ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626

IDK why you thought that:
Quotes like this:
Cannabis is even easier tho...
or this:
That marijuana is even than this! People are growing it illegally right now!
Not sure how you get from "Bill got a letter in the mail" to reasonable suspicion?
How about "Getting the contact info for Bill's supplier the same way Bill did, ordering some seeds, using that as evidence to raid the supplier, and getting the addresses of his clients"?
in which case "I just like to keep my fruit in a carboy" isn't going to do you any more good than "I thought those were tomato seeds".
the "left some fruit in a cabinet" line was not an example of the legal defense you'd use once busted, it was pointing out how easy it is to make alcohol out of completely legal ingredients.
Almost nothing is specific to any one group, especially when we're dealing with groups as broad as "right" and "left", but I do think it's ugly and getting uglier on the right.
I'm saying it's bizarre to single the right out when there was a general raise of "antisemitic" sentiment, and a big part of the current vibe shift was Jewish people responding to the left's reaction to 10/7 .
And it's broader than racism. For instance, I'm closer to Trace's side than I am to Auron's in this exchange, and so I don't want our politics to go down the path Trace is arguing against.
I assure you Trace is no stranger to deploying shame against people he disapproves of. In fact, I don't think you can have a functioning society without shame.
If he (or you) wants to argue that everyone needs to act like trans aspect of trans people should be completely ignored in all contexts not related to sex, he can knock himself out, but I don't see any vitriol in rejecting the concept of transgenderism, and guarding against your movement being eternally trapped in the progressive frame.
The facts it got objectively wrong aren't accepted as objectively wrong by anyone except online far-right autists. My impression is that it got depracated because it was meant to be compatible with 90's liberalism, which itself got depracated.
but the basic point is valid: the Online Right, insofar as I casually track its movements on Twitter, emphasizes HBD less than it used to.
Liberals used to explicitly believe that their belief system is justified by science, and anything that contradicts it must be not only morally, but factually wrong. This was the background for the rise of the HBD conversation, trying to own those stupid racists by showing how scientifically illiterate they are. After they crashed into that particular wall, head first, several times, and noticed it ain't budging, they decided to avoid the conversation altogether, which is why it also lost a lot of it's utility for the right. It's not even limited to this particular topic, there's a broader trend that Dave Green calls "the death of discourse".
There's a kind of coarser, more vitriolic type of racism and anti-semitism emerging to take its place.
This isn't even specific to the right.
So why are you asking if people remember something that they're reminding you of?
Anyone remember that whole "HBD" thing? You don't hear much about it anymore.
It's literally being debated in the post before yours...
I might be missing something, but I think this disproves your claim rather then proves it? There being a mix of both does not imply that Israel's influence rests on their ability to make the US leadership generally do something against their will.
Yeah, but I thought you were arguing that controlling weed is harder relative to controlling alcohol, and I'm not seeing it.
Also, if potency is just about the female flower thing, how come it increased around the time of it's normalization / legalization? Doesn't that imply that attempts to ban it are actually keeping the potency down?
Gotta say that looks quite cool!
You probably explained it earlier, but I don't recall catching it, is there any particular reason you're doing rendering from scratch (are you? that's the impression I'm getting)? Just to learn how the stuff works?
Little to tinkering this week, maybe some bugfixes. How are you doing @Southkraut?
No, more like putting the fruit in some sort of carboy, adding yeast, monitoring fermentation, etc -- do you really think it would not have been possible to charge somebody for doing this during prohibition based on the "I just like to store my fruit that way" defense?
Yes? If nothing else, a reasonable suspicion that someone bought the seeds of an illegal plant make it much easier to get a search warrant, compared to "we saw him buying some fruit the other day". Is it yeast you want to control? The stuff is literally floating in the air. Is it jars and buckets you're planning to criminalize, or are you planning to catch them red-handed in the middle of the onerous task of "monitoring fermentation", also known as "not doing anything, and checking if the thing is still making bubbles after a couple days"?
