@Jiro's banner p

Jiro


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 444

Jiro


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 04:48:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 444

Verified Email

A funny thing though is that on the right, this emotion has long been mixed with something that is very different: an extremely powerful and (mostly) closeted, emotional-sexual complex with overtones of father issues. The anti-egalitarian right has a strong streak of closeted mostly-homosexual eroticism that revolves around dominance/submission.

People see homoeroticism in things like this for the same reason they see it in pretty much every anime, TV show, and movie under the sun that appeals to the right crowd. Can you prove that Harry Potter isn't secretly in love with Draco Malfoy?

New York passed gun laws prohibiting guns in a wide variety of sensitive locations (maybe not exactly 60). The courts had to declare each one unconstitutional separately and it wasn't possible to do so for all of them.

It's already happening.

The explanation that fits is that the progressive movement is against straight male sexuality. The objectionable sexual anime-flavored things are generally that. Drag queen story hour, explicit LGBTQ educational books, and the other examples of them promoting sexuality to minors aren't.

It's like letting the police use stun guns. If you give the authorities "less severe" options, they can get away with using them more without being raked over the coals by the general public, or at least with being treated more leniently by the courts. So the more lenient punishment is not going to be just used as a replacement for a more severe one, it will also be used against more people, more often. Having a sort of half-jail makes it a lot easier for people who haven't done any real harm, but are easy to catch and punish under anarcho-tyranny, to be punished. (You can even argue that probation works like this already. Caning, as suggested by someone below, would be in danger of ending up like this this too.)

When poverty is defined as a percentage of median household income and explicitly excludes food and housing aid, t

Wow, that's worse than I thought. It doesn't just exclude food and housing aid, it also is before taxes. Public assistance is not taxable, so someone who gets $x in public assistance is considered poorer than someone who gets $x after taxes from wages.

Someone who wants porn about X is not the same as someone who wants X.

That's evidence that the student is a Jew, not a Zionist.

the one actively attempting to enter the de facto designated area intends to harass the people in the area

I'd say it's not. The protestors have no right to have a defacto designated area. You can't "harass" by interfering with something that someone doesn't have a right to in the first place. If you enter a bank while someone's robbing it you aren't intending to harass the bank robbers.

Is there any evidence that the student is a Zionist?

That would mean that he's a Jew who supports Israel. If you want to claim he's a "Zionist", you're going to have to explain how you distinguish between that and a Zionist.

"Zionist" isn't a swear word meaning "anyone who wants Israel to exist".

But if we ended up in the news for making ugly software, let alone an ugly plane, there would be a dozen reasons I’d suspect before asking if it was done to promote idpol.

idpol has an issue with human bodies that it doesn't have with planes.

Or your image processor GIMP.

Explaining that we're on the edge of the map and can't move any further

This is like complaining that on page 83 of your printed book, there's the number 83 written in the corner and you think that nobody in the book has a reason to say "83" in character.

Even if it's a character who speaks the line (I can't access the link), that's a genre convention and has no bearing on writing quality.

'Rich person flaunts the law, confident they will never face consequences' is not a very unique or interesting story. It's certainly not 'brave' or anything...

"Rich person flaunts the law" implies that the rich person gets away with crimes because they can retaliate using their wealth and connections. Rowling doesn't have judges or lobbyists on speed dial, and she's not going to contact her friends in the banking industry or the Mafia.

"Rich person flaunts the law because they have enough money to pay for a good defense, and because if something absurd happens to them, the public will see how absurd it is" is a noncentral example of a rich person flaunting the law and is more like the rich person not being railroaded than it is like a typical rich person flaunting the law.

Why wouldn't it apply to all home video sales rather than specifically DVDs and only DVDs?

Thanks. I try to be careful about specifying when I'm saying what I believe, steelmanning what some group or person on the left might say about the topic, or playing devil's advocate to stress-test a position.

Because a common dishonest tactic is to take a position that's an exaggerated version of your normal one as a test to see what you can get away with. Anything you can't get away with, you then label as a "joke" or "just getting you to think" or "playing devil's advocate". If you want to play devil's advocate, do it for a position that you don't directionally believe in. You've talked about steelmanning the opposition above, but a leftist playacting as a more extreme leftist isn't steelmanning the opposition.

Also, your "devil's advocate" position seems to contain flaws that are best explained by you sincerely believing in the position. For instance, someone taking a devil's advocate position wouldn't misrepresent Rowling's book--there's no incentive to be careless about something you don't really believe in. But a true believer has an incentive to be careless.

This dovetails with @naraburn's post about the Pokemon Go avatar changes being designed, apparently, to challenge conventional beauty standards- especially the sub-question in that thread regarding a conspiracy to promote ugliness. That conspiracy exists, in its declaration that there is no Noble Physiognomy, and our attractions are just manipulated by White Supremacy.

"Conspiracy to promote ugliness" in that context is mostly about women, so it doesn't apply here.

I have occasionally mused in the last few years that mandatory national service after high school would probably improve national cohesiveness.

This hasn't been how it's worked in Russia.

Also, the usual moral hazard of forcing people to work for you and not letting them quit.

Are you trying to say that the accusations are so shaky that they couldn’t have been anything other than a bad faith attempt by the Swedes to get hold of Assange?

Intelligence agencies are perfectly capable of using their influence to trump up charges that may not stand up in court, but look plausible enough that you can't prove bad faith in advance. Your standard here is a blank check to the intelligence agencies to get anyone they want.

The accusations might have been in good faith, but they also might not, and the possibility that they aren't was substantial.

People who are not weird Internet guys think action and inaction have different moral valences.

The term "Holocaust" didn't come into popular use until the late 1950s.

Here's a Churchill reference. Of course it doesn't use the term, but it's about the holocaust.

It may be the whisper network distorting the idea that computer operators were female.

Taking rights away from a mentally ill person should require an adversarial hearing where the person accused of being mentally ill has the right to bring evidence, cross-examine witnesses, etc. If there hasn't been such a hearing, and the law otherwise allows the boy to have a gun (which it sounds like it does), requiring people to keep guns away from the "mentally ill" person is just a roundabout way to circumvent gun rights.

Nobody would accept a ruling that forced the boy into involuntary confinement without a hearing, even if failure to involuntarily confine him meant that he could, and eventually did, kill someone.

I would err on the side of extending leniency to posters with viewpoints that are underrepresented on this forum.

I would not. It's the moderation equivalent of not putting BLM protestors in jail because they're on the side of the left.

Justice should mean equal treatment. If equal treatment leads to disparate impact because one side commits more crime, so be it.

My rules > your rules, fairly > your rules, unfairly.

Free speech is "my rules".

Speech restrictions for conservatives is "your rules, unfairly".

Speech restrictions for everyone is your rules, fairly".

The best choice is still to be principled, bu the second-best choice is to at least apply the speech restrictions to some of the left as well.