@Walterodim's banner p


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


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

Sure, if your martini has an extra shot worth of Vermouth in it or whatever I wouldn't call that enough by itself. But I think spiking an otherwise non-alcoholic drink or mixing less alcoholic drinks (like beer) with more alcoholic ones (like whiskey) without the knowledge or consent of the subject can rise to a similar level.

Not to condescend, but are you familiar with the beverages in question from firsthand experience? I ask because these couple sentences include three things that seem very odd to me:

  • That's not how martinis work, no one would ever add an extra shot of vermouth.
  • Getting drunk on beverages that are ostensibly non-alcoholic would only be possible for someone that simultaneously has almost zero alcohol tolerance and doesn't notice the taste of booze, which is an uncommon combination.
  • Boilermakers are very obvious beverages. No one expecting a PBR is going to fail to notice that it has a shot of Wild Turkey in it.

If you want to stand by your friend, regardless of circumstances I think that's admirable, but say it out loud standing up straight. He did it or he didn't. If you think he didn't there are no victims to retraumatize.

This is the part that's very weird to me, where they seem stuck in some sort of Schrödinger's Rapist situation, where if he did it then it's very bad and they feel for the victims, but if he didn't then they have his back. Any situation is bound to have some uncertainty, but you can't live in both worlds, where you feel bad for the alleged victims, but also want to write your letter for the accused as though he's innocent. They certainly can do what you suggest and simply use "I can't reconcile blahblahblah" or they can say he did it, but that he still has redeeming qualities. But this notion that you feel bad for someone that you don't think was victimized is weird. If my best friend was accused of rape, but told me he didn't do it, and there wasn't any physical evidence, I wouldn't move even the slightest fucking bit off of, "she is a vile liar and I have his back 100%". In a character letter, I would write whatever I think would help him the most, but I would never even have the slightest inclination that I should apologize to the liar for any pain I caused.

I suppose this is just the product of sincerely internalizing "believe victims" while battling with the cognitive dissonance that you're pretty sure this one is actually lying.

You have to feel for BU here - after all, the guy won a MacArthur genius grant and wrote a NYT bestseller. There was no way to predict he had no idea how to run an academically rigorous enterprise.

Sarcasm? Kendi's always been a pretty obvious grifter and intellectual lightweight from where I sit.

I can imagine edge cases where this is true, but to say that they're noncentral is putting it lightly. If we're talking about someone that's coerced in some fashion or has so little experience with alcohol that they don't know what to expect, OK, I get it, that's not literally impossible. More broadly though, I think adults can pretty well tell if a cocktail is pretty stiff and if they make a mistake and wind up drunker than they were expecting, they should take some degree of responsibility for monitoring their own intake. If someone hands you an old fashioned, you can pretty well guess that there are roughly two standard drinks worth of bourbon in there. If you get a gin and tonic, you can take a sip and have a reasonable guess at how strong you think it is. If you're at a party where you really don't know people that well, sticking with things that you can count is probably a good idea in general.

I reject "getting someone drunk" as a framing that should apply to an adult. At a festival this summer, I wound up so inebriated that I had to go lie down in the shade and take a nap. Had I wanted to get up prior to sleeping it off a bit, I would have had a tough time doing so. Was I drugged? Did someone "get me drunk"? Was my wife, who was with me the entire time, responsible for my drunken state? I'm inclined to say that as an adult who has more than a passing familiarity with alcohol that I was solely responsible for my state of being.

somewhat charming cast

I think it's hard to overstate how heavily the show was driven by Hugh Laurie just being really, really good at delivering the House role. The rest of the cast does a good job too, but Laurie is perfectly cast, well written, and consistently delivers sardonic humor that keeps the whole thing running. Maybe the exact jokes don't get written that way in 2023, but the basic character would work just fine and would simply be taking shots at someone else instead.

Direct discussion of drugging was missing from the first trial — which ended in a mistrial when a jury deadlocked on all three counts — with Mueller instead having to imply it through the testimony of the women, who said they were woozy, disoriented and at times unconscious on the nights they described the actor raping them.

Wow, there's no way that wooziness, disorientation, and passing out could be explained by mere alcohol, these women must have been drugged!

Seriously, how the hell is anyone supposed to defend themselves from this other than simply replying, "uhhh, yeah, they might have been real drunk, we were indeed partying"? I keep looking at cases like this and trying to figure out how I could possibly exonerate myself if someone I hooked up with from a party 20 years ago claimed that I "drugged" her, and I've got absolutely nothing. In this case, one of them was evidently his girlfriend at the time; I really have no idea how I could defend myself if my wife decides a decade from now that having sex after we both got home bordering on a blackout drunk New Year's Eve was actually "rape".

Is there some steelman explanation I'm missing for how this could plausibly be a legitimate trial with legitimate evidence? It seems like it's literally some women that got drunk and had sex with Masterson that decided a decade later that they were actually drugged, without even the slightest bit of physical evidence for the claim. Never mind being sufficient for a reasonable doubt, I just flat out don't believe them at all.

