@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Man, I thought the immigration fraud argument was stupid when it came up years ago, and I think it’s stupid now. Are you the same guy who brought it up on Reddit? Because I’m pretty sure you’re citing the exact same tabloid. Do you have anything more credible?

  • -16

Look at yourself.

Trawling lists to tally up your racial quotas. Wringing your hands over the tragic underrepresentation of your preferred demographic. So determined to believe that skin color (or however you can most favorably slice the boundaries) determines moral worth and political value. Behold the Übermensch!

You are giving an object lesson in why identity politics suck. You are recreating the field of grievance studies. I have no doubt that you could give me a dozen reasons why the stereotypically progressive position is foolish and immoral, so why are you wasting your time recreating it?

Have some self-respect.

I notice that there are still no convictions!

Edit: whoops—a guilty plea does count. I was wrong, then.

I also notice that you’re determined to work in Ron “JEW” DeSantis’s JEWISH hate speech law signed JEWISHLY in JEWrusalem. You’re very persistent. I will stand by what I said before: that bill is a sensible modification of existing law. Hanging out on a campus was already a crime; this breaks out intimidation as a specific motivation with different charges and reporting requirements. As @Gdanning pointed out, there’s a firm constitutional basis for that regardless of Charlottesville.

I assume you’re talking about the Netflix Escaping Twin Flames, rather than the slightly older Amazon Escaping Twin Flames Universe. Kind of weird that they were produced so closely; I doubt they have much difference in content or messaging.

With that out of the way.

Congratulations! You’ve successfully invoked the Worst Argument in the World, and now I feel obligated to defend the motte’s favorite punching bag. First: I do not think child transition is a good thing. I do not support people or charities endorsing it, implementing it, or making it school policy. Same goes for drag queen story hour, which gives me the same uncomfortable feeling as most Americans. The broader umbrella of “gender-affirming care” is something that I think is oversold, even a fad, but I would not deny it to consenting adults. I understand that you think the whole edifice is literally fake and gay. That’s no excuse for the Worst Argument.

The best of your comparisons between transgender advocacy and Twin Flames is the final ritual/medical practice. I have some objections there, mostly due to selection bias, but let’s call it a good comparison. Sure, pushing someone to undertake surgery is an extremely suspect way to shore up one’s own power.

Everything else gets shakier. Where’s the equivalent to cult control of income? To struggle sessions? Hey, sometimes people get therapy, which is kind of like being convinced to be doing something, which is kind of like what a cult would do. Or worse—sometimes they imitate their friends. Clearly, that must be further evidence of cult behavior.

One of the signature features of cults, one you mention yourself, is control of information. I agree that kids in public schools are relatively controlled. The cult of George Washington has held power for too long, and our kids are indoctrinated that lying about cherry trees is bad. Yes, schools teach things to children. Your legitimate objections to what they’re teaching is not evidence of a cult.

It’s almost a moot point, given that the youngest generation has more access to information than any before. They can go on their smartphones and find traditional gender roles. Why don’t they? How did teachers suddenly gain mythical powers of narrative control for this one subject?

The common thread, here, is that there is more than one explanation for what you’re noticing. Kids do copy their friends and take adults at their word, just as they do for everything else. Adults in positions of power are using this to promote politics or aesthetics, just as they do for everything else. You might have seen such phenomena in a cult documentary, or you might have seen it in a chess club, on a BBS, in a small 1800s town. It’s not unique to cults.

But the key piece, the one most conspicuous in its absence, is the leader. Cui bono? Who is the Jeff Divine, the Marshall Applewhite, the Jim Jones? That’s not to say a cult has to have a charismatic leader. It’s just the first thing people think about. The central example, as it were. Hence my accusations of Worst Argument.

You have one interesting piece of evidence: both this cult and these people pushed members towards invasive, extreme surgery. You have a smattering of weak evidence: trans advocates do a bunch of stuff which sort of, if you squint, looks like cult behavior instead of regular social dynamics. And you ignore any missing pieces because you’ve already made up your mind. Trans bad, cultists bad, therefore trans cultists.

And everyone clapped.

