JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
18hr ago
At what point is this no longer just people exercising their first amendment rights?
I think a lot of people misunderstand what First Amendment means. It protects the freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean anything you do with speech is now outside the law. It means you can not be prosecuted just for speaking, but if you speech was part of another crime - fraud, murder, insurrection, conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement, any crime - then you can be punished for that crime, and 1A would not shield you just because your participation used speech as a medium. It's of course more complex, but the point is - you can exercise your 1A rights and still be prosecuted, if conspiring to attack ICE officers is a prosecutable offense. It'd be probably hard to upgrade it to felony murder because the prosecution would have to prove direct causal link between what somebody said and the actions that led to death - which will be very hard to do, since nobody probably told them explicitly "now go and drive over ICE officer that is standing on the corner of This and That!" (though Good's partner, saying "drive baby drive!", could be in legal jeopardy for that, if the feds would want to go after her). But if feds can establish the causal link between something said on the char and some lawless action, like attacking ICE officers, then they have a basis for prosecution. If they find an organizational structure (which is almost certainly there, the question is whether the feds can find the hard evidence for it) then they could also employ RICO which doesn't even require causal links. But Republicans, for whatever reason, have been very reluctant to use RICO against the militant left.
JarJarJedi
21hr ago
I wonder how this process actually works? It does not feel scalable. It would take a person likely a couple of days at least to go through 100k+ page text, especially if they want to pay proper attention. From what I read online, agents receive thousands submissions per year. Clearly, there must be some filters. I can guess "previously famous author" and "the guy I know or that somebody I know vouched for" are the obvious ones, but what comes next?
JarJarJedi
21hr ago
I never really realized how much work goes into post-processing photos. I usually just click on my phone, upload it and forget about it. And the quality is not bad, modern phones have pretty decent software. But compared to something done by somebody who knows what they're doing, you can really see the difference.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Thanks! I was just looking for a new set of skiing socks. My favorite ones are very close to turning into gauze. They have pretty generous return policy for an online clothing manufacturer, I'll try them out.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I haven't found in-ears that I can tolerate yet, but my QOL while in flights rose significantly when I started using noise-cancelling over-ear headphones (mine is Bose). They really filter out all the annoyance of the flight (and the airport). I just put an audiobook up, relax and my flight experience now is pretty low-stress. My only regret is I didn't start doing it earlier, using non-noise-cancelling headphones or just toughing it out. It's absolutely different experience (at least for me) when I don't have to deal with the noise.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I'll do it for $700 million a year, half of which I will transfer to the NGO that whoever makes the decision to hire me chooses. That's how they do it in SF (allegedly).
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Presidio and Golden Gate parks are pretty nice (or at least they were last time I checked, years ago). No budget required.
Sorry, you don't know shit about "private beliefs" of Russians.
Sorry, you are not a foremost expert of what do I know. I actually know personally quite a few Russians and talk to them regularly (at least once a week, often more). And of course, I read a lot of what was written about Soviet intelligentsia in 70s-90s, that I could not witness by myself - it's not exactly dark ages. But if you think that personal attacks in the style of early post-soviet Usenet (oh those were the days!) is a convincing argument, you may not "know shit" about what proper argument actually is. That is why you may be confusing one with ad-hominem attacks.
who feels entitled to characterize Russians as de facto subhumans
I never did that. Russians, of course, are very human, as much human as any human. They have different traditions and cultural values than some other people, but that's a common human trait - Japanese culture is very different from Arabic or Bolivian culture, and that doesn't make any of those subhuman. I am just commenting on the various aspects of Russian/Soviet culture I had an opportunity to observe and am still observing.
are a very annoying, very stereotypical Russophobic Soviet Jew emigre,
I don't think me annoying you is a negative quality, I can not be judge about how stereotypical I am, and I am a Jew who have emigrated, there's no denying that. I however object to being characterized as "Russophobic" - and extremely object to being described as "Soviet".
