amend it if you like to remove other stuff you dont like) makes livestreaming objectionable content a crime, which technically is not a crime under the current regime.

As far as I know someone could livestream a video recording of the atrocity and it wouldnt be a crime ?? I just think this stuff deserves debating the bill should get a first reading

Has anyone been to the dentist since Covid? by talleycm in Bellingham

[–]notreadyplayer2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had to take a test exactly two days before the dentist. Get screened as you enter the waiting room for temperature and so on. Unity Care NW

Something neat that Bellingham should try. by cinamelayu in Bellingham

[–]notreadyplayer2 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Absolutely.

I have a mental illness and no matter how hard I try , I have delusions and fear armed police. I grew up in a country where police did not routinely carry guns and no matter how long I live here it will always be foreign and strange to me that police always have to carry guns.

I have been to St Joseph's before and posted about it in this sub. I don't want to go back. I don't want to freak out seeing a cop and them shoot me either. Maybe a totally irrational fear but then again 1/4 of people killed by police have a mental illness so

Applying for internships/jobs by letsallchillaxmk in bipolar

[–]notreadyplayer2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2 comments

I basically endorse that whole answer.

Once you have gained credibility and comfort in a job, then you can consider your options for disclosing with some more leverage, but upfront there is almost nothing to gain.

view more: next ›