domain:alexberenson.substack.com
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
3m ago
I think it's a more general pattern of referring to (some) adult male-coded things that way. "Toy" wouldn't be out of place referring to motorcycles, power tools, or construction equipment either. Loosely, I think it implies "nice to have" in a way that maybe isn't really necessary.
I'm not sure I'd use it for weapons in a hot war, though. Maybe for (morally-justified?) exercises of technical superiority: the F-22 is a very shiny toy that has but one (unmanned) aerial combat victory to its credit, right up until it isn't. Quasi-disposable drones operated from safe and secure Nevada are maybe toys. A battle rifle handed to a grunt in a trench with live fire overhead is not a thing to joke about.
Rov_Scam
5m ago
As one of those moderates, I don't see the problem here. The rule of law imposes no requirement on the Supreme Court to hear appeals, and doesn't require any justification for a decision to hear or not to hear a case.
gattsuru
52m ago
Uh... here, I still owe amadanb a response to this post, but I'm kinda struggling to do so without just throwing up a giant pile of links to compare-and-contrast that I don't think amadan will find very persuasive. Had some work, teaching some students basic network communications in Java and databinding in C#/WPF. Grocery shopping, and trying to figure out a parts list for a hobby project pcb (still not done, godsdamnit digikey).
hydroacetylene
57m ago
I support the ruling of dobbs and not Lawrence, would repeal the civil rights act if I had the power, etc. This isn’t a haha Republican hypocrites post.
gattsuru
1hr ago
The Blue Tribe does, in fact, respect and demand that status quo when it touches anything that they like. SCOTUS has, in fact, bent over backwards just within the last month to provide a number of Blue-Tribe-friendly alms. There was, in fact, a pretty sizable army of progressives who spent literally decades telling us how important is what that we'd be tied by rules set before the game started, and the Red Tribe bent over or was bent over to match it. There was, in fact, a pretty sizable number of compelling arguments against a clear set of legal norms and rules following clearly-established plain-text law, which favored no side and were not familiar with the particular quarrels of the day.
((The blue tribe has, in fact, spent thirty years yelling at me, personally, about how I signed the unwritten social contract by existing, and thus must play their games.))
I'd like those Constitutional Process rules to still exist! But it doesn't, and it hasn't for a while, and it's not clear anyone in power particularly wants to let it.
If you want talk progressives into the consequences of that rule, on such a scale that the other parts of the Constitution and its amendments get shoveled under the rug when a state disagrees, I'd... well, I'd still not want to live with it, but I'd at least not consider this comment a troll post.
As it is, there are links in my post above giving examples where the SCOTUS stomped over state rules, in ways that helped the Blue Tribe.
AvocadoPanic
1hr ago
mostly bad
It's a 25 point plan, you can't expect all of them to be winners. You'd have to not allow employers to a ask about family size.
If we were talking background checks and 1986 machine guns, you might even have a point on the political costs. This case is about a ten-bullet magazine cap, and a ban on the AR15. These things famously were so unpopular on the federal level that they did, actually, not survive political scrutiny in 2004. That's a thing that actually happened. Concealed carry permits that aren't perverse jokes of due process cover a majority of the country, concealed carry laws that don't treat CCWers like vampires same, and both through people voting.
Five judges on the court can write a GVR faster than I can write this post. Anyone with a functioning brainstem can cut that 'gordian' knot of definition. And the court is quite happy to write sanctimonious screeds in that five minute time period defending the vital and important rights of a wifebeating illegal immigrant, face the music and political costs when yesterday an illegal immigrant lit a bunch of people on fire, and just smile on the next day like nothing happened.
They don't want to here. That's it.
EDIT: and, yes, that you have to compare a clearly-written right to one that even its proponents eventually admitted was just made up is a problem. That your 'oh no there might be a lower court case that would adjust in response' covers every single case the courts have ever heard, and hasn't stopped them from countless Blue Tribe decisions, matters. That the courts have ducked the consequences on Red Tribe matters from SFFA to 'someone wore a mean t-shirt', matters.
erwgv3g34
1hr ago
Reminds me of The Mask of Sanity.