gerrymanders historical Russian cultural achievements so that they're overwhelmingly attributed to "not really Russians"
Wha? I never even discussed Russian achievements and didn't attribute them to anybody. I don't know who hurt you, but it wasn't me. Just to remove the doubt, sure, Russians had a lot of cultural achievements. I love Pushkin (though still not entirely getting Tolstoy, to be honest). OK, Pushkin is actually not that good an example, to think about it... How about Tutchev then? He's good too. Speaking seriously though, you are maliciously misinterpreting my words - which had nothing to do with attributing Russian cultural achievements at all. Looks like you're in active search of offense to fit me into a stereotype you have in your head. I imagine it's simpler that way.
I do not recognize your entitlement to do this or to question me on my prejudices.
I think if you have to take the fifth on the question of whether you're an antisemite, that's answer enough, thank you. You may notice I can answer questions on my presumed prejudices directly and resolutely, while you can not. And I think we both know why.
Your DARVO is also not appreciated. You're not as clever as you think.
Maybe I am not very clever. But if you consider yourself a "victim" of me, justifying your use of antisemitic tropes, I would like to know how exactly did I victimize and offend you. What triggered you the most?
JarJarJedi
2d ago
The next ones IMHO are much more fun. Except for Gentleman Jole which I recommend skipping and finishing with Cryoburn or Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, depending on in which order you want to go.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
I'm on #8 now. It is a bit dark (and from what I heard about it, is going to get darker) but I am liking it so far. Getting to the end will likely take me a couple of years though, as I need to take breaks for other things.
Is the current perception of Russians not war propaganda?
Depending on whose perception we're talking about. Some of the media is surely full war propaganda, but I am not talking about this, I am talking about general cultural perception beyond that.
the Russian thinking class was deeply integrated into the European network
When was it exactly? I am not sure which period you are talking about. Sure, in some periods many Russian aristocrats didn't even speak Russian, preferring French instead (just open War and Peace and see how it starts - hint, it's not in Russian) - but they as well might have been other nation entirely (and to be honest, sometimes that's who they were, though I guess Americans don't have much reason to cast stones here). The problem is, however fascinated Russian aristocracy were with European culture, political ideas of European classical liberalism never taken any root in Russia, outside of a few kitchens and magazines. Even Pushkin, if you mentioned him already, was kinda torn between being attracted to European freedom ideals, and his imperial obligations as Russian national poet, so every side now can find a suitable quote from him. But those ideas were mainly for the elite, and even for them they were rarely more than theoretical talk to be enjoyed between peers.
There's no Orthodox resurgence as of 2025, Russia is a transparently secular state,
You must be kidding me. Russian leaders officially participate in religious ceremonies, and the Orthodox Church is pretty much integrated into Vertical of Power. Including performing ceremonies of blessing for space rockets and strategic bombers. Which btw I have no problem with - if they believe it, that's their complete right to pray however they like and worship however they like - but calling this situation "transparently secular" is nonsense. Of course, officially Russia is not a theocracy, but a secular state, but practically, Orthodox Church has a very elevated status and influence. And it continues to spread - for example, since 2026 one of mandatory school subjects will be "Духовно-нравственная культура России" - official indoctrination course, developed jointly by MGU and the Orthodox Church.
If we're talking about private beliefs, Christianity stated to become fashionable among Russia's intelligentsia right about 70s, as I said. Sure, there are still a lot of atheists - Soviets worked on that quite thoroughly and those generations are still alive and largely in power - but I think it is appropriate to call it "resurgence".
I get that you emigrated around that time and will never refuse to dunk on the Slav goyim.
