domain:thezvi.wordpress.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
This is symmetrical to what Darwin is claiming with JK Rowling.
Still not quite. What's missing is the reasoning for this claims being justified by some passage from Biden's autobiography, the other poster arguing that said passages say no such thing, it turning out that the original poster hasn't even read the autobiography and is blindly repeating completely made up claims, and when that's pointed out he then says "it doesn't matter".
It's not false at all that at least some factions of the Republican party want to eliminate trans people, although this need not necessarily mean "death camps". For some it probably does mean death camps though.
There are some factions that want to ban the whole Gender Affirming Care thing, and abolish all the special accommodations given to trans people. Sure, this is often interpreted by the pro-trans side as eliminationist, though such usage of the word is unconventional, and any honest person participating in a conversation would qualify it properly.
If you actually truly believe that the second sentence is a reasonable thing to say about any non-negligable amount of Republicans, and if you really truly believe there's nothing at all egregious about this conversation, then please step me through some of the other examples of bad posts you've given. Why is it ok to say "JK Rowling
I don't mind Darwin's opinions, just his debating tactics, but you seem to be objecting to the content of people's beliefs, which is a weird approach for me in itself, but combined with saying the content of Darwin's post is fine, actually, it's incomprehensible to me.
Is it that he didn't explicitly admit he was wrong about the point on JK Rowling? Nobody every does this in debates
Absolutely false. Plenty of people do. I'm sure you do so quite often yourself. Just off the top of my head, you didn't react to the link where GuessWho admits he's Darwin by saying "pff, that doesn't matter".
What is more rare, and should not be expected of others, is changing your mind about your broader worldview during the course of the debate, but conceding basic factual statements is a prerequisite for having a reasonable conversation. If you don't have that, you're not even in a conversation, you're in Monty Pythons Argument Clinic
Is it that his original post had an offhanded bailey in it that he abandoned to focus on defending the motte instead? See my prior post: yeah, it's a bit annoying, but it's very common.
Is it that he didn't bother to defend the bailey even though that's a prime area where Amadan wanted to press him on? You mentioned him saying "it doesn't matter" was a problem, but obviously people shouldn't be forced to defend dumb positions if they'd rather give up and just implicitly accept an L on a given topic.
An implicit L would be just dropping the topic of JK Rowling altogether, not trying to claim he didn't actually mean her specifically when he said "people like JK Rowling", then claiming he has good reasons to believe she actually has more extreme views than she lets on, based on her portrayal of trans people in her books, and then claiming none of it matters when it turns out he was wrong about her books. An explicit L should definitely be expected from a reasonable person, when they make a mistake of this magnitude.
Also, the moment you call it a motte and bailey, you concede the entire issue, in my opinion. Motte and Bailey is a dishonest, bad faith, and manipulative debating tactic, that's just an objective fact. As to whether he should be forced to defend the bailey, no - there should be no bailey! The whole spirit of this place is that any position that comes out of your mouth is one that you should be willing to defend. It's in the website's sidebar:
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
It's in the freakin' domain name!.
If you're still thinking "what's the big deal?", it's that his wasting people's time. I don't mind drive-by trolls like AlexanderTurok or BurdensomeCount, because they're signaling clearly that 90% of their content is just bants. I roll my eyes and move on, or I join in on the banter, either way I know what I'm getting into. OTOH, If I'm joining what appears to be a reasonable conversation I want to take it seriously. I don't particularly care for how outlandish an idea is, how absurd and obviously wrong it seems, if it is held sincerely, I want to see what makes the person tick, or to see if I'm missed some critical facts about the world if my worldview is so distant from their's. When it turns out I'm not in a conversation, but a 5D word-judo fight where it can easily turn out that "people like JK Rowling" doesn't mean "a group of people that JK Rowling is a central example of", but "a tiny subgroup that is in the same cluster as JK Rowling, because said cluster is defined to span half of the entire society, if not more", then I'm going to feel like an idiot for jumping into it to begin with.
