@Walterodim's banner p

Walterodim

Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:47:06 UTC

				

User ID: 551

Walterodim

Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:47:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 551

I actually previously associated it with Green communists. I was amused to find that there is probably a lot of overlap between these people and the Hamas enthusiasts among the Western crowd.

I suppose in this case I would say that it seems like the political symbol in question "deliberately skirts the border of comprehensibility."

Do you think so? I would say that the meaning is pretty comprehensible to both his allies and enemies even if it's obscure to neutral bystanders that aren't obsessive weirdos about things happening thousands of miles away. As one of the obsessive weirdos, I would certainly interpret the natural meaning as "this whole thing belongs to Palestine".

Yeah, on average.

Anecdote, but I absolutely despise her. I think she's a genuinely terrible person, combining vacuousness and disinterest in personal conviction with a thirst for power. The only thing she truly believes is that she should be in charge. I would be surprised to find that others with my general inclination think differently.

The one caveat would be that I think I would probably get along with her just fine in person, but that's true of many terrible and destructive people.

As some anecdata from someone that drinks more than I should often enough to have some data, four of five drinks causes me no noticeable ill effect the next day provided that I cease drinking at a reasonably early hour. The negative effects either kick in at higher levels of drinking or from drinking closer to bedtime. I wear a good sports watch that tracks heart rate, stress level, heart rate variability, and sleep quality, and it confirms that basic understanding. Stress and heart rate spike in the timeframe immediately after drinking, drop back to baseline after a few hours, and the impact on sleep quality only occurs if I go to bed when stress and heart rate are still elevated.

This isn't a claim about organ or metabolic health, of course, just relaying some anecdata on short-run effects.

The N/A stuff is dramatically better than it was even just a few years ago, which should really help.

Another in between option worth a mention is just cutting down to things like All Day IPA that are still pretty enjoyable at 4% ABV. This obviously isn't actual sobriety, but it's a meaningful reduction in alcohol and calories if the norm is heavier beers.

Trajectories aren't actually inevitable and the outcome here is underdetermined. Many people just drink a bit too much and never really go beyond just drinking a bit too much.

I noticed this yesterday as well. My wife was working from home, so we grabbed lunch together, and I just could not shut the fuck up about the Kremlinology of what exactly Nancy meant by the "easy way or the hard way" and the third shooter in Butler, and all sorts of other esoteric bullshit. All of this is interesting, but at some point, I need to just drop it and talk about what toy we're going to get the dog instead. My wife's patience for my babbling is near infinite, but I must be testing it at this point.

Relatedly, whatever the legal guilt or innocence of Arbery and his killers, I do feel worse for a crazy lady that got gunned down in her own home than a guy that was likely casing a neighborhood. If we're ranking relative badness of shoots, the legal distinction between the shooters being police or clumsily constructed posses isn't going to change my mind much about which victim is more sympathetic.

Sure, "threaten" might only imply some future condition. Pulling a gun on someone and screaming that you will shoot them in the fucking face goes considerably beyond a mere threat.

I’m not clear how that makes advancing seem tactically sensible.

Chapeau to you for the double check. Seriously, I appreciate the effort and lack of combativeness. The only reason I remembered it the way I do is because I was one of people that was initially on the total condemnation route and started to rationalize it after my town got jacked up by riots. Pretty hard to consider myself cleanly rational on the matter when I think about the reaction and then the rereaction.

I would still be in the bad shoot camp. Throwing boiling water at someone is a terrible thing to do and I wouldn't begrudge them being pretty rough with her in response, but it's a one-shot deal. She's not going to be reloading the pot to continue her assault on the officers. I can imagine extenuating circumstances, but they'd have to be pretty weird. I'm not likely to get on board with shooting someone dead in their own home on the basis of an attack that can mostly be stopped by taking two steps backwards.

-The cop advances, ordering her to drop the pot.

Seems like an odd choice if your interlocutor has a weapon with a maximum effective range of approximately six feet while you have a firearm.

Yeah, I'm hinting at that here and I'm kind of joking... but this really is wild. The woman says, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" and he immediately threatens to shoot her in the face and then does so. It's the kind of thing that makes a man wonder.

The initial reaction to George Floyd was universal condemnation. I watched Sean Fuckin' Hannity talk about how terrible it was and how his MMA training (lol) would never have allowed him to do that kind of blood choke for that amount of time the night it happened. This did not succeed in preventing riots. The riots preceded the right coming up with reasons that it's actually fine for cops to kneel on necks for nine minutes.

If I were a religious man, I might suggest that responding to such an utterance with, "I'll shoot you in the face" and then doing so moments later suggests that she was aware that the man she was dealing with was possessed by demons. I am not a religious man though, so I think these are just two violent people meeting the ends of their free lives.

I am once again reminded that I do not need to pick a good guy in any given engagement. I can think of quite a few off-ramps and alternatives that the police could have selected at any point, such as turning off the stove themselves rather than commanding the resident to do so. I can think of approaches after that mistake that likely would have worked. I can suggest that screaming that you'll shoot someone in the face is probably not a great approach regardless of the situation you're encountering. None of that actually moves me to be all that sympathetic to the victim, if I'm being honest. I look around that house, look at the interaction, and just feel some gross combination of pity and contempt for the deceased. I wish the police would do better and I generally don't like them very much, but that's pretty easy for me to say when I don't have to deal with this bullshit a dozen times a day.

Without commentary on the likelihood of such a thing, some foreign actors may prefer the chaos of angry MAGAs to a suspicious but quiet death.

If anyone knows where to find the analysis, I’d like to see it, because everything online traces back to this one unsourced CNN quote.

I've been hunting around and struggling to find anything else. I'm starting to wonder if CNN reached out to National Center for Media Forensics and got that analysis from them directly rather than this being published elsewhere and reported by CNN. Weird way to write it up if so.

Palace coup:

a situation in which a leader is removed from power by the people who have worked with him or her

I was confused at what the point of these theories even was. What, if he'd been shot at and the bullet missed by a foot and only managed to wound him with shrapnel, that would suggest that the security was basically fine or the attempt wasn't a big deal? As a point of curiosity, I get it, but I don't understand how the motivated reasoning for the teleprompter theory got to whirring.

We cleared Houthis Blowing Up Fish after one of their attacks (more fun when said aloud with the same cadence as Hootie and the Blowfish). Biden Debate Prep Team also made its way through, which is probably a little spicier than it sounds in a city where most people were distraught by the outcome. So, more serious than Houthi piracy and Biden appearing senile, roughly on par with 10/7-adjacent joking.

A running bit among my friends and I when we go to trivia is joke team names based on dark humor of whatever the week's event was. We tossed a few around for fun, but decided they were all too classless to actually use. That's not terribly uncommon for us, we've previously discussed joke names like, "Merry ChristHamas" with the whole bit being maximally inappropriate naming, but we only put them down if they don't seem like they would cause sincere offense from a reasonable person. This wasn't actually a conversation about the event, but it perhaps provides a little bit of a view on whether it's a topic that's just so completely off limits that no one would make a crack about it. This is a group that's pretty normie left, but knows that I'm... well, not that.

Evidence I had but didn't really put together:

The bible talking about killing off entire families as punishments. Long lasting family feuds. Feudal level countries killing off entire families as punishments. Ongoing demands for reparations.

These don't strictly require any actual moral culpability. Pragmatists and cynics could elect to enact these measures out of a sense of vengeance, pour les encourager les autres, or simply using responsibility as a pretext.