ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
Does anyone know how to get confirmation / denial from the police or prosecutors as a random nobody from another country? We might be getting a update on the Braveheart incident.
Highly sophisticated Twitter anons are now claiming that Fatos Ali Dumana has been charged with assaulting a minor:
- Police Scotland originally claimed that CCTV footage went missing but it proved that only Lola Moir had committed a crime by being in possession of dangerous weapons
- It is now claimed that this is a lie and there is proof that Police Scotland attempted to cover up the crime of Fatos and his sister assaulting the little girls
- Attached is the screenshot of the hospital record proving that Ruby Moir sustained a serious head injury (concussion) as a result of the assault by Fatos Ali Dumana and his sister
Now, this isn't new information per se, as @FistfullOfCrows pointed out "it has been alleged". I can't find the link to where I first saw the allegation, but I've seen it, and remained skeptical thinking "shouldn't there be a medical report"? Lo, and behold, there seems to be one attached to the above tweet.
Ok, it's still trivial to fake something like this, it would be nice to get some sort of confirmation from a disinterested source.... oh, look (Turn off javascript to read. I tried archiving it, but they seem to have countermeasures) a local newspaper is saying that """Two further people""", """a man and a woman""", have been charged as a result of the incident. No names are named (funny how you can dox a little girl, but somehow adults are a step to far), so who knows, maybe it's the girl's parents that are being charged, but with all the other irregularities around the incident, and the newspaper's cageyness around the names of the suspects I wouldn't bet on it.
So... does anyone know how to go about confirming / denying this? @self_made_human, you're in Scotland, would you be willing to make some phone calls?
EDIT:
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Ken White says that the Tweet is "within shouting distance of prosecutable in the US". Maybe
Yes, please tell me how all the talk of "punching nazis" was fine, but a joke about kicking trans women in the balls is dangerously close to prosecutable.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
There's so many of these news nowadays that I would have seen as prime CWR material a few years ago, things that half of our subreddit swore up and down would never happen, happening, but honestly it hardly raises an eyebrow at this point. What can even be said about this?
One encouraging thing is that this seems to have backfired badly. The tide has turned on the trans issue, arresting people for tweets is retarded, and they picked a target with a lot of media connections, so it's literal frontpage news in British media. I honestly want to send a thank you note to the genious in the Police that gave the order.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
That is not an accurate description of how the Republicans got their supreme court majority
I know there's this mythical idea about how some dude got kept away from a spot that should have went to him, but the idea this was breaking some norm is absurd. It was a pretty typical play for any liberal democracy.
But whatever-- there's no point in fighting about who started it. Ultimately, both parties have proven that they don't care about norms, except as a way to complain about things that get in their way
In this case I'm saying the opposite - both sides have kept to the norm. Let's see if the court gets packed, or something, but so far so good.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Debatable, and I asked the question spefifically because he was asking us to take Blue Tribe greviances without litigating the details.
They don't want to help, because given the chance, they didn't. It's not about size, because New York cried uncle too, and they got sent a tiny portion if what the southern states have to deal with. Being upset about promises would make sense, but being upset at getting sent the immigrants does not, if they actually believe what they say this they do.
And what were the fake promises anyway?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
That's great, but I still want to know why the reaction to Abbot's and Lukashenko's shenanigans wasn't an amused confusion. If immigration is really so great, shouldn't the recipient jurisdictions be saying something like "thanks, you're only making us stronger"?
in fact for many brands it is a straightforwardly correct commercial decision.
Prove it, please.
People who watch right-populist Youtube videos don't buy packaged laundry detergent - their mothers buy it for them.
Ad targeting algorithms already try to find the most likely buyer, you wouldn't need boycotts if this was what it's about.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Yeah... something. I'd like to know what the idea's proponents have in mind.
To be clear, as a catholic, I disagree pretty heavily with many liberals and virtually every leftist about what "creed" the nation should be based on, and how the government should contribute to its enforcement.
This touches on the first question I was planning to ask - how should it contribute to it's enforcement? I would imagine that with a name like "creedal citizenship" it would at a minimum mean disenfranchisement of anyone who doesn't follow the creed. If that's how it is to work, I agree that a coherent nation can be formed this way, but you go on to say that over-exclusion is worse than over-inclusion. This makes it sound rather wishy-washy, and I don't know that a creedal nation can stay coherent, if you can participate without following the creed it's based on.
But I think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed.
