domain:nfinf.substack.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2d ago
You know, I am not a puritan and don't really care if porn is available. But are we really supposed to be concerned that homeless people can't access free porn? Like their presence isn't making public libraries and coffee shops unpleasant enough as it is?
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
2d ago
"A people" might be. A country is not a people; most countries are too big to be anything but a collection of peoples tied not by blood, but by a language (not always), an army (sometimes not their own) and a flag (usually their own).
A midwestern farmer and a coastal urbanist have no common blood between them. Memes might tie them closer than blood does some tribes. But not blood.
HughCaulk
2d ago
Good post but bruh…
Frankly: I hate all this clinical trial bullshit around psychedelics and mushrooms. They definitely have anti depressive effects, but anyone that does drugs knows that the set/setting of these clinical trials is absolutely awful and retarded. You’re tripping and they just have you watching ig reels and tv?
Take 2 gs of real mushrooms and go for a forest walk and think about life. You’ll actually have some real insights about what’s making you that way. Treating these substances like just another pharma substance isn’t the way.
Drug prohibition is a crime against humanity!
Throwaway05
2d ago
Bipolar + Schizophrenia + Schizoaffective disorder add up to something like 5% of the population. Not all of these people commit violence. Not all of these people end up with an involuntary commitment. Saying "you murdered someone during a manic episode I no longer feel comfortable with you living in the community" is one thing "the severity of your illness is so bad that someone thought you were going to hurt people but you didn't end up doing that, however I'm not sure I feel comfortable with you having guns even if you don't need to be in the hospital 100% of the time is another."
Plenty of people end up transiently psychotic because of things like medical illness, substance use (even caffeine!), sleep deprivation, stress, trauma and so on. Most of these do not go on to kill people. A fraction who do end up with an involuntary commitment are significantly more dangerous and risky.
No, it's actually just correct. Being a citizen of the US is a reward for anyone not entitled to it by blood. We're the best. Everyone knows it.
Just curious, since I don't often receive this kind of candor.
Have I earned it, in your opinion?
I was born here through no choice of my own. But! I've been here for five decades, speak English fluently, have two houses, was raised in the Christian tradition, have paid millions in taxes, have never been to jail, have a white wife and two white children (three including step child) who are irrefutably citizens via my wife.
Also, kindly let me know what you feel you've done to earn being an American citizen.
Hadad
2d ago
The internet has always been open for all.
Well, no, it hasn't.
I get it’s not a right … but having to wait for someone to unlock the deodorant to buy it is annoying as hell.
Yeah, thieves suck.
Hadad
2d ago
"70% chance of further psychosis" is a crazy way to describe a person you think is safe.
Bluntly, yeah, all those people you mentioned I'm cool with indefinitely restraining and/or killing depending on how cooperative they are with restraint. These aren't normal people. Not even the one you call normal. I won't put a price on it, as these costs aren't fixed. The death penalty can be done very cheaply, for instance. We just don't do it that way.
Throwaway05
2d ago
I think a good thought experiment here is to look at traffic tickets.
Do you think cops should have flexibility in giving a ticket or not?
Choosing not to is also abomination of due process, it is inconsistent and potentially abusable and corrupt. It's also flexible and can work out well.
The system works better for most people overall when have some flexibility in the system. Some people are screwed over by that flexibility however in my experience it's usually for good reason (in this case: guy is likely an asshole).
If you want to remove the slack and flexibility in the system you can certainly advocate for that but you'll find it probably isn't what you want in practice.
With respect to this guy specifically, I got the impression that it seemed like he had more involvement with mental health care that he was letting on and was trying to minimize which is not a good sign.
Hadad
2d ago
That is correct, as I no longer value the law as a neutral institution. I am not concerned with cleaving to the law if the law destroys the society I want. And yes, Reagan's amnesty was terrible, and his biggest fuck up as a President. He's awful for it.
GBRK
2d ago
Illegal immigrants (quite rationally) do treat first world citizenship as a prize and lie and cheat their way to getting it.
Even if I were to accept that description of illegal immigrants as being accurate, it still fails to describe the children of illegal immigrants. Babies are not rewarded by citizenship, they are entitled to it.
hydroacetylene
2d ago
There have been plenty of societies with an average female age of marriage 16 or under. Our society isn’t one of them, and the median teenaged girl probably is not ready to be married off, but it’s not implausible that some might be. Very, very few where guys married under 20, or even 25. Far more implausible for a teenage boy to be ready for marriage, especially considering the man needs to pay the bills.