If the parents are smart, they will evict the daughter the second she turns 18, never speak to her again, and focus their resources on the remaining sons. But most parents are not that smart.
gattsuru
1hr ago
That's be nice, but:
-
Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are all supposed to be the product of efforts to get judges that don't throw away parts of the Constitution in favor of whatever they feel like today. That's not to say that they should always be voting for the maximally Red Tribe modes, but this particular question has been a Red Tribe goal since it first entered the national field in 94; if they're not willing to defend this value seriously, it's not clear how we get anyone that will.
-
Kavanaugh, the man who could have placed the deciding vote, did not write out something along those lines. He told us, instead, a story about lower court cases assisting the eventual SCOTUS case on this matter, which they will not do and can not do.
lagrangian
1hr ago
This is what happens when you have a constitutional right that a sufficient number of states simply choose not to recognize as such; look at how many southern states kept passing more and more onerous abortion restrictions to get around Roe
This comparison irritates and mystifies me.
The right to bear arms is quite directly in 2A:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
But the right to abortion is...nowhere. It's inferred from the right to privacy, which is inferred from due process (5/14A):
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
I'll grant that there's some legal history and subtlety around what counts as an "Arm," but that's a much smaller inferential distance than the above.
Why would "abortion, but only up to a certain point in the growth" be part of...I guess "liberty"? But, "drug legalization" somehow isn't?
In classic Mottian fashion, I'm personally anti-gun and pro abortion. But, that doesn't change that the legal footing of them is exactly opposite in strength: my desires are not constitutionally protected.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
I plan on watching it this week if I can find the time. I remember reading about the workouts Chris Kyle had Cooper do for the role. I like Bradly Cooper in general (go Birds!) And I'm interested to see how the film came out.
kky
1hr ago
What’s happening here is the wrong decision, just like Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision (for reference, that the Supreme Court had any business deciding the matter - I actually rather like the rule as pragmatic legislation). The law, as written, and procedures, as defined, deserve a great degree of deference. This is precisely because such deference prevents disagreements from devolving into their primal forms.
You’re coming at the whole Rule of Law thing from a bit of a strange angle, as if its proponents must view any legal decision as inherently proper and to form. It’s a little like the ol’ Pope Francis gotcha against Christians, or that post some time back about how Catholicism was obviously bunk because the wrong number of cardinals voted. A system, properly understood, is teleological in nature. That is, it has an essence which drives its character and directs its behavior, and the system is functioning as intended to the degree that it asymptomatically approaches that essence. Plato’s Forms are the obvious analogue here. Just because a chair is broken doesn’t make it not a chair; it is simply a chair that is not serving its purpose - the degree to which it is broken is the degree to which it falls short of the ideal of a comfortable single seat with a back to lean on.
So, very obviously, a legal system as implemented in reality will fall short of the ideal of the Rule of Law, for as you well know we are fallen, mortal things aspiring to immortal essence. But the reason of that ideal is to have a way of solving our differences that is more than just conflicting preferences or arbitrary whims. The Rule of Law, embodied, is a set of fundamental systems for determining what relation man has to his neighbors and the corporate body of the state, with progressively less absolute rules layered on top and a process for rectifying and managing tensions in those rules. In the abstract, it is the principle that there is real justice out there, a fair and proper way of doing things, of preventing the injustice we know all too well, which is the power of a man or a mob to crush the free out of avarice or spite. That’s the whole reason here.
So obviously there are going to be failures in such a system. There were from the beginning, there will be in the future. But calling this a suitable case for abandoning the project altogether - well, what do you think the alternative is? The only thing that has prevented gun bans in the US thus far is the Second Amendment. All our peers have long since banned guns, or put massive restrictions compared to ours. And there has been no end to efforts to eliminate them! The argument that keeps holding absolute gun control back is that the 2ndA is quite clear in its requirements. People choose to ignore it, but unless the amendment is removed, it will be a constant boon to any argument in favor of gun freedoms. But if the fig leaf goes away, the question boils down to power alone, and right now Progressives have all the institutional power and they all hate guns.