This is the second time you use words which make me suspect you have problems with Jews. Is that right? Speak plainly - are you an ideological anti-Semite, or do you think using antisemitic tropes somehow makes you cool kid? I am willing to engage with opposing opinion, but I see no point in engaging with somebody who considers me subhuman on genetic level.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
but they easily dehumanized each other too
Yes, but this is war propaganda. You can not judge war propaganda on the same footing as genuine cultural standards. In the absence of war, nobody in Britain though Goethe, Schiller, Wagner, Bach, Beethoven, Strauss, (insert 9000 names here) were brute apelike savages. Nobody thought Euler, Gauss, Cantor, Bayer, Daimler, Zeiss, (insert another 9000 names here) were illiterate idiots. Yes, English, French, Germans (when they finally appeared, and every flavor of them before) and so on squabbled constantly and dissed on each other constantly. But there's no doubt they were closer culturally to each other - and they knew it - then, say, to Japanese, or Chinese, or Russians, or Mongolians, or Zimbabweans. Yes, that did not prevent them from killing each other, nothing ever does. But they never genuinely considered each other's cultures subhuman vermin.
Soviets bought the rational knowledge stuff hook line and sinker
It is true, the communists were modernist rationalists. But they also were internationalists - which meant, they wanted nothing to do with the old Russia (they tried to do away with everything traditional, including alphabet, calendar, holidays, names, etc. - with varied degrees of success, modernism has its limits, as they soon learned). And as soon as communists were overthrown - actually, as soon as their revolutionary fervor weakened - modernist rationalism went away. All kinds of esoteric new-age mysticism became popular already in 1970s, and in late 1980s-90s had absolutely bizarre things going on (read about Alan Chumak and Anatoly Kashpirovsky, for example). So, as Russia were returning to its traditional national values (Orthodox Christianity started its resurgence about the same time) rationalism's popularity faded.
even today Putin pretends to be an elected representative
I'm sure Chinese and North Koreans pretend even harder, but nobody - including themselves - believes in this pretense. And, what is very important, nobody cares, especially in Russia - Russians are completely fine with fake elections, because they don't really value free elections - they are completely ok with fake-electing the same Tzar for life, if he doesn't treat them too badly (in this case, they'd kill him and put on a new Tzar for life). Everybody in Russia knows elections are fake and the parliament is a dressing for what Putin wants, with less power than medieval nobles' assemblies under absolute monarchs. They are absolutely fine with it.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
In Judaism, generally pretty much anything goes between married man and woman. Including many types of non-procreative sex, provided it does not become a habit and replaces procreative one, and not done with explicit intent to avoid procreation at all (so condoms will be frowned upon, for example). Of course, Orthodox Judaism does not allow male-male sexual relations (it's kinda unclear on female-female ones, I don't think there's an explicit prohibition but I am not entirely sure). Judaic language of course does not use terms like "natural" - one should do what The Lord said one should do, and "natural" doesn't come into it.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Russians are just living the way Europeans did 200 years ago, and that's enough to be seen as basically a species of non-human vermin
But I don't think so. Like, 200 years ago was 1820s. That's the time just after French revolution and Napoleonic wars. Britain in the meantime held regular parliamentary elections (though not with universal vote yet). I don't think anybody would look on European culture of late pre-Victorian era and regard it as "species of non-human vermin". Yes, there would be some things there that we may consider outdated, but "infinitely distant"? Russia, however, never embraced the values that Europeans held at that time - like the concept of personal authonomy, limited participatory government, pursuit of rational knowledge for the betterment of humanity, etc. Not that these values by itself don't have problems, and surely European implementation of them had plenty of flaws, but the point is it was something they valued, and Russia didn't value it then and doesn't now.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I did not say "perverted". "Perverted" is a value judgement. But yes, any sexual activity precluding the goal of procreation is, technically speaking, "unnatural". That's why one has to be careful with using terms like that - condoms, of course, are "unnatural", and so are other ways of non-procreative copulation. But carrying over value judgement with this definition is a mistake, because "(un)natural" is a factual, valueless statement. If you want to discuss values - which is fine, the major point of philosophy is discussing values - you can not base it on valueless statements and then sneak in values under the table. You need to put the value axioms on the table openly.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I usually avoid Keurig-like coffee in favor of tea or just water. But I would never say no to a properly brewed real coffee. I am not good enough to distinguish between the roasts but I appreciate the taste of it. I derive little benefit but taste from it - I can drink coffee late in the evening and sleep soundly, and I can drink it in the morning and feel nothing. I did feel some effects from Vietnamese coffee which is entirely different cup of drink, but for regular ones it's mostly for taste.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I think it's not just Star Wars thing. They run out of creative juices about couple of decades ago, and now they only can deep-mine existing IP and consume and regurgitate what their predecessors did. Nobody is excited about this slop anymore. They are just milking it dry, because that's the only thing that is left to them. And when they will be replaced by cheap AI-generated models, nobody would know or care.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
you say homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, yet you say medicine is good, which is also unnatural. Hmmm?
