domain:abc.net.au
gattsuru
2m ago
Dayton, Ohio 2019 spree shooter. Very heavily themed his online presence around Canti and Atomsk.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
3m ago
notices bulges OwO what's this
I'm getting massive furry vibes from this guy.
Almost certainly gay furry. But only because every furry I've ever known was gay and I assume this is how you best rebel against your sheriff dad raised in Utah.
Our absurd timeline has been long overdue for furry assassins. Makes the most sense.
Yeet_far
7m ago
So, domestic partnerships really aren't the same thing; they're not recognized by the Federal Government, so they don't give a lot of rights. I've had a domestic partnership as a straight couple, and it's not really anything like marriage. You do get some rights! But hardly 'equal'. You only get health insurance from your spouse if their company is nice and allows it, for instance. It's not required.
Theoretically Civil Unions should have actually been "marriage minus the religious aspect". However, that was never really the case in practice: Civil Unions were never recognized by the Federal Government either. This meant that (for example) you can't get a spouse visa with a Civil Union. And still can't file taxes jointly. And if you ended up hospitalized in a state that didn't honor your civil union, you were just as boned as if you didn't have one.
Theoretically if there had been federally recognized Civil Unions that actually had all of the same benefits as marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges would probably have gone very differently. If the anti-gay-marriage people really wanted to preserve marriage for straight couples only, they really ought to have pushed for this, but clearly they didn't.
I strongly suspect if proper, recognized-by-the-federal-government-and-all-states Civil Unions had existed in the 90s (to be clear: Civil Unions have never been recognized by the Federal Government or all states. Not then and not now), we wouldn't have gay marriage today.
As for the religious aspect, there's the simple matter of religious freedom. I am fully on board saying that churches that don't want to marry gay couples shouldn't have to. However, that goes both ways -- churches that do want to marry gay couples should have the right to do so.
gattsuru
7m ago
Barring bad soap operas, no. But prosecutors will want to bring witnesses, have to question the target, and (while I'd argue shouldn't) handle the media, and all those things are more expensive when the first question is 'did you know she had a dick'.
miras_chinotto
certified low iq
8m ago
I think that chain of thought is very likely. Would maybe have made more sense to avoid being in that rhetorical corner to begin with where all your options are bad.
TheDemonRazgriz
8m ago
First the violent nutjobs took FLCL references
Wait, when did this happen?
TournamentFishing
12m ago
The seal of confession isn't a universal feature across all Christian denominations.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
12m ago
ugh, not that Austin Powers guy again
Making a note that if I ever get banned, I'll come back saying "groovy" and "shagadelic" in every post.
birb_cromble
13m ago
Is there a picture of this?
Corvos
17m ago
It's not an actual, literal Confession. His dad recognised him from the FBI photos and got him to admit it.
Corvos
21m ago
In retrospect a lot of apparent British prosperity at the time was fake - a temporary boom resulting from laissez faire economics and financial trickery. This fake prosperity created - as it was meant to - a lot of second-order fake prosperity as international investment came in. What we've seen in the last two decades is this process unwinding itself.
TL;DR one reason why British growth looks anaemic is that we weren't starting from where the graph says we were starting.
ControlsFreak
21m ago
Perhaps this was all just a bit of confusion. I was responding to your bit:
This also touches on Trump's dreaded funding cuts. We've had a number of people here complaining about them, claiming that Trump should have used a more precise approach. It can't be done. Any presumption-of-innocence approach would yield no significant outcome, as institutions could hire activists faster than you could get them fired.
where the internal link was to funding cuts to academia, with the context being whether or not there were goal-oriented, somewhat tailored ways of approaching it compared to what I've perceived in these fora as calls for 'indiscriminate chemotherapy'. So, I guess, I'm not really sure what you're meaning or going for.
I think I already linked it, but it might not have been worth the time to read it before, but here is some context, with links to prior discussions where I was pushing back against the 'indiscriminate chemo' calls, culminating in the more recent cuts being targeted and linked to institutional behavior.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
22m ago
Why not just let them come back? There's another person active in the thread today who's so blatantly a banned user that I'm shocked nobody else has said anything, but they haven't been banned yet. I remember an unofficial policy that if someone came back under a new pseudonym and changed their behavior sufficiently to plausibly avoid detection, that was a win too?