If we're going to use for-profit private companies as markets, then I don't know, the invisible hand of the market pretty much determines what happens, and a lot of consumers don't like people they think are probably rapists.

The invisible hand of the market isn't exactly the relevant force in play when government officials are checking in with a company regarding whether someone will rid them of the meddlesome misinformer. In fact, one might say that it's the entirely visible hand of the government.

I distrusted the guy from the get-go based on vibes.

Yeah, the about-face here is just so exactly on the nose of the sort of thing that leaves me utterly repulsed by the impoverished language people have to discuss sexual malfeasance. Pretty much any guy could immediately tell you that Brand was going to be a lascivious womanizer, this is completely obvious from his physiognomy and demeanor, to the point where he's cast accordingly in movies. But we live in a time where the prevailing attitudes are that you can't judge people based on such surface-level appearances and you definitely can't judge any sex that people say is consensual, what whaddya whaddya. Upon hearing that he's exactly the guy that I would have expected, my sympathy for the "victims" is substantially dampened, while the people that would have told me that you can't judge now want him cast as a vicious rapist rather than just the exploitive perv that he always obviously was.

I'm married and have been out of the dating pool for over a decade now, so as many grains of salt as needed, but I see a few things that I consider mistakes:

  • First, there's no need to frame the situation as a date. You can just say that you want to go out for dinner, or go for a hike, or go to [cool local thing that's happening]. If things go well, you can always suggest grabbing some drinks, then it's pretty obviously a date, and that'll go wherever it'll go. If not, well, you can both play it off like it was never anything more than hanging out with your buddy anyway, so no harm done.

  • The flattery isn't necessary and probably doesn't help. It may well not hurt either, but it does make some women feel uncomfortable. The fact that you want to hang out with her already pretty clearly informs her that you find her attractive and think she would be fun to hang out with.

  • Not to go full PUA, but I think you're just too damned nice in the message. The level of niceness gives off a bit of an air of desperation, even if it's not really there. I think men are better off with some degree of carefree nonchalance or making it seem like it should be exciting to hang out with them rather than framing it as though it would kind of be a favor and would be potentially embarrassing if she didn't want to go. Try something shorter, along the lines of, "hey, I'm headed to the concert on the square Thursday night and maybe out for drinks after, want to join?". Framed that way, you're already doing something, it's going to be fun, and if she just doesn't want to she can opt out without actually saying that she doesn't want to go on a date.

Alternative explanation, presented as a devil's advocate position with much less charity for Tim Ballard - he was leading a cult and cults often turn into sex cults when their leaders are sufficiently in control of the group. Even the eventually notorious Jim Jones started his cult with what looks like sincere dedication to the anti-racist cause, charity, and equity for all. That Ballard and OUR inspire incredible passion and loyalty from their followers, that the followers are often steeped in conspiracy theories about evildoers going to the highest level of international governments, and that Ballard has experience with LDS doctrine are the sorts of things that make think it's entirely possible that this organization could go from being primarily do-gooders to being basically a cult. What's fun is that this story can fit neatly with your James Bond narrative - if there's anything I've learned from listening to Timesuck cult episodes, it's that these leaders seem like they eventually come up with reasons that they just have to screw the attractive women in their cult, and that the leaders seem to at least somewhat believe the story they're telling. Tim Ballard could have believed that he was the James Bond of the anti-slavery world, that it was very important that he have sex with his followers, and there's a pretty good chance that people would just kind of go along with it until something snaps that makes everyone rethink what the hell they're doing.

I'd certainly be surprised if this had any effect on attitudes towards emigration, for the obvious reason that the "victim" is an immigrant himself.

All other sentiments and realpolitik aside, most people don't really want brutal tit-for-tat murders in their country, regardless of who the perpetrators and victims are. Speaking as an American that holds no general animus towards Indians in general or Indian immigrants to the West more specifically, the main gut feeling I get from this incident is, "can't you people leave your internecine disputes in your old country when you move here?". I don't expect many people in good social standing to say as much out loud, but I kind of do expect that this is the prevailing gut feeling that most people in the West have when they hear that Indian immigrants have brought a bloody conflict that we don't even really understand to North America.

To add even more spice, California just approved unemployment for striking workers. No matter how ridiculous I think we've gotten, there's always a new vanguard to subsidize people that refuse to work with funds from people that are working.

I feel like it is important to note that "it" here is still fiction! I play video games that involve killing dozens or hundreds of people. I enjoy it, I seek it out, I talk about how much I enjoy it in public. Can we infer I want to kill or would enjoy killing dozens or hundreds of people on that basis?

I can absolutely infer that there's a significant portion of the male population that enjoy war, violence, combat and competition, even to the point of lethality. Given that I know absolutely nothing else about you (maybe you're ex-special forces and have in fact killed lots of people before), the idea that you would enjoy or get some kind of pleasure out of a lethal competition is actually a reasonable inference.

