Tractatus
5d ago
well, perhaps OP can't, but "the rightful calif" can
Tractatus
9d ago
I'd quibble on pro-life; Trump gave them a win, then they turned around and blamed him for their failure to do anything other than embarass themselves every time abortion came up in state elections.
Tractatus
9d ago
Wrong; if the police only manage to "follow proper procedure" when Patriot Front is involved, and not only refuse to do so for other "far right" groups, but actively make it worse, then it is the former that requires explanation, not the latter.
Tractatus
17d ago
He's pushing policies that would normally be radioactive, but because he's loudly Anti-Orange Bad Man, everyone falls in line. Not sure how you're not getting that.
Tractatus
19d ago
Indeed it is. He really went out of his way to not promote it, and only recently just tweeted a link to it. Last upload is like a year ago, sadly.
Tractatus
19d ago
I admit I don't have a very good understanding of conservative women who are pro* Lindsay Clancy.
Women's issues, especially Gender War slop*, is arguably the best example of "conservatives are just liberals doing the speed limit." To abuse the analogy, they're the "We're just doing 10 over, we're not driving like maniacs like those people" party. There's very little daylight - the abortion question, mostly - between Girl-Dad Boomers and Tomi Lahren-esque conservathots; any problem a man has is purely of his own doing, and any problem a woman has is entirely a man's failure, somewhere, somehow. A liberal will insist that the sisterhood "shout her abortion;" a "conservative" will lament that a man didn't step up to help raise infinitely many kids that aren't his, and anyway didn't Jesus say we shouldn't judge? (Never mind this isn't what Matthew 7 says, and in any event will promptly be forgotten the moment a man's failings are broached).
*Do not, under any circumstances, engage with an online female TradCath and mention 1st Corinthians 7. They will come out of the fucking woodwork to call you a rapist for dariing to suggest that maybe wives have just an inkling of obligation to their husbands.
Tractatus
19d ago
They can't keep her in a mental institution past the point where the docs rule she's not longer mentally unwell, which they've already cleared her on. At most, Mass can hold her 6 months. Make no mistake, they know this. "Get Lindsey the help she needs" is very much cover for "women are not accountable, for anything, ever."
Tractatus
24d ago
The psychiatrists advising "her behavior isn't consistent with typical psychoses, but we can't rule it out" instead of "this is not psychosis" Her every action not screaming "I am deliberately planning all this!" such as:
*waking up in the hospital and saying almost anything other than "where is my lawyer?"
*previous mentions of this "command voice"
*the murders being somewhat spontaneous, possibly after a triggering incident, not after an extended search for locations to keep the husband as far away as possible.
*demonstrated issues during the post-partum phase, instead of well outside the window.
Tractatus
25d ago
No, that would be silly. Maybe you can find some Twitter randos claiming as such - there's 8.5 billion or so people on Earth, and seemingly twice that many Twitter accounts, so I wouldn't be shocked if you could - but no, Asian men aren't white. They just aren't included, as a rule, in the Progressive Stack.
Don't make the mistake of thinking the Oppression Olympics are rigously defined, and subject to serious analysis, and for that matter, don't make the mistake of thinking they evolved organically, ground-up. The system decided it was in its interest to "Believe Women," when the target was "White Men*" but not when it came to "Black and Brown Bodies." Women aren't leaders, and won't be the ones making the call on who counts. As Orwell noted in 1984, women are the most ruthless enforcers of the rules, but they don't make them. They're** not going to go hard on this guy unless the system tells them he's fair game, that they won't be accused of "doing a racism" if they do.
*"White Men" being primarily men not in capital-P "Power," primarily (and especially) Red Tribe men, not literally every man of Caucasian descent. **Again, this is in the main; doubtless there'll be some women going off the reservation on Twitter, but not in numbers to matter, and they'll catch hell for doing so).
Tractatus
25d ago
You're not allowed to countermand sworn testimony by relying on your "experience" though. And no, "expertise" isn't allowed, just general experiences. Doing so introduces unsworn testimony that the opposition has not had the opportunity to cross-examine.
Tractatus
25d ago
Wait, did you just take my post from last thread - where I used that very example to mock people claiming it's impossible to prove intent - and "YesChad" it?
No, that is not the MA standard, because that's not what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. If it were, then every defense attorney practicing in MA for the past 60+ years should be disbarred for gross negligence by not using this One Weird Trick to get every criminal defendent off the hook. That this has not happened, that no-one has apparently discovered this One Weird Trick to Get Out of Jail Free in all these decades should cause one to question whether they truly understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, right?
