overview for edge

What happened at the nation’s first nitrogen gas execution: An AP eyewitness account (CW extreme graphic description of a man choking to death) in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

spoiler

I guess a potential "solution" (other than not executing people in the first place) could be to put the tube directly in their mouth in some way that they can't remove it. It would probably be pretty uncomfortable, but not necessarily painful. But I guess it might appear a little brutal.

And they might fight against having it put in their mouth, but that seems like a problem for literally any execution method.

Edit: or just anesthetize them first. Is there a way to anesthetize that can't be resisted with painful results?

What happened at the nation’s first nitrogen gas execution: An AP eyewitness account (CW extreme graphic description of a man choking to death) in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (14 children)

(CW: Discussion of self harm and the description of the execution)

Something seems wrong here. What nitrogen does is replace the oxygen and CO2 in your lungs. Our self preservation instinct doesn't actually respond to a lack of oxygen, but a build-up of CO2. Because of that, nothing is felt when it's all replaced by an inert gas (which, being inert, doesn't do anything to your body directly). It's actually a popularly recommended method among euthanasia advocates and as far as I can tell is the quickest, most painless, most peaceful way to (CW) commit suicide. If I eventually do it, it's probably going to be with that method, but with Helium since it's much easier to get.

With all that said, nitrogen shouldn't cause the reactions described, so I have no idea how they happened. My best guess is that it was his last (purposeful, not instinctive) attempt at saving himself. Which seems like it would be present in every method where they're conscious at the start. But that doesn't fully match with the "spasms and seizure-like movements".

Regardless, while it's probably the best method for someone who wants to die, clearly it doesn't seem great for executions. Of course executions aren't great in the first place, but one where the person is at least quickly anesthetized might be the least inhumane.

Edit: maybe he wasn't thrashing purposefully, but rather tried to hold his breath (or both), which meant the nitrogen didn't quickly replace the CO2, so he experienced the typical form of asphyxiation before the nitrogen could do anything. That would explain the deep gasping breaths at the end, he couldn't hold it any longer. That also explains why he was alive and moving for at least two minutes. Inert gas asphyxiation is supposed to be quicker than that afaik.

Second Thought – Why Are So Many People Quitting YouTube? in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Ehh, I kinda doubt it. Maybe a couple. MatPat feels possible for some reason.

But JT goes into various material reasons they're leaving (although actually not leaving leaving) that I think make more sense.

Bulletins and News Discussion from January 22nd to January 28th, 2024 - Iowa Caucus, Bigger AUKUS? - COTW: New Zealand/Aotearoa in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 38 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I've actually used a hypothetical Texas as an analogy for the Donbass. Although the hypothetical Texas is almost nothing like the current Texas.

Imagine Texas was a majority Mexican-American.

Imagine if the president was a Mexican-American from Texas. Texas voted for him by 80%.

Imagine that president got couped because he tried to stay neutral between Mexico and Canada, who are bitter rivals.

Imagine the new government believes everything Mexican is bad. They pass laws requiring English in official settings, including schools, where Texas had previously been using Spanish. Also requiring a majority of creative works made in any part of America to be English. They consider Mexico evil and all Mexicans bad.

All of this worries the majority Mexican-American population of Texas. They decide it's no longer safe to be part of America. They try to secede and make their own country (maybe with a little covert help from Mexico) and America responds by bombing them, including civilian areas, starting an almost decade long war in the state.

Then after 8 years Mexico finally intervenes by invading America, annexing Texas according the will of the people.

Bulletins and News Discussion from January 22nd to January 28th, 2024 - Iowa Caucus, Bigger AUKUS? - COTW: New Zealand/Aotearoa in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 71 points 9 months ago (2 children)

lmao an Irish MEP called Ursula von der Leyen "Frau Genocide".

So how big is this thing at the border? in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

We should all start using the clearly superior I'ven't.

My favorite is contracting "you all are not" to "y'all'ren't" (rhymes with tolerant). There's also "y'all'dn't've", "you all (would|could|should) not have". No one intends to say those, but I think a US Southerner talking at a natural or fast pace might end up saying them.

So how big is this thing at the border? in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago

Nothing ever happens.

I really want to see at least one shootout between state and federal agents, but it's probably not going to happen.

Isreel having a normal one in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago (2 children)

smh Israel did absolutely nothing to stop the Holocaust while it was happening.

News in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The bullet isn't moving, it's a fixed point in space.

WIkipedia Talk: "South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)" vs "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

lmao some people in the replies are arguing that "genocide" should be removed from the title entirely so it's just called "South Africa v. Israel". The justification being that there's no other "South Africa v. Israel" court case, so "genocide" is an unnecessary disambiguation. Obviously that's bullshit and not even the real reason they want the word removed.

WIkipedia Talk: "South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)" vs "South Africa's genocide case against Israel" in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Reminder that the main page is named "Palestinian genocide accusation", while China's supposed actions that indisputably have caused 0 deaths are just called "Uyghur genocide". The argument for the latter is that it's the "common name", i.e. the name Western media blindly parroted.

News in c/[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

But it's relative to the bullet. The child is moving towards it, so forwards.