I feel as though what drives most rude / inconsiderate behavior I experience IRL on a day to day basis comes from a place of having this unearned and unnecessary sense of urgency in situations that aren't actually urgent. I think if more people became aware of this completely unnecessary sense of urgency in situations that actually aren't urgent, it might make co-existing and sharing public spaces with other people a lot easier and more tolerable.
That text post that's been making the rounds that goes something like "Omg you made it to the same red light as everyone else but faster and more dangerously and recklessly, should we call nascar? Do you want a medal?" summarizes exactly what I'm trying to talk about.
It's like when I have to change buses at one of the bigger and busier bus stops, and the people who get off the same bus as me shove and elbow past me to get off before me, and then shove and elbow past anyone even slightly in their way on the way to the bus they're switching to, only to end up on the same bus as all the people they shoved and elbowed, with several minutes to spare before it leaves and plenty of open seats left.
I think this unnecessary urgency a lot of people feel in their day to day lives drives a lot of bad behavior. I'm not saying I'm innocent of this (is anyone?), I've felt it too in plenty of situations that didn't call for it, and regrettably was less kind than I should have been as a result. But I try to be aware of it, and always try to ask myself it it's really as urgent as my lizard brain is trying to tell me it is, and even if it was urgent, does that still justify unkind behavior?
Is shoving or elbowing another person aside going to make the difference between whether or not you make it to the bus before it pulls away? (hint: at least where I live, most of the time that's a no because the drivers usually won't leave if they see people from another bus heading towards their bus). Is shoving and elbowing people aside in a crowded grocery store going to make any real difference in how quickly you get your shopping done?
Does a few extra seconds of time actually justify cruel and unkind behavior towards people you perceive as slightly inconveniencing you?
"being with the right man will balance your feminine hormones, your skin will be clearer, you'll have more energy, and your feminine instincts will be stronger! this is because the presence of his testosterone will give you a natural hormonal reset, allowing you to embody your nurturing and caring biological urges :) also, oxytocin <3"
Do people actually want a two state solution? 'Cause it does not seem like it.
Right now is a ceasefire. Right now is the time to actually try to advocate for peace. I dont see many "pro-pal" blogs advocating for peace, they are still wanting to destroy Israel and Jews.
I want the violence to end. I want people to advocate for peace and not continue the propaganda ,a condemned terrorist group, spews.
I want everyone to be safe. I want peace.
I am first nations (Cree), and I have spent most of my life promoting "land back movement" in Canada. Sadly a majority of it is also negative propaganda to make us look like we would have a "bloody uprising", or mass deportations. Thats not what it is, but people dont care to learn. "I am for land back in theory but in reality I dont support it"- real comment I've received. That person had no clue what the actual "land back movement" meant. The reason I bring this up is because I feel Israelis feel the same or similar to us about sharing land, but still owning the land we traditionally belonged to, control over the land we are indigenous to. Its not about excluding people, or sharing, its about having control over our ancestral land.
If you dont think I'm genuine, I really dont care. I know how I feel inside. I dont need your validation.
A stabbing at Penn Station shows the design failure at the core of our criminal justice system.
By: Charles Fain Lehman
Published: Jun 10, 2026
n Sunday, police charged Hector Deleon, an “emotionally disturbed” and homeless 51-year-old, with slashing six fellow New Yorkers in an unprovoked attack at New York’s bustling Penn Station. Deleon, the New York Post subsequently reported, has a vibrant criminal history: another slashing committed in Newark four years ago and six other prior arrests, including “aggravated assault, unlawful possession of a weapon, use or possession of drugs, assault, domestic assault and criminal mischief.”
Deleon’s crimes have provoked a now-familiar outcry: Why was a violent criminal, with a string of priors and a history of deranged behavior, on the streets? Why wasn’t he locked up, either in prison or a mental facility? And why do such people seem to cause so much of our crime problem?
That frequent offenders drive a massive share of all crime is one of the most well-established findings in criminology. But it turns out that in many states and cases, our criminal justice system isn’t designed for that reality. That means people like Deleon keep offending. But it also means that we have lots of opportunities to bring such crime under control.
That a few offenders commit most of the crime is the closest thing we have to an iron law of criminology. Offending follows what social scientists call a “pareto” distribution or the “80/20” rule: (At least) 80 percent of crime is committed by (at most) 20 percent of offenders. The true concentration may be even greater than that. One 2017 systematic review found that the 10 percent of the population that is most criminally active accounts for 66 percent of all crime, on average.
