Ecgtheow
10mo ago
What is the similar law? There is specifically a Virginia statute against burning objects on public property with the intent to intimidate. Show me the law against 'protesting with an intent to intimidate".
Ecgtheow
11mo ago
The Right is allowed to say cities are hell hole slums, that they hate NY city values, and that people making less than 25k are lawless leeches who should be disenfranchised because they're the party of the real working class fighting back against elites who disparage deplorables.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
Did he do fraud? He plead guilty to failure to pay, but not evasion. They're not alleging he set up some illegal shell companies to hide his income, just that he didn't pay what he owed.
The game theory about how to punish attempted fraud vs. late payments seem meaningfully different.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
It's nice that he just kept the war plans in his highly secure hotel bathroom and showed them to memoir writers rather than faxing them to our enemies but that's still obviously illegal.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
George W. Bush went to Yale and he was famously seen as an idiot by the left in the 2000's merely because he had a few malapropisms and committed the largest foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. If your family is loaded and you're not an eloquent speaker people will assume that your degree wasn't really earned. The right is similarly dismissive of Jill Biden's PhD because she got it after Joe became a senator.
Ecgtheow
11mo ago
Is Trump only getting roughly 440 miles of border wall constructed a story of deep state subversion or the constitutional order functioning properly and the president being unable to build large infrastructure projects without congressional support. Trump only got a small congressional authorization for the Wall, roughly 1.5 billion. He tried to fund the rest with money authorized for military construction and drug interdiction and got held up in court with legal battles. Biden won and undid the reallocation of DoD funds to the border wall.
That's what typically happens when the president tries to govern by executive order, he's hampered by lawsuits and undone by the next president.
Ecgtheow
11mo ago
If you choked a non-homeless person to death after they verbally insulted you should you face no penalty? The article says he yelled but hadn't physically assaulted anyone yet. Should the law be that if someone makes a verbal threat someone else is allowed to murder them in response?
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
I don't think you're wrong that the media is more favorable to affirmative action than the public but this post is a low effort restatement of what I suspect is a widely held opinion here and so doesn't add much value If you found a non-opinion article from a mainstream news source covering the opinion and demonstrated how the subconscious bias influenced their writing that would be a lot more interesting.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
I'm not sure going from being the Mayor to the third largest city or a District Attorney to teaching at a college is failing up. In terms of salary it might be, since Lightfoot only made 216k as mayor of Chicago and the average Harvard professor makes 190k she could easily see a raise. I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect one term politicians to sink into ignominy. If you lose in a 70-30 landslide there's still going to be someone with a cushy job to hand out in that thirty percent. And if you look at what Happens to right wing Failures like Sam Brownback or Paul Ryan they usually end up at some Christian College or on the Board of a Major Company.
I'd say the incentive problem is on the other side. Being a high ranking politician is low paid compared to the other options available to those with the skills and connections to get elected, and attracts considerably more unpleasant scrutiny and stress. Teaching undergrads is probably about as remunerative and much more fun than being a prominent politician. That means elected positions attracts narcissists and ideologues and if you want to fix that you have to make retaining the position lucrative and pleasant, so that people do whatever they can to keep winning rather than doing one term, cashing out and kicking back..
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
Yes, the relationship between social status and a particular metric of status can change over time, literacy is a better indicator of social status in 1600 than in 1990. But I don't think we can assume everytime a particular metric of status becomes less heritable it is because it reflects status less, though I'm also not sure how you'd test whether a metric is genuinely measuring status.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
Yeah I was a little taken aback by the lack of attention paid to wealth in this. He says wealth has a stronger implied generation to generation persistence then his other metrics of social status but he doesn't show whether or not wealth correlations changes as a function of genetic distance like he does for the other metrics.
He does show that wealth is asymmetrically hereditary in that the paternal grandfather predicts wealth but the maternal grandmother does not. If social status is produced by wealth, and wealth is inherited by sons then wouldn't we expect other status measures to be less correlated with the female line than the male line?
