StableOutshoot
No bio...
User ID: 2253
StableOutshoot
18d ago
According to the wiki he's a Cinematographer that's a bit more prestigious and less blue-collar coded than just being a camera guy.
It's a department head, yes, but still below the line, which is basically the film industry equivalent of blue collar. Compare it to a foreman on a construction site.
Now that I'm looking at it, on the film where he met Roberts he wasn't even the department head, he was an AC, who operates focus on the lens during shots and probably a few other things when not shooting. But very very below the line.
StableOutshoot
18d ago
Find me a real life story where an attractive woman with the option to pick between a handsome, reliable, but only moderately wealthy Blue Collar worker, and a high status millionaire minor celeb, and intentionally settled for the former.
IIRC Julia Roberts married a camera operator she met on one of her movies.
StableOutshoot
18d ago
just because their civilization makes Israelis and Zionists uncomfortable and envious.
I think this is disingenuous. There's room for legitimate disagreement over whether the US should be starting wars in defense of Israel, but calling Iran's funding of Hamas "making Israel uncomfortable" is rather understating the situation.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
Lol what? He is absolutely offering very specific criticism of specific actions.
Exactly how is a 14 minute video of a stripper performing a bunch of simulated sex acts a specific criticism of any specific act?
Police officers can and do get charged and convicted of crimes committed on duty, and police departments can and do get sued and pay out for civil rights violations committed by officers. It is outright false that there is "no legal recourse against them." Any issues that you have with whether a specific act by a police officer is a crime or civil rights violation should be taken to your legislature.
The problem with justifying extrajudicial vengeance against police officers as the means of tackling this issue is that if the behavior by the officers is legal, then only people with the celebrity status to streisand-effect the incident actually have the power to do anything about it. You haven't actually changed the legal situation, all you're doing is socially destroying the few random police officers who happen to do a search warrant on a celebrity with the social power to destroy them. The best possible result of this is that celebrities become effectively exempt from search warrants, but nobody else.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.
Hip hop diss tracks generally target people who have deliberately sought fame and should reasonably be expected to tolerate having diss tracks written about them. Writing a diss track about your beef with another rapper who occupies the same social position of celebrity as you is different than doing it to a random police officer who has never sought fame and has no celebrity social power.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.
I think for the label "criticism" to apply, your speech should actually be directed at the actual act or behavior that you take issue with. Hiring a stripper to make a video where you portray your target as sexually promiscuous is not criticism of any specific act or behavior.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
people throw out words like slut and whore casually as insults already.
I think there's a difference of degree between calling someone a whore, and using your celebrity status to widely circulate a 15 minute video in which you hire a stripper to portray that person as a whore.
In fact we can look at another case of diss raps where the accusations was even worse with Kendrick vs Drake, pedophile and sex rings, and the defamation case fell through there too.
Another difference here is that a lot of these diss-tracks type things are between people of similar level of celebrity. People who have sought fame have fewer protections against the sorts of gossip that come with being a public figure. A random police officer who is not a public figure, and never sought fame, should be treated as such.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
StableOutshoot
22d ago
Where you lose me is "these police officers did something wrong, therefore it is justified to make a 15 minute video where you hire a stripper to portray one of them engaging in a bunch of sex acts." It doesn't follow. The officer can have done something wrong without deserving to be defamed.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
This is where I'm at. Civil libertarian types like to screech about searches gone wrong but the reality is that a whole lot of searches, conducted in exactly the same way, go just fine, and you just don't hear about them because they went just fine.
StableOutshoot
22d ago
If some people are to be believed, apparently nobody is ever supposed to follow any order by anyone ever, even if they have no reason to believe the order is unlawful or even immoral.
StableOutshoot
28d ago
The question that needs to be answered for this to happen is: How do you prevent any mechanism for suing gun manufacturers from being abused by the massive lobby of well-funded activists who are politically opposed to the existence of those companies?
StableOutshoot
29d ago
I think it's possible that even if they left phones at home, the police were able to obtain them by getting search warrants for their homes after arresting them. From there, if the phones were already on, and using biometrics for unlocking, the police don't even need sophisticated methods to access the messaging apps on them.
One of the lessons has to be to turn off the face/fingerprint unlocks on the phone you use to plan terrorism.
StableOutshoot
29d ago
In this case, though, the charges were federal, so local judges and prosecution are less of a factor.
