JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I don't see why it matters that this person was supposedly a "police officer."
In the matters of self-defense, it does not matter much, the rules of imminent danger are for everybody (though police officers probably will get more leeway in court afterwards). It matters in the context - obstructing police officer is a crime. Refusing lawful orders of a police officer is a crime. Nothing in it justifies deadly force - since our legal system does not have summary in-situ execution as a criminal punishment - but it at least justifies an arrest. If the person being arrested resists with deadly force - then using deadly force in response becomes justified too.
If you surround someone's car aggressively, it's understandable for them to react in a self-preserving manner
I'll remember it for the next time the leftist rioters block the streets, I am sure you would unconditionally support running them over. However, self-preserving manner in case of encountering police officers - and here's where it is relevant - is stopping the car, shutting the engine down and following the orders of the police. If you need further instructions, there's a good video from an esteemed self-preservation expert named Chris Rock, who explains the details, look it up. Trying to run over police officers is not a good recipe for self-preservation.
Even if the arrest is justified, no human can be blamed for not wanting to be detained.
A human can - and will be - blamed, and shot - for trying to achieve their desires by means of murdering other humans. Not "wanting" to be arrested is fine, trying to avoid being arrested by attacking a police officer with deadly force is very bad for your future life expectancy.
Almost every video I've seen of someone being arrested, they resist at least a little bit at first
Stop watching videos of people being stupid. It is not good for you, as instead of intended effect - pointing at them, laughing and saying "that would teach me to never do that!" - you seem to arrive at the opposite conclusion - "resisting arrest is what everybody should do". Don't do that, it is bad for you. Even if you do not get shot, you certainly will not get any sympathy from the police and the court for that. Unless, of course, it is politically convenient for Democrats, then you'll get plenty. But it could be posthumously, so I do not recommend that at all.
Nobody likes to be in captivity.
If you don't do the crime, you don't do the time. If you do not want to be arrested, do not mess with police officers on duty.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
So, you are saying Renee Good is actually participating in a revolution against the government of the United States, with the purpose to violently overthrow it and establish a new one? I don't think the rest of the Left is going to agree to say it in the open, but if so, ok. Then I am not sure why you expect anything but a violent response - how do you think a violent revolution works? Either you seize the power or you get hanged (or shot), that's how the revolution works.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
well, in this case, they shot a protestor!
I am not sure how this is connected to the claim above. Yes, the person they shot may have been a part of the protest. But how that changes anything? They did not come out targeting this particular person. They came out doing their thing (immigration enforcement) and the "protestor" attacked them and caused them to fear for their lives, at which point they exercised their universal right to self-defense (which would apply even if they were private citizens) and shot the attacker.
They can do it much better than what most local police forces have.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but they don't have much choice - the local police is explicitly instructed not to protect them from the attacks (at best), so they have to protect themselves. That does not make them "a national police force" - no more than me defending myself from being attacked on the street makes me part of "national police force". Ideally, of course, local police would do their job and protect them - but that's not going to happen because it is under the control of leftists government which is not intent to let federal immigration laws be enforced if they can help it. That still does not make ICE "a national police force" - their goal is still enforcing the immigration law.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Even if all the money stolen were local money and not from federal budget (which is my taxes), I don't think its a good thing. It's not a good thing because it finances the left's NGO networks and political campaigns, via kickbacks, and provides people like Ilhan Omar with ironclad voting blocks - which also pulls the whole political frame way to the left.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Also, ICE seems to be expanding past ots original scope, and is now basically a full national police force
What do you mean here? Do they prosecute non-immigration offenses? Any documented examples of that?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Technically, "insurrectionist" would be more appropriate, but as this term was suborned to mean "a person who protests while not being a Leftist", reclaiming it may be a more complex task. The point is she was intentionally breaking the law in order to achieve a political goal, which is pretty close to terrorism. While, strictly speaking, terrorism implies public intimidation, and the goal of the anti-ICE rioters is to impede and intimidate law enforcement, but not necessarily the general public (though antifa, which are part of these riots, are 100% classic domestic terrorists), I think insisting on these distinctions practically always is an attempt to muddy, rather than clarify, the issue. If we have a movement that employs violence in order to achieve their political goals, they are the bad guys, and whatever stigma is attached to the words "domestic terrorist" in the minds of the public, they deserve 100% of it, even if technically another term may describe some of them more precisely.
