Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
No bio...
User ID: 551
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3hr ago
Is it now illegal for her to do so? Yes.
No. Again, the statute explicitly refers to concealing identity. Perhaps you think it's a bad idea to ban people from concealing their identity, but that's pretty obviously not what grandma is doing and equally obvious that there aren't going to be LEOs that are so confused about the matter that they start arresting grannies.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
4hr ago
Thanks for the corrective, I sincerely appreciate the effort and want to improve my mental model of what people are thinking. The biggest change I would make in my framing is updating the fourth item to be significantly more charitable.
As a bit of pushback though, if the explanations you're offering are the positions held, I don't see what the reason would be for making the argument about the health provisions. If it's an important right for people to be able to conceal their identities, why not focus on that instead of whether there should be narrow exemptions? If the problem is vagueness, that should be addressed directly.
For the record, I am not particularly trusting of police, either individually or institutionally. My position on this doesn't really on police being the rigorously honest thin blue line, it only goes as far as noticing that I can't think of any parallels for something like claimed negative impacts of repealing this exemption. Again, if the concern is that people should be able to conceal their identities and not allowing them to do so is an abuse of state power, I can easily get into the mindspace of sharing concerns and trying to figure out what to do. I just flatly don't buy that the change to statute is criminalizing anything that actually has anything at all to do with health.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
19hr ago
I'm not sure how to bridge our different reading of the statute, but I don't agree with that summary at all. The text there [emphasis mine]:
§ 14‑12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways. No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
This seems really clear to me that intent aside, the effect needs to be concealing the identity of the wearer. For example, the proverbial immunocompromised patient going to a hospital - we know they're not concealing their identity because their actions require the people they're interacting with to know who they are! It's true that determining whether someone's "face is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer" requires some degree of interpretation on the part of police and prosecutors, but I think that's just an unavoidable part of criminal law. The change here isn't actually a change to the need for contextual interpretation, it's just removing health as a fully general exception.
If someone wanted to take the principled stance that you should just be allowed to conceal your identity, I think they could probably make a pretty reasonable case for that, but it would be a pretty different argument than what we see the legislators and newspapers running with.
I would agree that in my example that funny hats at the mall are now banned. What I wouldn't say is that funny hats were generally banned. You can wear your funny hat to a lot of places! You just can't do it at the mall anymore. In the mask case, people that have some actual medical reason and aren't concealing their identity shouldn't really bump into much of a problem. The one area of overlap that I could see this actually being a thing is someone that insists it's medical getting into a conflict with a business-owner that just hates masks and wants them to take their stupid mask off. In the hat analogy, I would think it was weird if someone was super pissed about the funny hat change when what they really don't like is the loitering rule at the mall.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
19hr ago
The problem with this formulation is that Y isn't banned unless done as part of X. In this case, what's illegal is not the wearing of a mask, it's wearing a mask to conceal one's identity. People may do Y, but they can't do Y in furtherance of X. To concretize other possible examples:
-
There is a law against loitering in front of the mall, unless you're wearing a funny hat. The exemption for funny hats is set to be removed. Are funny hats banned?
-
You may not drink alcoholic beverages at the park, with the exception of beer. The beer exception is removed. Is beer banned?
-
Carrying a firearm to intimidate others is illegal, but firearms in holsters are exempted. The exemption is removed. Are firearms or holsters banned?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
20hr ago
Sure, selective enforcement is a concerning aspect of any potential criminal law, but this is also a fully general complaint. I don't want to protect right-wing rioters or left-wing rioters as a matter of principle though - it's the rioting I object to, not the political positioning of the rioters.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
21hr ago
I beat you to it by six minutes!
But yeah, to me, this is about as blatant of an example of the media often lying as you're going to find. Any attempt to rescue this from being an example of the media often lying is going to rely on the most pedantic possible reading of the text of articles while completely ignoring the titles.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
21hr ago
If we step out of the realm of absolutes and extremes, I think we can say that a preference for some degree of chastity in a partner is real and good, or at least a perfectly legitimate preference. My personal belief is that women who have had a large number of sexual partners tend to be emotionally damaged and are probably not going to be good long-term relationship choices. Preferring someone that has a more normal history seems just fine to me.