As far as I know, the locals got a say. They didn’t want Lee to hang around. I believe the bronze is going to be used for some sculpture or installation. While I’m sure you will find it low-effort or objectionable, it will still be public art. I think that’s a perfectly valid use of the materials. There’s no statute of statue limitations, and if the current residents (owners? Caretakers?) wanted to melt the statue, more power to them.

I do think the authorities were wary of what you describe. The article also cited a risk of “violence” if the statue were to remain on display somewhere. I imagine they were thinking of white supremacists reclaiming Mr. Lee for Stone Mountain, Dukes of Hazzarding their way over innocent museum visitors along the way. If I’m feeling charitable, they were probably also worried about attracting anti-Confederate vandals.

Your speculation, though, is off-base. Lee is just too removed to merit personal hostility. Can you think of any particularly gentlemanly myths about the guy? All I’ve got is that he joined the Confederacy out of some kind of principled stance; partial credit, but not particularly unique. And I expect my knowledge of historical trivia is a lot broader than the average statue-tipper.

No, sometimes people mean what they say. Lee represents the Confederacy more than he personifies it. Hundreds of thousands died because he, and people like him, chose to stand up for a garbage cause. Nothing personal about it.

Looks good to me.

The most invasive part is potentially deplatforming some people on Twitter. Anything which discourages treating that cesspit as a “public square” is a net good in my book.

All the rest looks like boring cultural initiatives. Business as usual for the NEA and friends! Hardly worth being a Concerned Citizen over, no?

I have to assume you mean this WaPo article.

If so, I guess I’d better head off any misunderstandings. There’s really no sense in getting heated over this long-dead loser. Even in its current state, this statue holds together better than the Lost Cause mythos. It’s more defensible than the Confederacy, too. I think Lee’s just getting caught up with what Sherman did to Georgia.

Also, it looks like the detractors are doing this legally. I don’t see why you should get the final say over whether Lee’s body parts get to remain in a Union.

  • -10

This is such a motte and bailey.

Your discontent with the procedural flaws is perfectly defensible. Even though I disagree with your assessment of the impact, I understand why you and others would feel so strongly. But then you insist that it constitutes stealing. This is wrong on the merits; it is also grossly insufficient to justify the response.

Stealing is a crime. The “violations” of the secret ballot were, as far as I can tell, quite legal. Perhaps they shouldn’t be—I found the arguments in last week’s thread quite convincing. How do you intend to bring those about? Does it involve Proud Boys hanging around polling places, deciding when the vote seems adequately secured? How do you prevent them from democratically deciding who looks too Democratic to vote?

Trespassing is also a crime, along with conspiracy, incitement, and whatever else they tossed at the rioters. They definitely should be. Whatever you think about the un-democratic quality of mail-in voting, it cannot be as bad as throwing out a vote by force. That is the central example of how democracies get dismantled, and ours is right to forbid it.

Win you get the spoils, lose you go to jail.

Hardly. Lose and flip the table, threaten your lawmakers, and demand the result be thrown out until it favors you, go to jail. Which of those factors is load-bearing?

Imagine the counterfactual world in which this mob made it to the Senate and hovered over their shoulders until getting the proclamation they wanted. Do you think that results in a more stable, honest democracy? Do you think blatant intimidation is a winning strategy? That the media won’t mine this for footage of the most intimidating rioter hovering next to the frailest, most sympathetic Senator?

The best outcome is a special election with massive turnout as Democrats (rightfully) claimed election interference. The more likely outcomes involve partisan violence. People who were already inclined to burn courthouses in the name of justice are going to take away a different lesson:

Win you get the spoils. Lose, you get to try again, so long as you can threaten violence.

But hey, at least it’d be democratic.

It’s plenty CW. Too much, even.

“DAE think trans is like [insert bad thing here]?” Isn’t exactly new to this board.

I feel a little bad about this, but whenever I see you complaining about Trump-persecution, it biases me in the other direction. As if the fact you felt a need to explain is evidence against his behavior. I know this isn’t really rational; it’s a reflex from years of apologetics.

