Temple isn’t responsible for the local neighborhood, though. It is a relatively affordable university giving jobs, a clean subway station, and the third largest police force in the state to the community, plus guaranteed customers every single year. I don’t think the dozens of food carts, local shops, or fresh grocer grocery store would be there (or be there in that quantity) if there weren’t 40k customers at Temple, do you?

The university has been around for well over 100 years, so everyone living near Temple chose to live there. Temple didn’t just buy the lot next door over night.

If the neighborhoods around Temple need more resources, they need to find investors or lobby the city. Temple is a university responsible for university students and employees. If you aren’t one of those two things, it really doesn’t owe you anything. If serving the locals helps the students or employees, then that’s great, but if giving locals access hurts the students or employees, then the right thing for Temple to do is exclude them. Put your own mask on before helping others.

I wish all the campus food was like this honestly. I’m tired of dealing with locals harassing me inside businesses meant for students.

Are all the locals bad? Absolutely not. Most are probably good people. But the loud minority that harasses students ruin it for everyone else, and when it comes down to their ability to eat at Chick Fil A or mine (a student at this university,) the university should do what it has to to make me comfortable using my facilities.

Now, for completely off campus food or open air ones like food trucks, it’s different. But afaik Morgan Hall is completely Temple, so I don’t see why non-Temple people have any business in there.

Temple is fucking ridiculous. I’m a student, and first these fuckers cry that they can’t afford to pay grad student union workers, then they cry and cry that they need higher tuition.

I’m so sick of being surrounded by leadership in my university, in my state, and most of all at the federal government that cry cry cry.

Just get something for my quality of life better instead of whining and moaning. I’m so sick of the sorriest generation running the world based purely on greed and crying about how hard it is for them.

Cutting the supply of legally available weapons would drain the supply for illegal weapons. It would take a while, but cutting the supply while also increasing the law enforcement efforts to seize from criminals the weapons would drastically improve the situation.

The main issue - mass shootings - doesn’t seem to be lead by Crips and Bloods. Grown ups shooting up night clubs or stores and teenagers shooting ip schools are the main problem, in my experience, that that average person fears the most.

If somebody can source a claim otherwise, I’m receptive to it, but I don’t believe criminals with weapons are the main drivers of firearms related deaths in mass shootings. It seems to me that the mass shootings that make the news are from otherwise law-abiding people who snap in some way.

I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable.

As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in.

We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim.

In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different.

Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society.

Edit: Typo

My point exactly!! Why don’t we have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement?

Hell, I want men in knee-high boots and muskets on every corner to keep us safe. That’s what the founders intended.

I totally agree as an optional extracurriculars

I see no reason we don't have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement with those extensive and mandatory training & retraining.

We do mandatory trainings with cars, food service licenses, and many other things. But, the weapons that are made to kill by literally throwing sharpened metal through the air have less regulation than baristas in many states.

And before some NRA lunatic comes in with "oh well that's not how the founders intended it," I completely reject that argument and don't want to hear it. 1) We are in no way bound to what 50 dudes from 300 years ago thought. Originalism is purely made-up SCOTUS doctrine that has no binding authority on the current SCOTUS; and 2) Even if we were bound by originalism, our society wouldn't work with it. If the founders wanted us to be able to fight the government, then it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from having nukes and Blackhawk helicopters, which is obviously banned for a reason.

This reminds me of the headline where cops killed a man "with no active warrants.." like.... that's a weird way of saying innocent.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/6qejqg/officers_kill_man_with_no_active_warrants_at/

(BTW, I don't know this subreddit, but it was the first one to pop up on a Google search that wasn't openly political afaik)

I think if you just add this comment to the edits of your other comment will make it clearer that you're not approving or excusing what this hockey d-bag did.

I hope only the literal worst for this player.

No I totally get that, but it's just the tone switch turns off people to your point.

Damn, you switched tone fast.

EDIT: This is a great example of how somebody can be saying things that make sense, but then the person themself is unlikeable, so people turn on them.

But then you have own a car: Insurance, parking, gas, and regular maintenance costs, plus state fees like relicensing or renewing your registration.

And, that's if you're lucky enough to not get sideswiped or have shit thrown at your car... or get a ticket.

Cecil NEEDS to be an express stop.

Thank you for explaining your POV, and I think I understand what you're trying to say.

I agree that there is so much overlap that it does feel like effectively a race-war - I mean, you live here in Philly, look at the demographics of Kensington v. Society Hill - so I guess trying to draw the two (race versus class) out too much can be counter-productive, even if I personally would weigh one over the other.

I get what you're trying to go for, and if you want to abstract this to the point of "police culture is furthering white supremacy" then I think you are coincidentally right to a degree, but I would still argue that the main point or the main toxin to police culture (that these five black officers upheld) is to protect the rich.

White people tend to be the rich, but the focus is on wealth, not race.

IMO, Cops protect the rich, not just the white rich.

There's significant overlap, but the goal is to protect the wealthy, not just the white wealthy.

It’s okay u/Raecino, someday SEPTA won’t be as embarrassingly underfunded

It’s all relative. Better to deal with drunk students than lose a massive university in the neughborhood providing jobs and an entire extra police force.

I don’t know what the alternative would be other than just leaving the area that is now Temple as just another poor neighborhood in Northern Philly.

Supposedly, religions are charitible, so giving them tax-exempt status will free them to help the poor and whatnot.

In reality, they use their tax exempt status to build 16,000 person stadiums with TVs in the bathroom stalls and keep the poor out during hurricanes... for Jesus (Note, this is a story about him opening his doors after initially locking everyone out.)

Reddit: It is the best of places; it is the worst of places.

For anyone curious: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4o13fa/i_am_an_18_yo_blind_guy_who_was_shot_by_his/

1000%.

It is a war on the middle and poor class for most politicians. But, I will say that both sides are not equally bad, like I’m afraid many people who see politics through the rich v. everyone else lens tend to see it.

And which side is Pat Toomey, one of the people voting against paid sick leave?

Republican values, everybody.