The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
Yes, that includes for women [...]. But it also means consequences for men.
And yet the consequences for men keep coming, and the consequences for women don't. There isn't any reversing of the sexual revolution going on here. Just the perpetration of a new double standard where men get responsibility for both their own choices and those of women.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2yr ago
I've written before about pretextual excuses, such as when NYC *claimed *their employee vaccine mandate was for public health reasons, but then implemented exceptions that were inconsistent with their lofty claim.
Or, for instance, when someone writes a long comment purporting to be about the US legal system, but is really just a vehicle to take a shot at Trump.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
9mo ago
In Newton, Massachusetts, a pro-Palestinian man got into a shouting match with a group of pro-Israeli demonstrators across a busy street. For some reason, though he was mostly exchanging words with a woman, he ran across the street and tackled a man named Scott Hayes, who was also part of the demonstration. While he had Hayes on the ground, Hayes -- who had a legal gun -- shot him in the stomach. Two other pro-Israeli demonstrators pulled the man off Hayes, and he was later brought to a hospital.
Hayes was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Violation of a Constitutional Right Causing Injury. The only justification I can come up with for the latter is that it is the constitutional right of pro-Palestinian people to attack people supporting Israel.
Hayes will certainly plead self defense, but self-defense expert Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection says it won't work. Basically the government's view is if someone has tackled you and is beating on you, it's not sporting to fight back with a weapon (i.e. deadly force). Think of government as the two guys who hold you while their buddy punches you.
This was all captured on video (linked in the Legal Insurrection article); there's really no doubt as to the course of events.
To add insult to injury, the pro-Palestinian man has not been charged.
(Hayes, BTW, is reportedly not Jewish)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2yr ago
If you had a free hand, what WOULD you do about it? Other than police state stuff (in which I include effective gun control), I don't see what you can do. Having the FBI pay special attention to Hispanic neo-Nazis probably won't work.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
5mo ago
Where was all this complaining about the forms of the Republic when Obama was using his phone and pen, or everyone from Johnson to Biden was implementing DEI by executive order?
No, the Democrats have knocked every check and balance in the nation flat in their attempt to purge Republicans from power, and now the Republicans have turned tail on them. It's too late to call upon institutional integrity now.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
"Leftists are the real authoritarians" plays about as well as "Democrats are the real racists". It is axiomatic that the right is authoritarian and the left is fighting against that.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11mo ago
In more good news for Donald Trump (besides NOT being killed by that bullet), the classified documents case has been dismissed based on an Appointments Clause violation -- basically, the argument (also made by Clarence Thomas in Trump v. US) accepted by the court is that there is no statute authorizing the appointment of a Special Prosecutor (with the powers exercised by Jack Smith) by the Attorney General, and therefore Smith cannot lawfully prosecute Trump (or anyone else). In other words "Mr. Smith, you don't even work here."
No doubt this will be appealed, but the chance of any significant action before the election is nil.
(sorry for the repost, I belatedly realized I was still on last week's thread).
I presume Trump will move to have the other Federal case dismissed on the same grounds, so if that one wasn't stalled already by immunity claims, it would be stalled now. The Georgia case isn't affected but is stalled based on corruption claims agains the prosecutor. That leaves Trump 3-1 at the moment, and I would say the sentencing in the New York conviction (currently set for September) is likely to get delayed until after the election (when, let's face it, it ain't going to matter)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2yr ago
Despite my fallouts with The Left, I'm still broadly a social democrat; I think that an effective state is one that provides good free services to all its citizens, including things like high quality education, healthcare, and public transit.
And this is the problem. You won't update; nobody ever does. No matter how many times it turns out the obvious problems those on the right claimed would occur actually did occur, no one who has bought into the leftist view will reject the premises which said they wouldn't. It's a trapdoor epistemology.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
19d ago
What utility does knowing Iran's population matter? What relevance is the specific number of Iranians to any American interests?
If you're considering replacing its government by force, the size population you'll end up administering (at best) or fighting seems quite relevant.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
Perhaps missed in the debate noise: SCOTUS rules that for January 6 protestors to be convicted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law against impairing an official proceeding, "the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so". Just interfering by making a ruckus which caused the proceeding to halt doesn't cut it.