You claim this sort of behavior is very common, but this is clearly disproven by the fact that people we able to recognize Darwin under his new alt, specifically by his particular brand of dishonesty, bad faith, and manipulation.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘falling off the wagon’- they’re already doctors and lawyers(who, I’ll note, have from an objective perspective made large sacrifices to their standard of living to dwell in NYC, doctors in flyover live in mansions not apartments).
Maybe this is one of those things I don’t get and won’t get, like why neurotic strivers think they’re better than me without having the pedigree to back it up, or why people live together for five years without getting married.
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
My keyboard is set to recognize English, Spanish, and French. I do not know, or want to know, why it sometimes autocorrects the to thé, but it doesn’t seem worth fixing.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
2hr ago
Did you accidentally fire off this post mid-write? This seems a little thin for a top-level comment.
I at least can't fathom why this is "kinda important".
I apologise for the faux pas but I'm posting two top comments in succession since this one's kinda important and I couldn't find it anywhere on the board.
The death of the hacker ethos -
Three days ago, Suhail Doshi posted a tweet about a programmer named Soham Parekh who was caught doing the most stereotypically Indian thing ever, scamming people, this time, it's young yc founders. Soham is not a great engineer, he is probably good, better than me, at least as I am for now an amateur, though he is not a 10x mythical unicorn, given he resorted to this
Our /r/overemployed king
So for those unfamiliar, tech jobs pay a lot, by tech I mean jobs where you write code for a living, due to the world shifting more towards web apps, people do not need to be in a particular office to test out things on specific machines or OSes the way they did back then since its a web app after all. COVID-19 saw remote jobs boom, a peak that remote job seekers like me can only wish for. Enter Mr Parekh. He optimised the shit out of the interviewing process, and made a fake CV that made him look like an AI slop find since most YC firms now are just terrible. You can go on Hacker News, a board that was started via YC as its literal URL is news.ycomibanator.com, and there are different cases such as pear.ai and most recently glass that would make every sane man question the levels of evil present in the valley. We will return to these in a bit. Back to our scamster.
Now, cheating is not a new thing; over time, society has gotten less strict about deceit in many areas, just ask Zohran Mamdani, who claimed to be black to get into Columbia and is probably going to face zero consequences for it. The first big pro-cheating thing was this startup called Cluely, made by an Ivy dropout asian american, Roy Lee, whose idea was to embed an LLM in your computer so that you can cheat in any interview, as the language model can access both your screen and the speaker. A few days later he got a cool 16 million by a16z, a firm that invests money in startups that explicitly hate cheating and would never want to hire people who would ask a language model to write most of their code. Roy's startups database got leaked a few days later, and ever since, we have had countless cheating-focused startups.
When Sohams thing broke out, people, a large percentage of Indians went to defend him online for explicitly lying. We all have done bad things and I regret the one or two times I did something amoral, in this case, it was similar to a guy sleeping with an entire friend circle, the girls end up liking the guy which is unfortunately what our friends over at silicon valley did after they were done tweeting about ai god and their ai wrapper with 10s of dollars in revenue that justify the millions in investment. It got so bad that the daily news network equivalent of tech news, TBPN, hosted this guy, where he was given softball questions and turned into a hero overnight. "I took all those jobs because I have personal financial issues" to "I do not care about money and only like building" is self-snitching. We know the guy did fuck all for most of his gigs as he kept getting fired within months if not weeks, similarly, he has family in the east coast of the US yet is facing issues he cannot tell others about? Here is the cherry on top of this rotten fruitcake.
The guy got job offers, plenty of job offers, all by ai wrappers, but job offers nonetheless. He chose to go with a firm that makes the same product his last startup made, one he signed a non-compete since he had seen their entire codebase. I asked @FiveHourMarathon as a joke about what levels of scamming is safe in the US. Unfortunately, not only do people not care, but they also respect you if you pull off scams. Y Combinator has been seen as the bastion of hacker founder culture. Paul Graham's essays focus a lot on doing good, being honest, providing values, and other nice things that seem like worthless platitudes, given that the people in his accelerator are not only bad at these things but also lack any sense of honor.
