Markass
Not the worst
User ID: 3843
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
You can't just "get rid of AIDS" while tolerating the #1 enabler of it: homosexuality.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
The media is probably the most significant institution that hasn't been taken over by Republicans, and it will probably be Red Team's downfall. Elon Musk has touted X as "you are the media", but it has been lackluster and for better or worse the mainstream media still shapes the narrative. Not just what's true, but what's even worthy of discussion and what people will argue about.
What else is out there, well known, and not addressed because it’s on the right team?
The father of suicide victim Dagny "Nex" Benedict raped her and is also trans himself. This story got suppressed hard to prevent people from even potentially thinking that Dagny killed herself due to her father's sexual abuse, which would be a far more heavy factor than the "transphobic" (not really) fight in the school bathroom.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
I could also buy it, but surely if this was true then the intelligence agencies would quickly track him down and capture him, then announce his recapture.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
I agree with Jacobin that police officers uploading bodycam footage of this sort of thing to their official YouTube channels
Just a small nitpick, it largely is not police officers uploading it themselves. A lot of bodycam content is obtained by Youtubers filing FOIAs (often at their own expense) since bodycam footage is a matter of public record (except in Minnesota). Some police departments have a policy of uploading bodycam footage on their own, but this usually only happens for critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings, not for "Karen Trashes Dollar General".
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
If you were a Spanish-speaking Hispanic citizen you would feel differently. If you were routinely stopped by ICE until you could prove your citizenship, solely on the grounds of what you look like, you'd be rightly furious.
ICE should not be rounding up people who look like they could maybe be illegal and demanding papers from them. That's insane! And blatantly illegal! You cannot detain someone on the grounds of 'looking Hispanic in public'.
Just to be clear, this is not happening. Race is just one factor of four that ICE uses to have reasonable articulable suspicion for their Terry stops.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
It should be pointed out that Israeli airport security includes racial profiling so the 70 year old ladies are not as scrutinized, yet their policies have largely escaped outrage.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
At some point I have to start being incredulous and asking, if Epstein really was alive, is he going to blow his cover by playing on his Xbox account of all things? I don't agree with censoring archive snapshots because it makes it look like there's something to hide rather than transparently showing that there's nothing there.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
They seem to brag about walkable communities
A lot of problems urbanist types attribute to a lack of "walkable" communities are not fixed by making communities "walkable".
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
GDPR specifically was a step in the right direction of forcing companies to give more than absolutely zero shits about the privacy of their customers
"Nearly zero" is more than absolutely zero. GDPR doesn't do much to stop collection of personal data because nearly everything is allowed if it can be useful. Meanwhile, the costs of failing compliance is steep enough that most tech companies go to the US where they don't have to worry about it.
It's also hard for me to take Europe's claims to privacy protection seriously when many of their countries force you to dox yourself to register a SIM card. If they actually cared about privacy, then they would just not collect personal information, which is unnecessary for a phone number. Ironically enough, the GDPR-free United States does not have any such laws compelling self-doxing for SIM cards.
What does it matter to you if the state calls her a woman or man, mother or father?
Why does it matter to him? If I were him, I would just check the box that says "I am the father" because it's the pragmatic thing to do, and I couldn't care less about what some piece of paper says. If he has an interest in challenging the law, then I have an interest in following the proceedings to see which laws get overruled, upheld, or changed, since laws affect everyone.
In a future where genuine SRS is possible and she could have first extracted sperm, then either grown a womb or implanted with an artificial one, would you call her a woman? What's your threshold?
Is this hypothetical worth addressing? The amount of scientific advancements necessary to have a working womb transplant, organic or artificial, with no ill side effects, would result in several dozen Nobel prizes being awarded. It means we would be living in a world that is scarcely the same as the one we are currently living in, and I don't think we are going to approach it anytime in this century.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
This confirms to me, more and more, that trans activism is about rules lawyering. Trans activists put the jews who made the kosher switch to shame. Their arguments for why a man should be considered a woman seemingly always boil down to things like "technically, a woman wears skirts, and I'm wearing a skirt, so I'm a woman!" much like how the jews argue that "technically, this wire forms a wall, so I'm technically not breaking the law that says I can't carry on Shabbat." Unlike the jews, though, this practice of rules lawyering affects anyone who wants to use the words "man" and "woman".
