@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

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

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.

9 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've posted about this before. Watch police bodycam videos. The speed at which ho-hum traffic stops turns into "SHOTS FIRED! SHOTS FIRED!" is frightening.

Boo hoo. If they can't handle it, they should find another job. Compensating by treating everyone they stop like a potentially-perfidous enemy surrendering is not compatible with liberty.

For everyone who thinks that police are predisposed to tyrannical behavior and/or are drunk on power, I would offer that their job description is "interact with highly emotionally activated individuals on a daily basis, often with a very real threat of violence."

Everyone stopped by them is interacting with highly emotionally activated individuals with a real threat of violence, and it isn't even their job.

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.

I know the Persians are a civilized people, so they may not resort to brute force violence.

LOL. You know, the storming of the US embassy and the ensuing hostage crisis is in fact within living memory.

Obvious sophistry. It's a way to get people from outside the city to pay for NYC transit unions.

Yes, I say if some ordinary person rolls up the tinted windows between them and a cop at a stop that's already contentious, the cop is going to put a few rounds into the window and say he was afraid the driver was using the tinted window as cover to get out their own gun. And one "Hoffmeister25" would be among the first to defend said cop. There's no statistical question here -- most people don't do what Hill did, after all.

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

The Obstructing part is problematic because what the judge did doesn't fit into anything that's actually described under the obstruction statutes. chapter 73 of the US Criminal Code has 21 sections, and while §1505 doesn't specifically define obstruction, the sections that do make references to things like destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribery, and suborning perjury.

After the January 6 charges, there can't possibly be any limits on "obstructing an official proceeding".

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

It reminds me of women who say all men are rapists waiting to be rapey.

So you've got nothing but analogy to your headcanon?

Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.

I can certainly impugn the whole protest movement, since it is a whole.

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)

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.

Distributed throughout the second half. The whole tone of that half strikes me as just gleeful that Trump's people are being sanctioned.

I expect this loses Trump the normiecons/boomercons, who will "trust the jury", and thus also ensures an election loss. We'll also get a lot of talking head noise from media-appointed "responsible conservatives" who will excoriate Trump for "refusing to accept the verdict" the way he refused to accept the 2020 election result and blame him for "risking tearing the country apart".

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.