I’m aware that courts, including NY in particular, have gone after Trump for stupid gotchas. Is this really one of them? The judge is granting a summary judgment in part. He gives detailed reasons why plaintiffs’ arguments were credible, while the defendants have consistently misrepresented their position. Throwing that out on the basis of one sloppy valuation is the definition of an isolated demand for rigor.

It looks like Trump has employed his traditional legal strategy of Throwing Shit at Walls. Dismiss this, dismiss that, usually in direct contradiction to precedent or to rulings earlier in the same case! See the fascinating section “Arguments Defendants Raise Again.” None of this inspires confidence.

If you’re going to do fraud, shouldn’t you avoid obvious mistakes? Mistakes like claiming a 3x overstatement of square footage was “subjective,” or that Mar-a-Lago was totally worth $1.5B, or that the SFCs could include a 15% premium for the “Trump brand” while simultaneously stating that they include no brand value. Easy things to avoid, right?

So…what’s the angle here? I’m assuming you think the verdict was bogus. Is it because

  1. The allegations weren’t credible?
  2. They were credible, but didn’t meet the standard for discrimination?
  3. They did, but that standard is wrong?
  4. The standard is reasonable, but the penalty was too harsh?

Going after the plaintiff’s background and sexual preferences is odd. Just because it makes for a good sneer doesn’t mean it has a bearing on the case. Unless you’re generally trying to damage her credibility? If so, I find it rather perverse to deny discrimination while implying she should have stuck to her own race.

I don’t find that line of reasoning very convincing. If the religious critics were right, it was in a stopped-clock sense.

Here are some circa-2010 objections, mostly on theological grounds. Either it’s a sin or it’s not. Either the denomination can extend rites to unrepentant sinners, or it can not. Lots of link rot, but in the statements I could access, churches weren’t justifying based on a slippery slope.

Here and here we have articles debating the slippery slope, but it’s towards polygamy. That’s a more credible threat than this 2004 scare story about horse marriage, though it’s more a vehicle for delivering the full slate of polygamy, social consensus, and “think of the children” arguments.

Transgender politics wasn’t in the Overton window at this point. It still wasn’t as of 2012, from what I see. Which makes sense—their issue isn’t marriage, or even equal rights. The current debate over social acceptability is categorically different.

I’m left with an impression that churches had their theological debates. The secular public backed those up with arguments like the slippery slope against polygamy. Nobody talked about the tiny, weird minority within the minority. But once that group gained traction, pattern matching kicked in, and suddenly this was the next step of the slippery slope. I don’t buy it.

Problem is, if he were behind in the polls, he’d say the same thing. I suspect he’d still say it if he wasn’t running. It’s a bad look, a third of the country would be furious, and the bastard knows it. He’s going to claim complete immunity for everything until the day he dies, because “witch hunt!” is apparently an effective rallying cry.

Regardless of how I feel about his actual decisions, that’s kind of infuriating.

And you’re doing this by…joining other threads to talk about the ADL?

The OP hewed pretty close to bare links, so I can’t really blame you for taking your own spin.

Barring the emergency exits is a plausible framing for deBoer’s strategy. At the least, it fits neatly in with stereotypes about socialists, which I guess makes it good enough for this board. I doubt that it was the motivation for soft-on-crime DAs, and I am confident that it is not, and never has been, the modus operandi for desegregation.

Your hypothesis is stupid. It’s needlessly complicated, and paints your enemies as both naive and devious. Why should activists expect results from foisting “the problem” onto an unwilling majority? Is desegregation really worthless except as a means to an end? Who’s coordinating this gambit, anyway?

Here’s a simpler explanation: people opposed segregation because they thought it was bad. Evil, pernicious, self-perpetuating. And people oppose harsh sentences, or racial profiling, or whatever triggered the campaigns of 2018—they oppose these things because they think they are wrong. Not because they’re playing 5D chess with recidivism. Not because they want their opponents to suffer. Because they expect the benefits outweigh any costs.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only.

We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

If the locals are saying “nah we don’t need this statue, we want to make mediocre abstract art out of the pieces”…

And you don’t have any skin in the game, except for the vibe that Lee was a pretty gentlemanly guy…

Then what’s wrong with the locals going on ahead?

