@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

But this is not a fundamentally partisan issue. Virtually nobody, looking dispassionately at that questionnaire, wants to defend it. Everybody wants competent, effective air traffic controllers. Everybody, I suspect, can sympathize with the people who paid and worked through years of education to have their career path suddenly pulled away for political reasons far beyond their control. I am confident that Buttigieg can see that just as well as the rest of us, that for many, it is simply the same neglect everybody else has shown towards the case that has led it to linger awkwardly unresolved for a decade.

And TW is still pushing mistake theory. Yes, no one wants to defend that questionnaire. The people who developed it and ran it don't want to have to. However, they also don't care about and won't actually sympathize with the people injured. They really do want more black Air Traffic Controllers, and they don't care much how they get them. We've seen this over and over again; DEI pushers will engage in open discrimination (as with the recently canceled race-based internships at NYC financial firms) when they can and covert discrimination if they think they can't do it openly. Their goals are what they say they are -- more people in favored groups being allowed into the positions they gatekeep for, and fewer people in unfavored groups.

4. She scans (checks out) a bike one of the kids is sitting on, and tries to take it.

When the video starts, she's sitting on the bike. How, exactly, did she dislodge the teenager and get on the bike herself?

The fallacy of gray is in full effect here.

1) Come up with a theory about nations

2) Have it miss for three very large nations

2a) Including the one you're trying to use it to make predictions about.

3) Don't immediately discard it.

Sorry, this is just bad science.

In a bizarrely pro-Trump interpretation of his tweets, one staffer who was supposed to actually evaluate his tweets said that when Trump referred to "American Patriots" in a tweet, he wasn't referring to the rioters, but to people who voted for him. I have no idea why this person thought that the people who rioted weren't Trump supporters.

Bizarrely pro-Trump? The tweet was this:

"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!"

Were there 75,000,000 rioters? Did Trump actually say in this very tweet he was referring to people who voted for him?

What this release amounts to is many people inside Twitter were looking for a reason, any reason, to ban Trump, and despite some initial resistance by some more process-oriented people, he was indeed banned.

Here's what a better system would be. We get a bunch of lowly paid people who issue small tickets to people who violate simple laws. Traffic and parking violations, fare evasion, jay walking, littering, etc. We put these people in stupid, non-threatening uniforms. They are instructed not to chase people, not to look for warrants, not to arrest people.

This is just anarcho-tyranny formalized. The ordinary mostly-law-abiding citizen has to worry about swarms of officers harassing them and eating out their substance (by fining them). The criminal can just run and get away with not only the minor crime, but whatever major crime they would have been arrested for.

You know what didn't generally get top reviews from critics?

Jean Claude Van Damme movies.

You know what no one got called sexist or misogynistic for disliking?

Jean Claude Van Damme movies.

I just want to carve out the fact that there is room for nuanced claims in this discussion

Smoke and mirrors are not "nuance".

Carlson tells us that the man who incited a riot must not be punished or else we'll get more riots.

Trump did not incite a riot in any way, shape, or form. There is simply no reasonable line you can draw between Trump's statements (which, among other things, were not made at the site of the riot) and the riot. Not by the Brandenburg standard, and not by any standard which has been applied to any politician since Brandenburg.

I realize you're not American and may not be familiar with American freedom of speech traditions and jurisprudence, but there simply isn't a serious question here, and anyone who IS familiar with such traditions and jurisprudence knows it. You simply cannot take take the fact of a riot, and anodyne political statements made as part of a political demonstration ("I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."), and infer from the latter an attempt to incite the former. Nor can you do things like "Trump claimed the election was stolen; if the election was stolen violence would be justified; therefore Trump called for violence". That's just not valid. The test is that the speech must be intended to cause imminent lawless action, and it must be likely to cause it. Ex ante likely, that is, though that doesn't much matter because it fails the "intent" test. Telling a group to march to the Capital to make their voices heard is unquestionably protected speech of the sort even Robert Bork would accept.

So you are probably right that Trump will not get his immunity. And given a DC jury, chances are pretty good that he'd be convicted; contrary your claims, I think a D.C. jury would convict Trump of anything up to and including murder without evidence of a victim. And he may indeed go to prison. And if that causes widespread violence, everyone involved in his imprisonment absolutely deserves it. I doubt it will, though; the part of Trump's base capable of widespread violence is wholly infiltrated by the FBI and/or cowed by the Jan 6 response, and the rest is all bark and no bite.

Much of House's behavior was intended to be unacceptable when it was made; what's changed isn't so much that as the idea that you can portray a character with such unacceptable behavior, especially if he gets away with it (shades of the Hays Code).

Now I'm at best a middle-of-the-road martial artist, but I'm not a malnourished psychotic either. Compared to Neely I'm a force of nature.

No, a malnourished psychotic is closer to a force of nature. No inhibitions.

In a train car with a dozen people I doubt I could do enough damage to kill someone before being stopped. Maybe? Call it under 10%, fixating on one person with the sole goal of killing.

OK, now suppose no one's trying to stop you except the victim, and you get to choose the victim. Because if no one being reasonably in fear of their life precludes physical defense of others, then you shouldn't be including others stepping in when you're deciding if such fear is reasonable.

You missed the update. She claims to have receipts proving she rented it first. Which didn't save her from being suspended from her job on the say-so of the Internet, of course.

Propagandists have been claiming that the FAA DEI story was fake, the test designed to favor black applicants never existed, etc.

