Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security. If I give you information about a real government program, which I know does not apply to you, but I present the information to you as if it does, for the purpose of inducing you to take some action, is that fraud? It sounds like it to me!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9mo ago
Project 2025 already believes they don't need a further ban. The Comstock Act already arguably bans mailing drugs used for abortion. It even calls it out indirectly on Page 459:
Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.
Trump wouldn't need to sign any further laws to effectively end abortion nation wide, in their view.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
11mo ago
The "weird" attack angle works so well precisely because it is something Republicans think of as an attack but that lots of people wouldn't. Lots of leftists, democrats, and others would, as you note, be happy to describe themselves as weird. Not Republicans though. They are the party of The Adults In The Room. The party of Serious People. The Normals. If Republicans had enough self reflection to acknowledge or joke about their own weirdness the attack would lose all of its power. Same thing for the couch meme about Vance.
I think the author needs to take his schizophrenia medication. (I deserved the warning).
Up-efforting my comment:
I don't really see a lot of the connections the author makes in the piece. I think the excerpts in the post here are some of the more cogent parts and even those are questionable. The piece seems committed to the idea that there is some shadowy they out there that are responsible for various culture shifts but it does little beyond vibing to actually make that case. What particular entities are responsible for Kelce's rise? For his dating Swift? How did they do that? What is the evidence that they did this? You will search this piece in vain for answers to these questions.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
It is hard for me to understand how posting about Pride could fall afoul of such a rule given that Pride, as both celebration and flag, pre-date 1988.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I admittedly know relatively little about Tate but it seems to me totally on-brand for him to be a sex-trafficking rapist. It'd be like if you told me Roosh V was a rapist. Like, no shit. It'd be more surprising if he wasn't. The guy who was banned from Twitter for saying it is partially a rape victims fault that they are raped and who said that 40% of the reason he moved to Romania is because police would be less likely to prosecute rape charges, is a rapist? What a shocker! Who could possibly have thought such a person would rape and traffic women! Here's an interview from 2019 where Tate gives his thoughts on the Romanian legal system:
The women understand they ain’t going to sit there and drink all your drinks and play with your d*ck, go to your house and suck your d*ck and then start having sex with you and say, you know what, “it’s rape.” It doesn’t even cross their minds. They’re very self-protective cause they know if a rich Romanian man did something wrong to a Romanian girl and she called the police, he’ll just give him $500 and it’ll go away. It’s as corrupt as f*ck. So there everyone’s far more personally responsible.
Definitely sounds like a guy very concerned with staying on the right side of the Romanian legal system!
Presumably their hustler university program and other businesses provide plenty of legal revenue; why engage in such unnecessary risk?
What I have heard from online rumors is that the women were trafficked as part of the Hustler University program. Basically "look at all these hot women who'll have sex with you if you follow our program!" Only the women are not there consensually. Maybe he thought he'd be able to give the police $500 to fuck off like he mentions in the interview and that turned out not to be the case.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think I was pretty clear in that post and I'll be clear now. Twitter has not violated the First Amendment in either its conduct in 2020/2021 nor by banning the @elonjet account. As @czr notes I am merely amused by the quick demonstration of Elon's own hypocrisy on the topic of free speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
What if I told you the brochures were only received after they had already boarded the flight?
Specifically, while on the plane, right before landing in Martha’s Vineyard, Defendants provided the individual Plaintiffs each with a shiny, red folder that included other official-looking materials, including: a brochure entitled “Massachusetts Refugee Benefits” and instructions for how to change an address with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency which oversees immigration, including USCIS Form AR-11, “Alien’s Change of Address Card.”
Here's what the order of events wasn't: DeSantis' agents gave the group of people physical documents about where they would be going and what services would be available when they got there and made sure this group of people understood what was in such documents.
Here's what did happen: DeSantis' agents made verbal promises to people about where they would be going (potentially giving different people different locations) and about what would be available when they got there. Then, after the people were on a plane and at their destination, gave them inaccurate information about where they were and what services would be available.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
The solution is simple. If the state wants women to give up their careers, their education, their financial independence so that they will have and raise children then the state needs to adequately compensate those women for what it is asking them to give up. No state on earth is prepared, or could afford, to do this, which is why functionally all efforts to increase fertility fail.
We might further ask: why can't states do this? The answer here is also simple. Women's work outside the home generates a lot of economic value. The issue at the heart of raising fertility by having women work less is that society will be poorer, which people are generally opposed to.
Why could this work historically? Partially because much more of women's labor was needed inside the home (and so unavailable for work outside the home) and partially because there were actual legal restrictions on the work women (especially married women) could do outside the home.
No, because that pairing actually reflects reality rather than distorting it.
I don't see how this is true. According to PEW (as of 2017) 11% of interracial relationships in the US were white/black compared to 15% that are white/asian. Black men are twice as likely to have a white spouse as black women, while about 50% more asian women have a white spouse compared to asian men. That's 7% of all interracial marriages that are black man/white woman compared to 9% of interracial marriages that are white man/asian woman. Hardly a substantial difference.
Obviously not.
Why not? Surely it would be propaganda against race-mixing then.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Where did I claim that peer harassment could not be actionable? "Harassment" can, and often does, involve more than speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Which platforms did not comply with the government's requests?
