@benmmurphy's banner p

benmmurphy


				

				

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

				

User ID: 881

benmmurphy


				
				
				

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 881

i don't think the calculus is so straight forward. imagine that there is a fixed amount of raping that men want to commit. then basically any kind of defence is a defection because the defence is a cost and the same number of rapes is going to happen no matter what. i'm not saying that this is the actual reality but it is a possibility and if you advise defending against rape then you should also be prepared to defend against this. the reality is probably defence is part defection and part reduction but then it is much more complicated question. of course also there is the question of whether the cost of defence justifies the risk reduction. you could not walk across the badly lit field for a x% reduction in rape but is that actually worth the cost of pursuing the alternative route. i fear there is trap where people will sacrifice anything to avoid some kind of negative -EV event but i don't think this is rational.

i think a lot of these decisions are very complicated but unfortunately they are reduced to soundbites like 'i shouldn't have to change my behaviour because some dickheads will fuck with me' or 'you need to take preventive actions so dickheads won't fuck with you'.

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.

The norms have already been broken. The best outcome for norms is for the prosecution to be successful but Trump to win in a landslide and be gracious in his victory. Presumably no one would try and pull this shit again after the electorate rejects it.

Israel has been in a stalemate situation with Palestine for a long time. One has to wonder why Israel has not been able to impose their will on Palestine even though they are the superior State and they have the backing of the global hegemon. However, maybe this stalemate is a feature of the incentives. Imagine you are a US congress critter and there are companies in your state that are supplying weapons to Israel as part of the US->Israel defence aid. If the Palestinian question was resolved then a bunch of people in your district may no longer be employed making weapons. Is this is a possibility? Are congress critters actually intelligent or machiavellian enough to carry out this policy. People assume the current situation is a result of 'commies' in the state department but maybe its because of 'capitalists' in the state department.

i think giving any kind of attention to the shooters increases the probability of future shootings. i think there is very strong evidence that a similar thing happens with suicides. i'm not sure how big of an impact it is or if its worth the trade off to suppress such things but in a free society it is difficult to suppress such things.

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.

also, if the US fights China how am I getting my new iPhone

we are already having people doing coding interviews with us and using chat-gpt to generate the solutions

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.

somehow i ended up in looking at this youtube channel: https://youtube.com/@hausofguns/videos but it has not been active for 7 years and a similar story for the guys twitter: https://twitter.com/HausofGuns. what do you think happened to the guy? it seems a bit weird that he just fell off the map.

-- this is just me being crazy. i guess maybe his business didn't work out. he still seems to be around.

sorry, i edited my post so you replied to the pre-edited version so it looks a bit odd. i think the original petitioners made the appeal but i'm not sure if they are addressing just the 14th amendment issue or the 1st amendment issue as well. i've seen in some media reports that trump wants to challenge the 1st amendment issue.

the problem is if they do kill trump then you can't vote for him. you will probably just end up accidentally voting for an establishment candidate in the end even if you try your best not to.

i think usually people cleaning up externalities would otherwise be doing something else to produce GDP in the economy so the issue is usually not so bad in practice. also, in practice how GDP is calculated might not include some cleaning externalities. GDP is based on final goods otherwise you could just increase GDP by infinitely splitting production into smaller steps. some externality cleaning is going to look like an 'input' to a final product.

yeah. obv there is something not normal between the rate of rapes between the two races but i think a lot of articles from the 'pro-white' perspective exaggerate the discrepancy because if you have a model of perpetrators selecting random victims then blacks are going to naturally commit more rapes against whites per population. however, in the article emil does make the case that victim selection is not random and perpetrators tend to target victims that they have access to and there is a lot of racial segregation so its a lot more complicated. this 'random' model might not be appropriate.

there seems to be two things

  1. blacks are committing more rapes than whites per population and this seems to be undeniable

  2. blacks are targeting whites more than some kind of 'normal' model of rape would predict. this seems much harder to prove mostly because wtf is this normal model of rape. it seems like some random model of rape is inappropriate due to neighbourhood distribution. so how do you come up with some 'normal' model of rape.

i did slightly better after i think after 4 guesses i just decided left->woman right->man because i assumed the leftist parties would have more women than men and the MP selection would be selected randomly and the the ideological composition would be random. given i have NFI about finnish politics these seemed like reasonable assumptions. tho the ideological composition or the quiz random selection are very dubious assumptions.

As far as I’m aware if the police were prosecuting her under Part 3A 29B of the public order Act she has a clear defence because she was in a private dwelling and only people within that dwelling heard her. Now, maybe she is screwed because the police recorded it and the police then played the recording to people outside the dwelling but I think you can claim a defence that you reasonably believed your words would not be heard outside the dwelling. I suspect the reason for this defence is to cover situations where the accused is being secretly recorded. Of course it also completely ridiculous for the police to accuse you of a crime that they have facilitated by their own actions.

2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A

The whole situation is a bit sad because without the altercation at the end it does look like good community policing. Maybe the officer was just sick of being a glorified taxi driver for bratty girls and kicked off.

that's the cheekiness of the opinion. how or why would trump appeal a decision that went in his favour even if the opinion derided him? the original petitions have filed an appeal but i'm not sure if the higher court will just address whether the 14th amendment applies to Trump or whether he engaged in insurrection or not. presumably, if the higher court did find the 14th amendment applied it would eventually have to also make a finding on the free speech issue if Trump pushed it but i'm not sure if this would be done at the same time or not.

it is a problem because you can always find someone who is associated with cause X but also has unsavory opinion Y. of course it seems like its fine to use these tactics to smear other causes.

sam brinton must have read the alt-text on that comic

Also, there is a new motion in the FBI Seth Rich FOIA case from the plaintiff that seems to make the claim that the FBI covered up Seth Rich's involvement in the email leak.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf

Previously from the FBI:

https://twitter.com/Ty_Clevenger/status/1601780110117703680

https://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022.12.09-FBI-reply.pdf

that's kind of a weak man. they are going to say that blacks can't succeed with AA because of the systematic racism and that is why they need affirmative action. not because of something intrinsic to blacks but rather something that society is doing to blacks.

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.

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.

there is a big difference between messing about on a different continent and messing about next door.

sarah is just GPT. KEKW. the funny thing is probably everyone in your timeline i just some kind of AI but just more realistic so just go with the flow.