712
Trump skips FBI background checks for controversial cabinet picks – report
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
712 points (98.8% liked)
News
23406 readers
2990 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No system of rules or laws can fully account for people acting in bad faith.
I think the founding fathers counted on social shame to limit bad faith actors in government. A dishonorable person used to become a social pariah and might even get killed in a duel back in the 18th century. People wouldn't associate with them, sign a contract with them, or lend them money. But now?
You obliquely touched on a pet theory of mine. We s a society have for decades now rallied against public shaming and bullying and that kind of thing, but I wonder if we've gone too far with it —antisocial behaviours are left to run unchecked, whereas 100 years ago these people would have been mercilessly mocked to their face every day. Without the fear of that public mockery and ridicule, we get this.
Trying to protect neurodivergent people unfortunately shelters bad behavior as well as benign. Yes, the antisocial guy trying to start fights and hurt animals would've been driven out of society, but so would the harmless kid who needs things to be arranged by the last letter of its name or something. I've got some idiosyncrasies that make certain aspects of "fitting in" require more effort than most, and I definitely felt the difference in attitude towards how I struggled as I got older. Another hard to control factor is that malicious people can game those same attitudes that help people who simply can't understand why they are different.
Yes, that's the catch. Maybe we can encourage ridicule directed only at "society-level" behaviours and make it clear that individual quirks are off-limits.
I touched on one of my pet theories as well; the Constitution was written assuming dueling would be a safety valve. Holding office was originally limited to land-holding men, so the high class. They were mostly the only ones that did dueling back then. It was technically illegal, but it was a law for the common folks. At the time dueling was often done with pistols, which was paradoxically safer than swords. A duel with a sword always ended with blood. A pistol duel could end with both parties missing (often intentionally) and be considered a finished matter. Both parties would agree to a compromise that preserved the honor of each.
It sounds insane, but I suggest bringing back dueling. Just for federal elected officials though. Just the threat of a duel would make the assholes who take office just to enrich themselves run for the hills. They would never actually put their own ass on the line. You would actually have to believe in something enough to die for it to take office.
Our social circles are too big to do it reliably.
Now they publish it on TikTok and collect likes and followers.