The head of Minnesota’s state investigations agency said Thursday that the U.S. attorney’s office has barred it from taking part in the investigation
Isn't this always what happens when FBI takes over? The FBI is not exactly knows for their laissez faire ways of letting outsiders access details of their investigations. And given as both city and state government pretty much officially proclaimed they are at war with the feds, I am not sure why they would expect the feds to react with giving them extra VIP deal with information access on this case. They'd have limited access normally, and they probably will get no access at all now that they have positioned them as openly hostile.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
She was not climbing through that window because she was panicking and trying to flee, she was clearly looking for trouble.
So was Renee Good - the whole reason why she was there was to block ICE from performing their duties. It's not like she was randomly stopped on the way to a grocery store and it escalated - she specifically went there to engage ICE and impede them. That is very much "looking for trouble" and while it is sadly tolerated way too much in and by itself it is already a crime. Not a deadly threat yet, of course, but definitely looking for trouble is there.
The difference is whether there was an imminent deadly threat. A tiny woman breaking a window and trying to fit through it is hardly one - Byrd could have subdued Babbitt with his right hand tied behind his back (if he weren't a massive coward of course). There's no way ICE officer could have subdued an SUV driving towards him, unless he's Jack Reacher, who as we know is a fictional character.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
And, on top of that, the whole event was following at least two crimes already committed by her - intentionally impeding a law enforcement action (that's why she was there at the first place) and refusing to follow a legal order of a law enforcement officer.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
There are of course corner cases. This is not one of them. If you have a police officer standing in front of your vehicle, you do not drive forward. In fact, you do not drive anywhere at all when the police officer is near your vehicle, until they clearly tell you you can go. But most of all, you do not drive forward when the said forward is occupied by the body of the police officer. Nothing unclear here. Just as nothing unclear was in Rittenhouse's case - the thugs clearly were about to inflict grave bodily harm (look up Andy Ngo if you want to see what happens when the victim is not armed), so self-defense is justified.
Was the lady actually trying to kill him?
It does not matter. The concept of self-defense does not require psychic powers. You don't need to know what the attacker really thinks - you only need to know their actions would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life and bodily integrity. Having a car driving over you is certainly one of these things that would, whatever the driver might be thinking about at that moment.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
- Have you considered, like, not fleeing the police? Defense lawyers hate this weird trick!
- I am not sure how the police can "convert" you not ramming them with your car into threats. Like, how that would work - they'd jump behind the wheel and ram themselves, and then say you did it? I have my doubts.
- In any case, this is explicitly not the case - nobody "converted" anything, the criminal chose to ram the police entirely on her own volition.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence,
Classic noncentral fallacy. When you say "fleeing the police", the audience imagines an unarmed person running away, not a person trying to run over a policeman with a giant hunk of metal. Sure, fleeing the police alone should not result in deadly force, as it is not imminent danger to the policeman. "Fleeing" in form of ramming the policeman with the vehicle should elicit immediate deadly response, as it is a deadly threat. If you can not flee without threatening deadly harm to the policeman - well, you are fucked, do not flee, or try and eat the bullet. It doesn't even have to be the police - if you try to murder anybody with a vehicle, they have obvious right to self defense. The victim being the police just aggravates it, because the criminal must have known attacking the police is a crime - any sane adult does - and did it anyway.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
I am not sure I understand the details though. Like, can't ECB just decide to keep printing euros (in whatever form it takes, I am sure they can find a way), under the premise that France is too big to fail? I mean, France and Germany are like half of the EU economy, if they are OK with something I imagine EU is OK with it too. And Germany has pretty much the same deficit France has, so it's not like they have a standing to complain. Additionally, we have Russia, so if anybody would agitate for capital austerity, he'd be told "not now dummy, can't you see we're on the brink of war here?!" If you believe Eurostat, inflation is very low so nothing to worry about, right?
JarJarJedi
7d ago
JarJarJedi
7d ago
told me that having kids was the worst decision of her life, and she actively encouraged me to be kidnapped - her advice for if a stranger tried to abduct me was to go with them
Wow that sucks. I mean I can get regretting having kids - it's not always easy, and stress levels can be enormous. But telling it openly to your own kid, and trying to get the kid kidnapped (and likely murdered)... that's just fucked up.
