@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

The real question is: how do you de-escalate from here? These people (some of them) have convinced themselves that they are living through the rise of an authoritarian/fascist dictatorship and have precipitated some things that do pattern match to that. Aside from some sort of science fiction style deprogramming effort: how do you bring them back to reality?

You cannot. There is only one way out, and that is that the left gets what they want.

Yeah, if you have a libertarian democracy with open borders, you have no defense against your libertarianism being voted away by the new arrivals who just want to pry up the surface of your gold-paved streets.

ICE, which is about 30% Hispanic, thinks they're going to ethnically cleanse the country by killing white people? Man, they must be really dumb.

The media is ao vulnerable to this kind of shit though.

Not so much vulnerable as complicit. They know what's going on, certainly in the Hamas case if not the instant one. They report what their favored side wants even though they know it is deceptive.

No idea why they're doubling down on the "domestic terrorist" rhetoric.

It's the same playbook the left has been using. As for why... because it worked for their enemies.

The system should be built with an assumption of dysfunctional behavior from randos.

It is, but it isn't perfect.

Biden's ICE left all these aliens with final deportation orders and multiple felonies in place. That's not so professional. What's left of the libertarian in me is opposed to current immigration controls, but getting rid of felons I'm wholeheartedly for.

People on X and other forums zoomed in on video from the first side e.g. so you can see the gray-jacketed agent talking the gun. In the second video from the reverse angle you can identify that agent and while you can't see what he's doing, you can match it up with the first video and figure out he's got the dead guy's gun when the agent in the middle draws and fires.

Both sides show hypocrisy on this issue.

I think not. The left is united in claiming the Good shooting was bad. The right is NOT united in claiming this shooting was good.

He didn't, though; his gun is taken from him by the gray-jacketed agent just before the first shot is fired, I believe by the agent roughly center of frame in the light-colored jacket.

Immediately after the grey-jacketed agent gets the dead guy's gun (we can see the red dot sight; it's definitely the weapon DHS says was the dead guy's, not an ICE weapon. I'm pretty sure it is a P320 but it did not go off), the agent to his left (in the pink lady's video) draws his weapon and fires the first shot, I believe. Not clear why, but it seems like he fucked up. Then there's a bunch more shots, which seems like a further fuckup. I assume if the guy had a second weapon, DHS would be crowing about that from the heights of X, so it definitely seems like an unjustified shoot. But I predict that the less-sympathetic (i.e. male) victim means this makes less news.

Yet there's a constant group of people who continue to say that antifa isn't a thing.

They're supporters.

Why was Little Rock the center of 101st Airborne operations?

Seems like there were two perps. But after watching both angles I really can't tell a damn thing about the shooting.

There's pics of the supposed gun... but it's a P320, which ICE agents have carried (though I believe current issue is a Glock)

The policy of restricting the conclusions which are allowed to be drawn from data before allowing access to the data is corrosive to science, and no honest researcher would agree to restrict themselves in that way. Since pretty much all researchers will, we have a fairly good explanation for the reproducibility crisis.

That is very contingent on political factors. Two years ago, I would have said that no sane US leader would try to take Greenland from Denmark, either. These days, the question boils down to how serious one should take Trump's threats and what one thinks of his mental health.

No US leader (sane or otherwise) has attempted to take Greenland from Denmark by military force. Trump actually threatened nothing but tariffs. Not ruling out something is not the same as threatening it, and not ruling things out when asked is something that is both characteristic of Trump AND characteristic of the US (which, e.g., has never ruled out first use of nuclear weapons).

Certainly the US could take Canada, militarily. It's not going to happen under a sane leader. An insane leader could take Canada, militarily, even in the presence of a nuclear deterrent.

If you're a cop, you can beat up people in tech, doctors, lawyers, academia, judges, and well, pretty much anyone else with impunity. Maybe not politicians. You may not have the prestige of a top doctor, but you have deference from the legal system and respect from the community. This is certainly more than enough to support being required to actually do your job when it involves the sort of things that would actually justify that respect.

We've already had cases where police were present and watching things unfold and did not intervene until the civilian in question had subdued the attacker.

It was New York City, that guy should count himself lucky they didn't arrest him after all was said and done.

Cops in most places (almost certainly including Uvalde) get shitloads of "additional respect". Uvalde ain't Minneapolis or San Francisco or Portland or Seattle.

Yes. The "U" part of UBI is load-bearing. It is at the least extremely difficult to test it validly. Fake WMATA jobs, however, do not even come close.

I don't think that's correct. I don't see where it says it's limited to the police.

Because you didn't bother to look even after having it pointed it out. 609.065 refers back to 609.06, which is all about the police.

The offence is not fleeing the police. The offence would be hitting him with her car.

609.065 would cover the fleeing. The fleeing was an "offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death".

And that's without accounting for circuity -- that is, a bus takes a lot more miles to get a given passenger from point A to point B than a car does.

No, Americans do like to live in cities like all settled peoples. Americans invented the skyscraper!

They're supposed to be offices, not residences.

"Americans" are not a homogenous group with uniform preferences about urban living

If RandomRanger can generalize, so can I.

Americans living in suburbia is not a revealed preference because urbanism is mostly illegal - both in the sense that it is literally illegal to build at density in most of the US, and also in the sense that the system will not allow you to do the things you need to police somewhere built at urban densities

For the past few decades the anti-sprawl people have been encouraging density and eliminating new suburban growth. And certainly density was not banned when the post-WWII suburbs were being built.

And yes, the system will not allow the kind of authoritarian policing that Japan has to maintain civility with that sort of density. That's not making urbanism illegal. That's just showing that Americans aren't yet comfortable with such authoritarianism.