The first "unnatural" means "certain things work not in a way that they usually work and supposed to be working", the second "unnatural" means "not as it would be happening in a world where humans do not exist or do not act in a particular way". So the trick is mixing up these two definitions and presenting it as "contradiction".
In fact, if anything, it's agreement more than a contradiction. Nature as such does not have any purposes or morals or values. Nature does not care whether humans are alive or dead, happy or in horrible pain. Nature just is. However, people do have values and goals. Staying alive and healthy is one of those values, and medicine helps that. Thus, medicine, while "unnatural", is good.
Homosexuality happens when natural mechanisms of sexual attraction do not work as they should for the purposes they were intended - namely, reproducing the species and propagate the genes. This would make it "unnatural" in a certain sense. Now, if we value those mechanisms and the cultural adornments of it that were created in a particular culture, we must derive that homosexuality is "wrong". If we say we don't care too much about whether a particular person participates in reproducing the species and propagation of their own genes, we would call it value-neutral, neither good nor bad. Possibly there exists a set of values - e.g. one positing humans are evil and must not propagate - which would see it as "good". But neither would have any contradiction with the medicine example. "Unnatural" thing could be good or bad, depending on whether or not our values compel us to go along or depart from the ways that would otherwise "naturally" happen.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
Your confusion comes from taking propaganda caricature at face value. When you're told red tribers "hate brown people" and then you see them actually being friends with ones, marrying ones, etc. you say "oh, they are hypocrites!" But the actual case is what you have been told is a lie. They don't hate brown people. Yes, a number of people they hate could be classified as "brown" but that's not why they hate them ("hate" isn't even a correct term here but let's pretend for simplicity it is). They look for cultural alignment, acceptance of Western values and integration into Western society. And they have absolutely no problem with a person of Indian or African or any other origin that shares their values and is part of their culture. Of course, groypers exist, but they are not who Vance is.
As for US policy towards Europe being "helpful", I don't think there's any way of "helping" them now - not until they would want to help themselves. If Europe wants to commit suicide (or at least transform itself into something that has nothing to do with Europe as we knew it) there's no policy that would be "helpful towards any sort of solution" - they don't want any help or any solution!
JarJarJedi
6d ago
Is this actually legal? I'd expect regulators be somewhat vary of some code off the internet controlling the steering on a car driving over a public road. But maybe not, no idea what's the regulations are in this area?
JarJarJedi
6d ago
But "genocide" is the intentional destruction of a people based on their identity.
Yeah, I am pretty sure if those were Spaniards it would go differently. But, OTOH, see England/Ireland, I think the Irish are still pretty salty about those times...
If aliens landed their starship and crushed Switzerland, that would not be the Swiss Genocide.
I think it's not a useful distinction. If somebody murders a lot of people and wipes whole cultures, it doesn't matter much, morally speaking, whether you thought "fuck you in particular, this culture, I hate you specifically because your language irritates me and your dances are ugly!" or you just thought "it'd probably more useful for me if this two-legged cattle just died, and I don't even care how they call themselves". This argument sounds like a pointless rule-lawyering, where you substitute naming question for substance question, and try to argue that because exact labelling and classification may be questioned, the substance - massive dying of people caused by somebody's actions - is not not as reprehensible, because some definition of some word does not cover this particular case with enough precision. I find such kinds of argument utterly useless.