I think I disagree. If you have a nation that's 98% Catholic, facing the importation of a sizeable population of Muslims, with some Middle-Eastern Christians sprinkled in, that seems like a clear example of excluding people who share your creed being to your benefit.
By the very virtue of me believing the things I believe, I should rationally think they're the best beliefs, and that they're guaranteed to eventually win. The benefits of pulling in allies therefore massively outweighs the risk of allowing in enemies.
If you're this optimistic about your ideas winning, I suppose that makes sense, but I think it's far from guaranteed. It's particularly strange to hear it from a Catholic.
Even if you're right, it's not clear it's worth the costs. For example, Communism may be destined to lose to capitalism (or whatever economic system you prefer), that doesn't mean there's any benefit in giving political power to communists.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Why should it?
Because people couldn't see into the future? I'm pretty sure every single example you brought up followed the Adpocalypse, not preceded it.
I would agree with you if it was just about the money, people crying over demonetization always came off as rather pathetic to me, but that was a non-issue since Youtube implemented superchats. The real issue was that Youtube used the whole thing to go on a banning, shadow-banning, and algorithimc fuckery spree.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Were you born after 2008? because people were definitely Big Mad.
Ok, but can you show yourself being Big Mad about it? That's what he's saying would be required for you to be in the clear.
Plus, it's not like Trump's supreme court let anything like "norms" or "precedent" prevent them from overturning Roe vs. Wade.
How is Roe vs. Wade itself not a norm violation, and therefore it's repeal not a restoration of norms?
Actually, I'll go further. It seems the norm regarding Roe vs. Wade was that the Supreme Court can rule whatever the hell they want, no matter how absurd, and you have to respect the ruling, and if you don't like it, you have to win enough elections to appoint judges that will rule in your favor. This norm was followed by the Republicans followed it quite faithfully, even though they absolutely hated that court decision.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Are you such a mistake theorist that you think literally every leftist/liberal is simply ignorant of the downsides?
Quite the opposite, I'm a conflict theorist who believes the only reason the left is "pro" immigration is that it's bad for their outgroup. This also explains the sudden change in attitude when they're at the receiving end of it, in situations like Martha's Vineyard, or Lukashenko shipping Middle-Easterners into the EU.
Consider any ideological cause leftists and liberals are interested in: creedal citizenship
This is off topic but: I am very interested in discussing this issue. I've seen the idea floated, I can grok it, but evey conversation where it's brought up seems to gloss over key details, that I'd really like to hear more about. If you could go into your views on the subject and answer some questions, I'd be much obliged.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Republicans view immigration as a capital-t Threat. Look at any thread on this site and you will see that there are plenty of near-single-issue anti-immigration voters.
Doesn't everyone? You, on the other hand should look at the reactions to the Martha's Vineyard, be it in threads here, or on other place forms. No one seems to actually be pro-immigration.
It's fake in the sense that "it could well be that advertisers don't care now but they did back then" is false. They caree back then exactly as much as they do now, which is not at all. What they were doing was attacking political opposition.
In that case why so much sympathy for people who don't like to see Trump getting away wity it, and so little for people who don't like to see the Dems getting away with it? It's even weirder when you claim to be an outsider to both groups.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Everything that might be considered an overreach is justified by his supporters because at one point, a Democrat did something similar.
I want those people to understand that what they’re calling “TDS” isn’t realpolitik or delusion. It is a deep-seated frustration at someone getting away with it. The same frustration that you feel when the government refuses to deal with rioters, or senatorial insider trading, or catch-and-release for illegal immigrants, multiplied over ten years and concentrated into one man.
It's fine if you don't like The Drumpf, I just don't get how you get chastize people for pointing out that you already got away with it, while also chastizing them about how he's getting away with it, and that’s not a good thing.
They didn't. It was all fake, and an attempt to censor political opposition for the sake of censoring political opposition. There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence they were actually worried about losing profits.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Was it religion when people wanted to fly despite common knowledge at the time being that people can't fly?
Birds existed, people knew stuff can fly.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Y... yes?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Operation Chokepoint was explicitly political in the sense that it was an Obama administration policy designed to achieve the policy goals of the Democratic party.
Isn't part of the point being made that when Operation Chokepoint was taking place, it's results were being explained away as "the identification of certain industries, including smut, as high-risk and the expectation that banks who choose to bank them have appropriate procedures in place rather than just handing out small business accounts on standard terms, is something that has been around for a very long time regardless of the party in power"?
Then why did all your examples involve incidents that happened after it, and not before it?
More options
Context Copy link