Tractatus
25d ago
actual experts... What? The defense called 6 psychiatrists, the prosecution 3. Not a one said her behavior was consistent with post-partum psychosis, or any psychosis, for that matter. The hospital declined enrollment in a post-partum program because, you know, the diagnositc criteria is 4 weeks, not 8 months/3 years/5 years/whenever and whereever a woman feels like claiming it. Reddington, a lawyer, was the one who floated post-partum depression/psychosis
Any "experts" claiming this was psychosis are either a) lying about their expertise, or b) shamelessly lying (a la Sapolsky on neuroscience) about the state of the field for ideological purposes.
No, they aren't The utter refusal of EA's to actually look at what happens after they implement their policies, and update accordingly, is breathtaking. It's amateur hour "reasoning from 1st principles" all the way down: Malaria is devastating! Malaria nets are cheap and easy to use! Give Africans Malaria Nets! ← stop here, completely refuse to think if there are any second order effects to take into account, or consider what, if anything, could go wrong, then loudly insist that you are, in fact, very smart.
Austin doesn't strike me as a lunatic but the way he writes about her reeks a bit romantic. Oh no!
This will come across as "uncharitable," but show this announcement to 100 of your normie coworkers and 100% of them will answer "They're fucking. No doubt about it."
Edit: Hold the phone, this is the organization that got $500k from FTX, and is currently fighting to not have to give it back? We're well past "good optics"
Tractatus
26d ago
Liberal White Women have always folded to the rest of the Progressive Stack, including Black Men. The only cohorts they're able to put up a fight against is White and/or Asian Men.
Tractatus
26d ago
The point of the Caesar comparision is an allusion to Spengler's description of the end stage of all Cultures, rule by oligarchs that can only be overthrown, however temporarily, by charismatic populists harnessing the grievances of the masses to bypass the existing power structures, of whom Caesar is the go-to example. "But Trump has no military victories" is missing the point entirely.
Tractatus
27d ago
Link, as the exchange that prompted the tweet is vital to understanding it; this is not some uncharitable slagging of a strawman, it is a response to man who has had reality patiently explained to him, ad nauseum, yet can do nothing but repeat, as though programmed, with "But I did have breakfast this morning!But I don't want to spend the money!"
This money has already been appropriated. You can no more avoid spending it than I can wake up to discover I've won the lottery, and can now spend the rest of my days attended to by a harem of busty women. In fact, it is infinitely more likely that I could, as however eye-watering the lottery odds are - what are they now, 1-in-300-million? - there is still a chance, whereas this money will not, cannot, be unspent.
Ditto the crying over the $5k "Trump Dividend" checks (that will never come to pass). Should the Dems sweep during the midterms, we're gonna be spending a whole lot more than $1.3 Trillion, and "principled conservatives" won't see a dime of it.
Tractatus
27d ago
Yes, we can all agree that women provide no value to society if they're not running up credit card debt so she can look good while girlbossing at 40 hour a week email job. That way, she's contributing to GDP 2-fold; her earnings, then paying a nanny to raise her kids instead of her.
You guys get that when Samuelson said that "if a man marries his maid, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) actually goes down" he was making a joke, not an earnest policy proposal, no?
Tractatus
28d ago
"...independently..?" Are you shitting me? He showed proof positive they stole his work, and you're trying to frame him as the scammer?
Just utterly embarassing. AI fanbois are a cult, this thread is proof.
Tractatus
30d ago
Murder 1 in most jurisdictions requires "subjective" proof of the perpetrator's state of mind, not merely physical actions. That's "intent," and it really isn't that hard to prove. Insisting that "sanity" doesn't fall under this strikes me as special pleading.
Tractatus
30d ago
Lindsey decided to kill herself...by supericially knicking her skin with a knife, then sliding out a two story window. No, that doesn't pass the smell test. What, the poor woman was just too petered out by the effort in strangling her kids to properly slit her wrists, or hang herself? No, that's not "plausible;" she tried to stage a suicide attempt, but fucked it up and ended up paralyzed (she probably figured a broken leg from the fall, at most.)
We've seen this story before. Lindsey was a narcissist, who thought she wanted to be a homemaker, but it turns out that having a loving and supporting family just isn't enough to combat a culture that invests untold billions into telling women that they are the main character. That's why her kids had to die, not some absurd fantasy of "not leaving the kids to be raised by a substandard mother," but because her ego would never forgive her kids being evidence of her failure.
Tractatus
1mo ago
Which seems to me to be a really challenging standard, but that's the law there.