On the flip side, like you said, it's worth noting that just getting someone that has a fairly normal history isn't actually sufficient to tamp down the gnawing insecurity about the past. There really is a part of the male ego that many of us have to vary degrees that just wants to be the fucking best, period, completely unthreatened by those losers in the past. But then if they were losers, that devalues her! This whole mental spiral is just wildly unhelpful, so addressing it internally is worthwhile. Addressing it also doesn't mean completely throwing away the healthy alarm bell though - if you notice that someone really did hook up with dozens of guys, yeah, there's probably a problem there and it's good to not just smash that feeling.
Like so many emotions, the emotion has value, but needs to be balanced. Righteous anger is an appropriate response to some situations and a poor response to others. The correct approach to righteous anger isn't to try to eliminate it, it's to understand its origins and make sure that it's only triggering when it's actually appropriate. Likewise for the old green-eyed jealousy - you should feel like guarding your partner, but you can't take it to the extreme of getting all weepy because you're not the first partner a 25-year-old woman has had.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
21hr ago
Should I fix myself? No, it is the women who are wrong.
Could be true, but probably not very useful advice.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
21hr ago
My favorite story of the day is an intersection of old Covid drama, current protest drama, and a healthy dose of TheMediaRarelyLiestm. Per the news headlines, NC Senate votes to ban people from wearing masks in public for health reasons:
The North Carolina Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to ban anyone from wearing masks in public for health reasons, following an emotional debate about the wisdom of the proposal.
Republican supporters of the ban said it would help police crack down on protesters who wear masks — which some lawmakers called a growing concern, saying demonstrators are abusing Covid-19 pandemic-era norms to wear masks that hide their identities.
Now, I will certainly admit to having a great deal of contempt for people that are still wearing masks and having immediately experienced some schadenfreude, but as someone that just doesn't really trust the media to rarely lie, I thought I had better go check what the bill actually says. As it turns out, what the bill does is strikethrough a temporary exemption that had been added as a Covid-era protection:
SECTION 1.(a) G.S. 14-12.11 reads as rewritten: 19 "§ 14-12.11. Exemptions from provisions of Article. 20 (a) Any of the following are exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-12.7, 14-12.8, 21 14-12.9, 14-12.10 and 14-12.14: 22 (1) Any person or persons wearing traditional holiday costumes in season. 23
(2) Any person or persons engaged in trades and employment where a mask is 24 worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because 25 of the nature of the occupation, trade or profession. 26
(3) Any person or persons using masks in theatrical productions including use in 27 Mardi Gras celebrations and masquerade balls. 28
(4) Persons wearing gas masks prescribed in civil defense drills and exercises or 29 emergencies. 30
(5) Any person or persons, as members or members elect of a society, order or 31 organization, engaged in any parade, ritual, initiation, ceremony, celebration 32 or requirement of such society, order or organization, and wearing or using 33 any manner of costume, paraphernalia, disguise, facial makeup, hood, 34 General Assembly Of North Carolina Session 2023 Page 2 House Bill 237-Fourth Edition implement or device, whether the identity of such person or persons is 1 concealed or not, on any public or private street, road, way or property, or in 2 any public or private building, provided permission shall have been first 3 obtained therefor by a representative of such society, order or organization 4 from the governing body of the municipality in which the same takes place, 5 or, if not in a municipality, from the board of county commissioners of the 6 county in which the same takes place. 7
(6) Any person wearing a mask for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or 8 safety of the wearer or others.
The strikethrough in the quote is the only exemption eliminated by the change. The actual text of the criminal statute 14-12.7 is:
§ 14‑12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways. No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
The other sections say essentially the same thing, but for a few other contexts. The core of these is that it's illegal to use a mask to conceal the identity of a wearer in public places. The Covid-era text was being used as a way for people to conceal their identities and use the health carveout as a shield against the plain meaning of the law by playing the Taylor Lorenz card. In contrast, no, little old ladies going to medical appointments scared out of their minds and wearing N-95s aren't going to be stopped by police, because they're obviously not attempting to conceal their identity at health clinic.