(Also Chevron deference was overturned, though I suspect courts will lose no time finding other reasons to defer to agency judgement)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
This realization undermines the social consensus foundation from the Red side, and we converge on both sides admitting more or less openly that the Court is only legitimate when it delivers their specific preferred outcomes, which is isomorphic to the court having no legitimacy at all.
Except that the blue tribe controls what legitimacy means. Once they have the court making 100% Blue decisions again, it'll be "legitimate" except for a few malcontents in the dying remains of the more radical part of Red. The bulk of Red will accept the court no matter what, because they accept the legitimacy of institutions axiomatically.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
Pressuring women for contact or sex when she has said no should not be normal. Unsolicited pictures of gentitalia should not be normal. Continuing to contact a woman after she's said no should not be normal. Lying should not be normal.
Then women must stop rewarding these behaviors. If you want to actually impose change from on high, your authority has to somehow punish Stacey when she accepts a date with Chad after she turned him down the first time. Just telling men that 'no means never' isn't going to work if they see that guys who get laid are being persistent and guys who aren't persistent don't get laid.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11d ago
and I'm a very strong 2A advocate
If you claim to be a strong 2A advocate yet your reasoning keeps leading to people not being allowed to keep and bear arms, you are not actually a strong 2A advocate.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2mo ago
Too late for that. If we're going to switch back to "states rights", it has to be for a Red issue or it doesn't look like "state's rights" but rather "who/whom".
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3mo ago
Many people hate the "stroads" of America for example
Nobody uses that term but fans of Strongtowns. Hating "stroads" for their appearance, though, is like complaining about the interior architecture of a factory. Their priority isn't visual appeal, it's function. Quaint medieval (or in the US, imitations of same) town centers with narrow twisting alleys and hipster shops are very picturesque, but if you want to get some serious shopping done, not very practical. Bringing your SUV to your nearest commercial area, bisected by a "stroad", and hitting the Home Depot, Target, and then the grocery store... now that's more like it.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11d ago
I believe a normal person should not have their rights abridged.
And a "normal person" will never have seen a mental health professional, will never have been confused about the names of his medications, will have three friends willing to swear he's moral enough to buy a firearm, etc, etc. In fact, perhaps a "normal person" wouldn't want a gun at all.
No. If you want to be a strong advocate of the Second Amendment, you must think those carveouts must be small and strongly limited. Carving out those convicted of a felony is OK. Carving out those who some psychiatrist once thought wasn't in such great shape is not. Carving out those who aren't socially connected enough to get people to vouch for them is not. Yeah, this is really hard, because it means some people who you probably don't want having a gun will (if you get your way) lawfully be able to get one whether you like it or not, but that's part of the cost of being a strong Second Amendment advocate.
Important to note is that you can sue for inappropriate involuntary commitment and that this is a major cause of malpractice claims. The opportunity to defend yourself from malfeasance is there. Yes psychiatrists have notoriously cheap malpractice insurance.
Sure, who are the courts going to believe, the psychiatrist or the crazy person?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
If he's put in prison for any of the stuff they're throwing at him now, he will be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination. You could not ask for a better way to get his base to turn out.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11d ago
This means default to no for gun acquisition for people in those categories. People deserve rights including the right not to be limited in their behavior when possible, however other individuals deserve the right to be free of molestation and incidents of bad behavior skyrocket once you look at the pot of the population that are felons or involuntarily committed.
Once you start doing balancing tests like this -- "What's the potential of harm if we let the applicant have a gun" -- you're not really talking about a right.
Felony and involuntary committment are quite different. Felony conviction is a judicial and adversarial process, and pretty damned heavyweight. Involuntary commitment can happen on the word of a cop and a doctor, or sometimes a family member and a doctor. No hearing, no advocate against commitment for the patient. Taking away someone's rights for involuntary commitment isn't anything like taking them away for felony conviction; it's like taking them away for any arrest.
(and of course NJ makes voluntary commitment, by which they mean any treatment in a psychiatric facility, and also involuntary outpatient treatment, a permanent bar to gun ownership)
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
7mo ago
That is a very uncharitable way to say "The rules of war that you say we have to follow, you have to follow them too."
Hamas does not follow the rules of war. Furthermore, the rules of war do not say half the things Israel's opponents claim they say.
How many people who were complaining about the "kids in cages" at the southern border are ardent Zionists and don't see any inconsistency in their beliefs about the morality of border enforcement?
