zataomm
2yr ago
For reference, Scott also referred to this issue in You Are Still Crying Wolf. To wit:
Stop responding to everyone who worries about Wall Street or globalism or the elite with “I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.” This means you, Vox. Someday those three or four people who still believe the media are going to read this stuff and immediately join the Nazi Party, and nobody will be able to blame them.
Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. I work with people from a poor area, and a lot of them have been raped, or permanently disabled, or had people close to them murdered. You know what these people have in common? They don’t like crime When you say “the only reason someone could talk about law and order is that they secretly hate black people, because, y’know, all criminals are black”, not only are you an idiot, you’re a racist. Also, I judge you for not having read the polls saying that nonwhites are way more concerned about crime than white people are.
My views are of course nuanced and sophisticated, but stripped of all the sophistication and nuance, here's the deal:
Europe is a sinking ship and when we yell "your ship is sinking!", the captains (plural) insist, in the most arrogant tone possible, that we only think the ship is sinking because we are uncivilized buffoons. Fine. Enjoy the rest of your trip.
zataomm
2yr ago
who caused the Great Chinese Famine
PRC, Mao in particular.
Well that is a misleading answer.
Mao had its flaws but the general direction of china made sense, they suffered from the century of humiliation, something that isn't taught in schools because of racism.
For anyone stumbling upon this thread and not sure what to believe, this is a case where the conventional wisdom is correct, Mao was a terrible leader and his misguided policies were responsible for the deaths of 30 million people from 1960-1962. You can say it was ignorance, not malice, that caused Mao's error, but the fact is that if he didn't know any better it is because he didn't want to know any better.
So this morning I am inspired by a clip from the otherwise-decent (from a libertarian perspective) movie Captain Fantastic. In the scene, a small child laments the pernicious implications of the Citizens United ruling, saying it means "our country is ruled by corporations and their lobbyists." I'm wondering whether, as a matter of rhetoric, it would be effective to embarrass people with the specific facts of the Citizens United v. FEC case. "Defend this, if you dare!" While for many, that descision represents all that is evil as they champion the high-minded principle of "preventing corporations from buying elections," I suspect few would defend the particulars of how the law would have applied in that instance.
The usual story is this: the Supreme Court decision's decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for corporate money to dominate American elections, as the Supreme Court outrageously declared that "corporations are people." But this portrayal overlooks the specific and basically indefensible details of the case itself. Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sought to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2008 primary elections. The Federal Election Commission blocked the documentary, citing campaign finance regulations that restricted "electioneering communications" by corporations and labor unions within a certain time frame before elections.
Imagine an analogous case today: a group of citizens is determined to prove that the prosecutions against Donald Trump are not politically-motivated "lawfare", but rather solid and legitimate cases, and produces a documentary to make that argument, only to be blocked by from disseminating the film. Is this not an outrageous position for the government to take?
Opening up this line of attack could easily backfire: if I make people defend the facts of specific Supreme Court cases, I am sure they can find their own Supreme Court decisions which I like, but which side with unsympathetic parties. I don't really want to stand up next to the guy holding a "God hates fags" sign. But the iconic and notorious status of the Citizens United case in popular discourse deserves some effort at pushback.
tl;dr: If you are so worried about for-profit corporations buying elections, why not pass a law that is narrowly-tailored to prevent just that, without going after someone who creates a kickstarter for their latest documentary "Trump: the Orange Menace"?
zataomm
1yr ago
What I find infuriating about this discussion is how often the term "fake electors" is used. If the electors were "fake" and the electors commited "fraud", can anyone provide me with a count of how many of the fake electors' votes were mistakenly recorded in the Senate? Oh, none? Amazing! Well, what kind of detective work went into distinguishing the fake votes from the real votes? Was the Secret Service called in for their expertise in detecting counterfeit money?
Obviously the accurate term should be "contingent electors", in the sense that these would have been the correct electors if Trump prevailed in his various lawsuits. It's easy to imagine that in the case where he was able to establish fraud and the court determined that he had won the election, they wouldn't want the process to get held up by the need to quickly get some electors together to cast their votes and mail them to Washington, DC. The Georgia "fake slate" is dated December 14, so there would not have been much time to get these votes recorded if they had had to wait for all litigation to be resolved.