That finding is not new. In one famous study, sociologists Marvin E. Wolfgang, Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin followed a cohort of nearly 10,000 Philadelphia boys born in 1945. They found that just 6 percent of those boys were responsible for roughly half of all police contacts observed. Nor is this pattern of crime concentration restricted to the United States. Analysis of data on nearly 2.4 million Swedes found that just 1 percent were responsible for a whopping 63 percent of all criminal offenses.
Concentration shows up across a variety of offenses. Most gun violence, for example, is highly concentrated in tight social networks, a phenomenon that has shown up in Baltimore, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, and Oakland. Concentration is also common in petty crime: In New York City, just 327 people accounted for more than 6,000 shoplifting arrests in 2022, while some 63 people were responsible for more than 5,000 arrests on the subway last year.
Why does criminal offending follow this pattern? A simple answer is that a life of crime is the product of the confluence of many different rare events. Frequent shooters, for example, tend to occur only in environments with a lot of well-armed young men with little oversight and a strong culture of honor. Frequent shoplifters tend to be seriously mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs, and also have frequent opportunities to shoplift. Peer groups, family environment, and genes likely all play a role. In short, a lot of things have to go wrong for someone to become a frequent offender, so most people don’t.
But if the reality of offender concentration is so well-established, why do we see so many stories about people like Deleon—people with a criminal history who should be locked up, but aren’t?
Some, mostly on the right, tend to think that the issue is ideological. They assert that progressive prosecutors and lawmakers are simply opposed to punishing criminals, viewing it as racist and unjust. Others, often but not exclusively on the left, see the issue as one of deprivation. Frequent offenders lack the resources needed to stop their behavior, and the system lacks the resources needed to provide them with appropriate care.
There are merits to both of these views. Bad criminal justice laws often remain in place for ideological reasons. And our criminal justice and mental health systems often lack the capacity needed to deal with the problems of frequent criminal offenders.
But there’s a deeper, structural problem: Our criminal justice system is built with offenses, not offenders, as its fundamental unit of analysis. Decisions about how to deal with a given case—whether at the point of arrest, arraignment, prosecution, or sentencing—tend to turn on the character of the offense in question, rather than on what we know about the offender. Yet if criminal offending is highly concentrated among certain people, then for purposes of preventing future crime, we should care much more about who is offending than what the “instant” offense was.
To be sure, offender considerations play some role in the criminal justice system. Sentencing decisions often incorporate criminal history; in most states, bail decisions can be made based on an offender’s reoffense risk, and prosecutors can weigh criminal history in deciding whether to move forward. But these factors are almost always secondary to the actual offense in question.
The system’s focus on offense rather than offender yields skewed priorities. “Habitual offender” statutes are often old or poorly drafted. Misdemeanors often go unprosecuted, even though someone who has committed a dozen misdemeanors may be a more serious problem than someone who has committed a single felony. It’s often hard to track offenders through the system, whether for bureaucratic reasons or because old charges are sealed.
Some states, moreover, have made offender discrimination much harder than it needs to be. In New York, for example, detaining people pre-trial on the basis of their re-offense risk is against the law. Other states have narrowed three-strikes laws and other enhancements meant to catch up career offenders. Prosecutors who categorically refuse to charge “minor” crimes similarly blind themselves by focusing on the offense, rather than the offender.
Other jurisdictions are taking the frequent offender problem more seriously. Some, like Baltimore, are implementing “focused deterrence” strategies, policing tactics that entail focusing on the most violent few and aggressively discouraging them from violence. Other states are expanding restrictions on bail (in North Carolina), pushing to update their three strikes laws (in Tennessee), and modernizing their systems to track high utilizers more easily (in Utah).
In many ways, it’s a virtue of our system that offenders are treated alike—discrimination on irrational bases, like race or ethnicity, is wrong. But some offenders commit far more crime than others, a fact the system needs to recognize at every step. Until we do so, shocking crimes by frequent offenders will remain all too normal.
––
“This kid gloves approach to bail and lack of prosecution isn’t cutting it,” a frustrated law-enforcement source said.
By: Joe Marino and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon
Published: Sep 7, 2025
Subway crime has dipped in the Big Apple — but try telling that to the victims of these transit terrors.
A cluster of 63 career criminals continues to wreak havoc in the city’s underground, racking up more than 5,000 busts between them — yet only five of them are currently behind bars, The Post has learned.
The motley crew has amassed a disturbing rap sheet for crimes including assault, robbery, theft, turnstile-jumping and a string of other nuisance offenses — but they largely remain free because the state’s lax criminal-justice reforms bar judges from holding them on bail.