Does it matter? Anyway, how many Mexicans were launching rockets at El Paso and San Diego? Was there some operation where an organized group directed by the Mexican government (or whatever group controlled the territory) came in and killed and kidnapped a bunch of random Americans? The situations aren't all that similar.
How many people would tolerate what's happening in Gaza if Gaza were located in South Africa?
Depends on who was doing it and who was getting it done to, naturally.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2yr ago
Marxism has been tried, over and over again. Always it produces shortages, usually it produces skulls. Why do we have to keep doing it?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
11d ago
For the rest of this, well you have a trained professional (in the case of NJ I believe it's two physicians spread out over multiple days)
A "trained professional" is not the same as an adversarial process. A police officer is a trained professional, for instance.
NJ allows for at least a 3-day involuntary commitment with no court order, just on the word of a health facility, and 6 days in many circumstances. Then they can be held up to 20 days on an ex parte court order. Only then does the patient get an actual hearing. Any of this disqualifies you from gun ownership in NJ.
And though some of this can be sued over, the burden of proof is then on the patient to prove the commitment was unreasonable. And even that doesn't restore gun rights.
Importantly the alternative is ass - does every temporary psychiatric hold involve the legal system?
If you want it to take away legal rights, especially permanently, it sure as hell ought to.
And if you want to claim to be a strong 2A advocate, you need to accept that this sometimes means accepting that people that you'd look at and say "Naa, that guy shouldn't have a gun" have gun rights too. Otherwise you end up rationalizing yourself (as many "conservatives" do) into finding even NJs gun laws to be perfectly OK.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1yr ago
Well, if you followed the implied rules here, dating apps would be completely useless for men -- just that last point is enough; there's not much point in dating if you're not going to meet in person and there will 99% of the time be some reluctance expressed to take that step. But of course rules or not, Chad isn't going to follow them (and he'll usually get away with it) so nothing changes.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
10d ago
-Involuntary commitments are always correct.
I'm already off the train.
-The type of people who are involuntary committed are not safe to own guns.
Certainly many of the type of people who are involuntarily committed are not safe to own guns. However, I know one person who was involuntarily committed as a result of a drug reaction (to prescription drugs); while the commitment may have been correct at the time, they certainly shouldn't have their gun rights taken away forever.
-Even if both of those true, you need a trial to take the guns away.
Yes. Taking someone's constitutional rights away, especially on a lasting or even permanent basis, is a Big Deal. It shouldn't be done without a trial.
If the problem is the third option, how much are you willing to pay to facilitate that? Are you willing to have people temporarily held in custody in some form until after the hearing, because they've been tentatively described as someone who can't have guns for safety reasons but they can't be taken yet?
We already have this; the problem is that just being held means they lose their gun rights forever.
Your frustration with overall NJ gun laws (which are braindead) make it easy to miss Chesterton's fence, the alternatives are force.
The relevant fence is Schelling's, not Chesterton's. There isn't one on this slope, as the NJ gun laws demonstrate. And when I bring up NJ gun laws, the first argument from many "2A advocates" I get is "they aren't the way you say". If I demonstrate they are, the answer is "good". That's not being a 2A advocate.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1mo ago
So if you say “well, women shouldn’t have to do all the housework, the cooking, the cleaning, the child care, because she is equal to the man,” you immediately have a problem because somebody has to do that stuff. So now you’re putting this on the other adult in the relationship— the man. But then he claps back with his own rights claims “why should I have to do all this? Why is it my job to do the laundry?”
This no longer works, and has not for generations. A man making such a complaint -- or worse, pointing out that as the main (or sole) source of external income, he's doing a lot for the household already -- by doing so proves himself a boor and probably a wifebeater. That has been part of the influence of feminism on culture; a man is obligated to do his share of everything, and his share is whatever the woman says it is.
The cost of compliance -- which is to say, the reams of paperwork and signoffs necessary -- will make this impractical for startups. The large companies making this stuff will do it -- eventually, with the UK getting delayed releases. The Chinese knockoffs will continue to be sold unlawfully, and a lot of new stuff just won't appear in the UK at all.
Sneer all you want (I guess you're a Real Engineer), but I think a big reason bits have continued to grow while everything else has stagnated is the regulators haven't caught up with the bits yet.
More options
Context Copy link