Omg did corporate america have to take a miniscule loss. Send in the military!
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
886 points (96.4% liked)
Memes
1470 readers
421 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nice
Apple shouldn't support tyrants if they want sympathy. It's not likenirs a franchise.
The other 60% lie better.
Oh snap
I agree there's a lot of abusers in the police. The 40% is an unreliable study, it's old and counts really low level things like slamming doors as domestic abuse. Big issue is not considering the pattern of behaviour and coercive control. For example she finds out he's cheated and slaps him in a one off assault... illegal, but ongoing coercive control isn't there. DA perps in the police needs more research really, which hopefully will happen.
Oh no, a bunch of megacorporations lost a few million dollars. Im truly pouring one out for my favorite megacorporations and I hope they have a good fiscal quarter /s
a few million dollars
Maybe on the insurance claim lmfao.
I didn't know Ostriches could type!? You have to be one, since you've got your head stuck in the ground or something, because megacorps weren't the only ones being looted. I even recall a clip where a bunch of looters were trying to pull open a door to a small store.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-10/downtown-la-businesses-vandalized
Truthfully, a few opportunistic looters is not reason enough to shut down protests against fascism. Yes, it is unfortunate if any small businesses were affected by looting. No, its not a gotcha.
Even small businesses have insurance. Especially in California. Ask me how I know.
Oh, and you saw a clip? Do you live in LA, or even CA? Are you sure that clip was this particular batch of protests and not old footage?
- 40% of cops freely admit to abusing their spouses, when guaranteed anonymity.
Don't bullshit us. They don't cry about it.
Oh, they don't hesitate and you know it.
Also, rubber bullets being fired at head height are punching holes into store windows. Protesters don't use rubber bullets, but the damage will be blamed on them anyway.
They call them rubber bullets, but they're not rubber bullets. They're rubber coated cannonballs.
protesters don't use rubber bullets
Yes, because they're all so bloodthirsty.
Property damage is not violence.
that's the SELF REPORTED number! in reality it's much, much higher.
Also, the stores were probably hit by riot munitions.
Won't somebody think of the billionaires
I do it all the time: smoked, stewed, or braised with fresh vegetables and a dry white wine.
If you could actually eat him to end him, but had to finish ALL of him, hair and nails and guts included, in less than 72 hours, and if you failed, he would come back even stronger and you and everybody you knew would die, would you?
I will never understand the mind of the shitlib. "No please, don't respond to the overwhelming violence with violence of your own!" The actions of this country are sickening, but it seems like liberals are able to tolerate it in the name of "peace" even once it comes home.
Reactive abuse (self defense?) is always used to shift responsibility.
Eta: also abuse by proxy.
This meme is fantastic 10/10
The stores were asking for it
Maybe those megacorps should have another disincentive for aiding and abetting murder, treason, and genocide then. Just a thought.
Plus those ads, I mean, did you see what they were wearing?
More people need to reflect the way society treats women onto these corporate giants that actively work against our self-interest as the general populace.
That said, there's very rarely a good reason to hurt local business, so I do hope they stay away from mom and pops.
wont these phones just gonna get locked by apple by imei anyway?
That isn't really true.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-posts-claiming-40-110000305.html?guccounter=1
The Neidig study stated in its abstract, "Survey results revealed that approximately 40 percent of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression during the previous year." However, that "physical aggression" included violence perpetrated by the officers' spouses. The results for violence perpetrated in the relationship in general was 41% for male officers and 40% for female officers. Importantly, Neidig's results for violence specifically perpetrated by the officers against their spouses were much lower: 28% for male and 27% for female.
So 28% is the number, really, and "physical violence" is not necessarily the same thing as "beating their spouse." That could mean shoving them, or pulling their arm or something. One criticism of the original study is how vaguely it defines "physical violence".
I know I will be labeled as a bootlicker, and I swear I'm not, I just don't like misinformation and on lemmy all the misinformation is leftist. On PCM on reddit I spend my time calling out conservative BS.
The one thing I'd point out here - physical abuse is physical abuse. "Just shoving them" is still physical abuse.
Getting punched in the face doesn't need a clarification as to whether a bone was broken or not, its still a punch to the face.
I'd also note that according to the CDC around 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have experienced some degree of physical abuse in their lifetime. So the rate for police - in their active relationship and self-reported by officers against their own spouses - is still drastically higher than the average.
Agreed on the inaccuracies of information though.
Yes, I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of any physical violence, or ignore the fact police officers are more likely to be domestic abusers. However, the post title does say "beat their spouses" which to me implies, at the very least, the intent to harm and actually inflicting physical harm, neither of which are implied in physical violence.
physical violence.
actually inflicting physical harm
What am I missing here? You don't think 'physical violence' implies 'physical harm'?
No not really. If I throw a punch at you that is an act of physical violence. But if I miss or the punch doesn't hurt you at all, I have not inflicted physical harm. That's why assault and battery are different charges even though both are violent crimes.
A distinction without a meaningful difference. Throwing a punch at your spouse but missing is still you throwing a punch at your spouse.
Just because you didn't make contact doesn't mean you aren't a danger
Sure, when using the throwing a punch example. But there is a big difference between someone shoving or slapping their partner and someone beating their partner. Both are obviously bad, but only one of them would be an example of "beating your spouse", and obviously that is much worse.
Nah man, I don't think that matters.
In the context of domestic abuse, it doesn't matter if your spouse leaves a mark or physically injures you, it still creates an environment of fear for your physical safety. Displaying any willingness to cross that boundary with your spouse creates fear that they could cross it again, or go further. That's what makes 'beat your spouse' such an evocative description to begin with. It isn't supposed to be a precise classification of the type of violence you committed against them, just that you violated that physical barrier that shouldn't be crossed. You can play semantic games and try finding a less objectionable term for it if you want, the truth is that even a slap or a shove is a severe betrayal of marital trust, and undermines the feeling of security that every person has a right to in their domestic environment. I think "beat" is a perfectly fine word to describe someone who willing to do that to their spouse.
Beat: "to strike repeatedly: : to hit repeatedly so as to inflict pain"
You're the one playing semantic games not me. I didn't see anything about betraying trust or undermining security. Slapping or shoving someone and beating them are very different things. They are both very bad in a domestic setting but one is clearly worse than the other.
A little further down on that page:
But sure, I guess you can insist on a specific definition from that particular definition if you feel the need to make that distinction to the exclusion of certain types of violence you personally don't think are as severe. I'll say it again: that distinction is without a meaningful difference. Might be meaningful to you, but not to victims of abuse.
Whatever, agree to disagree then. You're not going to convince me that someone who once shoved his wife in an argument-or "attacked her verbally"-is a "wife beater".
If I knew someone had shoved their wife violently I'd have a hard time seeing them in any other way.
neither of which are implied in physical violence
Lets agree to disagree on that.
Regardless of the methodology, the figure is meaningless in isolation. What's meaningful about the study is the comparison to other professions using the same methodology.
I wish my spouse would beat me off now and then
I can help with that