ChickenOverlord
No bio...
User ID: 218
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
I'd just like to say, thank you for making an actual argument here. I can still tell that this is a topic you feel passionately about from the way you talk about it but you're expressing it without resorting to snark and sarcasm. And I actually share most of the same views as you, especially about the socially conservative society I would prefer being blown to bits. I'm not a mod here, but please, more of this.
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
Do you not see any difference between that argument and your strawman of it?
ChickenOverlord
1d ago
"Her arguments are bad but a score of zero? The teacher is treating her differently, more harshly."
No, people on the Motte said "Her arguments are bad, but according to the published grading rubric there's no way it deserved a zero"
ChickenOverlord
3d ago
The cult of action is not a new thing. It is, I suspect, a deep rooted psychological type. Speed, brutality, decisiveness - action for the sake of action - are conflated with effectiveness by certain kinds of people, while caution, planning, and introspection are viewed with contempt. Of course, it's hardly a universal perspective. You have plenty of people with pretty much the opposite view.
"I have told your names to the Entmoot and we have agreed: you are not orcs." - Treebeard
ChickenOverlord
3d ago
George HW Bush had a huge shocking victory over Iraq in 1991 with approval ratings among the best ever recorded, and then he lost his re-election in 1992.
Because of Ross Perot, mostly.
ChickenOverlord
4d ago
Legally, you committed several clear and well established crimes (arson, battery, theft) that caused clear and well established harm, both in the legal and moral sense (loss of the house, medical bills for the legs, loss of the money in the account).
Faceh never argued that there was never any moral harm, and I doubt he believes that there wasn't any. But what was done in the article doesn't clearly and neatly fit under any existing legal framework like revenge porn laws and defamation laws. I (and others) think it likely falls under defamation, but other legal precedents like Fallwell v. Hustler make that unclear so we'd likely need some court cases or new statutes to establish a clear precedent.
So instead of being snarky and sarcastic to faceh, you could make an argument like "I think this behavior falls under [existing legal framework] because X" or "I don't think it fits under existing legal frameworks but legislatures could make it illegal without running afoul of [the first amendment/existing precedent/whatever] because X." It really isn't hard, you're just choosing to react with snark and sarcasm instead of an actual argument.
ChickenOverlord
4d ago
If this does actually end up being a ground war then how long it takes us to capture Caracas will be a strong indicator of how much pur military has (or hasn't) been weakened over the last few decades. Took us 3 weeks to capture Baghdad and month to take Kabul, if we don't see a comparable timetable here then it means our military competence really has declined. I do consider South American militaries to be slightly more competent than Middle Eastern/South Asian ones, so if it takes more than 2 months I'll consider that our military competence probably really has declined. If we do it in 2 months or less I'll need to readjust my priors and mot think so poorly of our military's competence (the opposite of how I adjusted my priors about Russia after their failed push on Kiev).
ChickenOverlord
5d ago
I imagine that unless it was an obvious parody or fake, or that the boys were explicitly telling their friends that they were AI generated and not real etc., most courts would presume that the images were being presented as real.
ChickenOverlord
5d ago
What is the legal harm here, is the question that @faceh asked. Mind you I disagree with faceh, I think the harm here is pretty obvious even from a legal point of view since defamation per se usually covers allegations of sexual misconduct in as well (but as I said elsewhere I'm not a legal expert here and could be completely wrong). Please try to respond to the argument faceh is actually making instead of devolving into mocking and sarcasm.
Reputational harm is covered under libel/slander/defamation laws, but does require other people to actually believe the falsehoods that someone published.
That's technically not a requirement for defamation per se, but I don't know enough about defamation law to say whether or not this counts as per se defamation. I do believe that legislatures could define it as defamation per se by statute if they wanted to though.
The article says they charged two of the boys that were sharing the images, it's not clear to me at all that either of those two boys were the one who had originally created the images.
Edit: the article also seems to be saying that the two boys who were actually charged went to a different school than the girl entirely, but it really didn't make any of that clear.
She said the boy whom she and her friends suspected of creating the images wasn’t sent to that alternative school with her. The 13-year-old girl’s attorneys allege he avoided school discipline altogether.
Well duh? The article itself says they didn't have any hard evidence, is she expecting the school to take action against this boy because it's who she and her friends "suspect" created the images without any hard evidence?
It's disgusting and awful behavior by whoever made them, but unless you've got some real evidence (and I'd even take one of the friends of the accused boy saying that the boy did it as stronger evidence than what the article presents) then I don't see what you could expect the school to do here. And even though it's nasty and disgusting behavior, starting a physical fight over it is going to get the person fighting in trouble until schools get rid of their retarded zero tolerance policies. I spent plenty of time in detention for fighting back, it's retarded policy but at least schools still seem to be consistent in their retardation.
No, their purpose is to make money for the operators of the sites.
More options
Context Copy link