I’ve been saying the whole time: Biden is the kind of president I want. For a sufficiently weak definition of “want,” at least. Boring. I want the President to shut up, sign or veto things, and sort of play mediator. And especially not commit crimes. Maybe this is what it means to be “presidential.”

Even Biden’s attempts at signature legislation feel more like complying with someone else’s push than a personal campaign promise.

I think right-leaning news knows that this plays pretty well with centrists. Hard to offend people by doing nothing exciting. This would be why the “mentally unfit” attack has seen so much airtime.

Good grief, indeed.

You’ve been warned and banned before for low-effort sneering and antagonism. Please dial it down, and try to attack arguments rather than people.

What would it take to convince you that the judiciary is not, in fact, that captured? That their motivations include things like “doing a good job” or “upholding their oaths” or just “not being a defendant.”

Entering false judgment on the largest right-wing media giant in the country seems like a particularly bad way to keep one’s corruption under wraps. Doing it for a random federal plant?

Tell me, when was the last time you and yours got oppressed by the big bad US military? Little Rock? The armed forces are a spectacularly bad tool for stomping on the citizenry. This is, of course, by design.

As for common cause…do you think China gives two shits about the who/whom within America? Do you think the people setting up Harvard admissions are desperate to please the CCCP? Because it’s very hard for me to see any common cause. The closest they get is China cheerfully benefiting from American internal tensions. And that’s just as easily ratcheted by convincing people like you to wail and gnash your teeth about race. If you don’t think you’re a pawn of Chinese interests, perhaps your outgroup would feel the same.

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite. It’s silly to demand justice for statue-toppling and courthouse-torching, then turn around and insist that the other guys were just being good citizens.

I’m not sure how many of the CHAZ folks ended up arrested or convicted, but I hope it was a lot.

I’m loosely with @Tarnstellung: this response is disproportionate. That’s becayse it’s not about the actual offense. It’s about ethics in games journalism the ingroup successfully flexing in the culture war. You said it best yourself—the “usual suspects” had to fan the flames, or it never would have gotten off Insta.

In the spirit of the thread…isn’t this kind of bad?

Compare the usual examples of cancel culture. An entertainer gets banished to the sixth circle of hell for a comment made in 1995. A guest speaker gets his gigs canceled because he was too charitable to the outgroup. Judging the exact deserts takes a distant back seat to defending the narrative.

Here the narrative is “Budweiser is a puppet of the woke.” The evidence for: a personalized can and cringey social media video. Oh, and a general sense that big corporations are the enemy. Which one of those points is doing all the work?

I don’t see much reason to be proud of people hitting all five of our “examples of waging the Culture War.” Of course, they weren’t really interested in convincing me. The fact that I don’t already parrot their lines means that I’m on the wrong team.


N.B.: I don’t exactly have skin in this game. Yuengling is the best of its bunch, but I’m more a Modelo guy. Please consider my sentiments on the subject to be as lukewarm as the average Bud.

That it’s not true. I spent some time trying to dig up my response from the last time it came up, but had no luck. Reddit’s search tools have only gotten worse.

I believe my argument boiled down to “why does this cigarette have so much credibility?”

I’d like to see you elaborate on Biden’s “promotion” of the crisis. I tend to agree with @hydroacetylene that the economic incentives are going to dominate; are the Feds not enforcing that? They’re still detaining and deporting significant numbers.

Almost simultaneously, the DOJ has announced that they will begin prosecuting J6 protesters who did not enter the Capitol building but were present in the demonstration outside. These protesters are expected to be charged with something more than misdemeanors.

Expected by whom?

Let’s make a prediction: out of cases brought against outside demonstrators, I don’t think very many will see felony charges. Perhaps none. The government has already picked its low hanging fruit—you’ve listed plenty of them. If they haven’t already been brought in, why do you think that will change?

As for Ray Epps, I do believe the truth is still an absolute defense against defamation. That makes it very hard for him to win dishonestly. If the suit succeeds, it means the centerpiece of right-wing media couldn’t put together enough evidence to cover their asses. If it fails, perhaps you’re on to something, but at least the plant won’t get a payout for it. I suppose the most likely outcome is a settlement, which could happen either way.