domain:amphobian.info
The Tommyknockers is an absolutely absurd book but there are some wild and memorable images in that book including the scene where the refrigerator turns into a levitating one-ton sledgehammer that zips around smashing into people. There's another scene where a person has created a self-sorting mail device and reading it gave me the same feeling as railing a line of cocaine. Even in the worst of King's earlier books there is always something magical to take away. After around 2003, he lost a bit of that sparkle. I blame it on his car accident and decision to get sober.
Well said. I'm naturally lazy and would love to travel more.
Hey buddy. What you want to do is find a shirt that fits you perfectly, take the measurements of that shirt, then go on to eBay and find shirts with identical measurements. I've found this to be the most successful way to purchase button-downs, jackets, and sweaters. It doesn't always work, but I've found really well-fitting button-down work shirts and it has helped me narrow in on the brands that fit me best.
Is it because she didn’t carry the burden, or is it because the “divided court” somehow ruins a retrial? I don’t understand why that isn’t an option.
So, neither wanting to get deeply involved, a fairly predictable pattern emerges. First, the left tries to support the “black community,” or at least the image they have of them. This tends to be through charity and lenience towards crime. This generally does not go well, and without seeing any positive outcomes, the general public starts getting sick of crime. Then the right wing sweeps in, declares the problem in racial(-ly coded) language, and cracks down hard. It doesn’t take long to notice that this policy rests on practical elements of prejudice against blacks, and so the general public starts swinging the other way…
The language always becomes racially coded because the underlying phenomenon is too. If you have one group that's massively more prone to crime, any attempt to attack criminals will lead to that word being associated with that group - until the problem resolves itself.
How do we know this? Because even left-wingers do not escape. Hillary Clinton was criticized for her own usage of terms like "superpredator" - meant to describe young, "feral" teens committing crime with abandon but it was then taken to be a racial dogwhistle based on who it was applied to. Trump, bizarrely, used it against Biden as well.
Is she still single? I can fix her, or at least I could use a green card.
Are they? Then why is India a dumpster fire?
Cause all the good Indians are overseas, obviously.
I suppose you’d know better than I.
Oh, I definitely did the same thing in my 20s. Sooner or later, though, you end up with that hot fling you stayed in touch with breaking into your condo and threatening you with a handgun unless you get back together with her. Which teaches a useful lesson, but it may be one of those lessons that can only learned by direct experience.
Reducing the financial penalty (and the sanctions that looked like they were aimed to discourage preserving an argument for review) helps a lot of the most egregious abuses, here, but it's still an absolute mess of the case and an opinion, here. Friedman's "However, I find it remarkable that, although a three-justice majority of this five-justice panel believe that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand, as she has not carried her burden of proving a violation of the statute, the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment..." isn't inexplicable, but it's hard to read as anything but a strong bet by two judges that the state supreme court is willing to do their dirty work for them.
Her problems stemmed primarily from extreme naivety.
Many such cases. I knew an attractive, intelligent woman who was incredibly sheltered and naive (raised wealthy and insulated). She ended up dating a rather oafish guy for several years (who similar to your example, was also offered the keys to the kingdom by her wealthy father but turned it down because he was "going to make it on his own" [he did not]), and seemed to date him because he was the first man to speak to her at the first student mixer before classes started. It was fascinating to watch someone so intelligent at coursework and tests have zero practical intelligence for interacting with people who might have ulterior motives.
A fair question to ask. I do it both because I'm bored, and because I genuinely enjoy helping people. I feel bad for her, she lacks the kind of agency that most people on this sub takes for granted. I genuinely don't know very many stupid people in my personal life, it's amazing how much good looks and money can cushion you from the consequences, right until it doesn't. She lives her life in a daze, circumstances seem out of her control, everyone seems nice, but they're often just lying through their teeth to get into her pants. Someone who was smarter would confidently wrest that to their advantage, she just suffers. I suppose that's why she likes me, I'm one of the few men she knows who never lied to her, or stopped treating her kindly when she had nothing left to give. (The bit about getting laid next time I see her is mostly in jest, I'm a red-blooded man with no serious objection to sleeping with hot models, but I'm not going to go out of my way to achieve that)
The most influence she plausibly has over her life is her choice of partner, and giving her some advice doesn't cost me much.
If it's primarily charity, then there are millions of other recipients who would likely benefit more from your ministrations with a much lower risk profile.
All they have to do is ask. I try and help just about anyone who does, male or female! I'm not quite Captain Save-A-Hoe, but I know my tendencies. Am I drawn to broken people, or are they drawn to me? God only knows. In my day job, the answer is clear.
e.g. ruining a hypothetical future relationship that does have real potential.
I'm presently single. Just like last time, it wouldn't be very difficult for me to cut her off should that change. In the meantime, I would genuinely be happy for her if she did find a nice guy to settle down with, she's not a bad person. I will probably wrangle invites to the wedding, God knows I miss hitting the buffet line at the Big Fat Indian ones now I'm away. It would be very funny, if nothing else.
This attitude is what turned so many Mottezans away from being principled on this topic, noticing the massive gap between what people say they will do and how they behave in practice. Turns out very few people are really bothered by racism or sexism or discrimination in general, there's several populations that are totally fair targets. Alas, "your rules applied fairly" is not a stable point and assumes people are honest about what their rules are supposed to be.