One might be inclined to explore whether this is one of those rare media lies or whether they didn't quite technically lie, but I don't personally find that a terribly interesting game to play. Instead, I think the interesting thing to consider is why Democrats are so strongly opposed to this. I can see a few options, none of which are mutually exclusive. In roughly ascending order of badness:
-
They simply don't understand the law despite the plain text reading that indicates that the exemptions are only relevant in the case one that has actually violated the criminal statute in the first place. In being so confused, they think eliminating the exemptions really is banning people from wearing masks.
-
Distrust for Republicans runs so deep that despite the text being clear and obvious, they think that villainous right-leaning prosecutors will start filing charges against people that have done nothing other than go to their chemotherapy appointment with a mask on.
-
They don't really think there's anything wrong with the reversion, but they see it as a good opportunity to call Republicans fascist grandma-killers.
-
Support for protestors concealing their identity while behaving badly actually does run strong with some on the left and they see keeping the easy loophole of everyone just being able to claim it's for their health as a very good and important thing to do.
To me, these all make my opponents sound very bad! I don't think they're actually uncharitable though and suspect that some would just outright articulate the second and fourth options above as their rationale. For my part, I'll pre-register my prediction that the statute will only be used against people that are actually committing crimes, not against random mask enthusiasts that are otherwise doing nothing wrong. If I turn out to be wrong, it's time for some introspection.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
I can see the point. Thanks for elaborating, and as always, thanks for moderating.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
I have no suggestions, but just want to wish you good luck.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
So you're saying you do employ a cook!
As a guy that works from home, I'm the de facto cook for the house. It really is a nice perk for everyone to be able to do this kind of division of labor.
Seth Roberts, inventor of the diet, experienced this weight loss when traveling and drinking unfamiliar sugary beverages, not exactly a health food.
I want everyone that posts about how they lost weight on vacation to post their step counter with averages outside of vacation and on vacation. My own experience is that I just walk a lot more on vacation, like an average of 10,000 steps more in a typical day, with peaks much higher than that. Unsurprisingly, this burns a bunch of calories. So is it magical European sodas, or did he just walk more?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
I'm generally on board with all of the above and covered a little more on my personal preferences here. Nonetheless, on this specific topic, I just really doubt that there are many people that have missed the occurrence of campus protests in the context of Israel-Gaza. Maybe I am living in a bubble on this one though, I can accept that I might just be wrong. It's definitely true that the encampments have high salience for me locally because I literally ran by one of these dopey things a bunch of times (well, until it came down last week). I just kind of doubt that there are many people that haven't heard about this and don't think it's necessary that the standard for a subtopic be that someone needs to write a couple paragraph intro.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
Someone could write something interesting about Columbia, but I don't think it would add any value to just restate the same thing that all of us have probably read or heard a half dozen times. If they don't have anything original to say, but do want to hear what others think, I am against compelling top-level posters to try to do a creative writing exercise rewording a point they already heard.
I think if you check my post history, you'll see plenty of long-form posts and that all of my top-level posts are pretty long. I like putting in the effort because I think it's personally clarifying and occasionally even have things to say that are worth reading. I'm not real inclined to do a, "and what say you?" style of post if I don't think I have original thoughts. Nonetheless, I think that's too high of a standard to hold all top-level posts to.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1d ago
FWIW, this isn't why I don't talk about Ukraine. I don't talk about it because it seems like a morass of propaganda to the point where I haven't been willing to try to do the work to understand what's closer to the truth. Maybe I'm wrong and it's actually quite legible if I were to dig in, but right now, it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff for me.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2d ago
Context. What are you talking about. Helpful to have links or quotes, but not always necessary. "There have been a slew of campus protests about the Israel war lately. They were the worst at [this university] (link to news story)."
Come on man. There is no goddamned way that anyone posting here is unaware of the core of the story.
Opinion. "The protests seem pointless. Israel has not changed its policies at all."
Yeah, they did that - it's right there!