“Crime is down in the subways, but it’s the same handful of criminals making it feel like chaos,” a frustrated law-enforcement source said. “This kid gloves approach to bail and lack of prosecution isn’t cutting it.”
The latest NYPD statistics show that transit crime in the five boroughs has been on the decline, down 3.8% over the first eight months of the year compared to the same period in 2024 and dipping nearly 6% in the past two years thanks to focused enforcement and police deployments.
That’s no thanks to the state’s 2019 criminal justice reforms, which bar judges from setting bail on most crimes, including all non-violent crimes.
Under the so-called reforms, repeat offenders busted for any crime other than violent felonies typically get a slap on the wrist and are cut loose while their cases are pending — with many allegedly committing new crimes.
That’s been the case with dozens of transit system offenders, according to sources.
Among the most notorious is Michael Wilson, a 39-year-old vagrant with 198 total arrests, 190 of them tied to the transit system — and 36 of them this year alone.
Wilson’s rap sheet — who cops say should be in the subway crime “Hall of Fame” — includes multiple arrests for alleged criminal tampering for rigging MetroCard dispensers.
Another repeat offender is 28-year-old Kenney Mitchell, who has been arrested a total of 149 times in his life, including 18 times just since May of this year for alleged theft and forgery — and in June after he was found lying on a C train platform with a pocket full of crack vials, sources said.
Carlos Baezcaban, 53, has logged 72 career arrests, including for alleged grand larceny, trespassing and drug possession. That count includes the six times he has been busted since he was put on probation in May for a possession of stolen property conviction.
Some of the offenders have been hit with sex-related crimes such as public lewdness and forcible touching.
Matthew Leon, 26, has 29 arrests under his belt — with 13 that were sex-related, including for allegedly fondling female straphangers and pressing against others.
Another repeat offender, 38-year-old Jamar Cobb, has logged 48 career arrests including for alleged robbery and public lewdness and theft.
Shaquille Clarke, 32, whose 18 arrests include alleged forcible touching and robbery, has been charged with pressing against a woman in the subways and slugging a lady to take her phone, sources said.
Clarke was placed on probation in May for a robbery conviction and has been arrested once since.
Of the six chronic offenders named above, only one, Leon, is currently behind bars. The rest are still roaming the streets and train system.
Leon was finally ordered held without bail on a February charge of forcible touching of a minor in Queens.
Some conviction and prosecution rates have fallen, too.
Ten years ago, 81% of transit felony arrests resulted in convictions, compared to just 36% to 38% today, according to sources familiar with the situation.
The accused scofflaws have been represented by multiple lawyers over the years, primarily public defenders, while some of the charges against them were minor and did not involve the need for an attorney.
The Legal Aid Society, which helps provide public defenders, declined to comment. The Post reached out to numerous lawyers who have repped some of the scofflaws, but the attorneys either did not return calls for comment or would not discuss the cases.
––
==
"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
– Adam Smith, "Theory of Moral Sentiments"
People aren't entitled to endless chances. And declining to lock up black perpetrators because they're black is the real racism of low expectations.
Lock up the worst 1% of society who commits crimes, and then go the extra mile and execute the worst 1% of the 1%.
<p>Abuse driven not just by misogyny, but by financial gain</p>
Council of Europe Strasbourg 11 June 2026
Women are being pushed from online spaces, harming democracy
The Council of Europe has launched a new recommendation aimed at strengthening accountability for technology-facilitated violence against women and girls, a rapidly growing form of abuse that increasingly threatens women's safety, dignity and participation in public life.
Technology-facilitated violence includes cyberstalking, online harassment, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, privacy violations, misogynistic hate campaigns, threats and image manipulation. Such abuse often accompanies other forms of violence, including domestic violence, allowing perpetrators to extend surveillance, coercion and control through digital tools.
Europe comes together against online violence against women and girls
Many representatives of the Council of Europe’s 46 member countries attended the 10 June launch, which was held online and at the Council of Europe’s headquarters in Strasbourg. Featured speakers at the event praised the recommendation, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in March, for providing guidance to European countries on preventing and combating violence committed, assisted, aggravated or amplified through digital technologies. It also sets out measures to ensure that perpetrators, facilitators and, where appropriate, technology companies are held accountable.
Catherine Van De Heyning, Professor of European fundamental rights law at the University of Antwerp and Deputy Public Prosecutor in Antwerp's cybercrime division, described the recommendation as “a major step forward in ensuring that justice systems are equipped to respond effectively to technology-facilitated violence against women and girls.”