Hadad
2d ago
Blood is not water, nor is it magical. It's deeply physical. A people are tied by it.
It's crazy to criticize magic soil when apparently you believe in magic water. Having a particular genetic sequence or ancestral tree doesn't establish responsibilities and liberties any better than touching a particular patch of soil. Actually, it is explicitly, legally worse at transmitting those things.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Fistful of Dollars is the weakest entry in the trilogy, and Red Harvest is an overrated novel that I quit reading as soon as I figured out where it was going. I haven't seen Yojimbo, but I have no interest in watching it if it's just another "guy plays two gangs off of one another for personal reasons with a big showdown at the end* film. I mean, seriously, you don't need to be a clairvoyant to see how obvious these plotlines are and how at a certain point you're just waiting for the whole thing to play out.
HereAndGone
2d ago
And if she had originally felt that lying was a minor offense made as much for Henry's sake as for hers, it wouldn't be at all shocking if she refused to come clean so that he could look justified in betraying her.
Or, on the other hand, if she wasn't lying, neither would it be shocking if she refused to lie just to make it convenient for Henry to dump her for his long-term mistress. Henry (and those he had charged with getting this done) had little scruples about bending the truth; there was a lot of ground to be cleared before the second marriage could take place, and it wasn't all down to an inconvenient wife.
Anne Boleyn had at one time attempted to contract a marriage with Henry Percy, son of the Earl of Northumberland, and they were secretly betrothed. This didn't suit either of their families, or Cardinal Wolsey, so whatever arrangement they had was broken up and Percy was married off to another woman. When the king's marriage with Anne was to go forward, Percy was pressured to claim there had been nothing between them. Then later on, when it was incumbent to get rid of her, he was pressured to admit there had been a pre-contract before them. This was treated as legally akin to marriage, so she was allegedly not free to marry Henry.
Did the men accused of being Anne's lovers lie or tell the truth when they denied this? Was Anne lying in her letter to Henry denying that she had ever committed adultery? We are really in "he said/she said" territory now.
As well as Anne's past romantic/sexual history, there was the problem that Henry had taken Anne's elder sister, Mary, as a mistress before he met Anne. If Catherine was guilty of having consummated a sexual relationship with Henry's brother, thus making their marriage illicit, then the boot was on the other foot here as well: a sexual relationship between Henry and Mary would have created a pseudo-kinship making Anne his sister-in-law, as it were, and thus rendering his marriage with her equally sinful, incestuous, and invalid as Catherine's marriage with Henry was claimed to be.
So in the tangled matter of Henry's marriages, we can't know what was the truth, as apart from "what was the 'truth' the king wanted declared at the time?"
This is why I tend to believe Catherine. She was put under oath, and I don't think she would have been prepared to commit perjury just to get back at Anne. Nowadays we think of perjury as a technical legal offence and indeed trivial (unless you're caught out), but people used to believe that swearing false oaths would indeed damn you to Hell. So there wouldn't have been the attitude that "lying was a minor offense made as much for Henry's sake as for hers". Catherine could have admitted a consummated marriage with Arthur, claimed that she had relied on the papal dispensation and the advice of her elders that the marriage with Henry was permissible, and made things easier for her. Henry had had mistresses during their marriage and she had accepted that, because that was the way of things. (Something Henry later allegedly reproached Anne about, when she was said to have confronted him about taking a replacement mistress, that greater ladies than her - a reference to Queen Catherine - had had to accept this). It would have made things easier and more secure for both her and her daughter, Mary (and Henry was not above being spiteful to his own child, with alleged threats later of executing her if she continued to be obstinate about accepting Anne as queen), as it went for Anne of Cleves who was more complaisant or better able to play the game, agreeing to all Henry's demands and being well treated in return when he wanted to get rid of her.
We'll never know the exact truth, without getting a time machine to go back and see if Catherine remained a virgin after her first marriage. All we can do is judge the characters of those involved as to how they strike us, and Henry strikes me as a liar - or at least someone able to persuade himself that he was acting from the purest motives and not just out of personal whim, and that all those opposed to him were in fact not alone wrong but wicked and evil.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
2d ago
Sure, but not in this case.
The internet has always been open for all.
Porn has been around since day one.
I remember trying to go on espn the first time I went online in maybe 1996 via AOL and porn came up. No damage done.
This is, imo, just puritinism.
I get it’s not a right … but having to wait for someone to unlock the deodorant to buy it is annoying as hell.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Lets list some of the categories of patients this kinda thing applies to.