I would hold up Las Casas as evidence that this sort of thing was not sanctioned by European culture of the time
No True European Culture, amirite?
Yes, it's not "true Christianity". But somehow things still happened... Just as slavery - according to many, many Christian authorities - weren't part of true Christianity, and yet, it happened too. As I said, people are very flexible in their religious beliefs when they want to be.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
This is the problem with discussing large-scale trends - whatever statement you make, there's always "well, akshually" about it. Yes, there are red-tribers in Europe, technically speaking. But they are mostly powerless, feckless and nowhere nearly at the level of influence that red tribers in the US have.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
Links to Chinese and Indian government crackdowns? Ok. I mean, there's a reason I don't live there and call both of those regimes authoritarian.
If you think it can only happen in China and can not happen in any other country, you are very dangerously naive. Europe (and Britain, which exited EU but somehow kept the worse parts) is well on the way to implement widespread internet controls, surveillance, universal digital ID and mandatory device lock-ups. See for example: https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-lawmakers-propose-mandatory-on-device-surveillance-and-vpn-age-verification - for the children, of course! Yes, China and India and other countries that never had traditions of freedom are further on the way but nobody really values freedom in "the liberal West" anymore, so it's only question of time.
I should want to have a seat at the corruption table?
You should want to have a seat at the table where the policies and the future of the society is decided. Or maybe not, they'd decide it anyway, whether you want the seat or not. You may not be interested in politics, but the politics is always interested in you.
Why would "they" (I think you mean legislators) want this?
For the same reason they always want it - control. More controllable population is easier to govern. If you control the information, if you control the narrative, it's easier to govern than if you do not. You can implement policies without some pesky irritating dissidents asking stupid questions. You can just order people do things, and they'd do them without you worrying about their "rights" or "freedoms". It's much easier to rule as a king than as a temporary mayor who is constantly questioned and could be deposed anytime. You are a good person who has some excellent ideas about how to govern things - imagine how much good you could do for the society if you don't have to waste your time on anything else but implementing your excellent ideas!
Then you're just feeding into a straw man archetype.
Saying "straw man" does not automatically refute any argument. These are real men, who pass real laws, which you can witness being passed right now. You can ignore this is happening, but it won't ignore you.
I'm interested in preventing a censored future.
But you think that the best way to do it is to deny it's possible, in the face of all the facts, until the very last moment where it comes to your home and drags you to the lockup? I don't think it's as effective a strategy as you think it is.
But what you're presenting is an "you're already fucked!" blackpill doomer scenario
No, I am not saying you are already fucked. I am saying you will be fucked, if you do not start fighting it right now. I am saying Europe is probably already fucked, because there's nobody left to fight anything there, but in the US there are still some people that care. The institutions that used to care - ACLU, EFF, free software, etc. - are falling one by one, but they are not yet all dead, and it's not too late. But it will be, pretty soon.
There's a lot of logical leaps - they're gonna find a way to fuck you, bud!
No, it's "they already found a way to fuck you, and here's examples where they are fucking other people the same way they're going to fuck you - you still have some, very small, timeframe where you could prevent them from fucking you in the same way they are already fucking other people". Of course, this requires, as the first step, recognizing this is actually happening, and it's a serious problem. And it's not going to be solved by "oh we'll just commit a small patch to fix it".
JarJarJedi
6d ago
How about this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_genocide
And yes, I agree that at least "kill them all" does not sit very well with Christian doctrines, but I don't think religious doctrines had ever been a major impediment to doing what people wanted to be doing.
It may be cheap on the scale of Amazon/Facebook, but it's usually not how it works. It's on somebody's budget, that somebody is a middle manager, and he should show how much money his work is bringing to the company, to earn bonus and promotion. Telling his boss "Shut down this service and save $X/month" is one way to do it. And any service that is not championed by somebody important and not producing cash is always under the sword of Damocles. Google is doing that all the time, shutting down very popular services, just because.
More options
Context Copy link