Which brings me back to glass and pear.ai. Pear.ai was one of the worst-received startups of the recent LLM API calls as a startup batch since it literally just forked another repo completely and was touted as the next big thing by Sam Altman's replacement, Garry Tan. Ultimately, after enough hate, they probably changed since the founders are some sort of young e-celeb YouTubers, but it was a divorce from the Aaron Swartz martyr morals. Glass literally forked another cluely clone with the wrong license, slapped a new license and then later claimed ignorance.
Cheating and deceit are bad things; we should be fine with helping those who make mistakes, but these are malicious attempts. John Carmack released his engineers under GNU's public license, today's largest accelerator, where people use him as a PFP do their best to be the opposite of that. We are at this point, encouraging fraud.
edit - will link things in a bit. Apologies for the second top-level comment.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
2hr ago
Book 4 of the Meditations of Marc Aurel:
32: Call to mind by way of example the time of Vespasian: you will see everything the same: men marrying, bringing up children, falling ill, dying, fighting, feasting, trading, farming, flattering, asserting themselves, suspecting, plotting, praying for another's death, murmuring at the present, lusting, heaping up riches, setting their heart on offices and thrones. And now that life of theirs is no more and nowhere.
Again pass on to the time of Trajan; again everything the same. That life, too, is dead. In like manner contemplate and behold the rest of the records of times and whole nations; and see how many after their struggles fell in a little while and were resolved into the elements. But most of all you must run over in mind those whom you yourself have known to be distracted in vain, neglecting to perform what was agreeable to their own constitution, to hold fast to this and to be content with this. And here you are bound to remember that the attention paid to each action has its own worth and proportion, only so you will not be dejected if in smaller matters you are occupied no farther than was appropriate.
33: Words familiar in olden times are now archaisms; so also the names of those whose praises were hymned in bygone days are now in a sense archaisms; Camillus, Caeso, Volesus, Dentatus; a little after, Scipio too and Cato; then also Augustus, then also Hadrian and Antoninus. For all things quickly fade and turn to fable, and quickly, too, utter oblivion covers them like sand. And this I say of those who shone like stars to wonder at; the rest, as soon as the breath was out of their bodies were 'unnoticed and unwept'. And what after all is everlasting remembrance? Utter vanity. What then is that about which a man ought to spend his pains? This one thing: right understanding, neighbourly behaviour, speech which would never lie, and a disposition welcoming all which comes to pass, as necessary, as familiar, as flowing from a source and fountain like itself.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
2hr ago
Some notes on stuff I read and the work of Luke Smith
I have been binge-reading the essays Luke Smith wrote on his website, LukeSmith.xyz, and have also finished more than a quarter of Watership Down. It is slightly harder to start reading physical books again, as I am used to my Kindle and mostly read short form on my computer and phone. Great book so far, but the comment is about Luke Smith.
Some essays by Luke Smith I liked
- Why Modern Art is so awful
- Why People Do or Do Not Leave Religion
- Not Even Libertarians Believe in Libertarianism
In particular, I liked his podcast on the book against method by Feyerabend, and I have been trying to draft out a post that is not haphazard, concise and makes a novel point.
His critique of libertarianism ending in feudal states was probably correct. My main point, though, is an admission of defeat, weakness rather. How do I survive in a world where the heuristics people hold holy on both sides end up being wrong so often?
You have religious reactionaries on one side who stick to their beliefs just because they were born with them; on the other hand, you have the rest of the world, where you find shades of post-enlightenment thought. In his essay 'Not Even Libertarians Believe in Libertarianism', Luke quotes Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rather casual manner
Nietzsche, in I forget which book (probably Genealogy of Morals), noted that moral philosophy is kind of the opposite of other sciences. In moral philosophy, we know beforehand what is “right” and “wrong,” and its goal is not so much to discover new truths as to concoct a framework that helps us understand the system of why things are “right” and “wrong.” We do not “discover” new moral truths.
