The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
We won a delay in the start of the next nuclear war.
At this point in time, pretty much the US.
This is the equivalent of saying, today, that Apple stock was an obvious buy in 2007. Easy to say in hindsight, isn't it?
Uh, I bought Apple stock in 2007.
There is such a thing. It is not what the UNILC thinks it is. It is what the relevant nations agreed to and can and will accept and enforce.
You really want the gloves to be entirely off?
In fact, international law does include rules for acting against an occupier.
The West Bank is the legally-recognized territory of nobody, and hasn't been since the dissolution of the British Mandate.
They're not in the country because the urbanized areas have come out to meet them.
Abortion is about the only partial exception, but the important thing is that for most of the life of that decision, none of those things worked. The right would pass laws, they'd be struck down without having effect. Even now it's easier to get an abortion as a resident of Texas than a firearm as a resident of New Jersey.
If they try, the drag shows will still happen and the law will be stayed until it is dismissed. Nobody will spend more than a few hours in jail.
The problem is the asymmetry of legal remedies for the right and the left. When the left wins a case, it's done, they get to do whatever it is they wanted to do. When the right wins a case, there's another case which starts things all over again.
Fortunately, while it seems wasteful to blow up a ship with munitions more expensive than it, it is not impractical to do so. And so what I said stands: Iran can't mine the Oman corridor.
No. The claim of the civil rights era was "No, this applies to everybody". The actual result is just that "people we don't like" changed.
But the proper comparison for whether the bakery can refuse to sell a standard wedding cake to a pair of gay fiancés isn't that: it's whether the minstrel club can bar black people, or the gay club bar straight people, from entry.
But of course if they want to bar people with incorrect political views, freedom-of-association is right back on the table.
The Roberts Court will bend over backwards not to protect the right to say the n-word.
Sinking a few minelayers may deprive Iran of a strategic option they don't currently want (mining the Straits so they are off limits to everyone)
That's not how mining works. The idea is to mine the straits so only a narrow corridor, easily targeted by your land-based weapons, is available. Iran would definitely like to be able to do that, and at various times has suggested they had done so (and as far as I know, the mine status of the old agreed-upon corridors is unknown). Iran can't mine the Oman corridor with rowboats or, apparently, anything else they have at the moment. Despite the name, the strait is over 20 miles wide at the narrowest point.
"Drones" as most people commonly think of them will barely be relevant in a war with China
The sorts of surveillance and missile drones (though likely not the particular model) we're using in Iran will definitely be relevant. So will a lot of "one-way attack drones". If the sort of anti-personnel drones used in Ukraine become relevant, we're already in deep trouble.
It's completely out of the ordinary, hell, completely unheard of as far as I know, for people to go out and murder a political commentator. No matter how reviled that commentator is.
MLK Jr. was murdered.
This is why one of the things people were saying in January 2025 is "the laws are flat". The formal systems had ALREADY been knocked down in order to cancel (and in some cases imprison) right-wing people. So the thing to do is make like the Devil and turn 'round on them.
I seem to recall some cases where unions refused to defend workers accused of racism, but I can't find them now and I'm pretty sure they were teacher's unions. I did find this case where an AFL-CIO affiliated union did successfully defend a white worker accused of doing a racism against a black person.
Bulverism will get you nowhere. I'm not "uncomfortable" with the idea, I just think it isn't a good one. Musk isn't even obviously focused on wealth; he's driven, but the wealth is a means to various ends (such as space exploitation). Certainly drive to do something is very important. But greed as a major determinant? Greed is too common to explain anything unusual. Chance is pretty bad when it comes to Elon specifically (or to some others, like Steve Jobs); he's had too many major successes.
When you claim an extremely successful person has never had an intelligent thought, and you don't have a reasonable alternate explanation for their success, it's probably time to re-examine the whole line of reasoning that got you there.
Jim Crow was segregation of public and open-to-the-public facilities, not neighborhoods. The old joke went that a Northern racist was OK with a black man getting 'uppity' if he didn't live next door, and a Southern Racist was OK with a black man living next store so long as he didn't get 'uppity'.
Sure, and it makes perfect sense if someone wants to attach an enormous data center to your grid to do just that. However, the electricity complaints aren't the real objection any more than the water complaints are. It's just a nebulous NO with the specific complaints being the rationalizing faces of it, and so you can expect "making data centers build grid improvements" to come alongside "don't allow grid improvements" because the reason for such requirements is to block the datacenters.

That's your black pill. The leftists were correct: fairness does not work. There will always be a thumb on the scale and the only real questions are whose thumb, which side of the scale, and just how heavy is it pushing.
More options
Context Copy link