And they're going to keep claiming that. And those with power will keep believing them because they want to believe them. Already you see people in his replies:

this reads like 2 friends trying to spread a cheat code they they found, not something systemic or interesting

Others have pointed out that the email is salesmanshipy and could have dubious connection to actual hiring decisions.

Basically "nothing to see here".

Nobody's going to get arrested. Nobody's going to get fired. Some people might get a token monetary settlement. The FAA already stopped this practice (it took an act of Congress), but they won't be deterred from doing it again.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are standing on a stage. Behind them is a banner which says (in Modern Hebrew and English) "Welcome Jewish Refugees from the Democratic Party". The camera pans back to show a large auditorium. Empty, except for Bill Ackman hanging out near the exit.

Or in other words, the progressive left can safely support the Palestinians and be anti-semitic all they want, because Jews aren't going to go to the alternative.

Ah yes:

Our nation has always recognized limits on free speech. Furthermore our nation has long recognized the legal concept of product liability. Oh and let us not forget that fraud consists of telling lies to gain an advantage or benefit. Censoring lies is fully in keeping with the spirit and the letter of our free speech rights.

And much more of the same. And lots of quoting Schenck v. US, which hasn't been good law since 1969. Full-throated defense of government censorship of social media, along with a bunch of vitriol towards Republicans for daring to oppose it.

Are you his campaign manager?

But Freddie's approach actually makes total sense as an attempt to force people to have skin in the game. The society is largely controlled by the rich and affluent. As long as they can escape to charter schools, catholic schools, or hire private tutors, they will do that instead of using their wealth and affluence to fix public schools, so those being horrible will remain solely poor people's problem. If we close all alternatives then it becomes everyone's problem and everyone has to solve it.

I generally call this the hostage-taking approach: "You fix the public schools, or your kids suffer". Or in the perhaps more common form "You hand over more money for the public schools or your kids suffer." It's not about skin in the game. Skin in the game might be having legislators and school boards have THEIR kids in public schools. J. Random Taxpayer (even J. Random Wealthy Taxpayer) who sends his kids to private schools is not trying to play the game without having skin in it; he's trying to get out of the game.

first we go to the nearest KKK Grand Dragon and ask him if he's willing to pay $30k in taxes to have an innocent black man imprisoned for a year

He's probably going to laugh at you and inform you there's no such thing as an innocent n-word.

If the statistics were the other way, nobody would even bother doing all this rationalization and theorization to explain away the reasons one party is much more likely to want a divorce than the other. This is all coming from a strong prior of "there's no way it could be meaningful in a way that reflects negatively on them that women usually initiate the divorce".

White is 0xFFFFFF. 0x7F7F7F is dark gray.

I would support Biden over Ron DeSantis at this point

Nice try. Biden would support such laws too, just as enthusiastically. This law is stupid and at least in part unconstitutional, but it doesn't give Biden an edge over DeSantis in terms of "conservatism", it just reduces DeSantis's edge.

No, it was pretty clearly the Trump campaign.

No, it was not. It was 2014 at the latest. By the time Trump came around, the "freeze peach" people were in full control. See also, "Gamergate".

Hizzoner Eric Adams, Mayor of New York, has filed a lawsuit in California court against TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and Facebook accusing them of "fueling a youth mental health crisis".

Among his particulars are

Using algorithms to generate feeds that keep users on the platforms longer and encourage compulsive use.

Using mechanics akin to gambling in the design of apps, which allow for anticipation and craving for "likes" and "hearts," and also provides continuous, personalized streams of content and advertisements.

Manipulating users through reciprocity – a social force, especially powerful among teenagers, that describes how people feel compelled to respond to one positive action with another positive action. These platforms take advantage of reciprocity by, for example, automatically telling the sender when their message was seen or sending notifications when a message was delivered, encouraging teens to return to the platform again and again and perpetuating online engagement and immediate responses.

I dislike social media as much as the next grouch, but this to me seems like it should be booted out of court for "Failure to state a claim, and if you did have a claim it would be precluded by the First Amendment, and also I fine you 1 million dollars for using out-of-state courts for political posturing."

One can't help but notice that no one was interested in banning people from competing in sports due to biological advantage until the discussion was about trans women.

On the contrary; plenty of people were banned from competing in sports due to biological advantage before trans women were even an issue. They were just called "men" and they were banned from women's leagues.

I don’t agree with forcing expansive gun rights on liberal states whose electorates have clearly rejected them.

Fine. Then Kim Davis gets her job back, all lawsuits dismissed, and gay marriage only exists in gay-friendly states. Otherwise, none of this "Federalism for thee but not for me stuff". Particularly since unlike gay marriage, gun rights are in the Constitution.

Conservatives are quite capable of lawfare and they have a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court majority. If 'intent to intimidate' rulings were shutting down conservative political rallies around the country they're quite capable of funding legal challenges and appealing their way to a court where they have a sympathetic majority.

And so several years later the Supreme Court gets the case. In the meantime conservative rallies continue to be chilled and conservative protestors not chilled are charged. And the Supreme Court gets the case and says "No, you can't do that". And the prosecutors then pick a slightly different law to use against conservative protestors and it starts all over again. Having only the Supreme Court isn't sufficient.

And of course all that requires the protestors get a lawyer willing to press the constitutional issue rather than just plead. Conservatives getting competent and zealous representation in Virginia has been a problem.

What is the point of these huge verdicts if there is no hope of it being paid.

To punish him for being Alex Jones, dissident, to put him out of business forever, and as a warning to others who might follow his path.

It is possible, even probable, for both BAP and those leftists to be insane.