@benmmurphy's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 20:04:30 UTC


User ID: 881



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 20:04:30 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 881

Women don't want to spontaneously play pickup basketball because they will be criticised for doing it for 'attention' :/

the federal government is not sending their best: https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/delhi-township/james-burk-atf-agent-charged-with-stealing-wine-from-kroger?_amp=true

Police say ATF agent James Burk took expensive wine to the self-checkout lane and charged himself a small percent of the cost.

I guess there are few mainstream politicians that believe in free speech as a principal. Most of them believe in free speech when restrictions on speech are used against them but happy to put forward restrictions on speech when they think it benefits themselves. Conservatives might look like they support free speech at the moment but its because they are the ones that mostly being screwed.

I guess he will get a gold coffin, nationwide protests and calls to defund the ATF.

There is a nice culture war troll angle with some parts of the Rust programming language community being associated with leftist political drama. Rust is a popular safe language that solves most memory safety issues and some thread safety issues. I can see someone authoring a bait piece about taking my 'freedumb' to use C++ from my cold dead hands and forcing me to use communist Rust.

Even if the petitioners win is it going to meaningfully impact what the government can do or are they just going to find work arounds like in the affirmative action decision. Presumably, the government is allowed to write to a newspaper and say I disagree with this OpEd/article here is our opinion on the matter as long as they make no demands or threats. Now if the courts say to the government you are not allowed to make requests for censorship then the government has the option to just ping the social media companies saying, "BillyBob made this post stating X our opinion is Y". Certainly, this is an improvement but maybe the end result ends up being the same with social media companies assuming there is some kind of implicit threat or demand. Though, I think some of the requests were already using a dodge around explicit censorship. For example they were saying, "BillyBob made this post stating X and this appears to violate your terms of service". So not explicitly asking them to censor BillyBob but bringing to the attention of the company that BillyBob may have been violating the terms of service for the social media site. If the court comes up with something to prevent this then maybe it will also be a solution to other work arounds the government might come up with.

ubiquitous TLS + ESNI/ECH does make it harder to perform some forms of censorship. for example if someone controlling the network wants to ban you from a particular site hosted on cloudflare or another CDN then they will need to ban ESNI/ECH connections to the whole of the CDN. more people using TLS/etc increases the collateral damage from certain blocking technologies.

I'm not so sure that the progressive agenda is to remove gender. There is a lot of progressive effort to promote female role models and that doesn't seem consistent with removing gender unless the goal was to promote female role models that would influence women to act more like men.

68% of elite ivy league graduates support banning private air conditioning and non-essential travel to fight climate change? I just do not believe that, there's clearly something wrong with the poll.

i think this is a reasonable possibility. i've heard it claimed there is a strong social desirability bias when answering surveys and the 'correct' thing to do is to fight climate change. just because they answered positively in a survey doesn't mean they would actually support the policies if it came to a vote. the cheating question is very weird and I suspect somehow they worded the question without explicitly saying cheating and claimed they question meant cheating in their summary.

It will also be interesting to see what happens to Couy Griffin (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/17/new-mexico-insurrectionist-fourteenth-amendment). I think these courts making 14th amendment decisions are screwed up. If there is either federal or state law that makes certain things a crime and punishment for that crime is that you lose the ability to hold office then I think that's fine. But courts making these decisions without a proper criminal trial with the opportunity for a jury and proper standards of evidence is broken. If you have a friendly judge you can basically remove someone from office for attending a protest where they have committed trespassing crimes.

in their opinion they also made a reference to the problem of congress being able to remove the disqualification which is something i brought up here on the motte: https://www.themotte.org/post/801/colorado-supreme-court-thread/172633?context=8#context

not exactly the same argument tho.

Its final sentence empowers Congress to “remove” any Section 3 “disability” by a two-thirds vote of each house. The text imposes no limits on that power, and Congress may exercise it any time, as the respondents concede. See Brief for Respondents 50. In fact, historically, Congress sometimes exercised this amnesty power postelection to ensure that some of the people’s chosen candidates could take office. But if States were free to enforce Section 3 by barring candidates from running in the first place, Congress would be forced to exercise its disability removal power before voting begins if it wished for its decision to have any effect on the current election cycle. Perhaps a State may burden congressional authority in such a way when it exercises its “exclusive” sovereign power over its own state offices. But it is implausible to suppose that the Constitution affirmatively delegated to the States the authority to impose such a burden on congressional power with respect to candidates for federal office. Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 436 (1819) (“States have no power . . . to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress”).

i thought 42 might have been a deliberate reference but it looks like they invited 43 and there was a no show. i'm sure these numbers are just coincidences and not deliberate numerology.

i like to pretend its not real and just modern art

The argument seems to be meritocracy is not possible because some people are going to be 'losers' in the system. Even if there wasn't race to coordinate around the 'losers' in the system could coordinate around a measure like IQ. Maybe the general argument is correct but I don't see a strong reason why race should be treated in a special way.