Rule of Law is not bald proceduralism to protect the powerful. Power hates rules, because rules limit the exercise of power, and prefers commands which can be totally arbitrary. Rule of Law is here for you, even if you don’t recognize it, even if you don’t support it. Rules are the way the weak organize against the strong. And speaking personally, I’ll be damned before I recognize a system that does not respect my God-given rights as being morally equal to one which does.
yofuckreddit
1hr ago
Did you watch the movie adaptation of American Sniper? I found myself surprised that Bradley Cooper accepted the role. A lot of hateful jingoism that is par for the course for these guys, but not very Hollywood.
If you have a long range shooting fetish anywhere near mine, a great follow up is the non-fictional Out of Nowhere
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
I think the concern is that if they rule on this case while the others are still pending (assuming they strike it down) they get one state law struck down and several others where the courts carefully craft their decision to avoid running afoul of whatever logic the Supreme Court uses to justify their decision, in which case they have to keep hearing the same kinds of cases over and over again. And even when they do rule on it, they're just going to get new legislation that tests the limits of the decision. This is what happens when you have a constitutional right that a sufficient number of states simply choose not to recognize as such; look at how many southern states kept passing more and more onerous abortion restrictions to get around Roe. The court simply doesn't have any interest in turning into the Gun Control Review Board or whatever, so they're just going to keep denying cert. Some people may wonder why they say they're too busy when they still hear tax cases and bankruptcy cases and approximately 16,000 cases per term involving the Uniform Arbitration Act, but it's because those cases involve questions that need answers, and they don't worry about state legislatures and lower courts trying to dodge their rulings.
This may seem like an unfortunate situation to gun rights advocates such as yourself, but it's better than the alternative. The entire reason the court is in this mess is because they want to preserve restrictions that almost everyone agrees are necessary, and while you personally may not care if fully automatic weapons or sawed-off shotguns are legal, as soon as there's a high profile incident with a lot of casualties, the anti-gun protests would make everything we've seen thus far look like a dress rehearsal. There's a reason that most gun-friendly NRA A+ congressmen aren't introducing bills to repeal the FFA, or the Gun Control Act of 1968, or whatever law makes post-1986 guns illegal. This doesn't even get into sales restrictions, or background checks, or any of that. At that point the argument about cosmetic features, or DFUs, or whatever go completely out the window, and whatever rights you think Heller isn't protecting are going to vanish along with Heller itself, and in the ensuing backlash states aren't going to be shy about clamping down the screws.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Nearly every group with light skin has high incomes and low unemployment in America, including nonhajnali groups like Maronites, Russians, Jews, etc.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Didn't we all hear the old saying about postcolonial Africa "one person, one vote, once?"
I prefer ‘one man, one vote- the president for life is the man, and he has the vote’.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
with the only indication being an extra "approve" item on the row of small, greyed-out text at the bottom of each comment
In theory, the moderators could use custom CSS to make the approve button more visible. For example, [onclick|=report]{font-size:2em!important;} should make the report button bigger… except there are a zillion other !important CSS rules affecting these buttons, making it hard to modify their styles. @ZorbaTHut would have to get rid of those other CSS rules before this custom rule would work. (Not being a moderator, I don't know what selector will make the approve button bigger. I'm just using the report button as an example.)
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
What did you think ‘states rights’ meant?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
2hr ago
Great question! I try not to judge people for less than a pattern of bad behaviour (try being the operative word) so on principle I agree with @Tree, but as far as personal preference goes I'd say:
-
Get that thing off your head dickbag, how is everyone else supposed to know I have the best hair if they can't see your hair?
-
I actually like this.