I don't think it's a good post, but it's a fine area of discussion, everyone is already familiar with the basics, and the bar to ride the ride shouldn't be that someone has to personally have a novel take. Adding a paragraph of blather about Columbia or quoting the New York Times would not improve this post.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2d ago
Yeah! It's not a masterpiece, but it's a big open world, the aesthetics are neat, and some of the quests are done really well. Some of the story is kind of incoherent, but it looks cool and the systems are fun.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
2d ago
giving puppy-dog eyes and saying this is just a paperwork crime and no one was hurt won't buy you a cup of coffee before you get absolutely reamed in all the least fun ways
Not to be melodramatic, but I am once again reminded of Solzhenitsyn:
If you are arrested, can anything else remain unshattered by this cataclysm?
But the darkened mind is incapable of embracing these dis placements in our universe, and both· the most sophisticated and the veriest simpleton among us, drawing on all life's experience, can gasp out only: "Me? What for?"
And this is a question which, though repeated millions and millions of times before, has yet to receive an answer.
Arrest is an instantaneous, shattering thrust, expulsion, somer sault from one state into another.
We have been happily borne-or perhaps have unhappily dragged our weary way-down the long and crooked streets of our lives, past all kinds of walls and fences made of rotting wood, rammed earth, brick, concrete, iron railings. We have never given a'thought to what lies behind them. We have never tried to pene trate them with our vision or our understanding. But there is where the Gulag country begins, right next to us, two yards away from us. In addition, we have failed to notice an enormous num ber of closely fitted, well-disguised doors and gates in these fences. All those gates were prepared for us, every last one! And all of a sudden the fateful gate swings quickly open, and four white male hands, unaccustomed to physical labor but none theless strong and tenacious, grab us by the leg, arm, collar, cap, ear, and drag us in like a sack, and the gate behind us, the gate to our past life, is slammed shut once and for all.
That's all there is to it! You are arrested!
And you'll find nothing better to respond with than a lamblike bleat: "Me? What for?"
That's what arrest is: it's a blinding flash and a blow which shifts the present instantly into the past and the impossible into omnipotent actuality. That's all. And neither for the first hour nor for the first day will you be able to grasp anything else.
Except that in your desperation the fake circus moon will blink at you: "It's a mistake! They'll set things right!"
When you're hauled in front of "Judge" Darkeh who articulates her spitting contempt for the American Constitution, the rational expectation would be that you're about to receive justice in a pretty similar fashion to what those victims of the Soviets received, but few of us ever learn that lesson, instead clinging to the hope that eventually there will be someone that sets things right.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3d ago
You can easily build a Cyberpunk character to those specs. There are other options, but if you're willing to restrain yourself via a little bit of RP, it's easy enough to wind up with a character whose core competency is almost entirely quiet assassination.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3d ago
The current SC is not exactly shy about overturning precedent
Big disagree. I know the current zeitgeist is that this is a super radical, extreme court that sweeps away precedent with the flick of the wrist, but the court I actually observe is very moderate, with a Chief Justice whose most salient characteristic is his desire to direct the court towards the narrowest rulings possible on any given case. When I read or listen to oral arguments, I certainly don't get the impression that any of the justices think that there's no reason to think about precedent.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3d ago
I think Darryl Cooper (MartyrMade podcast/Twitter) probably qualifies. If he's a generalized anti-Semite, it doesn't come across in the podcast. His personal politics are hard-right and I don't think he has any particular affinity for Muslims or ire against Jews.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
4d ago
3% interest rate is very good and I suspect we won't see that for a long time
One important addendum to this is considering that this is already leveraged money. In a counterfactual scenario where you didn't currently own a rental property, but could purchase one with a 3% interest rate, this would be an excellent purchase at the moment.
You're correct that dealing with tenants can suck, but a huge amount of the suck is brought on by softhearted landlords. One of the big things to consider here is whether you're willing to treat any potential tenant in a strictly transactional fashion. If not, this is a bad business for you to be in.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
4d ago
I confess to enjoying the Costco guys. Still cringe, but wholesome.
Say whatever one will about the very online right, the Longhouse is a useful lens on politics.
More options
Context Copy link