StableOutshoot
29d ago
It's incredible to me the sheer fucking amount of paperwork required just to put somebody away for committing a crime that everybody knows they did. Of course, it helps having pro-bono activist lawyers from the NLG with unlimited resources to spam the court with procedural issues, but god damn. It actually disheartens me to see how difficult or even impossible it would be for the legal system alone to actually make any sort of dent in the extremist left.
The same people who say that, also say that "white supremacy" or "nazis" are a real threat to society, despite "white supremacy" also being "just an idea, not an organization," and also literally zero of the people they accuse of being "nazis" self-identify as such.
The term for this is "being disingenuous," aka "pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible"
The first mistake was committing the crimes in the first place
Seems to me that apart from shooting the cop, they weren't committing any crimes that haven't successfully been committed all over the country for years by their fellow travelers. Seems that shooting a cop is the threshold for getting the book thrown at you, and as long as you don't do that you can just keep doing low level terrorism forever.
StableOutshoot
29d ago
I suppose one of the major mistakes these people made, in terms of getting away with their crimes, was committing them in Texas where a jury of their peers will consist entirely of Texans.
StableOutshoot
29d ago
So like, I understand that these people and their lawyers are just trying to find a way to stay out of prison, but it's still absolutely stunning to me that anybody can say with a straight face that a bunch of folks who all showed up at the same place at the same time wearing the same thing carrying loaded rifles and explosives, who then all participated in throwing those explosives at a bunch of police officers, were actually a bunch of totally unrelated individuals with completely independent and totally legal motives after one of them shot a police officer. Like yeah, I get it, you want to put up the best legal defense you can and you can't exactly admit that you were knowingly organizing terrorism, but who are they actually expecting to buy that?
tl;dr: Crime is legal in the state of Minnesota as long as you do it to support a left-wing cause.
On June 10, 2020, activists toppled a statue of Christopher Columbus near the Minnesota state capitol. Out of the dozens who participated, only their leader was charged with a crime, and he was sentenced to community service, which he served by writing an essay about why it was good that the statue was gone. The estimated cost of the damage to the statue was around $400,000.
In March 2025, an employee of the state of Minnesota was caught vandalizing several Teslas, while on the clock working for the state. The total damages were over $20,000. He was not charged with any crime, and his punishment for doing this while being paid by the state of Minnesota is a single day suspension from work.
In February 2026, activists installed at the capitol, with the state's permission, a sculpture reading "Prosecute ICE", made out of frozen water. The cost to have it manufactured was $6000. A right wing activist kicked it over, and is now charged with felony destruction of property, facing up to five years in prison.
In January 2026, a group of activists stormed a church service to protest ICE. None were charged with a crime by the state of Minnesota, the state attorney general called the event a first amendment activity.
In 2019, a woman was investigated, but not charged, with violating the state law prohibiting harassment of churchgoers, for recording video from a public street of people entering and leaving a mosque. The woman sued the state to challenge the constitutionality of the law on first amendment grounds. The same state attorney general submitted a brief in favor of the constitutionality of the law, and argued that filming the mosque constituted harassment under that law and was not protected by the first amendment.
Throughout early 2026, activists have been establishing checkpoints, where drivers are stopped while their vehicles are checked against a database of vehicles used by ICE. No arrests have been made.
StableOutshoot
1mo ago
Where the current decade of mostly-peaceful-protesting misses, though, is the fact that activists are demonstrably not engaging in "illegal but moral" behavior. It's actually not okay to loot businesses. It's not okay to block a roadway. It's not okay to deface works of art. It's not okay to hit a police officer with your car. It's not okay to de-arrest people. There is no behavior being engaged in here that a typical uninvolved normie is going to look at and say "actually, I think these are perfectly fine behaviors for people to do outside of the context of a protest." And the fact that they are conducted as part of a protest doesn't legitimize them to anybody except people already on board with the movement.
I would say it's more like, the left does not limit themselves to acting through the legislature, because they don't care about whether their methods are legitimized by the system or not. They care about getting their way.
The right cares a lot more about rules and principles and is a lot more willing to accept defeat on individual issues because they think that a stable order which obeys predictable rules is more important than any particular issue.
StableOutshoot
1mo ago
This sort of makes my point. Your best examples are two incidents from a decade ago that received exactly zero institutional support or even particularly much sympathy. These incidents had zero influence on any law or policy.
I'm pretty sure Vance likes the memes considering he dressed up as one of them for Halloween. Maybe you should promise to make more of them.
More options
Context Copy link