She highlighted emerging forms of abuse driven not only by misogyny or harassment, but also by financial gain, citing a recent case in which Belgian authorities arrested a Dutch national accused of operating Telegram groups that distributed and sold intimate images and personal information of women without their consent.
Online violence harming women in public life
The recommendation warns that technology-facilitated violence can lead to anxiety, depression, reputational harm, economic loss and withdrawal from online spaces. It also notes that women in public life are particularly affected, including journalists, politicians, human-rights defenders and women’s rights activists, who are frequently targeted by coordinated online attacks intended to intimidate or silence them.
To address these challenges, the recommendation calls for stronger laws and policies, effective investigations and access to justice, improved support services for victims, enhanced international cooperation and greater responsibility for technology companies and online platforms. It also promotes prevention through education, digital literacy and awareness-raising.
Also participating in the launch, María Rún Bjarnadóttir, head of legal at the Office of the national commissioner of the Icelandic police and a member of the Council of Europe’s GREVIO monitoring body (which deals with violence against women) stressed the need to strengthen law-enforcement capacity and to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies such as digital forensic expertise.
The recommendation forms part of the Council of Europe's broader efforts to ensure that women and girls can participate fully, equally and safely in the digital environment and that technological innovation advances human rights rather than undermining them.
On 20 May 2026, Brazil adopted Presidential Decree No. 12,976, establishing a comprehensive framework to address violence against women onli
By Diego Bonomo, Jadzia Pierce, Gustavo Akkerman & Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses on June 11, 2026
Posted in International, Uncategorized
On 20 May 2026, Brazil adopted Presidential Decree No. 12,976, establishing a comprehensive framework to address violence against women online. Adopted alongside a parallel decree (No. 12,975) reforming intermediary liability, it reflects a more assertive approach to regulating online harms, including those driven or amplified by AI. Together, these measures will require companies to reassess internal processes to ensure rapid content removal and more proactive monitoring, including for AI‑enabled services.
While framed as a gender‑based violence measure, the Decree reflects a broader shift in regulatory expectations from reactive moderation to proactive platform duties and systemic accountability. It also forms part of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration’s broader efforts, ongoing since 2023, to regulate social media in the absence of comprehensive legislation. This approach has already triggered constitutional and policy debate, including regarding the use of presidential decrees to impose substantive obligations and potential implications for freedom of expression.
A broad, technology‑aware definition of digital violence
A key feature of the Decree is its expansive definition of “violence against women in the digital environment.” It goes beyond traditional offences such as harassment or threats to include conduct causing physical, psychological, political or economic harm, including where amplified by digital technologies.
The Decree expressly covers AI‑generated or manipulated content, such as synthetic intimate images and AI‑enabled harassment. This effectively integrates AI‑related harms into mainstream online safety rules rather than treating them separately. The framework is grounded in principles such as victim protection, privacy, and the prohibition of re‑victimisation.
From notice-and-action to structured platform duties
The Decree introduces a more structured regime for platforms hosting user‑generated content. In particular, platforms must:
provide accessible reporting channels;
assess and respond to notifications promptly;
communicate decisions and reasoning to both notifier and user; and
direct users to appropriate support services.
Platforms may retain content where there is reasonable doubt as to its illegality, provided the decision is justified and communicated, preserving proportionality and procedural fairness.
These obligations should be read in light of a 2025 Brazilian Supreme Court decision that significantly limited the traditional “safe harbor” under Article 19 of the Marco Civil da Internet. Under that regime, platforms were generally only liable for third‑party content if they failed to comply with a court‑ordered takedown. The Court’s decision departs from this approach, indicating that platforms may be required to remove unlawful content directly, including upon user notice, without prior judicial intervention, and introducing a broader “duty of care” (dever de cuidado). While not expressly codified, the Decree clearly reflects and operationalizes this shift by embedding more structured notice-handling accountability requirements.
Systemic liability and design‑level accountability
The Decree introduces a form of systemic liability, focusing on whether platforms implement adequate measures to prevent or limit harm at scale. The assessment shifts from individual moderation decisions to the effectiveness of systems, processes and safeguards.
Crucially, isolated incidents are unlikely to trigger liability on their own. Instead, the focus is on whether the platform’s systems, processes, and technical measures are sufficiently robust and effective.
Rapid removal obligations for intimate content
The Decree imposes particularly strict requirements for non‑consensual intimate content. Platforms must:
remove the content within two hours of notification; and
ensure that the content is technically marked and blocked from re-upload across the service.
