@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Yes, it's the United States which lost the will to fight in Afghanistan. Also the Afghan National Army but I'm not sure they had any to begin with.

"And then the enemy will lose the will to fight" has got to be one of my favorite theories of victory.

Worked in Afghanistan.

The numbers are as Sunshine says. Better in PPP, worse by exchange rates.

Chinese immigrants looked different, had a native language no one else knew, and were about as culturally alien to the US as anyone you were going to find in real life. They worked out fine.

They mostly died out in a generation.

The Germans were doing fine in the US even when they spoke German (common up to WWI, I believe).

I think those are in fact ALL objectionable with the possible exception of #2, and HR should stick with World Chocolate Day.

Movember (which is about men's health) and International Men's Day are obviously going to piss off feminists, who can't stand the focus to be on men (except when it's bad). The "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women" will piss off men tired of being blamed for bad things, and tired of the relentless focus on women's problems. (These men are culture warriors, surely, but many have been drafted over the past decade). And even mental health is kinda risky due to being female-and-left coded.

But at least many conflicts of that era got settled with a basic handful of battles and the occasional siege.

And many didn't, as the names "Hundred Years War" and "Thirty Years War" tell you.

It's not industrialization which makes war an unceasing nightmare; there have been long non-industrialized wars and short industrialized wars. WWI, for all its horror, was only 4 years.

I think that ACX mentioned that some pro-Palestinian Muslims were announcing that they were going to vote for Trump because Harris was too Israel-friendly. I am unsure how they are feeling about Trump's ME policies now.

They should be feeling dumb... but they should have been feeling dumb from the start. Trump's pro-Israel position was not at all a secret -- ask his daughter and his son-in-law, and consider his first term. It's Harris who flirted with the opposite, though she ended up back on the pro-Israel side rhetorically.

These scenarios always seem to end up with either a violent incident where the perpetrators were "on their radar" or a situation that looks like entrapment.

¿Por qué no los dos?

That is to say, what if the situations where the perpertrators were "on their radar" were just cases of entrapment where the people they egged on got a little off the leash and managed to do something?

These are Ayn Rand supervillains.

I think the FBI denies this one, but there's the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

Obviously fake and gay; I don't even need to check the details to have a high confidence of saying that. The FBI egged on a bunch of morons and then made a dramatic bust to get some agents promoted.

Israel could've gone into Gaza, wrecked shit, and left before it became a years long humanitarian crisis

Domestically, not until they got the hostages back. That's what the hostages were for -- to keep Israel pummelling Gaza.

I thought the scale was inversely related to how many drinks it took to flip the 0 to a 1.

Strong-arm robbery is the most common sort according to the FBI.

One can be below the law with not too much effort, on the anarcho- side of anarcho-tyranny. It's a mean, impoverished, but quite possibly freer existence, at least if you have no internal moral constraints on theft and violence. If you do have such constraints you're stuck following the rules but not benefiting from them, which just leads to an unlamented death in short order.

To be above the law requires considerably more. Great work if you can get it, though.

In between, you're on the tyranny side of anarcho-tyranny. Step out of line even once on one of the things those with power care about, and you're headed for the unlamented death. This is enforced in all sorts of ways -- New Jersey's draconian penalties for a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun is only one of them. Drunk driving law is another -- doing that gets a lot of people into a cycle where they drive illegally (because they live and work somewhere you have to drive), get busted, go to jail, lose their job, have their license revocation extended, get out, get another job, repeat, for a very long time.

Others are less obvious; over on another board someone said they once managed to find an employee by sifting through the recruiter's discards, and found one where the employee had been rejected because he'd been previously fired. That employee didn't realize what everyone knows but most will deny: in most of the white collar world, below executive level, to be fired is to be unhireable, so you'd better learn to conceal it.

As Worf said unto Q, "Die".

The cops have Glocks too. And once you've been shipped to state prison for violating firearms laws (or homicide laws), you won't have a Glock and you'll be wishing you took your chances with the criminals on the outside. Sometimes your choice is taking a beating (or stabbing or shooting) from a single criminal on the outside, or being sent inside and taking beating after beating (and worse) from as many criminals as care to. Even if you're dead, you're better off than that.

"Yes" and "no" respectively. These are not hard questions, and the fact that we agonize over them is how we end up in a world where a prosecutor -- a representative of the state -- is arguing that a law-abiding citizen sometimes just has to take a beating (or the state will ensure he takes many beatings in the future)

This is what he said:

I formed this opinion when looking into DGU statistics* and concluded that many (if not most) self-reported DGUs were really unreported assaults (the wielder having essentially threatened somebody by pulling a gun).

It ultimately comes down to a question of reasonableness, and I can't think of a better way to determine that question than to present the evidence to a cross-section of the community and ask them. If you can't convince a single member of a 12-member panel that you're actions were reasonable given the circumstances, then it's a good indication that they weren't.

I think you're well aware that you could be on video being punched several times in the face by a guy who looks like Nikolai Valuev, and taking a lethal self-defense claim to a jury in Massachusetts would STILL be a crapshoot. Anyway, the prosecutor isn't presenting the evidence to a cross-section of the community and asking them. The prosecutor is bringing the evidence to a cross section of the community and telling them. That is, the prosecutor who has brought this case has already decided that it was not self defense and is arguing before the jury that it was not. The jury is not advising the prosecutor on a point he is not sure about.

If you are going to shoot someone it better not be because of an escalated situation that you started.

As it turns out, this is not the law. It's what anti-self-defense people would like to be the law, but it isn't. Provocation spoils a self-defense claim, but starting the confrontation is not always provocation. In Massachusetts, "conduct involving only the use of nonthreatening words will not be sufficient to qualify a defendant as a first aggressor”

The reason why "respectable" men don't beat up street harassers isn't just because of the legal risk, but because you might very well end up losing.

That's only a part of it. The problem is if you lose you go to the hospital, but if you win you go to jail. Lots of respectable men have a breaking point at which they'll suffer the risk of losing.... but a much higher breaking point if they lose either way.

Who? A quick search indicates she was Biden's White House Press Secretary, and is definitely black, though not African American -- she was born in Martinique. The New Yorker seems to think she's relevant (she never was), but amusingly even Politico isn't impressed. Their headline and subhead is

Karine Jean-Pierre's book tour is non-stop cringe. Her former colleagues can't look away.
Democrats, who'd like to close the book on Biden, are horrified at the former press secretary's struggles to explain herself.

You know who really can't handle jails and prisons? People who aren't habitual criminals or low-lifes. Which is much of the point -- you keep a population of discount Torquemadas around to keep the gentry in line. If I hadn't believed that before, being threatened with a stint at Riker's for a bicycling traffic violation would have convinced me.