-
I do not care for any kind of spitting and will struggle to maintain my values in the face of it.
-
No judgement, and I am incredibly unlikely to even notice.
-
No judgement, unlikely to notice.
-
Don't visit Australia if this bothers you. It's not just a beach thing either. That said if you plan on walking on my living room carpet at any point before your next shower you will wear shoes or else.
-
I don't know if I would judge her negatively, it depends on the situation (and her looks of course, attractive people get away with more), but I would definitely consider it a faux pas.
-
No judgement, once again unlikely to notice. If someone pointed it out to me I'd probably consider it a mistake.
-
Close your mouth you grot.
-
Either great or the worst thing that could possibly have happened. It depends on how confident you are in yourself and the relationship. I've had it enhance the relationship and ruin my life (for a few days).
Fake edit: I saw your comment about 10 down below and it reminds me of one time it happened to me. I dated a girl who was a gamer and one weekend we were in her lounge room chatting. We got to the topic of sex, and she insisted she could make any video game sexy, so I challenged her to make Tetris sexy. So she did a giggling striptease while doo-dooing the Tetris music, which was hilariously dorky but still surprisingly sexy. Events proceeded and we were just about to start the main event when she froze and said "Is that the front door?" I looked up in alarm to see her cat bolt into the lounge room, right at me, and I flinched, thrusting forward and immediately losing it while making a noise halfway between fright and elation - a sort of "Huweeeee!" We were both in fits of laughter as we scrambled for her bedroom just before the rest of the household got through the door.
That's talking about a woman laughing at me of course - I would never laugh at a woman after she orgasmed. I assume.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2hr ago
Actually, the power structure is pretty tilted away from the median person in most societies. The media can create your Overton Window for you. They can pressure you by removing access to the basics of life — for example if you say something too far from normal, you will probably lose your job. Beyond that, physical revolution is pretty much impossible unless the state massively collapses or the military joins the coup as the military has access to much better equipment, training, intelligence, and has many more soldiers than any insurgent forces combined could manage. That’s just reality.
And furthermore, it’s the historical norm. Successful revolution is rare, and most end up being worse than the thing they opposed in the first place. For 90% of human history, the norm was an aristocratic system often headed by a monarch or emperor, and the system didn’t ever bother to ask what you actually wanted. Henry VIII didn’t take a poll or hold an election before forming the Church of England. The British subjects went to bed Catholic and woke up Anglicans. You’d wake up one morning to find that you were at war, and you were drafted. Or that your new ruler was named Paul instead of John. That’s what happened in most societies for most of history— power struggles and dynasties, not elections. And your opinion was irrelevant.
ulyssessword
2hr ago
I think brawnze is pointing out...That's how I read it anyway.
I read it as fullhearted participation. From the post (emphasis added):
When I meet someone with conservative leanings I have to determine what that guy's specific deal is, because there always is one. Redneck? Really religious? Too-clever-by-half contrarian? Socially retarded?
followed by a clarification that their judgment is deliberately rooted in bad standards.
It's usually difficult to people who are unserious jokers from those who have foreign (for lack of a better term) values that I'd like to learn about. At least unless they identify themselves.
Hieronymus
2hr ago
Republicans have managed to get elected roughly half the time, so it seems like it's you who's trying to escape all accountability here. If you say they couldn't do anything because of progressive Republicans, well, maybe you should have won more elections.
These two sentences contradict one another.
campfireSmoresEaten
2hr ago
Well what did you have on your to-do list?
I am anti-abortion myself, but I actually think that the demand for abortion rights to be supported by the constitution is itself not supported by the constitution.:
Therefore, just because something isn't in the constitution doesn't mean people don't have a right to it. In fact it's the opposite - if something isn't in the constitution, the people by default have a right to it, and the burden of proof is on those who would say otherwise. I am fine with the result of having Roe decided by the states (it always should've been imo), but I don't much like the legal reasoning used to get there.
More options
Context Copy link