See the issue otherwise is that editorial control is removed for business owners. Take that LGBT cake incident a while back. If business owners do not have editorial control under the first amendment, then the bakery would likely not have had legal protection over what speech they can and not produce for a client.
Edit: Or even worse, imagine you have an employee go on TV and start insulting your customers. Your customers stop buying from you, but you can't fire the employee. You are compelled to give him a job no matter how much he sabotages your company because to do so otherwise would be violating his free speech, despite the fact that it's your private company!
Are they allowed to select by religion? Hmm... looking at FIRE's page I may have been remembering that CLS v Martinez case, that student groups at public universities can't. Vaguely recall some other exception but maybe not.
Yes, student groups at public universities are not the same as a private religious university.
Although I enjoyed reading this and enjoy rubbernecking at a potential car wreck as much as anyone, what's the point of staying in touch with her?
Fuel a sense of superiority. Won't lie, I was guilty of rubber necking in the same fashion when I was in my 20's. You take the short path, lock down your education and career, it's a good feeling. But your peers might have taken the short path in other aspects (family, investing, home ownership, etc). It compensates for the lack of other life milestones in those other areas.
And so at the end of the day, you end up with the choice of being hijacked into accepting unlimited loss so the people on the low side feel better, or saying "yes, chad" to "If X is rational, it's not bigoted and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing". Or not saying it but acting in the same way, as with Jesse Jackson's famous remark about being ashamed at his relief that someone he heard walking behind him turned out to be white.
You avoided the question, since you did not identify what free speech right is now being targeted by the government by the government not providing monetary grants.
No you asked "Which free speech rights do you believe are being targeted by the government now?"
I gave you a link to a FIRE article going over one of them. You don't get to change your question now because you don't like the answer.
I found Nobel-prize-winning economist Paul Krugman's post-election predictions that Trump was absolutely going to trash the market and destroy the American economy.
Krugman literally days after was like yeah ok that's too alarmist, protectionism and short term thinking on the climate are going to be economic issues in the long run but it's not like they explode everything right away https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opinion/trump-slump-coming.html
Which yeah, protectionism is pretty terrible in the long run. We had a whole bout about it in the 1700s with free traders like Adam Smith and Hume tearing into the idea of mercantilist style trade theory. Capitalism exists with the concept that markets and trade are good.
People being hyperbolic doesn't mean real issues don't exist, it just means people are hyperbolic. I've heard plenty of hyperbolic conservatives talk about how Covid vaccines was going to be used to insert nanochips into people, heck I overheard a neighbor once say that everyone who was vaccinated will die within a year. That didn't happen.
If racism is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.
If sexism is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.
If the logical consequences of labor meriting little to no wage is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.
As soon as you start asking "why it's clear it should be a bad thing", it's a direct attack on the social license of the people whose set of characteristics predict they'd be on the low side. This is why the left is the way that it is, in attitude and in membership. Parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy.
Now, liberalism had an answer for this in the "accept a dead weight loss to the incapable such that the categories stop being easily predictable [in the sense that it becomes more likely a citizen X is being treated as they deserve individually, not citizen X having special/non-special protection for being a hypenated-X]". But that process takes time and is vulnerable to being hijacked by "therefore the standard is evil".
I've lost count of how many times I asked you how what Trump did violates any of the principles you supposedly hold, and how many times you ignored the question.
Ok so what do you feel about a member of the Trump admin saying on video that he desires to ban pornography across the entire nation?
Sure. So back then I was pro-Rowling, and helped the left as much as I could. Then the left went full-censor, and now Trump is in power and cutting their funding for practices that are illegal in the left's own framework. How am I the one that started it, and not them?
So you carve out that you aren't a hive-mind in conservative or leftist groups and aren't responsible for the censorious behavior of others in them, but don't carve out the same thing for "them"? There are plenty of examples of powerful institutional censorship from conservatives both now and in the past, you can go check on FIRE or CATO or Reason for instances of now and pick up a history book on religion vs science for an incredibly easy view of the past censorship efforts.
Although I enjoyed reading this and enjoy rubbernecking at a potential car wreck as much as anyone, what's the point of staying in touch with her? It seems she provides mostly idle amusement and the possibility of future sex. It also seems to have some outside risk of blowing up in your face--e.g. ruining a hypothetical future relationship that does have real potential. If it's primarily charity, then there are millions of other recipients who would likely benefit more from your ministrations with a much lower risk profile.
I don't think that merely summarizing court opinions is an appropriate basis for being considered "lawyer-brained".
This can’t have been any easier than including a paragraph or two of your own commentary.
I don't have any opinion on which judges are correct.
I’d have preferred page numbers instead of block quotes.
Preliminary "slip" opinions from New York's appeals panels are published in HTML without page numbers, not in PDF with page numbers. I have seen people refer to a 320-page PDF, but it's not official.
(Weirdly, New York's trial courts publish slip opinions in a mixture of HTML and PDF.)
This is not a very substantive comment, but you are most lawyer-brained non-lawyer I know. It's impressive (and I mean this as a compliment), I had a career counselor once suggest I take my wordcel self down that path, and I'd have probably gone insane.
…this can’t have been any easier than including a paragraph or two of your own commentary.
I will rule that it does clear the bar, but dang, I’d have preferred page numbers instead of block quotes.
I gave up on listening to Blood Meridian around 3/4 of the way through it. I may try reading it at some point but I really just could not absorb this one.
More options
Context Copy link