@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

The state district court is plainly full of shit, and is itself going up against all that First Amendment jurisprudence I have mentioned. She either has serious Trump Derangement Syndrome, or is deliberately making a wrong decision to harm her political opponents. It is erroneous to consider "the history of Trump's relationship with political violence and the noted escalation in Trump's rhetoric", even if it would actually be damning to do so (it is not); to see that, we only need look at Brandenburg, which concerned a literal Ku Klux Klan leader (Evers). The Court's use of the dicta regarding Evers is in fact backwards; IF there had been evidence of Evers' wrongful conduct, his use of the word "discipline" could corrobate it. Here the Court attempts to make the "context" of Trump's language not corroboration, but the key piece of evidence. That is not supported even by that dicta.

Also, of course, that's Trump's case itself. If you want to assert that what is being done to Trump is fair, it is not convincing to cite decisions made in this case; you need to cite precedent.

The ADL and its allies can keep the big advertisers away indefinitely. It's not quite clear why this is so, but I have two theories, lighter and darker:

Lighter: The entire advertising industry is ideologically captured and puts the desires of leftist ideological leaders over the well-being of their clients. Barriers to entry (in particular reputation and connections) are too high for any defector to take advantage.

Darker: This sort of advertising is worthless anyway, and the industry (though probably not all its clients) knows it. The whole thing is a transfer of consumer-products-company dollars to serve leftist ideological goals. There's no defectors because there's nothing to be gained by defecting.

So people who weren't even there get felonies for sedition, people who were there get felonies for not just trespassing but interfering with an official proceeding, and this one guy gets a disorderly conduct plea? This is not going to make anyone who believes he was a Fed believe he was not a Fed.

Very few people actually have a problem with talented people earning lots of money and then spending their own money on personal consumption, even if this is "unequal" compared to untalented people who have less money.

If I had a dollar for every time these types have complained about tech millionaires, I'd be a tech billionaire. They absolutely do have a problem with talented people earning lots of money and then spending it on their own personal consumption. As you can see by their complaining about Bezos and Zuckerberg and Musk.

Their complaints about inherited wealth amount to a motte-and-bailey, where the motte contains the Walmart heirs and the bailey extends out to anyone whose parents were wealthy enough that they grew up in a better place than East Baltimore. Somewhere in the middle they use this as an excuse to bash Musk, for instance, claiming he's only rich because his father owned a share in an emerald mine.

Rent seeking is a real issue, but they tend to apply that to things which aren't rent-seeking either, like taking advantage of existing tax deductions and government incentives.

Doesn't work, because the media says "good" and slanders you in death.

Are stepmoms real moms?

In both cases, while "mom" or "mother" is often used on its own, that is more or less a courtesy, and everyone involved knows there's a major difference. There has been a campaign to not refer to a biological mother as a "real" mother, and to redefine "mother" as the one who raised you (which works better with adoptive parents and step-parents who came in very early on), but it has not been entirely successful. And as far as I know, the go-to way to hurt a custodial but not biological mother is still "You're not my real mom!".

And yes, it's hurtful for a stepmom to not be recognized as the "real mom". But mostly it's hurtful because it's true, and no amount of using social pressure on word definitions will change that; the reality will remain even if it is harder to express.

Diversion programs are a problem, not the solution. Adams may not be able to fix Bragg-caused problems, but here he's making them worse. And with New York defense law and corporate policies being what they are, "training retail workers in de-escalation tactics, anti-theft tools, and security best practices" amounts to teaching them how to say "Here's the money and portable valuables, please don't hurt me!"

Until some service you depend on goes down as a result of this crap. Or your employer and others in your industry start talking about how they're concentrating on hiring and promoting people who don't look like you. Or making you declare your pronouns. Or the grants you were applying for make it clear you don't have a chance unless you're in a minority group and doing work about that minority group. Or there's BLM riots in your city. Or the media you used to like for entertainment goes woke and is much less entertaining as a result.

The culture war is real, widespread, and has significant consequences.

This is the culture war, so there's one detail of supreme importance you haven't mentioned -- the victim in that case, Jason Harley Kloepfer, is white. The mainstream media is not interested. The article on the shooting on Wikipedia has already been proposed for deletion.

So, suppose the Biden Justice Department prosecutes. And the case is tried in DC, where the chances of getting a jury of 12 Democratic partisans is "better than average". And so they convict him on all counts. I'd say chances of a real insurrection before 2024 rise to over 10% in that case, and prospect of convincing any Trump supporter that the government (present or future) is legitimate drops to very close to zero. I don't think the republic can survive it without violence, whether immediate or in a somewhat longer term. Even a 2024 Desantis win wouldn't calm things down, unless Desantis took clear retribution (and then you have to worry about the OTHER half of the country).

Criminal prosecution of Trump on obviously political charges is entirely insane.