I know you probably think you can spot trannies a mile away, but I've known enough women who have a mannish appearance that I'm hesitant to start making assumptions about the shape of their genitalia.
FtMs have a vastly easier time passing as male far more than MtFs can female. That being said, FtMs still have certain features that distinguish them from real men. In my experience, trans-identifying men stick out like a sore thumb, but people are polite enough to not bring it up, or at least not in front of them.
I'm guessing that for north of 99% of the women you actually deal with you don't give the matter a second thought.
Correct. Which brings up a good point, that if one has to assert that they are a woman, they probably aren't. A real woman almost never has to clarify that she is a woman. She simply is.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
(Note: GDPR requirements in Europe are close to impossible to actually meet, so many b2b companies either don't sell to Europe or will only sell them access to their software hosted on U.S. servers. It is impossible to overstate how much of an own goal GDPR was for Europe's tech sector).
Europe's strategy seems to be to bring down the U.S. tech sector by attempting to impose more onerous regulations like GDPR on it. See, for example, the "Online Safety Act" and how the UK's Ofcom is unsuccessfully enforcing it by emailing threats to American companies, notably ones not under UK jurisdiction.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
Desktop Linux (distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, NixOS) and Android OSes are so fundamentally different that it's not very useful to describe both of those categories as being "Linux". Though I suspect @nomagicpill put "being a Linux user" on the list tongue-in-cheek.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
If she doesn't like movies I think it was the right call not to make her see it. It's a good movie, but it's not such a good movie that someone who doesn't even have an appetite for cinema in the first place is going to like it.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
Has anyone seen Markiplier's new film, Iron Lung? (Mild spoilers ahead.) I saw it today. It's leagues better than any "Youtuber" movie in that it made me feel like I was watching an actual movie that could have been produced by a major studio. It's literally just that good, and a breath of fresh air compared to the usual sequel/adaptation slop that passes for filmmaking today.
I think it could have been shorter though. There were a few scenes (for example
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
It should be noted that SCOTUS didn't rule directly on officer-created jeopardy, just said that the "moment of threat" doctrine is wrong and totality of the circumstances is correct and sent the case back to the lower court for them to make the ruling with the proper standard. Does anyone know if the ruling has come out yet or if there are rulings for other cases with officer-created jeopardy made under the totality of the circumstances?
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
It's still a 0.1% chance, meaning that she just got very unlucky. It could be argued that she was attempting to flee but did not realize an ICE agent was in the path of her vehicle, and I would describe that as being unlucky.
The best way to maximize your health and longevity is to not get into physical confrontations with ICE, or really any law enforcement agency for that matter. You are far more likely to lose the fight than the cop is.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
Interesting to see how the level of outrage Trump gets for capturing Maduro is orders of magnitude more than the outrage levied at Obama for extrajudicial killings.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
My stance is that we should wait for further information and investigation. What we have so far doesn't look good, but I'm not going to jump to calling them murderers when there's reasonable doubt over things like if the first shot was even commanded.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
Federal agents cannot be prosecuted by the state for actions that occur during their duties. They can only be prosecuted at the federal level. He'll be fine, or at least safe from the MN government apparatus.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
It's a shame the Parkland and Uvalde school district law enforcement who were directly responsible for the school were not convicted.
The laws on child endangerment just weren't made for them. For example, in the Parkland case, for the charge to stick they had to argue with a straight face that the deputy was somehow a caretaker of the children, as in he would have been giving them meals and monitoring them to make sure they don't do anything stupid. Obviously, that's not the case, so he was acquitted.
Markass
Not the worst
1mo ago
They can in fact just be wrong about CK and right about RG. But I sincerely doubt that they just happened to arrive at those two different conclusions independently. I think it's highly likely there is a flawed reasoning process behind the two different conclusions, and the flaws of that reasoning process made them wrong on CK.
My point is that that is not reasonable. He should have know that it was far more likely that she was just trying to drive away.
With him in her path? That means he was about to be seriously injured. In fact, he suffered internal bleeding as a result of the collision.
It doesn't matter. You keep trying to argue this as though the police have the right to assume the worst and respond accordingly. They don't.
Her behaviour was evidence of being non-threatening. He doesn't need abssolute proof that she wouldn't have hurt him in order to not be justified in killing him. No police officer ever has that. You cannot pull someone over for speeding and shoot them in the head just because sometimes people who get pulled over for speeding are dangerous.