Most of them did not comply with the government's requests at least some of the time
What is more, the record shows that platforms routinely declined to remove content flagged by federal officials, yet neither respondents nor the Fifth Circuit suggested that any federal official imposed any sanction in retaliation for platforms’ refusal to act as the government requested. See, e.g., C.A. ROA 23,234-23,235, 23,240-23,243, 23,245-23,256 (emails declining to remove flagged content). Indeed, the district court cited testimony that the platforms rejected half of the FBI’s suggestions. Id. at 26,561; see App., infra, 107a, 191a. And Twitter entirely ceased enforcement of its COVID-19 misinformation policy in November 2022, yet suffered no retaliation. C.A. ROA 22,536.
What exactly do you think government is for?
The government does lots of things that are not directly coercive. I am sure you can come up with some examples.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
This argument does not seem intuitive to me because I do not feel any special love for my family qua family, let alone people who share my ethnicity. Definitely I do not think I have any special moral obligations towards my family or members of my ethnicity that I do not have for others.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I mean, he's the one who publically committed to not banning that account. Nobody made him do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
At the time I was shocked at how this wasn't apparently a big story. It's trivial to scroll through the email exchanges and find examples of government agents reporting content to tech companies, who would then take the content down. There are obvious First Amendment issues that at the very least need to be publicly discussed, but most likely need to be prosecuted.
Why is it a violation of the First Amendment for the government to report content to a social media company which they believe violates that social media companies terms of service and for the company to subsequently remove the reported content after finding that it does? And what do you mean by "prosecuted"? What criminal laws have been violated?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
This is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court of Texas held in Zurawski v. State. In that case the Supreme Court of Texas emphasized that the standard was objective and that if the State could prove that no reasonable physician would have authorized the procedure, then it would be criminal to perform. Quoting that case:
We examined the meaning of “reasonable medical judgment” in In re State. In that case, the trial court replaced “reasonable medical judgment” with “good faith belief.” While we observed some overlap, we held that the law does not permit an abortion based on belief alone. Rather, a doctor must identify a life-threatening physical condition that places the mother at risk of death or serious physical impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
The Center argues that such a standard means that doctors are susceptible to a battle of the experts when not every doctor might reach the same medical judgment in each case. We rejected such an interpretation in In re State. “Reasonable medical judgment,” we held, “does not mean that every doctor would reach the same conclusion.” Rather, in an enforcement action under the Human Life Protection Act, the burden is the State’s to prove that no reasonable physician would have concluded that the mother had a life-threatening physical condition that placed her at risk of death or of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion was performed.
The state is absolutely permitted to second guess the judgement of a physician and potentially inflict criminal penalties on them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Who on the left is willing to forgive Eps' crimes? Certainly not me. Citation on how the left acts for "everyone else?"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I think the problem is you're envisioning "drugging" someone as requiring use of, like, rohypnol or other illicit drugs. I would be willing to bet that, in California, "getting someone so drunk they lose consciousness" counts as "drugging."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Can you clarify how you intend to "shut that off" and "do the opposite" in a way that doesn't entail coercion?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
If it's only the outcome of online dating/social media norms, you could regulate their negative characteristics. If it's porn and vidya, same.
What does "regulat[ing] [the] negative characteristics" for dating, social norms, porn, or video games look like in a way that is compatible with liberalism?
There is a massive space between discussing solutions or giving empathy to people struggling and wanting to pass a "incels can enslave women" law.
I agree, but somehow I rarely see things in this space proposed and much more often see the "we need to take away women's rights" kind of solution.
But that runs afoul of the "nobody is owed a relationship" perspective; why is it that women who can't find the partners they want are given sympathy, but men who can't find the partners they want are monstrous?
I'm not sure I understand. I can be, and often am, sympathetic to men who have trouble finding someone to date them. Being sympathetic to someone in such a situation is quite distinct from thinking that this is a problem that demands a social or legal or political response. Where that sympathy ends is where those individuals advocate violating liberal principles to get what they want. I suspect women generally get more sympathy with their inability to find a partner because they are less likely to promote forcing society to provide one for them as a solution. Certainly less likely than similarly situated men are.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think this gets pretty centrally at the question of what we want from AI (from an ethical perspective) and how to get it. Do we want an AI that behaves how humans would behave (or have behaved), or do we want an AI that behaves in a more ethically idealistic way from how humans would behave (or have behaved)? As long as we're training AI on actual human behavior we are going to get the former. Judging it by the standards of the latter just gets us "humans have not behaved in a way I consider ideal" which, like, obviously? And if we already know how the AI ought to behave, why do we need it at all?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
And? The ban was done according to the rule against sharing people's location data, so what more do you want? It's a private company, after all.
I'm not sure there's anything I "want" as such. I'm just amused by Elon's quick 180 on his own free speech commitments.
Can you point to an instance of you being upset about a non-leftist account being banned? Why do you care about this one?
I'm not sure I could point to an instance of my being outraged at a leftist account being banned, tbh. I care about this one because of its plain demonstration of Elon's lie about being committed to freedom of speech on Twitter.
What's your definition of "shadow-ban"?
According to urbandictionary
And according to Twitter
So, what accounts is it alleged Twitter shadow banned, according to either its own or the pre-Twitter-Files definition? As far as I can tell the actions Twitter is alleged to have taken are:
De-boosted some accounts such that their content would not appear in one's timeline, but could still be viewed if they went to the posting account directly (i.e. not shadow banned) and;
Hid some accounts from auto complete in the search bar, but which could still be viewed if one navigated directly to the posting account (i.e. not shadow banning).
As far as I can tell this new post-Twitter-Files definition of shadow banning as any kind of limit of an accounts reach is entirely invented for the purpose of claiming Twitter lied about not shadow banning people (in the same blog post where they are extremely clear about what they mean by shadow banning).
More options
Context Copy link