There's such egregious question-begging going on by calling them "fake electors", it makes me crazy how little pushback I have seen regarding this term.
The Washington Post reports: Florida schools drop AP Psychology after state says it violates the law, a good example of the media getting as close to lying as you can get while still remaining in not-quite-lying territory.
As far as I know, this all started last Thursday, when the College Board issued a statement regarding its AP Psychology course and Florida law. In this statement, the College Board wrote: "The state has said districts are free to teach AP Psychology only if it excludes any mention of [content on sexual orientation and gender identity]."
Citation (desperately) needed! Contrary to what the College Board says, I have been unable to find any source on the internet prior to the College Board's statement corroborating their claim about what the Florida department of education requires. The Washington Post claims that the statement was based on a "conference call" between the board of education and school superintendents, but again, I have found no stories where the reporter interviews someone involved in the call in order to confirm the College Board's characterization of what was said.
On the contrary, on Friday, the day after the College Board published its statement, the director of the Florida Department of Education wrote a letter to the school superintendants, clarifying that
In fact, the Department believes that AP Psychology can be taught in its entirety in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate and the course remains listed in our course catalog
As far as I know, this letter is the only official statement from the Florida Department of Education regarding the application of the Parental Rights in Education ("Don't Say Gay") law to the teaching of AP Psychology. And yet a google search of "ap psychology Florida" returns headline after headline of major news outlets reporting the College Board's interpretation of this law as if Florida had gone out and "banned" the teaching of AP Psychology in its schools.
Without knowing anything about the conference call (because no reporter bothered to check), I have to caveat that maybe Florida did suggest that some parts of AP Psychology could not be taught, only to backtrack after being called out by the College Board. But for me, it seems like a dishonest characterization of the law intended to make Florida and DeSantis look bad.
EDIT:
Okay, having done a bit more research by going back to read the College Board's previous statements on this matter, I have to admit that my characterization was mistaken. In particular, in their June statement on the AP Psychology course, they reference correspondence from the Florida Department of Education Office of Articulation (what a name!), asking the College Board to affirm that their AP Psychology course conforms to the new Florida law. Still not a "ban," but definitely the College Board is not engaged in the unprovoked attack on Florida that I was imagining. There was definitely some provocation.
I do still think this is more about grandstanding by the College Board than a straightforward application of the law, but I was wrong in thinking that the College Board was one-sidedly attacking the Florida Department of Education.
zataomm
1yr ago
Not everyone wants to follow some random link to watch a video, but it's hard for a transcript to convey her smug, condescending tone as she asked that ridiculous question over and over, acting as if it was Kavanaugh that was making things difficult by being evasive. Making matters worse is the fact that she never offered a post-questioning follow-up to let people know what the hell she was talking about.
zataomm
1yr ago
Sorry to be graphic, but as a logistical matter, it's very hard to imagine how Trump could have inserted his penis into her vagina while she was both 1. standing up and 2. actively resisting him. In this scenario as written, he has his hand with fingers in a V-shape at her crotch, surrounding her vagina, and then he sort of squats down while maintaining pressure against her crotch, in order to thrust upward with his penis through his open fingers. At the same time, he is supposed to be pinning her against the wall with his shoulder. The shoulder of the same hand or of the other hand? At one point he grabbed both her arms and pinned her against the wall, but then he is using his hands to undress himself and putting one hand between her legs. Is she still resisting at this moment or not?
As written, the whole thing just seems impossible, it could have happened if she "gave up" at some point, but it could not have happened in the way she describes.
zataomm
1yr ago
I’ve heard it said that Republicans are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Biden, and Democrats are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Trump. Obviously, a bit overstated, but it feels true. Sensible people in both parties would love to get away from their party's likely presidential candidate, but the Republican experience over the last seven years basically proves that it’s hard to do in the real world.
But yeah, it’s nice to see someone acknowledge that if there were any responsible adults involved, both parties would be taking seriously the major deficiencies in their candidates, rather than just spending their time and energy trying to make the other party’s candidate look worse.
zataomm
1yr ago
zataomm
1yr ago
Out of curiosity, am I the only one will never get over Kamala Harris's insane questioning of Brett Kavanaugh, asking him over and over again about whether he has discussed "Bob Mueller or his investigation" with anyone? She may actually be the most unpleasant person to listen to in all of politics.
