@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Yeah, it wasn't one of those either.

Be more specific what you mean by YIMBY people. People who ask for a free-market in housing ?

To first order, there aren't any. The self-styled YIMBYs want to turn areas where people are living less densely into Manhattan through legislation and regulation, and the people living there want to prevent that the same way.

The precedent it sets isn't a legal one, but a practical one. If you're on the right, you can be destroyed for any reason and the legal system will bend over backwards to do it. Your motions will be summarily denied and your appeals unheard. You will be denied your day in court based on procedural gotchas, your lawyers will be sanctioned for defending you, and you will be penalized well beyond your ability to withstand.

Yeah the last time we did regime changes in Iran it had such great outcomes!!!

The US never did regime change in Iran; the US supported the regime, and it lost.

Are you going to argue that Epstein wasn't Mossad-linked? Are you saying that AIPAC getting extreme deference from both parties isn't raising eyebrows amongst young people in the US?

I am saying neither Epstein nor AIPAC is relevant to what's going in Gaza now.

Do you think Rachel Corrie's brutal death didn't shock young people when it happened?

I'm sure it shocked some people. It's also not relevant.

Do you disagree that protesting the UK government probably wouldn't get an American citizen killed?

Also not relevant.

Actual legalization would alleviate accidental fentanyl overdoses because they are due to insufficiently good manufacturing. There's plenty of margin between a dose which gets you high and a dose which kills you if you can get a consistent dose.

Tyreek Hill's job is to catch a ball and run. The cop's job is to enforce the law. Tyreek Hill being kind of an asshole to someone who is, after all, his enemy in that moment is not nearly as concerning as the enforcers of the law being authoritarian bullies based on the slightest excuse.

I do think this depends on the officer's assessment of whether Hill posed a threat to him. If he knew who Hill was (and he probably did), just taking this approach would have made sense.

My guess is that if he didn't know who Hill was, or if he actually thought Hill was a threat (even if he did know who he was), this ends with a few rounds through the window, killing Hill.

but come on, it's just fun to plant a flag and defend a spot against superior numbers, when you feel confident enough you can pull it off.

Yes, but it's unsporting, since it's basically an NBA player versus the Junior Varsity basketball team, and on his own turf no less. @ymeskhout is a lawyer, taking on a bunch of amateurs demonstrates little.

When push comes to shove, Red Tribe follows the chain of command.

That's asking to be moderated, which is the lion's share of the problem.

Starting the war with the US in the first place tests that theory to the limit.

No, it really doesn't. First of all, the US being a juggernaut of any sort is 20-20 hindsight. Second, the amount of "sensible" it takes to be convinced by two atomic bombs is quite low.

There is plenty of precedent to throw people in jail for contempt on the word of the judge who claimed the contempt. That's how contempt works.

In the vast majority of times the question of the State's authority to resist Federal intervention has arisen, the whole situation gets put on hold and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Since that's one of the main reasons they exist.

The precedents are now in place; no need to wait. The Insurrection Act exists, and the National Guard can be federalized at the word of the President.

Cliven Bundy is, as of now, still a free man. Strange to see that FedGov can be cowed by a rancher out of Nevada and yet conclude they would simply steamroll the Governor of one of the largest states in the Country without a second thought.

Steamrollering Cliven Bundy doesn't politically benefit anyone; the bureaucracy might do it on its own but it doesn't help the political set. Steamrolling Abbott with a sufficient legal fig leaf is like steamrolling Wallace back in the day -- it shows who is in charge.

I heard that once, superstar researchers in physics even invented a new type of bomb.

That was over 75 years ago. What have they done for us lately?

If you get on the wrong side of the IRS (there are ways with stock options that you can end up owing far more than you ever had in spendable money, for instance) they don't make you unemployed; they take all your assets and garnish any wages down to near-nothing. You can of course beg the tax court for relief, but if you're not sympathetic (e.g. you're male) you won't get any.

Basically no one who isn't severely mentally ill and/or addicted to hard drugs ends up homeless long-term. It's not like the majority, or even a significant minority, of men are living on the knife's edge of homelessness.

Any man without a greatly above average social network is one bad tax mistake away from homelessness.

Not clear why the flip-side, a dozen or so cops getting capped in the process of serving warrants during the initial weeks of the confiscation effort wouldn't also demoralize their side.

There won't be a dozen or so. There might be one. They would respond with overwhelming force, and further confiscation would be done by cops in full riot/stormtrooper gear, and that would be the end of that.

Why do we assume the unshakeable will of LEOs vs. the meek compliance of the American citizenry?

It's not the will of the LEOs, it's the will of the confiscators giving them orders. There will be enough LEOs who won't push back on their orders.

Estimate about 50 million gun owners in the U.S., conservatively estimate 1% of them decide to put up a fight rather than comply.

It will be much closer to zero than that. Especially after they shoot the first one who gets physical with them (without even using the gun). And destroy the houses of the first few who give "boating accident" lines.

I don't think this says anything about the factual HBDers, other than that they're relatively invisible in most conversations where HBD comes up, so they aren't the central example of an HBDer that comes immediately to mind.

Didn't used to be, then there was that HBD moratorium back in the old place and a bunch of bans, so...

There certainly is a limiting principle - it's when the marginal value of additional housing ~= marginal cost of providing it.

So, Kowloon it is.

If we turn Silicon Valley into a 266M person megalopolis by increasing density to Brooklyn levels, that leaves 67M people spread throughout the rest of a depopulated US.

Which means the people already IN Silicon Valley either have to move or to put up with living in Brooklyn West, and they'd rather not. Which is why NIMBY. And quite possibly moving might not be an option, because of other things the same people who support YIMBY support -- "open space" preservation, anti-sprawl legislation, urban growth boundaries, and the like.

It was self-sabotage in the same way a bully's victim hits themself when the bully grabs their arm and uses it to hit them, then says "Stop hitting yourself".

He can't really fight. The US Supreme Court already turned him down without comment in the Texas case, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has shot down all his motions pretty quickly. If he actually wants to appeal he'd need to post an appeal bond, and the amount of the bond is likely to be very large so he won't be able to post it. (also, I'm not sure default judgements are appealable in CT.). If he were allowed to appeal the appeal would go nowhere, as there's nothing to base it on as there was no trial in the first place. So the next step is collecting the judgement, which will put him in bankruptcy court, where the usual bankruptcy protections (e.g. homestead exemption) will mysteriously be mostly inapplicable to him.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with both-sidesism (often called "centrism", "moderation" or "nuance")

Israel is absolutely trying to topple the regime, Netenyahu has made this very clear.

He's said it, but he hasn't done it. I don't believe that Trump would be scrupulous of them doing so... or that the Israelis would actually ask if they thought it would work.

Netenyahu has made this very clear. Reporting is that Israel had a window to assassinate the Ayatollah but was vetoed by Trump, with Israelis claiming it would end the conflict.

"Reporting". Anyway, it wouldn't end the conflict, there's plenty of Ayatollahs to take his place.

Why? He's right, given the premises. The people offering the lose-lose alternatives should take notice, unless (as I suspect) they already have and are perfectly willing to fight the real war.