@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

A lot of other cities have blue politics, and are still notorious for having the above problems, (well minus shitty down towns).

Including shitty (literally) down towns in at least one case (SF). But go ahead, keep voting D to solve problems which the Ds don't solve; it's traditional.

The Supreme Court, and conservatives in general, do not want people to have gun rights. They want to make an abstract legal point about the Constitution, but they'd be horrified if it had any practical effect. "Sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms. But what makes you think that means you can carry a GUN?"

It's not a good faith claim, and if you go digging into it the goalposts will move until you get tired of chasing them.

In modern times, anti-Zionism has always been some flavor of anti-Semitism. At the least it's "let's end the nation of Israel and physically remove the Jews to somewhere else", at the most it's ordinary universal anti-Semitism that someone is playing search-and-replace games with.

As for the colleges, it appears this time people on the left are finding out that "it's just a few kids on college campuses" is not really reassuring in the slightest. As when the conservative-leaning normies found out, it's likely too late for them.

The post to me read as just a shot at Trump, not so much criticizing him for engaging in lawfare but gloating over him being sanctioned for it. The whole long introduction on the legal system read as an attempt to add verbiage to make the post acceptable as a Motte top-level post. As for what you should have done, either not posted it or gotten to the point more quickly.

"Nuance" in this case is a trick. It's a way to map a yes-or-no, guilty or not-guilty question onto a spectrum such that "guilty" is all but one of the endpoints and "not guilty" is the excluded endpoint. Then demand no one take the endpoint positions because they're not nuanced. Then all the acceptable positions get to map back to "guilty".

That is, once you're talking about "nuance", you've decided Penny is guilty and you're only talking about his level of guilt.

I think the left is making a mistake with these massive sentences. If they gave them a couple years I would feel it was fair as they went too far. But now I want them pardoned. If Trump pardons them as he should then it’s a slap in the face of the court decision. Delegitimizes the court to have the court decide these are really bad people deserving long sentences for overturning Democracy but then have the next guy release them. It feels very third worldish to me. With other lawfare attempts it seems as though any future POTUS should do mass pardons. I’m not sure how balance of powers can survive this.

Trump can't pardon them because Trump isn't president and is unlikely to ever be. By the time a Republican is allowed to take office again, they will be rotting in jail forgotten, and the "Republican" president will agree they should be in jail anyway. Part of the point of these sentences is to get across the message that opposing Democrats too vigorously is severely punishable. Of course if Trump did take office and pardon them it would be third-worldish, but it already is.

Remember the injunction against the Biden Administration working with social media companies to censor dissenting views? The conservative Fifth Circuit has stayed it. As predicted, too sweeping for conservatives.

True; the "Stand with Gaza" sign was the part where she's supporting Hamas, not the plushie.

He wasn't allowed to present any defense in court, since a default judgement was entered against him.

I'm going to take this opportunity to ask a question that has been bubbling whenever (racial) HBD comes up as a topic on this forum: do HBD advocates equally call for recognition of intra-racial HBD between classes, or does it stop at skin color?

No, this is just another gotcha. "Poor people" are not a race. We could imagine a world where assortative mating was such that there were distinct (if not perfectly so) populations separated by income level; perhaps it would look something like a society with non-interbreeding castes. The US, at least, is not such a place (though it may be moving in that direction)

Because if you go the "we won, bitches, bend over and take it" route, then you are setting up for more civil wars.

That's fine, you just keep winning until they are thoroughly beaten down or all dead. There are few political problems that cannot be solved with sufficient application of violence, supposing you have the capacity to apply it.

I agree. Palestinians don’t magically want to kill Israelis as a deeply-held first principle.

Aside from "magically" I believe you are incorrect.

They want to kill Israelis for various perceived moral grievances against the state at large.

And if they didn't have those they'd have different ones.

As an example, there are 700,000 Israeli Jewish settlers in the West Bank

And I don't believe the Gaza Palestinians give a damn about any of them.

And then the IRS would start digging into your parents finances to see if anything belonging to them could be construed as belonging to you... which they would then take. Your parents might not be too hot on that idea.

For instance, some guy on the NY subway who is just trying to get to a destination unscathed.

If you mean Penny, I don't think the camera was his problem.

But this trend of depicting ordinary people, probably dealing with various other stressors, just trying to go about their normal days and not intentionally interfering with others, forced into a standoff where they either back down and allow themselves to be trod upon, or they stand their ground and get mobbed by an uncaring internet mob for their 'racism'... it is antisocial in the extreme, if you ask me.

No, it's pro-social. It's teaching them (and others similarly situated) their place.

Looks like only one side of that bet has any epistemic skin in it.

Too many Muslims care too much about this particular conflict, and there are two billion of them now.

Muslims wouldn't hate Israel any more if Israel genocided the Palestinians, and the memory of a massacre in the past likely wouldn't keep the hatred in the forefront of their minds the way the occasional flare-ups do. The problem is Israel would lose the support of the west (and quite possibly many of their own people) if they did that.

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.

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.