This later connects to his other podcast where he discusses Against Method, largely agreeing with Feyerabend's viewpoint of Epistomological Anarchism and in another podcast notes the gaping flaws with Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow with the help of Gerd Gigerenzer's books such as Simple Heuristics in a Complex World and later uses his other work Mindless Statistics to showcase the modern academic stat raindance.
I provide this context because I feel unsure of what to believe in as a person. I grew up seeing a bunch of superstitions that made no sense, did not care much about god and slowly became a reactionary when I realised the cathedral or the modern elite simply used the scientific method as a garb to justify bio leninism or values like it. The essays I read have, however, made me question the very means and sources of what I can even trust. Do you simply agree to go along with your maulvi who is fine with you marrying a girl who is barely done growing up or do you deconstruct everything and reach a point where you can later either deny the existnece of gender or worse, be an hbd obsessed online type who cannot see his own people as anything beyond iq scores.
The ancients here in India tried their hand at this problem with the Dharamshastras, before the lawbook of Manu, the Manu Smriti. These texts were not the word of god, something that is difficult to explain since the thinking and the people behind these ideals are long gone. I mean to simply ask how one can know what's right in a way that sounds dumb.
Is the world just humans trying to understand systems too complex for them, and all efforts are kinda wasteful, at least in the current model of the world? How do you decide what you think is wrong or right? The Maulvi example is helpful since people deny and outright ignore the existence of all religious mandates that are at odds with modernity. Modern banking and democratic values have dented a lot of orthodox people in parts that are not in the West. My post is terribly worded, but I cannot honestly tell people what is right or wrong in a consistent way, i.e. by seeing tradition as the all-knowing lindy culture machine fighting modern "logic".
This post will get downvoted badly, I cannot fully explain the entirity of my inability to grasp what is correct as both the opposing forces here are wrong in many ways, but I am unsure if you can live in a world that does not inevtibaly bend towards one and goes through pointless pain because of it. Marrying within your caste or race works; it worked before we understood IQ as a metric that has clear scientific backing, and the very ideas of genetic tests with coordinates and a detailed breakdown of your haplogroup. At the same time, man evolved from a primitive state where religion, even though it came after a certain point, was the new thing compared to the pre-agriculture past. Is the answer to just never think, meditate and go on with my life, should I break down only some things with arguments, or do I simply find the first old scripture that agrees with me?
I know that the Dharmashastras did try something in this regard, and like most things religious, I presume they were ahead of their time. But yeah, I am beginning to question some things, not because I am anti-vaxxer or something, I am not, I do lean towards modern meds being good in nearly all cases, I just don't know how many of these Chesterston fence issues we will face. Most religious preachers, popular ones, are mostly incorrect; my intellect can sense the outright stupidity and dishonesty in many things, and I hope I can get some personal anecdotes or any advice on how one deal with these issues. Learning philosophy to convince others of your preconceived notions, for instance, sounds dishonest, yet many do it.
This ties into culture war heavily, I know that having women not marry young, allowing heterogenous societies, and deconstruction lead to chaos, do I need to wait for science to approve of it, but conversely, how can I deny the existence of many modern phenomena that I know are true? Hinduism conveniently has sects that do not care very much about any of this, but I want to finally see reality for people reading this who know more about the world than me
Context: I wrote this some time ago when I was sufficiently annoyed with contrived drowning hypotheticals. I had a lot of fun writing it, but then didn't know where to put it. I've never really written a short story before (except way back as a teen, for other teens) so no guarantees that this is actually any good. But it seemed stupid to write it out fully but to not at least post it somewhere afterwards, so here it goes. @mods, if you consider this inappropriate here, feel free to move it, though I didn't want to start a thread on anything I'm not sure is any good.
