Jiro
9m ago
The contract did not extend past the death, it ended: It said, paraphrasing: 'X will pay for 30 years and then gets the house. If X stops paying because of deadness for example, the house is sold and the proceeds shared according to the following formula:... , etc." .
If contracts with the dead really aren't valid, this wouldn't be true. If X stops paying because of deadness, there is no contract. The clause about selling the house and sharing the proceeds is part of the contract, so it's no longer valid. The bank just owns the house, period, they don't need to sell it or give away any of the proceeds if they don't want to.
Jiro
34m ago
But it wasn't "retroactively gerrymandered", that's my point! It was accepted at the time, and by the north, before secession, that slaves weren't citizens and couldn't vote. Nothing changed retroactively.
And women couldn't vote either.
Ah, so the north's government wasn't legitimate either?
Is the current US government illegitimate because illegal aliens can't vote, and if they could we probably wouldn't have elected Trump?
Jiro
17hr ago
Would bombarding Fort Sumter have been different if the Confederacy had first insisted that the residents at the fort give up their unregistered weapons, pay property taxes on the fort, and allow building inspectors in to make sure it's up to code, and only bombarded the fort when they refused to do that?
You don't get to annex a nation because they do bad things. You can invade them, but that's not the same thing. The US did not annex Germany after World War II.
It also leads to the question of when the 13 colonies seceded from Britain, could Britain find some act that the Americans have committed that they decide is an intolerable crime, and annex the colonies again?
By your standard could the British invade and annex Zimbabwe?
Jiro
18hr ago
This matters - in no Confederate state did the pro-secession majority of whites represent a majority of the whole population. The Confederate states were (in most cases explicitly) seceding in order to prevent self-governance by numerical majorities of their multiracial populations.
But the slaves weren't citizens. Non-citizens don't get to be part of a ruling majority.
You might have a point if the Confederacy had suddenly deprived the slaves of citizenship after secession in order to gain a majority of voting citizens, but that's not what had happened--it was already accepted, even by the north and even before secession, that slaves weren't and didn't need to be citizens. When the south seceded, the secessionists were a majority by this preexisting, accepted, standard. The north can't just change their mind and decide that slaves have to count as citizens in order to deprive the south of legitimacy.
Jiro
2d ago
"Held to a higher standard of morality" is spin. What you describe is enabling the well-connected to get their enemies selectively prosecuted for "crimes" that everyone does, and should not be crimes at all.
Jiro
4d ago
Therefore if there was an intentional leak this was a rather weak document to risk anything over.
Just like terrorism isn't optimized for either number of deaths or political change, deep state political activism isn't optimized for political change. All that's necessary is that it was leaked by a single true believer, rather than on orders from a political organization. True believers would just want to expose Trump as much as they can, and not think very strategically.
And even organizations can be subject to groupthink and fanaticism at times.
Jiro
4d ago
You can tell them apart by looking at how they treat books that the wokes hate. Did they get rid of Harry Potter because JK Rowling is a vile TERF?
Harry Potter is so enormously popular that the popularity can overcome the outrage. A better comparison would be a right-wing political book, particularly one on a similar subject (such as an anti-trans book or a traditional morals book targeting kids).
Jiro
4d ago
It smooths out fine details, so it pretty much does, since you can't see skin wrinkles, at least not easily (and it's compressed, besides).
However, I predicted you'd come back super angry and spoiling for a fight, and here we are.
There was a post where the moderator said:
Be annoyingly verbose and add a bunch of disclaimers if you insist on doing it.
(I originally thought this was in response to WhiningCoil but I'm not sure now. That post seems to have responded to a lot of people.)
It looks to me as though this was an attempt to follow the moderator request. It's certainly annoyingly verbose and has a bunch of disclaimers.
Jiro
4d ago
The news channel should have some self respect; if they're not willing to show the truth on what Bondi actually looks like how can we trust they are telling the truth on anything else?
That video is 360p and Youtube will not let me increase the resolution. Which makes your complaint a nothingburger.
Jiro
6d ago
Ukraine had a vague security guarantee at the time of its independence. And we've seen how well that worked.
Robbery has been a constant through all recorded history too. And greed is pretty emotionally significant. (And I'm pretty sure that greed isn't the result of particular social customs.) But we don't blame the banks when the bank is robbed and an innocent person gets shot.
Jiro
7d ago
Cigarettes seriously harm you when used as directed. Most other vices have to be abused to harm you.
Jiro
7d ago
If the law as written says that harassment is illegal, but society accepts it, it doesn't really make sense to have the system be both about the law as written, and a metaphor for society. These meanings are in tension with each other.
I can guarantee you that if someone gets seriously and continuously called Satan, a lot of listeners won't take that perspective. And stochastic terrorism is about when to blame someone for the actions of listeners.
Besides, I was trying to describe a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Belief in religion is so low nowadays that comparing someone to Satan hardly means anything, unless you're Iran.
Jiro
11d ago
I would at least limit the concept of "stochastic terrorism" to either direct calls for violence, metaphors or figures of speech that are strongly violent (not just using the word "kill"), or metaphors that compare someone to a great evil that cannot be handled peacefully (such as Hitler or Satan).
Jiro
12d ago
What have those decades of rot delivered? The most advanced technological society in history, with the deepest understanding of the physical universe to-date?
That's like praising the Mafia for running a lot of great Italian restaurants when nobody else is. The reason that nobody else is running Italian restaurants is that the Mafia won't let them, not that the Mafia is particularly good at running restaurants.
You don't get credit for doing X when your rivals didn't, if the reason your rivals didn't is that you didn't let them do much of anythng at all.
Jiro
13d ago
Here's some "witches" you might not like but are broadly unpopular in American society, I guess we need to DEI these views too.
Conservatives were deliberately driven out and are there in far below their proportions in the population. This isn't true of the groups you mention.
Also, having one witch everywhere is still far below the proportion in the population, so I wouldn't call that DEI.
Jiro
14d ago
Aside from the obvious, there are two big differences between this and the civil rights era that make it much harder to do anything: First, the activists are in favor of the discrimination. Second, the people doing the discriminating won't admit they're doing it.
Jiro
15d ago
What worries them is that the process afforded Garcia is not constructed in such a way that it must differentiate between Garcia and the citizen.
This is the thing daezor pointed out above. The process needed to show someone isn't a citizen isn't the same thing as the due process needed in a criminal trial. There's no serious dispute that Garcia isn't a citizen, and if he was one, he'd have been able to present the information by now.
"POSIWID" is meaningful, but
-
the "different" definitions that people have been proferring are on a range of severities of basically the same thing and
-
Scott is being autistically literal about it not being exactly what it literally says because clearly there are some cases where it doesn't apply.
Also, if you read carefully, Scott actually concedes that it can have some meaning, but these meanings are not something he likes to use the phrase for, which is a much weaker argument. Such as:
I agree this is a useful thing to talk about, I just don’t think “purpose” is the right word for it. I’m not even sure “system” is the right word for it.
Jiro
15d ago
Abrego, had the government not shipped him to El Salvador would be living in Maryland and raising his kids quietly.
He was illegally present in the US. Had the government not shipped him to El Salvador, the government would have legally shipped him somewhere else (or cancelled the ban and then shipped him to El Salvador). He certainly wouldn't be in Maryland, unless the government ignored its own immigration laws.
Refusing to have sex with someone also follows those five points in a similar way to how property does. You usurp rights over resources (sex with you), and don't let people use the resources except as you see fit.
More options
Context Copy link