@fluid_pride's banner p

fluid_pride


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 621

fluid_pride


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 621

Verified Email

The closest is probably the eastern euro countries where public homosexuality has legal restrictions

The closest in my opinion is Japan, in which public homosexuality is tolerated to the extent that it conforms to longstanding dramatic/performance norms (eg okage). Private homosexuality is permitted but not encouraged and generally considered shameful. The vibe as I understand it is "be gay if you have to, but keep it to yourself".

Would that the pro-gay-marriage camp shared your disdain for state sanction. As it stands, forcing everyone else, including the state, to recognize gay "marriage" was an explicit goal. Partly, this was because state sanction included some obvious benefits, such as end-of-life care decisions, intestate succession, tax status, etc.

I was just saying that presumably the intended outcome for the prosecution wouldn't be just to harass but to actually convict.

Right, but I think his point was that even if they'd prefer to convict (maximum punishment), they'll cheerfully settle for causing years of pain (guaranteed minimum punishment). Even if you (the defendant) win, you lose, and people will think twice about that kind of wrongthink in the future. The intended outcome is to suppress this kind of speech.

And it really doesn't help when the client is notorious for both refusing to pay his lawyers and bad-mouthing them after they quit.

Actually, I am in complete agreement with your comment. I do believe that there is a meaningful difference between Groups 1 and 2 and that it is reasonable to differentiate between the two. I will have to re-evaluate which term I meant was butt-derived because your reply is so sensible that I must have been thinking of something else. I will also add that people attracted to Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High are also considered part of Group 1 because she was meant to be 17 yrs and 366 days old in that scene.
OK, after reviewing my previous post, I stand by my statement. GENERALLY, soft science academic activity is mostly butt-derived. In this case, you raise an excellent and valid counter-example. Still, if a Harvard PhD tells me it's raining, I'm going to look outside the window.

Kids today are just going to learn that race and gender and identity categories are super important and you need to treat people differently according to their category and stereotypes

I just read an article where the UC system dropped 75% of faculty applicants for insufficient DEI commitment. Apparently it was a huge demerit to agree with the idea, "I try to treat everyone the same." It's not just kids today, it's being burned into institutions intentionally.

This is the only legit funny take I've seen regarding ratepocolypse . All of the "twitter is dying" noise reads so performative to me.

They don't need more young people causing trouble.

Neither do the countries these people are invading.

I recall a story about a guy being deported for rape and the whole plane protesting until he was released (and went on to murder someone else). If the population is clamoring for more "enrichment" how is mass deportation even plausible?

That's not a tax loophole, it's fraud. A loophole is a legal, non-fraudulent way to avoid taxes and is typically the result of the state trying to use the tax code to do social engineering.

That's actually a pretty good analogy for how you're using it. Well done!

Not to mention that one is supposed to verify that the cases haven't been subsequently overturned or controverted by new statute. We used to call it "Shepherdizing" and it happened more or less automatically with Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw research.

That's an interesting point. I guess I'm arguing that the most charitable interpretation of the situation is so improbable that it's not even worth entertaining. But as a rhetorical device, I can see the value in your approach.

square-Trump-in-round-Hitlers

This was great writing.

Usually in a criminal investigation, the suspect acting as if he had not committed the crime he is being accused of would be interpreted as evidence against the allegation.

It's important to note that the behaviour of someone who had not committed the crime he is being accused of may not be the same as the behaviour of someone who does not know he's being investigated for a crime. Someone falling asleep in an airport lounge is totally normal. Someone falling asleep in an interrogation room is not, at least according to one of those criminal interview videos I can't seem to find now. Normal people being accused of a crime they didn't commit tend to freak out in ways that are apparently distinguishable from someone who knows they did the crime feigning outrage at being accused.

Overall, I think your point is sound. The "banality of evil" trope should really only be considered after the evil has been conclusively established. Soldiers acting like there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away could be because there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away. It may be evidence of banality, but not evil.

I remember seeing a bunch of weird Grand Theft Auto images on imgur years ago that were supposedly Russian number station posts.

I don’t know why we can['t] run society in the same way. Run society for the benefit of the people who choose to participate productively in society.

"Social Justice" is why. If you run society for the benefit of the productive people, there will be some people who don't or can't contribute. To put it as mildly as possible, advocates for those who don't or can't contribute would strongly object to removing those people from society. Take a look at graphs showing lifetime net consumption of government benefits. Any government policy has to account for the fact that the bottom 15% of the population is functionally incapable of participating in civil society.

all people who are out there shitting on other people’s lawns are just going to be lawn shitters no matter what we do and we need to get them as far away from our lawns, and my family, as possible.

Yes.

You're right that some percentage will absolutely figure out how to game the system. We already know this because people have been buying (or stealing) laundry detergent and soda and converting that to drugs. See, e.g., https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-tide-theft-phenomenon-why-has-the-laundry-detergent-become-such-a-hot-commodity-among-thieves-at-drugstores/

However, this requires more effort than trading cash for drugs/plasma TVs. That additional step reduces misuse of the government handout. Of course, the question then becomes whether that reduction is enough to offset the costs of the EBT program plus any unintended consequences. But at a first pass, it's reasonable to expect that a restricted debit card is going to be more effective than straight cash.