It’s a beautiful morning. You’re wandering next to the river which serves as the natural limit of the city. You want to visit granny; Well, not your REAL grandma, but when you were a teen, she was there for you. She hasn’t been doing well, forgetting things, especially later in the day.
You pass by a bridge, closed off with a fence - though it's sufficiently damaged that one can get past if one wants to -, showing a sign that reads “trespassing will be punished by fine”. This used to be one of the most important, most used roads out of the city, but a year ago it has started to be plagued by suicide attempts, so the city decided to block access after a public pressure campaign.
A little further, a group of tall and athletic men is playing beach volleyball. A priest tries to shortly talk with them, is rebuffed & leaves, shaking his head.
You will probably not reach granny. Steve (that’s what you call him in your mind, at least, it’s not like you really know him) will soon jump of the bridge, as he does everyday, and you will jump in to save him. He will be taken to the hospital for the day, where you also have to wait until someone can take your report, which gets logged into the system, and you will get released, by which time it’s too late in the afternoon.
But something is different today: You’ve seen a policemen, in the wild, who isn’t already occupied! You go straight towards him.
You: Hello, Officer, do you have a moment?
Policemen: Yes, sir?
You: A man will soon go on the bridge and jump off. Could you arrest him for trespassing before he has a chance to jump?
Policemen: Sir, I can’t do anything just on hearsay.
You see Steve entering the bridge from the other side.
You: See, that’s him!
Policemen: Sir, according to our anti-escalation training we are not allowed to arrest a person for only trespassing.
You see Steve jump from the bridge. The group of men doesn’t care, the policemen pretends to be busy writing something and the priest just looks at your sternly. You sigh, and run to save him. When you leave the water, the policemen walks up to you and gives Steve a fine.
——
It’s a morning. You’ve had enough. Screw Steve, you’ll just walk faster, and then it’s going to be someone else’s problem. You pass by a masked man, looking off into the sky. The priest walks up to you.
Priest: Hello, son. You want to leave that poor person to his fate?
You: Why don’t you ask someone else?
Priest: You know they won’t listen. What do you want to do now, instead?
You: I’ll visit my grandma.
Priest: Just visit? You know a life is more important than a visit.
You: Do it yourself, then.
Priest: I’m old and frail. Besides, I’m saving many lives here; Anytime someone wavers in his faith, I restore it, so that they can save the needy. If I were to do it myself, I’d be taken in for the day.
You wasted so much time on the discussion that you see Steve jump from the bridge. The priest looks at you sternly. You sigh and run to save him.
——
It’s morning. This time you won’t get derailed; You put on headphones and pretend to neither see nor hear the priest and walk at a brisk pace. When you walk past, you notice that a small coffee shop has now opened up at the shore of the river, with the priest sitting at a table. After you passed by, the priest goes to the masked man, who was just looking at the sky again, and talks with him. He gets up, runs after you, catching up almost instantly, grabs you, and slowly drags you towards the water. You shout at him, but he just screams “fuck you” over and over, until he has finally dumped you into the water, where Steve is already flailing. You sigh, and swim over.
——
Morning. The headphones broke after getting wet. At the shore you pass by a journalist explaining something to a camera, with the bridge as a backdrop. Later at the coffee shop, you see the priest and the masked man sitting together drinking tea. Enraged, you confront the priest.
You: What the fuck? You can’t just tell someone to assault me!
Priest: Oh, I was just telling him about that poor man who will jump off the bridge. It’s not my fault that he reacted that way, and besides, I couldn’t have stopped him anyway.
You: But you could at the very least report the crime!
Priest: Of course I did, but the man had already left when the police showed up. You also have to admit he did it for a noble goal: To save a life. So I can’t say I’m too unhappy.
You stare at the man right next him.
Priest: This nice young man just told me that he can’t even afford a tea. So I invited him.