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
The Hold Steady has a song about this called Guys go for looks, girls go for status.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
That would be news to Trump who is on tape on page 15 of the Indictment complaining that the plan to invade an unnamed country (probably Iran) he just 'found' is still classified so he can't use it to refute Mark Miley's claims that Trump wanted to Invade.
They also have him on tape showing a writer and book publisher a 'plan of attack' on 'Country A' and then bemoaning the fact that he didn't declassify it while he was president.
Ecgtheow
11mo ago
Yeah I don't think this interview added much evidence other than that other people on the car were scared. The fact that she brought up him throwing his jacket and not any other instance of trash throwing may suggest he wasn't throwing anything particularly injurious.
Ecgtheow
8mo ago
Then why do men struggle to find women who want to be homemakers?
My answer is people are status seeking and prefer to marry within their class. Middle and upper class women have unprecedented career opportunities in a society where status comes from career rather than family. The absolute standard of living for home makers has never been higher but the opportunity cost of motherhood is also at an all time high. Lower class women don't face the same opportunity costs but upper and middle class men don't want to marry lower class women and deindustrialization destroyed the ability of lower class men to support a family.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
Could you specify where in the FBI reports they discuss this. Your link goes to a list of forty multi-page PDF's.
I think this is the part of Comey's statement where he discusses the issue
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.
He says 'concern matters' rather than 'contain materials' which seems to imply a discussion of something classified Special Access rather than the transmission of the special access materials themselves.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
But this is fairly easily defeated by pointing out that in 1933 no-one had recently tried to genocide the Jews, but this time they actually were. The fact that systematic extermination hadn't been seen before was insufficient defence against it happening in 1933, and so by analogy it's no defence against it happening to whites in 2023.
I'm not a big fan of the 'holocaust means Israel gets to do settler colonialism' argument but your argument is either trivial or really bad. If your point is "an unprecedented thing happened once, therefore the probability of it happening again is not 0", then sure, but that doesn't tell us anything about what the actualy probability is. If your point is the probability of Jews getting genocided in 1930's Germany is similar to the probability of whites being genocided in 2020's America that's ridiculous. Just the difference in population share should be enough to indicate the situation is wildly different before we even get into the waves of pogroms that swept Eastern Europe during the Russian Revolution and the relative recency of Jewish legal equality in Germany.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
The top public donors to the Pacific Legal fund which championed the case are the Dunn Family Foundation for The Advancement of Right Thinking and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The Dunn's run a capital management firm and Sarah Scaife is the niece of Andrew Mellon. I don't think they're personally billionaires but they probably have net worths in the hundred millions and manage family foundations.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
Southern State Legislatures were the ones making Jim Crow laws, why didn't they increase the sentences?
Ecgtheow
11mo ago
Yes, but as well know from British period dramas like Bridgerton the black share of the population was much higher back then and that it explains crime rates /s
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
You're making hay over a semantic difference but my reading is that FiveHourMarathon is predicting your second paragraph is true. The point is that they didn't split up black liberals and black conservatives on the ingroup/outgroup preference test. We don't know if black conservatives might exhibit anti-black sentiment against those still trapped on the "Democrat plantations" and a pro-white outgroup bias because the authors didn't test for that.
Ecgtheow
10mo ago
I'm sure it's a 10,000ft overview rather than a plan with all the details and specifics, but that'd still probably be of interest to foreign intelligence. I'm also not sure how seriously to take Trump's claim that he just 'found' this document and it wasn't something he intentionally took from the White House. The fact that there was some sensitive intelligence in them suggests he didn't just mix them in with his mementos, but I also highly doubt he had some plan to sell this stuff to foreign countries. Why he took on serious legal jeopardy to hold on to these things seems pretty inexplicable other than the belief that he is personally immune to document retention laws or something.
We have had categories of speech that are not protected by the first amendment for a long time, obscenity, threats, incitement to lawless action. It's easy to imagine how these narrow restrictions might be broadened and abused, yet we've had them for a long time without degenerating into a censorious dictatorship. The fact that you can imagine a hypothetical slippery slope isn't significant, the question is if we're actually sliding down it. I'm asking you for evidence that we are.
More options
Context Copy link