Tweet >If you notice, a lack of official tributes from organizations and the #NBA this week for Kobe Bryant, it is because his family has asked that teams do not do tributes this year. @kron4news
Edit: Well this conversation took off. Great dialogue and excellent ideas. Time to make a change. Thanks for the awards, but I’d encourage you to donate to an animal charity!
This has been on my mind for some time. I volunteer with rescue organizations in Canada. I love the work but I can’t help but wish rescue organizations would make it easier for potential adopters. Time and time again I see kind, normal people give up and go to a breeder because of all the hoops they have to jump through. (For the record I have nothing against people going to reputable breeders!)
For example, my co-worker tried to apply for a dog. He joked it was easier to adopt his daughter than to adopt a dog. He was ok with the two-page realistic applications and reference checks. But he was understandably put off by the holier-than-thou attitudes of several rescue organizations, and the pages and pages of questions. He ended up going to a breeder. Can anyone blame him?
I know we can’t change the approaches and attitudes of every reputable rescue organization. But I do think organizations can streamline the process for everyone involved without compromising the well-being and safety of the dogs in their care.
I brainstormed a few ideas. I welcome your thoughts, critiques, ideas. Discuss away!
1st idea: Re-think the requirement for a fenced-in yard. Rescue organizations are doing a disservice to the dogs in their care by turning away applicants who don’t own a yard. They are creating a traffic jam of shelter/rescue dogs by not allowing a wider range of people to adopt. Breeders don’t require a fenced-in yard so why should rescues demand it? IMHO a yard does not mean someone is automatically going to be a good dog owner. A yard doesn’t mean a dog will have a better life. A yard won’t exercise a dog. As for the escape artist argument,... an escape artist can bolt out the front door or run off if someone trips and drops the leash. Let people be the deciding factor in dog ownership, not the size of their house.
2nd idea: Offer separate adoption processes for first-time dog owners and veteran owners. One-size applications don’t fit all. It would cut down on time spent if volunteers didn’t have to read the same set of answers for every application.
3rd idea: Ease up on the number of questions and/or pages of applications. This is a big reason why many applicants give up and purchase a dog elsewhere. Many, many people balk at the amount of paperwork involved. No applicant, resp
... keep reading on reddit ➡Made some money trading options on GME and other meme stocks this week (though not that much, but it's still significant windfall compared what I usually make trading) and I have been giving back to some local arts organizations, homeless shelters, and food banks where I currently live and where I'm from. (I live in DC, but originally from Boston.)
Being a crossdresser and a little queer, I am also motivated to give some money to an LGBTQ organization as well, preferably one that deals with transgender issues.
Prefer local orgs in Boston or DC, but open to any suggestions.
Thanks!
EDIT: Update here: https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/l8oipo/update_on_donations/
The world of influence is complicated. We have overt advertisements, which are annoying, but at least obviously advertisements. But we also have an entire industry of subtle advertisements. Politicians and companies can purchase crowds to flood protests or hearings. They can buy actors to infiltrate these groups and spread a specific message. They can hire people to go on any number of forums to promote a message. All under the guise of someone who honestly believes the message, or as a member of an established community. Frankly, it makes one paranoid to consider that any given moment on a discussion board, that honest discussion you thought you were having about X might actually be with a shill paid for by someone who stands to benefit immensely from X. The presumption of good faith discussion is lost thanks to this industry.
The presumption of good faith discussion is incredibly valuable. It's what makes the first amendment work. Without that presumption, the first amendment doesn't work, it's worthless. Therefore, the first amendment should not apply to paid for speech. Anonymizing speech is valuable for genuine held beliefs. But it is not valuable for paid actors.
The most effective way to protect genuine belief holders, and not paid actors is to require any organization that is buying speech to disclose the speech they buy. If an oil company wants to flood the internet with overt and subtle advertisements against hybrid cars, then it should be required to report that within days if not hours of signing the contract with the advertising/shill agency. The reports should be widely and freely available for anyone to check, so they can determine the likelihood of the message they are engaging with being subtle advertising.
Companies that fail to register paid speech should be subject to fines and potentially jail time for corporate officers. Individuals should face the same risks. If fines are the preferred punishment, they should actually be costly enough to make a difference, rather than just being the cost of doing business, but I'm not sure there is a fine costly enough to make a difference. Advertising agencies should be required to also report any paid speech they engage in, which would be all of their business, as a secondary means of catching bad actors.
A number of churches around the country openly called for the presidential election to be overthrown prior to the US Senate officially certifying the results. It seems that in years past, it was commonly accepted that campaigns ended when the polls closed. However, this year a sizable portion of the population aggressively asserted that the election would not be over until it was certified, even going as far as to violently interfere with the process.
Given this recent shift in the culture of politics, should calls to over-turn the election made by 501(c)(3) organizations prior to January 6th be considered "campaign activity" - effectively disqualifying them from tax-exempt status? Alternatively, if these organizations truly believed that wide-spread voter fraud took place, I suppose it could be argued that they were simply standing up for the integrity of our elections.
I know that even if a decent case could be made if favor of revoking the tax-exempt status of any 501(c)(3) organization that openly supported overthrowing the presidential election results, it is very unlikely that it any action would ever come of it. Nonetheless, I am interested in opinions.
(As an example, here are some excerpts from a very politically charged church service given in St. Louis, MO on January 3rd, during which, among other things, they encouraged their congregation to call Senator Josh Hawley in support of opposing the certification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N18oxmZZMlM).
Full disclaimer...I know I might get banned for this. Two, I know a lot of you find me irritating as shit, but enough is enough.
There has been a fairly disturbing trend of multiple posters on here defending the proudboys and denying they are a white supremacist organization when there is no debate as to what they are. I am fine with discussion, even if I think a POV is dumb, but I think we need to draw a line at openly defending a group such as this. It is also a bit disturbing that I got suspended for a week for responding with very choice words to one of these posters while he continued to say there was no “proof” the proudboys were racist.
Freedom of speech is important, but no web forum is required to give a platform to crap like this, and I think at some point people that allow that stuff to continue at least become partially responsible.