You: So you claim it’s not him?
Priest: How would I know? He’s wearing a mask. You know, Corona.
You, towards the man: Are you ?
“Of course not”, says the voice that screamed “fuck you” yesterday. You look at him, and flip the table. Tea sprays everywhere, both are cursing, and you take the chance to run as fast as you can. You run along the shore, but at the place where you could have sworn is the path to granny’s house, there is a fence instead. A sign tells you to just continue, which you do, until you reach a dead end between the shore on one side and the fence on the other. You see Steve flailing in the water, screaming. You sigh, and jump in.
——
This time you take a large cutter with you. At the coffee shop, the priest is now being interviewed by the journalist, which he visibly enjoys. The beach volleyball players, meanwhile, are back today and trying to garner the attention of the (admittedly quite attractive) journalist. The masked man is nowhere to be seen, so you just walk fast while looking back, making sure you’re not being followed. Carelessly, you bump into something, and turn your head around to see … the masked man. His eyes glimmer with anger. You look at him, then the cutter, then at him again, and swing it in a large arc. He gets an arm up, screams in pain and goes to the ground. You run past, not looking back, breathing heavily. You made it! Nothing can stop you now!
——
“REPORT: ANOTHER SUICIDE ATTEMPT AT THE BRIDGE Calamity struck just as our investigative journalist was taking an interview for a documentary about the suicide bridge: Another attempt was made. According to trusted sources, one particular local man, present at the scene, already knew in advance. But instead of intervening, he struck an innocent bystander down, breaking his arm, and fled the scene. He was later found nearby harassing an older woman, after he gained access to her home by cutting open a fence. The police is still investigating his motive and the connection he has to her, as she claims to have never seen him before. He is currently in custody on charges of assault, vandalism, trespassing and harassment. Fortunately, another bystander playing volleyball jumped into the water, saving the day.”
The priest takes back the paper he gave you.
Priest: You know child, I don’t think you’re so bad. So I put in a good word for you. The man you assaulted has also agreed to drop charges if you cooperate.
Do you take up the Priest’s offer and do community service at the bridge?
Corvos
3hr ago
Specifically it argues that the worms all boil to death as the compost heats up.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
3hr ago
Seething contempt is fine if it’s expressed politely, which Turok has done imo.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
3hr ago
It is amusing that it starts with "(I think this is a pretty important article so I’d appreciate you sharing and restacking it—thanks!)", since I would imagine that most randos exposed to arguments like "utilitarian veganism means that eating honey is one of the worst things that you can do" to conclude that utilitarian veganism is stupid and must be resisted, rather than stop eating honey. In general I cannot recall any thought experiment style arguments on ethical veganism that haven't just ended up pushing me towards a wholesale rejection of animal rights as an ethos.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
And there's a very large degree of difference between what seems to have been the historical reality in 19th and early 20th century Germany and what I assume most people would imagine when they hear "a legacy of democratic norms".
Botond173
3hr ago
As opposed to Russia, where the meekest similar attempts even at creating token institutions were likely to land you in a Siberian penal colony. Degrees of differences do matter.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
3hr ago
Nothing beats sleeping after a hard workout and magnesium. So relaxing its hard to get up.
Botond173
3hr ago
The "democratic tradition", the way the term is being used nowadays, of western Europe is more a result of the Cold War and it's alliance with the USA, than it does with anything that happened before the war. Even Spain and Portugal were dictatorships until the 70's.
Huh? France and the Benelux states had already been democracies for a long time before WW2, and France was already a republic to boot.
Spain and Portugal joined NATO only after those dictatorships fell, which I think bears mentioning here.
Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Poland? Romania? Bulgaria? Hungary?
To be fair, 4 of these didn't even exist as sovereign nations before 1918, which complicates matters. Regarding Hungary I already replied in a different comment. The Baltics used to be ruled by German/Germanized nobles for a long time and thus have a shared legacy of Western orientation; that much is certainly relevant in this case. The Poles have a bygone but long and cherished legacy of being a republic with a parliament which, for example, is very markedly different from the Russian experience.