That is not what I am saying. My point was that her "non-threatening" behavior doesn't matter, when she in fact exhibited behavior that threatened the life and bodily integrity of Jonathan Ross, and was an imminent deadly threat to him.
Conversely, a man can be the most deranged person in the world. He can murder 50 people and shoot off bullets into the neighborhood. He can lead officers on a high-speed chase and crash several innocent bystanders. He can exhibit a motherload of threatening behaviors, is what I'm saying. However, if at the end of the chase he gives up, gets out of his car, puts his hands up and lets the officers cuff him? There is no way that the police are allowed to shoot him. Ever.
You absolutely have to justify it. It's just very easy to justify.
You have to justify that the robber was a deadly threat to you. You don't have to justify that he was trying to kill you, but it doesn't hurt your case to do so. You seem to think intentions (from all parties involved) matter more than they really do.
Someone driving a car in your general direction is not remotely similar in how threatening it is.
"General direction" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. I would use "general direction" to describe being maybe 10 to 20 feet away from a car. I would not use it to describe literally being next to it.
No, the risk of being killed by being hit by the car.
On a purely physical/biological/medical level, maybe. But on a legal/moral level? What I said still applies. He doesn't have to calculate what kind of injury he could be suffering before he can respond to a deadly threat. It doesn't matter if it that means it was less likely that he would die, the level of risk was already too high, because it's a deadly threat.
There has to be an actual risk to others. It can't just be hypothetical or else that would always justify shooting fleeing suspects, which we know is not allowed.
You said someone walking down the sidewalk might have a bomb hidden underneath his jacket. You need to clarify how much the police know in this situation. It's your hypothetical example after all.
If they don't know anything at all and have no reason to suspect him in particular over any other person walking down the sidewalk, then they aren't allowed to do anything, not even detain him.
If they have a reasonable suspicion that he has a hidden bomb, then per Terry v. Ohio, they are allowed to at least detain him at gunpoint and search him. If he flees rather than letting himself be searched, then Tennessee v. Garner applies.
She does have the right to flee without being shot.
No, she doesn't have the right to flee, period. Now, an officer may or may not have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect, but that's a separate discussion.
He does not have the right to make it so that she cannot flee without creating a sufficient threat to him that he would be justified in shooting her.
On what grounds? And anyway, it's not clear that he even intended to do that.
It's not binary. There are always low probability deadly threats everywhere. Their probabilities rise and fall continuously. He needed to wait until it reached a certain level before killing her.
Self-defense does not operate on continuous probabilities. No self-defender is ever thinking "what is the probability of a deadly threat?" I mean, seriously, have you thought through what would go through a self-defender's mind in a scenario?
Let's say you're a clerk and a guy walks in your store. He's wearing a hoodie, a face mask and sunglasses. Well, it's a bit suspicious, but he's not a deadly threat. Then he walks over to the counter, maybe puts some cigarettes and beer on there. Okay, still not a deadly threat. And now let's say he pulls out a gun and points it at you. Now he is a deadly threat, and you are justified to shoot him.
There is no point where you as the clerk is going to think "he is a deadly threat, but I have to wait because... the probability hasn't risen enough yet?" At each moment, you'll either think "not a deadly threat" or "deadly threat." You may have suspicions from his hoodie and mask, you may even pay more attention to him, but until he pulls out the gun he is not a deadly threat, and you cannot pull out your own gun either.
Put simply, it's bad advice or easily misinterpreted advice to put "waiting" and "deadly threat" in the same sentence (with regards to the legalities).
That's what they're already doing 99.999999% of the time.
Because 99.9% of the time there is no deadly threat that they can see. It wouldn't even register in their mind. When there is a deadly threat, often that's the first time they think about something being a deadly threat. At that point, there's no legal reason to wait, and it's bad advice to talk about being sure that you have legal standing or whatever before acting on a deadly threat.
They absolutely do have a duty to retreat in some situations.
Which ones? Which laws say this?
Most pages excluded from the Internet Archive will have a clear message saying so. Exhibit A: https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://kiwifarms.net/
The ArchiveTeam wiki (no affiliation with IA) maintains an unofficial list of excluded sites and pages. The only exclusions that don't give an explicit message are so-called "time exclusions" in which certain time periods are excluded while the rest of the archives remain accessible.
So far the only URLs I've seen that people claim to be Epstein's account give the normal error message rather than an exclusion error message.
More options
Context Copy link