This combination of rapid response and forward-looking prevention is significant. It reflects an understanding that harm in the digital environment is not limited to initial publication, but is exacerbated by repeated dissemination. From an operational perspective, this may involve techniques such as automated detection, hashing technologies, and cross-platform content identification tools.
Proactive duties and coordinated harassment
Another important departure from traditional models is the introduction of proactive monitoring obligations. Platforms are required to identify indicators of coordinated harassment campaigns and to take proportionate measures to reduce the reach and visibility of harmful content. Notably, these obligations apply even in the absence of a complaint from the victim. Platforms are therefore expected to act ex officio where they detect patterns suggesting coordinated abuse.
The Decree places particular emphasis on protecting women with public exposure, such as journalists or political figures, reflecting concerns around the use of online harassment to silence participation in public life.
Targeted regulation of AI-generated harms
The Decree also addresses certain risks associated with AI-generated content. It prohibits the generation or modification of intimate content involving third parties without consent and requires platforms offering AI-based functionalities to implement technical and procedural safeguards to detect and block harmful outputs. These safeguards must be deployed in a manner proportionate to the scale and risk profile of the service.
These provisions are particularly noteworthy in light of ongoing global debates around deepfakes and generative AI misuse. They signal an expectation that platforms will not only moderate harmful outputs, but also actively design their systems to prevent such outputs from being generated in the first place.
Enforcement and broader policy approach
Enforcement of the Decree is entrusted to Brazil’s Data Protection Authority (ANPD), which reflects a broader trend toward regulatory consolidation with the ANPD increasingly positioned at the intersection of data protection, online safety, and, potentially, future AI governance. In parallel, the Decree provides for the development of a coordinated framework through which multiple public authorities would work together on prevention, protection, and victim support. It requires the Ministry of Justice and Public Security to establish an interministerial working group, which will be tasked with designing the structure and implementation of this framework.
Parallel reform of intermediary liability
The Decree was adopted alongside a separate measure (Decree No. 12,975) amending Brazil’s framework under the 2014 Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil da Internet), following the abovementioned 2025 Supreme Court decision that significantly limited the traditional court‑order‑based safe harbor for online platforms.
While the previous regime largely conditioned liability on failure to comply with a judicial takedown order, the new framework introduces more structured due diligence and organizational obligations. It clarifies that liability may arise in cases of systemic failure to prevent or address certain categories of illegal content, including terrorism, child exploitation, hate speech and gender‑based violence.
Platforms must, in particular, appoint a local legal representative, maintain notice‑and‑action mechanisms, implement ongoing risk monitoring and mitigation measures, and increase transparency around content moderation, advertising and systemic risks.
Taken together, these developments point to a broader shift toward a proactive, risk‑based model of platform accountability, moving beyond purely reactive or court‑driven enforcement. This approach shows clear parallels with developments in the EU, in particular under the Digital Services Act, which similarly emphasizes systemic risk management, transparency and proactive obligations for platforms, as well as ongoing discussions under the AI Act regarding AI‑generated content and safety‑by‑design requirements.
* * *
The Covington team continues to monitor developments in the area of digital services, content moderation and AI‑driven content closely and would be happy to assist companies in assessing the implications of this decree for their products, policies, and compliance strategies.
oh, thats okay @flavor-apple-with-ciriguela, you can disable the post you made saying JKR is personally responsible for the death of trans-identified males, I'll repost the response for you, with the names of those same trans-identified males who have murdered women
But feel free to keep acting like you're suicidal over being called out on spreading misinformation, I'm sure it "isn't the first time" you have weaponised mental health to silence an ideological opponent.
i think one of the worst things the left wing internet ever did was push the idea that oppression is basically a virtue, and being oppressed is a sign of your morality. it has made it like…impossible for some of you to hold the idea that most people are privileged in some ways and oppressed in others. AND a lot of you seem to have it in your mind that terrible people cannot be oppressed, and that oppressed people cannot do terrible things, which is a dangerous rhetoric to hold imo.
If you ever feel stupid, remember millions of men watched "alpha male" content and somehow thought objectifying women and having no emotional depth would somehow make women want them more.
estén atentas a la situación en colombia con el tema de la mutilación genital femenina. estamos hablando de una práctica que está afectando niñas menores a 5 años. ya basta de esta barbaridad y de mirar al otro lado.
ellievsbear
vaporwave
germansingergirl
annaxmalina
stormborns
tangentwithtanner
dededos
prguitarman