Addendum to this - I would wager that the games @Gillitrut enjoys involve killing people that damned well have it coming, or at least are legitimate targets for violence within the context of whatever character is being played. The gameified version will probably be amped up and more extreme than plausible real-life situations, but at the core of the game is a fantasy that a lot of men really do find pretty cool and would find satisfaction in accomplishing in real-life. I'm going to play some XCOM at some point today, and while I don't actually want aliens to invade Earth so I can lead a rebel group and kick their ass, I have to confess that I think it would be pretty badass if I led a rebel group kicking alien ass. Likewise for actions taken in Cyberpunk, RDR2, and others.

Perhaps the correct inference is more directional than literal. In games and fantasies, we can amp up something that we feel a bit of an urge for to a comically high level, tearing apart corpo mercenaries with cybernetic gorilla arms, which probably isn't something that many of us would want in real-life, but the basic urge to do violence against evildoers is actually quite common.

If the chief of police responds to questions about a rise in sexual assault rates in the city and says 'women should be covering their drinks at bars' and then does nothing else to address the problem through their office, they are blaming victims instead of doing their job.

Returning to bikes, the chief of police really is apt to say, "buy a good U-lock that isn't easily defeated without an angle grinder, there are simply too many bikes stolen for us to reliably track down the thieves and recover the bike". The police can do their best to track down the most egregious offenders and can include patrols that decrease the likelihood of theft, but carelessness and villainy can't reliably be thwarted by good detective work.

If it's the norm rather than something weird and unusual, it might make sense to just turn the President's Special Prosecutor into an office that gets appointed by the opposition at the start of each Presidency. Maybe this is an incredibly stupid idea, but I generally prefer formalization to pretense, and if it's going to be done either way than I'd rather just have an institution that's explicitly dedicated to adversarial investigation of the President than pretend that this President has done something especially unusual and bad.

That is not the least corrupt interpretation, since it is Burisma (like all companies), not Hunter Biden, that wants to create the appearance of connections (not "a corrupt bribe scheme").

And what, Hunter is just so earnest that he failed to notice that his employment was based on creating the appearance of the ability to influence the highest level of American politics? I said the least corrupt plausible interpretation, which doesn't imply willingness to accept an utterly ridiculous level of obliviousness to the implications of accepting payments from a corrupt company in Eastern Europe.

When the least corrupt interpretation plausible is that Vice President's crackhead son accepted six or seven figure payments or no-show jobs to intentionally create the appearance of a corrupt bribe scheme in a country where the Vice President was leveraging American spending to have prosecutors removed, this is still a huge scandal by any reasonable interpretation.

I'm not quite so inclined to let my enemies redefine my values for me. When I say that Americans should be free and equal, I do not mean to say that we need some Harrison Bergeron weights to make sure that no one can run too fast, but to say that we should all receive equal treatment before the law and be treated with some measure of égalité by our peers. I expect that the result of this will be rather unequal outcomes, I am not surprised or affronted by that outcome and I do not see any conflict of values in striving for equal justice while having unequal abilities, desires, and luck.

I had a conversation over the weekend with a friend that is now compelled to write "Türkiye" in all formal documentation and I must confess that I'm absolutely baffled by why anyone is agreeing to play along with the petty power games of renaming the country. Many, many countries have different local names than what they're referred to as internationally or in other languages, and pretty much no one cares about these distinctions as anything other than petty provincialism. I will be very surprised if the residents of Deutschland start taking offense to being called Germany, or if the English decide to call the pasta homeland Italia. I have no intention of demanding that Mexicans who say "Estados Unidos" knock it off and learn some goddamned English. Nippon doesn't usually go by Nippon internationally, and if it did, that would still just be a weird Anglicization of the actual Japanese.

I know I'm going to look like a total boomer, and a low-class one at that, but I will still be writing Turkey and India for the foreseeable future, along with ordering Chicken Key-Ehv rather than Chicken Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev.

Rent seeking is a real issue, but they tend to apply that to things which aren't rent-seeking either, like taking advantage of existing tax deductions and government incentives.

Many people seem to think that "rent-seeking" refers to any business that collects rent from tenants. I suppose this is a product of the linguistic similarity, but it has the unfortunate effect of giving people a belief that disliking their landlord is motivated by some serious political principle.

Decade, singular anyway. We may differ on the quality of his pre-political life.

I'm going to be more concerned with the power-seeking nature of the career power-seekers on stage with him. If the claim is simply that politics is a grift, I don't disagree, but that's hardly an indictment of the only guy there that wasn't part of the swamp for decades.

What's the grift? He's already pretty rich. I'm not clear what the angle is that would be better than just building another company. If the "grift" is that he doesn't really want to be a politician and is just pretending to be a politician so that he can get political power, I find that I'm puzzled.