That kind of readjusts my priors a bit. Maybe I never needed to be told it's ok to be white me, but clearly there are people who are, and books that do it for them are doing a good work then. Of course, some people who are already assholes enough might read it and become excessive assholes, but I think that'd happen to them anyway, so overall the effect is still positive.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
Agree, I don't see much similarity. But I suffer from the same predicament - I am a big fan of Watts' writing, and no fan at all of the man. Which unfortunately happens with more than one contemporary writer. It's easier when couple of centuries has passed and you can enjoy the writings without bothering too much with how the author's personality was totally disgusting. Yeah, maybe, but the guy is dead for 150 years, so who cares.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
I am not sure why, but for me the idea had always seemed natural. "It's ok to be selfish?" Well, duh, of course it is. I mean, I am not a psychopath, I empathize, I donate money to charity, I help others, some people even say they like me (weird, I know), but being selfish always came easy to me. Maybe that's why when I read Atlas Shrugged it wasn't a big revelation to me - maybe I was even somewhat underwhelmed. Like, if I'll be even more selfish that I already am, I will kinda be an asshole, and I don't really want to be an asshole. At least not much more of one than I already am.
JarJarJedi
8d ago
And also what the locals would say about it too. I mean, maybe Trump gets them the deal so good they don't want to go back to Denmark?
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I'm not sure one can pull it off as a true solitary actor, but politics would be a good venue. I mean, the cumulative damage from COVID lockdowns is estimated to be over 14 trillions. Of course, you'd have to be in the right place in the right time, but doing at least billions of damage may be even easier - e.g. become a mayor of a large city and defund the police, or something like that. Or maybe just promote the idea that half of the country population is irredeemably evil and stole everything from the other half. Bonus points if you can sell that idea to both halves. Imagine how much damage that could do.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I'd give 50/50 about some law-enforcement-adjacent eyes here (maybe LLMs by now) but there are wackos everywhere. And a lot of recent attacks were committed by so called "lone wolves" - i.e., wackos without organizational links to any established terrorist groups. In fact, those likely have higher chances to commit an actual attack - there are more of them and feds can't watch them all.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
I'm not getting what the hype is about. Yes, he's (very) smart and (very) talented. There are a few smart people and a few talented people, he is one of them. But various superlatives directed at him is something that I am confused by. Then again, I am confused by great many things, so nothing really special here.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
I am still hugely confused by those numbers and what they mean, and have no idea how to quantify these things, so I will just put my predictions in words.
- Yudkowski declares AGI/ASI Achieved - Too early for 2026, but I don't really care tbh.
- We have federal regulation passed through congress to regulate AI - Some regulation, maybe, even likely, really comprehensive one - probably not yet, too much of a moving target.
- Anthropic announces IPO - Could be, but looks a bit too early and I understand they have enough money anyway?
- A Chinese model is released that is widely considered to be the best coding model(not just on price per token) - Nah, don't believe it. I can give them "cheap and barely adequate if you squint enough" but "best in class, no questions asked" sounds very unlikely.
- AI System wins an award for a significant contribution in mathematics - Plausible. I mean, it only requires one award committee to decide it. There are many award committees. Some of them are not averse to publicity, likely. And by now nobody among the normies (including me and pretty much everybody I know, for example) can distinguish "significant contribution" from a bag of nonsense anyway.
- A lab releases a fully autonomous drop-in worker agent that at least five fortune 200 companies implement - nope, not for any reasonable meaning of "implement".
- OpenAI revenue exceeds $30 billion - 3x current revenue seems to be a bit too much, I could go for 2x though.
- A frontier lab experiences a security incident that requires public disclosure - very likely. Though "requires disclosure" and "is actually disclosed" is not the same thing...
- Democrats have a majority in the House - about 50-50
- Democrats have a majority in the Senate - same, about 50-50
- Trump Approval rating exceeds 50% at any point - according to who? Some pollsters give him over 50% right now, some do not. Seems a bit too vague.
- A government shutdown exceeds 14 days - 50-50, depending on how the parties see their electoral chances
- total deportation in 2026 exceed 500k - I'd like to see it but unlikely, a lot of "deportations" counted seem to be at the border, and border traffic have gone down significantly. Low hanging fruit are already processed mostly. So likely what is left would not be enough to get 500k.
- Mamadani implements fare free busses city wide - there probably would be some free buses. City-wide is a very vague term. In general, MTA fare revenue is ~4B per year. That's about 3.5% of city budget. If he wants it enough, he could find funds to cover it. But more likely, he would just put up some amount of free buses along the routes which had historically low fare collection rates, and declare victory.