Haven't heard this one before. Excellent.
Announcer: Surely one death by drowning is one too many?
Mitchell: That's a ridiculous thing to say.
"Everyone has to die, and in a balanced, fair, and democratic society, some of them should drown."
zataomm
9mo ago
Her first pill was taken July 20, so according to Google she should have taken the misoprostol by about July 22.
According to the article, the first pill was taken on August 13th, at the clinic in North Carolina, after the missed appointment for the surgical procedure. She went into the hospital on August 18th.
zataomm
9d ago
I felt kind of annoyed by the claim that "most" Supreme Court cases go 6-3 along ideological lines, although I guess the more defensible version would be that the controversial cases all go 6-3 along ideological lines. Be that as it may, I created a website this morning to help understand data from the most recent term. Spent more time than I intended on this so I'm hoping someone else finds it interesting: https://wbruntra.github.io/scotus/?tab=dashboard
zataomm
11mo ago
Link to the Axios community-noted tweet: https://x.com/axios/status/1816078350659494130
zataomm
9mo ago
I just find the whole Project 2025 association so absurd because I actually followed the Democrats' advice and "google[d] Project 2025", which led me to the discovery of the project's 922-page book. And to claim that Donald Trump, of all people, actually read this book, well... is there any person in America who could believe it? As Loquat says in his comment, people invent all kinds of fantastical stories about Trump, but the idea that he would read a book? You've got to be kidding.
zataomm
9mo ago
Yes, it seems like every case I have seen as demonstrating the effects of overturning Roe v. Wade has been misrepresented in some way. Inspired by your comment, I looked up the Amanda Zurawski case that Walz cited in the debate. In their ruling on Zurawski v. Texas, the Texas supreme court wrote:
As our Court recently held, the law does not require that a woman’s death be imminent or that she first suffer physical impairment.2 Rather, Texas law permits a physician to address the risk that a life-threatening condition poses before a woman suffers the consequences of that risk. A physician who tells a patient, “Your life is threatened by a complication that has arisen during your pregnancy, and you may die, or there is a serious risk you will suffer substantial physical impairment unless an abortion is performed,” and in the same breath states “but the law won’t allow me to provide an abortion in these circumstances” is simply wrong in that legal assessment.
So the current rhetoric coming from Democrats on abortion is certainly very misleading, with Kamala Harris claiming that women need to be in the middle of bleeding to death in parking lots in order for doctors to provide treatment. In very general terms, it's fair to say that if there were no abortion laws at all, then doctors would not even theoreticallly have to worry about being prosecuted for breaking those laws. But in every single abortion case I have seen cited as an example of the disastrous consequences of Dobbs, doctors either were grossly negligent (Amber Thurman), or at best, believed that the law restricted them in ways that, properly interpreted, they were not restricted at all.
I definitely want the law to be clear, but I have this sneaking suspicion that a lot of the supposed "misunderstandings" about what the law prohibits are driven by opposition to the law.
zataomm
9mo ago
I basically had the same initial reaction and Hill was certainly being a jerk. Rolling his very tinted windows up while the police were talking to him would definitely make anyone nervous. But having looked at the ProtectAndServe thread on the matter, I’ve come around the general consensus that the police escalated the situation way more than they should have. They really did not need to take him to the ground forcibly after he opened the car door. Tyreek Hill’s bad behavior led to bad behavior on the part of the police. Many such cases.
zataomm
2yr ago
In any legal system, the ability to effectively apply laws hinges on our capacity to establish clear definitions for the concepts and situations they govern. If someone is to be prosecuted for murder, it's necessary to define what constitutes "murder" - this is referred to as the "elements" of the crime. Quickly googling, in murder, we have: 1. Criminal Act (killing a human), 2. Criminal Intent (purposely, knowingly), 3. Harm (death).
To take another case, if a law declares that certain considerations apply to "married" people, criteria must be set to determine under what conditions two (or more?) people can be considered 'married'.
However, the boring process of defining and categorizing has been thrown into turmoil as we deal with gender identity. I recently encountered an article by a trans writer who strongly objected to the idea that "other people" should be able to "decide" whether a person who self-identifies as trans is "really" trans. The author seemed to believe that denying someone's self-identified gender is offensive in a metaphysical sense, as it amounts to denying the existence of the trans person.