I could imagine that if the reunification went well the east Germans could be bread-and-circused into complacency, and would be just fine with brilliant ideas like importing seven zillion Syrians and Afghans, putting people in prison for speech, but locking them in a women's cell after they declare themselves a woman, and fining people €10K for misgendering them, but it's not immediately obvious to me.
It could have probably worked but nobody even tried. East Germans have consistently been shut out from positions of power and influence in the 'reunified' German state to an extent that makes the past discrimination against African-Americans in the US pale in comparison. They were seen as hillbillies with poisoned minds who don't matter. The economic transition was also completely bungled.
Botond173
4hr ago
You even have to invent additional just-so stories to explain the relative "failure" of the democratization of the GDR
Yes, I argue that the democratization of the newly annexed Eastern provinces of the FRG after 1990 is at this point largely seen as a failure by the West German establishment and their supporters. I think this is pretty much bunk because it ignores that a new political synthesis should have been worked out in the first place, a process that should have made reunification real instead of just a BS word for what in reality was annexation.
even though they it should have been the most successful of all
No, I think the most successful of all democratic transitions should have been and did in fact turn out to be the Czech, because it was the sole Soviet satellite state that in fact functioned as a democratic pluralistic republic before it was Sovietized; and because the Czechs were influenced by Holy Roman / Germanic culture for centuries before that, which made the country ripe for Westernization after 1989.
FtttG
4hr ago
The Seinfeld is Unfunny effect.
FtttG
4hr ago
the concept of "the world is revealed to be an illusion" has been done better
At the risk of spoiling the works in question for myself, which works are you thinking of?
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
4hr ago
On a slightly unrelated note, would you happen to be aware of any current experiments with running software they way you would like to run uploads - encrypted, unrootable etc.?
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4hr ago
Some marriage-fraud cases:
Plaintiff Sotir Libarov is a Bulgarian citizen. After entering the United States legally, Libarov married Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. On March 15, 2016, Libarov applied to become a lawful permanent resident based on that marriage. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Libarov’s application in March 2022, concluding that Libarov and Hernandez had entered into a sham marriage for immigration purposes. In the Notice, USCIS explained that Hernandez said under oath that the marriage was arranged by an acquaintance and that she “was offered $10,000 to enter a fraudulent marriage” with Libarov. USCIS ultimately denied Libarov’s application for permanent resident status on June 15, 2022.
Jin Yin Zhou, a Chinese citizen, married a US citizen in 1996. In 1997, Zhou entered the United States as a conditional permanent resident, ostensibly to live with her husband in New York. But, not long after her arrival, Zhou began living with her boyfriend in Kentucky and had three children with him. Zhou never lived with her husband and eventually divorced him in 2001. Throughout her immigration proceedings, Zhou concealed these facts repeatedly, including when she submitted a petition to remove the conditions of her residence and when she applied for naturalization. Eventually, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) officials discovered Zhou’s marriage fraud and recommended to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that she be placed in removal proceedings.
On January 15, 2014, Ansar Hassen Hussen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, was admitted to the United States on a B-2 visitor visa which authorized him to remain in this country for six months. However, he has never left.
In June 2014, Hussen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he had twice been imprisoned and beaten for belonging to a minority political party in Ethiopia. An immigration judge (IJ), however, found Hussen’s account implausible and rejected his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that material aspects of Hussen’s story did not add up. Hussen filed a petition for review.
While that petition was pending, Hussen married a US citizen, who then filed an I-130 application for an immigrant visa on his behalf. Hussen then filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his proceedings so that he could seek an adjustment of status based on his marriage. He attached affidavits, photographs, receipts for items like a diamond engagement ring, an Islamic marriage contract, and a lease agreement showing that the couple jointly rented an apartment in Virginia. The BIA, however, denied Hussen’s motion to reopen, concluding that Hussen’s evidence was “insufficient” because he failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence of the bona fides of [his] marriage”. From the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, Hussen filed a second petition for review.