- Mamdani implements at least three state run grocery stores - three is a low number. Even a communist, given hundreds of billions of dollars, can open three stores that survive for a year.
- Trump is impeached - not in 2026. Though if Dems take the House, 2027 impeachment is very likely - why not, it's fun for the whole family and costs them nothing.
- A Major political figure is assassinated(Congress/SCOTUS Judge/Executive cabinet member) - impossible to know, but unlikely - successful assassinations are hard.
- Israel-palestine conflict reignites - it never de-ignited, and 2026 is the year when Israel has to decide whether to go all in on destroying Hamas, or prepare for Oct 7 repeat in 10 years. I suspect Bibi will go all in.
- Ukraine war ceasefire lasts greater than 30 days at any point - not very likely, Putin is getting the territory anyway, albeit slowly, but he has nowhere to rush.
- China invades Taiwan - don't think so, not yet
- US officially at war with Venezuela at any point - probably not "officially", US Presidents are very reluctant to ask Congress for an official war, and Venezuela is certainly not an imminent danger to the US. There might be some "kinetic action" though.
- China - I abstain, don't know enough about China
- US enters recession (2 consecutive quarters negative GDP growth) - unlikely
- S&P 500 higher on 12/31/26 than 12/31/25 - very likely
- US unemployment rate exceeds 5% at any point - no, likely would stay under 5%, though some fluctuation like 5.0-5.1% might happen
- Bitcoin above $150k at any point - more no than yes, given it's at $90K now. It'll go over $100K almost certainly but $150k I think not (fair warning: I am extremely bad at predicting things like this)
- YoY inflation exceeds 4% - very unlikely, fed is determined to keep it low, and it was under 4% since 2023. Now, if you go beyond the official numbers, there be dragons...
- Starship upper stage (Ship) successfully lands (caught or propulsive landing) - no prediction, only hopes
- Blue Origin New Glenn completes 5+ successful launches - as I see they only have 4 launches planned in 2026, so probably no?
- Tesla releases vehicle with SAE Level 4 autonomy to consumers - As I understand Waymo is at level 4 for a while now, and other models in China are too. Time for Tesla to catch up! I think they can.
- US approves new nuclear reactor construction (not SMR) - very much hope so, though unfortunately Trump doing this would mean every leftist would reflectively hate the nuclear for the next 40 years, which after they have been hating it for the last 40 years is very sad.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
It's right over the bay from Yemen. Guess how Houthis would feel when Israel has a foothold right at their door. That's only one of the angles of course, Israel has been working on making friends with minor Muslim powers for a while now. Eventually converting "all Muslims oppose Israel" to "some Muslims oppose Israel" then maybe "opposing Israel has nothing to do with being Muslim" then maybe "a lot of Muslim countries have ties with Israel, why shouldn't we do it too?". Israel has a very long history of dealing with various small African and Asian countries on the down low, whether Muslim or not.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
Putin has many of those palaces and hideouts. And Ukrainians likely don't have minute-for-minute data of his movements. So did they try to hit one of the large building complexes in which at some other point of time Putin may have stayed? I can believe that, the locations are known and getting a drone in there is not much harder than getting a drone into a strategic airfield, which Ukrainians already did several times. Is it enough to call it "attempt to assassinate Vladimir Putin"? Not even closely so. Maybe "attempted to assassinate Vladimir Putin's pride" would be more appropriate.
Of course, since the talks are going on, as likely as not the Russians are faking the whole thing to get some PR advantage. But it really doesn't matter too much - Ukrainians can hit stuff within Russia, had been done many times. They can't hit enough of stuff for it to be of any consequence to the overall war, and they don't have operative capacities to pull something as big as hit on Putin personally. But they can hurt Russians' pride and piss them off, and cause them some tactical setbacks. Which is not a bad thing by itself - but better to concentrate of degrading Russia's refining, manufacturing and transport capacities. Unfortunately, that's also not going fast enough to matter on the ground.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
The first sentence: hmm, sounds a little biased, I wonder whether it's solid science or just a piece of propaganda... further data required. The second sentence: oh, well, that settles the question.
Not a good criteria, there's a word for eating excrement and a word for obsessively eating dirt, but neither are standard behaviors.
More options
Context Copy link