It's fine to not want trans people to feel wrongly identified, but this issue becomes legally significant when there are laws that apply differently to "men" and "women." Concretely, a person convicted of murder may be sent to a different prison, depending on whether that person is categorized as a "man" or a "woman". In these situations, clear definitions and categorizations become necessary to uphold the law. I don't think it serves anyone's interest to simply apply the slogan "trans women are women" in such a case; it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to apply a hierarchy of cases. An example hierarchy might be:
-
anyone who self-identifies as a woman can be referred to as "she"
-
almost anyone who self-idenfifies as a woman can use the ladies' restroom
-
a basic evaluation should be applied to a self-identified woman before she is allowed to play on a woman's sports team
-
a strict evaluation should apply to a self-identified woman to determine whether she goes to a women-only prison
I'm happy to argue about how strict we ought to be in a given situation, but I'm not happy to accept that there should be no hierarchy of situations at all. We can't take a shortcut on considering the potential harm caused by a false positive vs. a false negative by simply declaring that we will always affirm the dignity of trans people. Furthermore, any system that attempts to identify people as a belonging to "category X" will inevitably produce false positives and false negatives. It is unrealistic and untenable to demand that the false negative rate must be zero (i.e. we must never incorrectly say that a trans woman is not really a woman), especially when being categorized as X has legal ramifications.
I guess this all seems pretty basic, but I don't know that I've seen anyone state the "different situations, different criteria" case, and the alternative seems to be that people are tarred as "transphobes" for suggesting that someone who self-identifies as a trans woman should not be treated as a woman in some specific situation.
zataomm
5mo ago
Seems like an overreaction. Based on his own observations about how these people speak, it's not clear that they understand the effect their words have on people. The psychologizing was maybe a bit much, but I wouldn't call it highly inflammatory so much as a way to explain why certain people continuously make breathless statements that their audience has long ago gotten tired of hearing (e.g. "Trump is a fascist").
zataomm
8mo ago
At least I am consistent because I hated the Puerto Rico thing and I hate this. I hate it even in a “well, these are the rules the Democrats made so now we’re just making them honor those rules” sense. It’s all so stupid. Biden can’t speak coherently. He showed that in the debate. That’s why he’s not running for president. It’s also disgusting because people can’t even pretend that they themselves are upset. They’re just trying to convince stupid people that they should be upset.
zataomm
8mo ago
This may be the week I finally have to admit I don't understand a large portion of anti-Trump sentiment, at least as it manifests on Twitter. For me, the last straw was the reaction to the Washington Post's decision to not endorse a candidate for president, despite the fact that any reader who is paying attention at all knows that the editorial board endorses Harris, a fact reflected throughout basically all of their election coverage, and I am comfortable saying that the publication of an endorsement would literally have persuaded 0 voters to change their vote.
zataomm
1yr ago
Sorry for the leading question but am I the only one naive enough to ask "Why don't the israeli troops just walk into the al-Shifa hospital?"? Where I live, if the national army wanted to take over the closest hospital I am confident they could do it in like 5 minutes by walking in through the front door.
If the answer is as I suspect, "the Israeli troops can't walk into the hospital because the hospital is being defended with guns," then why doesn't that fact appear in your average news story like this one? I know this sounds like a post from a person who really cares about Israel and is always going on about media bias against that country, so I just want to add a disclaimer saying that my position on Israel is that I'm just a normal American non-Jew who doesn't really know or care very much about it.
But honestly, to go back to my opening question, what the heck is going on at the hospital? Why can't they just take it over?
zataomm
1yr ago
Is it just that the news sources I'm reading are terrible? I feel like I've never seen it mentioned that there is another side (not just the IDF) fighting in this war. Like they mentioned that the IDF forces have surrounded the hospitals but it's not clear why, since as far as anyone has told me it is just full of doctors and their patients. I feel like I'm five years old asking these questions but it's just so weird to me, it's like the grownups understand something that I don't.
Viscerallly I kind of get it, but legally, what is the difference between this and my web browser, which doesn’t restrict me from typing “Nintendo, Disney, and Coca Cola are run by pedophiles”? I try not to be too much of a libertarian autist, but I have a hard time not seeing this as a tool which can be misused like any other.
More options
Context Copy link