The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
No bio...
User ID: 174
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2mo ago
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".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
7mo ago
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).
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8mo ago
Are you his campaign manager?
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
8mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3mo ago
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".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2mo ago
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".
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2mo ago
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."
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
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.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1mo ago
It is possible, even probable, for both BAP and those leftists to be insane.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
7mo 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
Does not have a yacht
10mo ago
the decision leaves open the ability for universities to consider how an applicant's race affected their life "concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university".
Which is a loophole you can drive the whole edifice through. Thanks for nothing, Roberts.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
11mo ago
Our system -- or at least the NYC system -- is worse than that. It not only allows physically strong violent criminals to dominate weak people. It requires that physically strong decent people allow physically strong violent criminals to dominate weak people. And to a large extent it requires that physically strong decent people allow even weaker violent criminals to dominate them. Because if you fight and lose you go to the hospital; if you fight and win you go to jail. Any indignity or harm visited upon you that is less bad than spending time at Central Booking, it is a no-brainer to just accept. If it's worse than time at Central Booking but less bad than time at Riker's Island, you're very probably better off just accepting it.
The theory, of course, is that this is a civilized society and the police will handle it. But if nobody's hurt badly, the police and the system will do nothing. If someone is hurt, the response won't be enough to deter the behavior; this guy had over 40 arrests. So this is government as dog-in-the-manger; they're sitting on the option of violence, but they won't do anything with it.
The stuff about the sanctity of life, "let the police handle it", "it's not worth killing someone over" sounds great in the ivory tower, somewhat less great underground.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4mo ago
That's the part that caught my interest: how did the rationalist community, with its obsession with establishing better epistemics than those around it, wind up writing, embracing, and spreading a callout article with shoddy fact-checking?
Very simple. The "rationalist community" is embedded in the SF zeitgeist and questioning callouts from women is anathema. This has happened before (e.g. Kathy F) and will happen again.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
4mo ago
The line from Trump's speech to the riot is that Trump's speech is a but-for cause of the riot. If Trump doesn't assemble the mob and tell them to go to the Capitol, they don't go to the Capitol. No mob, no riot.
Even if (arguendo) I accept that as true, it does not matter. It is not sufficient for President's Trump's speech to have caused a lawful action that was a necessary precursor to the riot. His speech must have been directed towards causing the riot.
And that's true in the sense of ordinary meaning as well as the law.
Growing up in the UK, our pro-free speech tradition has tended to rely on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for the moral (not legal) limits of free speech in contexts that look like incitement.
In the UK, your pro-free speech tradition ranges from absent to extinct, and that is itself a cause of the United States's pro-free speech tradition.
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.
More options
Context Copy link