In case there's any question left about the press's lack of objectivity, the CNN article you cited -- article, not editorial, not column -- contains this bit:

The move by Cannon is a significant win for the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The proceeding will give Trump and his attorneys a platform to air unfounded theories about the prosecution, including the accusation that it is politically motivated.

The people feminists describe as misogynists are usually not men who hate women but men who women find repellent; almost exactly the opposite thing. But there are real male misogynists; the bitter divorcee stereotype isn't without real examples, and some chaddish types hold women in contempt because they are able to manipulate them into bed so easily. I knew one guy who was actually both. Of course divorcees are not really looking for role models, and even young chaddish types aren't likely to accept role models who aren't also chaddish (it's not like they don't know they have it good!), so this seems doomed to failure.

For the men that women find repellent, none of these people are actually looking to help them and they damn well know it, so that ain't going to work either. If it did, it would make the problem worse (because imitating the role models provided wouldn't solve their problem).

D&D geeks have been writing nothing but in-jokes and sci-fi references

Excuse me, sir, we don't call those "in-jokes and sci-fi references", we call that "allusion and intertextuality".

It seems trivially easy to classify under equal protection.

No, it really isn't; it's a huge stretch that would never have occurred to the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After Obergefell, any official dissenter (and as far as I can tell Kim Davis was the only one) was overruled, fired and ruined. When the same is done to all these legislators, bureaucrats, governors, and lower court judges who are making Heller and Bruen into mere academic exercises, THEN perhaps gun rights will have been properly taken seriously.

This is what mystifies me about how large the supposedly beyond the pale attacks on Romney during the 2012 campaign are such a huge theme on this forum, popping up time after time after time.

Because they refute a common talking point -- that if the Republicans would just run someone Respectable, their candidate would be treated with respect by the media. Sometimes Romney is even given as an example.

  1. It is easier to create bullshit than refute it. Therefore refuting bad posts with good logic is a losing proposition.

  2. Unlike responses, downvotes are typically not moderated, so if a post is so bad that the proper response to it would be moderated, a downvote is the best answer.

Oppositional defiant disorder is a completely BS disorder that is just medicalizing opposition to authority. It's "sluggish schizophrenia" for the modern West

Calling some sorts evil "banal" is not an attempt to downplay it. It's an attempt to remind people that not all evil comes in obvious forms, like your armed robber or Amon Goth (who would likely be considered a caricature if he weren't real). That e.g. the people duly recording the shipments of prisoners and Zyklon B and bodies burned, and then going out and having an office party, are evil as well. These people in other words.

If you don't know what it is, "gender-affirming care" just sounds like a good thing. It's the reverse of the old gag about insulting someone by declaring that their brother is a known homo sapiens and their sister is a thespian. Since then, more people know what it is.

Evicted documented how landlords threw out domestic violence victims, because they called 911 frequently.

Or, because they'd have knock-down-drag-outs which disturbed the other tenants, more so when the cops showed up. And of course the domestic violence offender usually lives there too, whether or not they were on the lease.

You're underplaying this. There's strong evidence (which you posted) that the issue is 100% fake and is being pushed for purely political reasons by both the indigenous groups and various levels of government. But no one wants to say so because of the power of those groups. We have something similar in the US where there are supposedly mass graves from the Tulsa Race Riots, but they were never found until someone had the bright idea of digging in a known potter's field. What do you know? We found bodies in a cemetery!

Personally I would have annexed Gaza (and the West bank too for good measure) and made everyone there a citizen.

Now the next time you have an election the Palestinian party wins and all the Jews get expelled or killed. Game over. Thank you for playing Middle East Peace, please come back soon.

The thesis of the post you've labeled "desegregation was a mistake" was actually "the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional", which is not the same thing.

As for the "suffering" of white people, why should that be so shocking? I mean, the language is overwrought by conservative standards, but with all the dramatards around here we're used to that. Believe it or not, discriminating against white people does in fact cause them to suffer. As does committing crimes against them. If you go for the reductio, you might just have to consider your counterpart will not consider the conclusion 'absurd'.

I guess what I'm asking is: where the liberals at?

Liberalism used to mean equal opportunity (but not equality of result), and color-blind policy. That's gone on the left, and exists on the right only among those not really paying much attention to politics (and thus wouldn't be here). Many of the leftists that show up quickly lose interest when they realize they can't force those who disagree in line by calling them "racist" or otherwise attempting to shame them. Or they get really frustrated with sharing a forum with people whose views they find repugnant and "flame out" with a ranty post, though it's been a while since we saw one of those.

It's a dead horse. The idea that poverty in and of itself causes crime (rather than crime causing poverty, or people who suck being poor criminals) doesn't have much support at all, but it's one of the axioms of modern social democracy (gotta tax the rich to give more to the poor so the poor don't revolt, after all) and also progessivism, so it's unchallengeable in practice.

Apparently 40% of Americans would struggle with a sudden $1000 payment.

They run that survey every year, and they misrepresent it every year. They did not ask if someone would "struggle", they asked how they would pay it off. Not how they could pay it off, but how they would.