While Hussen’s second petition for review was pending, he filed another motion with the BIA to reopen the proceedings and to reconsider its denial of his earlier motion to reopen. He attached evidence showing that his wife was pregnant, that they were living together, and that they shared a joint bank account. The BIA denied Hussen’s motion for reconsideration and second motion to reopen, and Hussen filed a third petition for review.
For the reasons that follow: we deny Hussen’s first petition; we grant his second petition, vacate the BIA’s order denying Hussen’s motion to reopen, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; and we deny his third petition as moot.
In October 2013, Plaintiff Roberto Martinez Olivera filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on Givovich’s behalf, and Plaintiff Nicole Givovich correspondingly filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. After interviewing Givovich and Martinez Olivera regarding the petitions in January 2014, USCIS investigated the bona fides of Givovich’s prior marriage with Doroteo Caldera Rodriguez. On April 9, 2014, USCIS Immigration Officers interviewed Mr. Caldera Rodriguez, and he provided a written sworn statement (translated from Spanish to English) in which he stated that he had married Givovich “as a favor so she could obtain her legal residency”. Specifically, he explained that he and Givovich had met when they were taking English classes and were friends for about two years before getting married. He said that Givovich had asked him to marry her to help her obtain her residency status. Mr. Caldera Rodriguez stated that he and Givovich never lived together and were never intimate.
USCIS ultimately denied the I-130 visa petition in April 2023. USCIS explained that the two sworn statements of Mr. Caldera Rodriguez, and the corroborating statements of Ms. Trejo, Ms. Munoz, and Mr. Rojas, provided substantial and probative evidence that Plaintiff Givovich had “entered into marriage with Mr. Caldera Rodriguez for the purpose of evading immigration laws”.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
4hr ago
I can well imagine that "brought to life" implies that whatever damage it suffered since or even leading up to death would be repaired in the process of resurrection. Which might raise the question of why damaging it further matters, then, but I suppose it would be disrespectful to intentionally work opposite to God's intended course.
RenOS
something is wrong
4hr ago
But he's not accusing anyone specifically of believing the things he's pillorying? He's not claiming all Republicans believe what he said. At worst, maybe you could say his mention of the "Online Right" was overbroad, but the way he capitalized it meant it was different than "anyone online who is right wing". Is the issue that you think no single Republican thinks these things? If that's the case I'm 100% certain you're incorrect.
At least to me, the problem is that it's very unclear who he means, where he gets these ideas from, and how to even productively engage with all this. KMC's post is very specific, he cites specific things that a certain person has said and then makes conclusions that at least reasonably follow from those. Even if you disagree, you can argue quite well with that. Gattsuru is especially careful to link a lot so again, this makes it easy for me to check everything up and engage at specific points.
Turok's post here claims there is a "new narrative on the online right" (from whom? where?), which is mostly the near-opposite of the things I usually hear from broadly self-identifying rightists (as far as I can see, they usually argue that immigrants suck due to crime and welfare, and that if the native populations then has to do the shitty jobs themselves, so be it). Likewise, in the last paragraph, he directly addresses the reader, claims that "many here" believe certain things (again who? in which post?) and admonishes them.
For me, there is not much except to say that while I agree that it sounds stupid, I've not particularly heard of this new narrative, and that the positions he ascribes to "many here" is actually somewhat rare (though certainly not zero, so much I agree with). And most of his post nowadays are like this. Just undirected sneering about people he dislikes. If anything, it would be better if he cited the specific people saying these things.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
4hr ago
Do they use mummification or anything to that effect? I'd expect the whole process of worms and rotting to do a number on the current body. Unless... God's skeleton army.
I really hope this was the entire intended post because that would be hilarious.
More options
Context Copy link