That's literally the standard in every criminal case. What about "beyond reasonable doubt" is confusing here? It doesn't mean "well, there could have been a .00001% chance martians did it and planted evidence," it's using the "reasonable person standard." Why are so many people pretending that's not well-settled law?
Tractatus
1mo ago
The issue is not with MA law*, it is with your bizarre interpretation of "beyond reasonable doubt" which discards both the "beyond" and "reasonable" parts. The "reasonable person" standard has been well established for decades, it's not some subjective mystery.
I ask again, think about the consequences of what you are saying. Commonwealth v. McHoul has been the standard in Massachusetts since 1967. The Prosecution in this case presented expert testimony that "command voice" for around 20 minutes, interrupted by a phone calls with the spouse to ensure he would not be present to stop the act, they presented evidence of premeditation, they cleared any hurdle any reasonable person would raise.
Yet you insist they did not. This has consequences that you must account for. If what you are saying is true, then it is impossible for a prosecutor to ever defeat an insanity defense. As such, every defense attorney practicing in Massachusetts for the past 60 years who has not just had their client plead NGRI for the past 60 years has been in gross negligence. This is an absurdity, so one arguing in good faith should feel the need to re-examine their priors and question if perhaps their understanding of MA's Insanity Defense might, just might, be incorrect.
*Which, frankly, isn't as extreme as people are pretending it is. I'd agree that it's backwards, but it's not really a problem.
Tractatus
1mo ago
If you object to anything in my post you quoted, you provided no argument for it. Have you been asleep the past 50 years? Canada has very much defined itself as being "not America" while avoiding being in outright opposition, and the latter has been less and less true for at least the past 20 years.
To claim Canada is not compromised by Chinese interests is to deny objective reality. If Chinese compute is stationed in Canada, then America would have no hope of succesfully montoring the development of Chinese AI, and would run the risk of having to decide to take military action against a putative ally, above the objections of international partners, based on incomplete information. It's isn't just "politically absurd," it's fucking retarded; it's even dumber than GWB's cabinent convincing themselves that the Iraqis will greet us like liberators, Iraq will be a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East, that will bring peace on Earth and goodwill toward all men. It's an idea one could only come up with if one is profoundly ignorant of political reality, while steadfastly refusing to entertain the thought of "ok, but what if I'm wrong?"
Ditto American compute in Mongolia. Bordered by two hostile regimes, economically dependent on one (Mongolian economic trade is over 75% with China, last I checked), and we'll be obligated to include Mongolians in running the facility? Are you out of your mind? We have SCIFs in South Korea and Japan, and they've compromised those, repeatedly; we won't even let Japan in Five Eyes because we know, for fact, that Communists (not the Japanese Communist Party, which is of no real threat, but Communist agents aligned with China) have completely infiltrated the government, and anything shared with Japan is de facto shared with China (N.B. this is what Trump was hinting at in his response to the reporter who asked why Japan was not given advanced notice of the attack on Iran. Telling the Japanese government when and what was going to be targetted would have been no different than passing that info to Iran directly). These are allies, who spy on us, and we accept we cannot 100% stop them, but that's fine, it's just the cost of doing business as a global hegemon. But these guys would have us set up the most important project we'll ever take in the lands of a "neutral" party, in close proximity to, and deeply entwined with, a hostile government? There's no chance in hell we could stop Mongolian contractors from getting access to sensitive information that will 100% be passed on to China. This is as good as ceding the AI race to China
If this is what counts as "Serious People discussing Serious Matters, Seriously" to you, then I frankly do not take your judgement on their merits seriously.
Tractatus
1mo ago
As I mentioned on Twitter, people pleading "beyond a reasonable doubt" clearly have no clue what it means. If this case doesn't clear the hurdle of then it is literally impossible for any case, short of the defendent literally taking the stand and telling the Court "Yo, I'm actually perfectly fine, I'm just pleading Insanity because I know it's a Get Out of Jail Free Card. Blow me." and any defense attorney in MA not pleading insanity is guilty of professional negligence.
They absolutely do not, that's why the meme exists; "oh, you don't believe in allowing infinite immigrants to abuse welfare benefits, didn't Jesus say to love your neighbor?" >deliberately ignores all scripture about charity not extended to allowing individuals to be leeches upon society. The rebuttals have been done to death, to absolutely no avail, because Internet Atheists don't give a shit, they really think they've "owned the Xtians" by cherry-picking a quote that they don't even understand, but are absolutely certain they do.
More options
Context Copy link