On one hand I'll repeat my broken-record line of "don't damn peoples down seven generations", and even though I think genetic group differences are a thing, I'm much more skeptical of sweeping statements about specific groups being incapable organizing in of specific political systems. On the other hand, this is a liberal just-so story that glosses over anything inconvenient, and invents several convenient "facts" to salvage it's own argument.
they all have some past legacy of applied democratic norms, rule of law, parliamentary systems
Ah yes, the long rich democratic tradition of the 20 years between the World Wars, that were imposed by Woodrow Wilson's deranged fantasies, and managed to revert to authoritarianism even within that short timespan. The attachment to democracy was so short that we were seriously debating if it's not better to take the Asian Tiger route, and only implement democracy after authoritarian reforms.
And the question of whether the area of the former GDR was ‘properly’ democratized or not is seemingly an ever thornier one on the minds of West German normies.
Which only shows how democracy is a luxury system. It can work if the stars align just right, but has the tendency of taking it's necessary conditions (like everybody having roughly the same values) for granted. The moment these conditions are not met the democracy enjoyers themselves will start begging for it's end, arresting opposition candidates, and seriously considering the banning of political parties, for the high crime of people voting the wrong way.
I agree that banning it is hard, and probably impossible to completely stamp out, given it's current prevalence, but I think it's easier to target a specific plant, than literally all sources of sugar, water, and yeast.
"Hilarious! You're fired."
Anything plausibly resembling "I left some fruit in a cabinet" is likely to be barely drinkable by desperate college students (I should know), nevermind better than what you get in a store.
It is true that my direct experience with the production of alcohol is with beer, and my experience in the consumption of homemade wine boils down to someone else having made it, but I just looked up some basic recipes and it is, in fact, basically "I left some fruit in a cabinet". Maybe the homemade wine I tasted had a more involved production process, but being familiar with the process of fermenting alcohol, I honestly doubt it.
As for quality, The idea that "better than in a store" is a hard bar to clear strikes me as absurd. Whether it's beer or wine, I swear they're putting something in it that leaves you with an unpleasant aftertaste, which homebrew just does not have.
If you want to insist that good beer is somehow easier to make than good wine (I'm far from an expert, but the proposition sounds extremely counter-intuitive to me), we can settle it relatively easy, I'll just make some, and tell you if I liked it.
Ah yes, the great genocide of 1920 -- how could I have forgotten?
Did in fact cause lots of deaths via crime. It didn't escalate to genocide, because they weren't actually stamping out the ownership and production of any and all alcohol. What am I missing?
I should have been more specific; I am referring to the Iranian government.
That's how I understood it, and I still don't know what's supposed to be so uncivilized about the Iranian government.
You laugh, but a) plenty of American (okay, Irish-American) money went into the actual IRA, and b) the US loves sponsoring terrorism, to the point it often ends up fighting the very terrorists it sponsored.
Yes, and I believe he was, in fact, a Mossad asset, and as handy as he must have been at critical junctures, I'm dubious that Epstein Island had the necessary throughput to shape the long-term trajectory of the US foreign policy.
Also, you kind of have to be careful about blackmailing people en-masse, because if they realize this is what's being done to them, they might coordinate to fight back against you.
it seems obvious to me why the US would want to be allied with Israel
Far from obvious to me. What would you say they're getting out of it?
As far as I'm concerned, Iran should be treated as a pariah as long as it refuses to behave like a civilized country.
What's so uncivilized about them? I keep hearing complaints of "sponsoring terrorism" but plenty of civilized countries like to play that game.
I only had a skim, but couldn't find the part about arm-twisting.
Not a really high standard, although if you wanted to up the ante I'd think that something like "good whiskey that you might find in a store" would be much, much harder to make at home than marijuana of reasonable potency.
Why whiskey and not wine? Homemade tends to be superior to the stuff you get in a store. Why aim for potency? If you just want to get shitfaced you go for moonshine.
You're not banning it unless you're planning to commit a genocide.
Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding, or that they believe the US leadership holds an ideology resulting in their support of Israel even against the interests of Americans?
Is there anyone disagreeing with this? I'm only familiar with the claim that the US supports for ideological reasons, not that Israel has any leverage over the US.
- Prev
- Next
Took a quick look at a few of those it's pretty much what I expected. A lot less "the facts his basing his case on are objectively false" and a lot more "I don't like his framing". Though to be fair GGS isn't that good about making a facts-based case, and tries to make up for it with storytelling, so... fair enough I guess?
More options
Context Copy link