If they used the term 'reverse racism' then I think that is weird to begin with. There is a category 'racism' and then there are subcategories 'racism against X from Y' and 'racism against Y from X' which I assume is what they want to discuss. I would answer false because the statement doesn't make any sense and nonsense statements are false. If you try and argue the statement is true then you arguing with one arm tied behind your back because you are already accepting the main premise behind the 'false' argument. I don't see why 'racism against X from Y' should be privileged linguistically so that there is a normal 'racism' and a 'reverse racism'. I think it is just lazy on their part to use the term 'racism' when they really mean 'racism by the majority group in a country' or something similar. surprisingly, it can be difficult to know what they mean if they don't explicitly say it.

coincidentally massie is talking about the pipe bomb on his twitter again: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1750114583476404350 and 5 days ago blaze media are claiming the person who found the pipe bomb at the DNC was a plains clothes capitol police officer.


there is also potentially something weird with USD inflation. i've heard a large proportion of physical US currency (up to 50%) is held overseas. however, i'm not sure what % of the higher money supply is held by foreigners. its possible that foreigners could be helping to pay for a significant portion of seniorage which incentivises the US government and US voters to inflate the money supply.

That would be higher than average because people tend to marry intra-race at a higher rate than the population mix.

its interesting that part 2 mentions the pipe bombs. the fake pipe bombs were very weird. apparently, they were placed the night before and there is video of someone suspected of placing of the bombs but one of them (or both?) used a 60 minute kitchen timer as the pretend detonation source. now, its gets weirder because apparently someone 'found' one of the bombs at a point in time where the timing made it look like it would explode around the time of certification. this was partly covered by an interview in congress: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/republicans-release-new-information-january-6-pipe-bomb-investigation and FBI Director Wray's testimony: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DaL5RM-ZYt0 the cell phone data from the area was also mysteriously corrupted which impeded any investigation.

it was just a protest that got out of hand. a similar thing happened in Australia except it was the left protesting against a right wing government, i'm sure the right tried to make it out like it was the end of the world but i don't think anyone ended up serving 20 year prison sentences because of what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Parliament_House_riot

Isn’t this just mainstream consensus thought or something even broader like people. There is always going to be a popular consensus I’m not sure if it’s possible to defeat.

Probably, everyone is happy with the status quo. Even though it doesn't really make sense you can come up with a rationale why both Trump supporters and Trump detractors in Congress/Senate both don't want such a resolution. Trump detractors in the houses don't want it because their supporters would be unhappy they supported it (perhaps irrationally). Trump supporters in the houses don't want it because having the Colorado Supreme Court railroad Trump and then having the Supreme Court smack them down is good strategically. Maybe it would be good for Trump supporters if a vote was put forward, Trump supporters could support it but the vote still failed.

There is another problem which is they are effectively claiming Trump is disqualified from office if he was elected. But they cannot know this because it would be possible for the house and senate to remove this disqualification before he began serving. Whether Trump is disqualified or not at the point in time that he would assume office is currently unknown. This would be similar to Colorado not allowing someone on the Primary who was aged 34 years and 11 months because they are not currently qualified even though they would be qualified at the point that they serve. Maybe there is Colorado case law where they already do this which would be strange but I assume cases would be decided allowing a person of such age onto the Primary ballot. The age issue is a stronger argument because we know someone will age whereas Trump’s situation is unknown but I think it is a compelling argument.

It’s probably based off some narrow technical claim from an agency that is true. For example I’m guessing the number of electronic voting machines with no paper trail has decreased. So if you have a bunch of things you have been trying to improve and they have all improved since the last election and are the best they have ever been then you can claim it is the most secure ever. There might be other things that you don’t measure that have been going in a negative direction but because they aren’t part of the improvement plan they don’t exist.