-
Someone has a brief psychotic episode, has interest in killing someone but doesn't manage to do so. They have a 30% chance of not progressing into having any further episodes of psychosis.
-
Someone uses drugs or alcohol. While under the influence of drugs or alcohol they become homicidal or suicidal.
-
Someone has a medical problem like a brain tumor, dementia, or more reversible things like autoimmune encephalitis or hyperthyroidism. While medically unwell they become psychiatrically unwell.
-
A totally normal person has a first time manic episode with threatened or actual HI/SI. Outside the manic episode they are totally normal. They take their medication but still have a risk of problems. Maybe they have a kid and end up with sleep deprivation. Maybe the run a 5k and become dehydrated and their lithium metabolism is altered.
-
Schizophrenic guy who knows he is schizophrenic, takes a long acting injectable medication to make sure he doesn't forget. Symptoms are well controlled. Sometime over the course of his life his metabolism of the medicine changes and he ends up sick again (and dangerous).
You really want to lock up all of these people indefinitely?
Medicine and the legal system don't know with surety who will offend and who will be dangerous. So we try and be judicious in how much we violate rights. Summarily executing someone for being diagnosed with schizophrenia is a bit of an overshot. Locking people up indefinitely (especially when they have periods of healthy functioning that might even last decades) is also likely overshooting it.
It's also hideously expensive and drains resources that could be best used elsewhere.
They won't have guns anyway while locked up.
Why not start with less restrictive measures?
If individual autonomy isn't important to you (it certainly is to Nybbler) then the expense should certainly factor into it. How much extra in taxes do you want to pay to do this?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2d ago
IIRC around the end of the first Trump term, we got perilously close to dueling national injunctions for "must continue DACA" and "must immediately halt DACA", which isn't a sustainable way to run a national judiciary.
gattsuru
2d ago
I think the implication of the proceedings was that this was not true, clearly wasn't true, and the court didn't want to waste time and money on sorting it so used other procedural grounds to close the matter.
But from a due process perspective, that's an abomination. If the problem genuinely was that the court believed TB had a criminal history or other occurrences of mental health breakdown, TB has absolutely no reason, having read the court's public record, to actually go and find proof on those things. There's not even a reference to what better proof would be about.
((Admittedly, because it's quite possible TB presented perfectly adequate proof, given that the expungement process requires petitioners give permission for a full background and mental health record search, and the law requires the court to ask the committing facility. I don't trust New Jersey judges.))
And more critically, it's trivially resolvable. Assuming without evidence that the court would be crippled by asking for criminal records, it costs the judge mere seconds to write out that the plaintiff needed to provide them. Instead, if he doesn't die or run out of money or patience first, TB's going to back to court with a list of his medications in his pocket, proudly mispronounce every single one, and the judge will find some other excuse that doesn't really matter.
Most principled third parties read about these situations and fear some authoritarian judge taking rights away (which does happen) but the vast majority is "please give me something, anything to work with.....okay I guess you won't."
And if judges want us to believe that, they a) need to actually write it into the public record, and b) have public records giving normal people reason to distrust them.
IMO it sounds like you only like law when it supports your POV.
EDIT: I also find the nExT admiNiStrAtIoN / white genocide argument a bit funny because it was Reagan that granted my extended family amnesty and they're all white and hardcore Trump voters.
Hadad
2d ago
Yes, I understand the strategy of letting them all in and then trusting the next admin won't be able to remove them. This is why I'm on Team Fuck The Law, Do What's Right, They All Gotta Go, and will accept any violation of law in pursuit of this.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
2d ago
You may find from time to time a simple majority that says we should stop illegal immigration but you won't find a majority that believes that means we should pull people out of homes they've made in the US to deport them.
Hadad
2d ago
We also give the crazy people guns, cars, and their bare hands.
If someone is unsafe, the correct move is to imprison them. Full stop, end of the line. The goal is not to maximize the autonomy of dangerous people, and that you think it is confuses me. If you're, again, one med cycle away from cold blooded fucking murder of an innocent person, you are not safe, you are a sedated predator. We should no more let you walk around than we would a grizzly bear.
It's not your fault your parents fucked you over, and you did the best you could. But no, you're illegitimate. I'd be willing to fast-track you through the immigration system, but you'd have to go back first. Once exceptions start being made, they get made for everyone, otherwise.
Oh, I was born to two citizen parents. Citizenship is mine by blood.
More options
Context Copy link