“Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,”

“I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today.”

Can’t have it both ways. If you understand this was fabricated AI then you did not “get to know him today”. The facts of the case were already self evident for guilt, but this needs to be a mistrial. We can not have a standard of fair justice when generated AI is treated like living breathing people.

There were videos shown during the trial that Stacey said were deeply difficult to sit through. “Videos of Chris literally being blown away with a bullet through his chest, going in the street, falling backward. We saw these items over and over and over,” she said. “And we were instructed: don’t you gasp and don’t you cry and do not make a scene, because that can cause a mistrial.”

“Our goal was to make the judge cry. Our goal was to bring Chris to life and to humanize him,” she said.

If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

Okay, so I’m a queer woman who is gonna do her best to level wit you. The problem is that you’re trying to come up with a sexuality based on exclusion, which inherently is going to be bigoted.

If you’re a straight man, you’re attracted to women. But if you were to say “only white women tho” then it’s clearly coming from a racialized place, even if you insist that you’re not racist, your limitations on who you are willing to consider a dateable woman says other wise. Conversely, if you were a white man who says “only asian women tho”, that’s again coming from a racialized and fetishized place. Even if it’s subconscious and unrealized bias that makes sense in your head, the context of fetishized communities is still racism.

So on the same note, it’s hypocritical to say “trans women are women” while categorically insisting that you would never date one. Does this include Trans women who have bottom surgery and pass as cis? If so, then visual attraction isn’t the only factor. If not, then clearly “super straight” has some caveats making the term meaningless.

Anytime you’re trying to define “everyone but X”, you’re inherently embracing a bigoted stance. Does this mean you’re required to date any and all women who ask you out? No, of course not. But to defining an entire category undateable speaks to bias. Lesbian women are attracted to women instead of attracted to “not men”, gay men are attracted to men instead of “not women”. To say categorical trans folk do not apply there is by definition trans exclusionary. On a case by case basis, a trans person can be rejected without bias, but categorically doesn’t just imply bias, but is such.

First off I’m sorry this is happening. It’s abuse and not at all okay.

Hut more to your point, this “friend” , isn’t a friend. It’s just someone you know. Anyone who makes excuses for your physical harm isn’t concerned about your well being. You need to find different people for your support system.

Racism used to be a problem until Lincoln and MLK fixed it.

don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.

And a little buzz is too much to drive with? Respectfully, that is just rearranging titanic deck chairs. Buzzed driving should be illegal too.

As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I am happy the line for driving 2 tons of steel is BEFORE someone feels the affect of alcohol. Driving is dangerous enough as is, buzzed still slows reaction times.

It was easier to be a big fish in the pre-internet music pond. I would never said the Beatles are bad, they aren’t. But aside from understanding the historical significance, I would never ever put the Beatles on regularly.

Just as I don’t watch B&W films every night. Charlie Chaplin was great, for the time, just simpler than what I actually actually enjoy.

Will Cory Booker be giving multiple 25 hour speeches per day for multiple years? Because I just don’t see Dems doing much more than coasting off this for the next four years.

The only actionable thing that was accomplished was a black senator took the record for longest speech from a segregationist arguing against people like Booker being able to safely vote. Which for that alone he should be congrulated and celebrated.

The AI nonsense, the flawed ranking and the pages of sponsored links. Honestly, Google is just straight up useless.

It’s okay. I gotcha so you don’t got to ssy it

Spicehoarder told y’all so!

Everyone I know is nihilistic and numb. We know.

I feel like there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here. Because I absolutely and abundantly agree, the tariffs are pointless, ridiculous and a giant stab in the Canadian back. All because our idiotic, racist turd of a president somehow got the idea that y’all would be part of the US. It’s ludicrous top to bottom and I’m sorry that our national disgrace is becoming your problem. I don’t agree with him, or his fascist supporters at all.

But I’m not entirely sure how this relates to international law and stateless refugee tho?

Laws are threats by those with power to enforce them. The UN will not threaten the US under any circumstance in any meaningful way. So for them to decide something is illegal is meaningless and, quite literally, of no consequence.

Jfc, I didn’t even know who Grummz was until yesterday but gawdamn that is some nuclear cringe.

Peddle your BS to someone more gullible.

A leftist ranting about the evils of USAID.

lmao, okay sweetie. That’s nice. 😂

Ah yes. Prove a ludicrous statement by talking about an unrelated one, classic whataboutism. Look, either you’re aim is to spread propaganda or, more likely, you’ve swollowed enough yourself and totally lost the plot.

Hey OP, I found another one

Criticizing anti-capitalism media for existing in a capitalistic system is literally the last panel. I’m sure we agree on most things if you listened to ICHH as well, so I’m not trying to argue or start a fight.

But Evans has to eat, pay rent and deserves to make profit off his time like the rest of us. Personally, I feel as if you’re falling into the “AoC/Bernie/Hasan has money and are hypocritical socialists” style trap, which is at best lazy and worst willfully ignorant of the context in which we all live.

The podcast wouldn’t exist without ads, so ads are a weird thing to complain about. It’s the message that is important and ads don’t diminish that anti capitalistic message.