Not to mention if most people don't realize it's hlynka he can shed all the baggage of people who hated him for his mod decisions.
shamgar
22m ago
Does the Motte have any recommendations if I want to educate myself on formal logic?
I'm considering getting this textbook, but just because some random youtube video recommended it, I don't really know what else there is on the market.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
23m ago
I've been playing a shit ton of MW5: Mercs again. Haven't gotten to any of the new DLC content yet, but it's close. Jumped right into my old save, and been knocking out high value missions and Arena contracts. Now it's 3049 and it's getting so close. Can't fucking wait.
Also, finally got my favorite 4xAC/2 variant of the Mauler. But then I found a Bullshark for sale with 6xAC/2's! I fucking love infinite dakka out of my mech nipples.
As with netstack, haven't gotten Silksong yet.
Trying to veg a bit with Star Citizen. It is, to skip to the punchline, an awful game, made all the worse by the staggering amounts of time and money that have gone into it. It's been in development over a decade and has yet to complete (or even seriously implement) a single gameplay loop, nine months into the 'year of playability' the server infrastructure still panics over moving boxes into the wrong location, and anyone who plays the game for long develops a paranoid fear of elevators; calling it half-finished is too complimentary by halves. I bought in back during the original kickstarter at one of the lowest tiers, but the game has increasingly focused both its marketing and its development on megaships marketed to whales, often to pretty ludicrous ends (eg, you can't buy an Idris even if you had a thousand bucks to waste, and even if you could, it makes absolutely no sense to own even as a way to grief people).
Which makes it all the more frustrating how good the core of the gameplay can be. The whole bit where you seamlessly blast out of a docking bay, start warping to a mission destination, leave the pilot chair to prep gear and a light motorbike in the bay, hear the decel as you get into orbit and drop out of quantum travel, fly down to the surface and land 20 klicks out dodging turrets, jump into the bike and go off to start busting heads with a rifle, and head back when done. Or you sculk around the edges of a pirate and PVP-heavy point-of-interest in your undergunned salvage ship, carefully managing ship power to avoid spiking anyone's sensors, to crack apart and chew down salvage left behind by their battles. Or you're on a ground mission and have to take quick cover because someone else is fighting a massive space battle and you can't risk eating a golden BB. Even just hauling cargo, tedious as it can be, still feels a lot more engaged than the standard Freelancer/No Man's Sky/Elite.
And then the mission system can't count to five, or you get killed by drinking a bugged soft drink, or you fall through two different floors of your ship at superluminal speeds and fuck your entire cargo and a few hundred thousand credits as it goes 50 gigameters that way. Or you do all that turret-dodging and crack a half-dozen heads, grab a mission objective, mount your hoverbike, and it shoots into outspace leaving you behind and literal hours of travel to get back to your ship. Or you look at your cargo run and realize that you're making fewer credits-per-hour than you would with VLRT missions, and this route involves dodging PVP pirates in heavy fighters while you're armed with a handheld tractor beam.
The technical implementation is challenging enough that some of this can be excused or handwaved: this giant scalable dynamically moving pile of microservices is probably necessary for the game's intended final scope even if it's almost exactly the sort of hypothetical I use to argue against the microservice of everything. But then there's other bugs that are incredibly simple model or stat errors and take literal months to fix, or parts of gameplay loops that just need a (client-side-only!) UI update. How do you have five hundred people working on a space game funded by selling ships and not have a way to sort ships in-game after ten years?
Space Engineers is my other mindless space game, as a more build-em-up. Recently dropped a survival gameplay update with some other decent tech fixes. There's some stuff to criticize -- combat is still hilariously floaty-feeling, whether two spacesuits with handguns or big capital ships, and the end-game prototech gameplay loop still feels kinda dumb a year later -- but there's still some amount of enjoyment in designing and building out a decent light frigate.
DTulpa
28m ago
Tell me the difference.
He had his opinions, he went to places, and he tried to convince others. He didnt insult his questioners, he didnt maliciously stick fingers in their eyes. Yes, he had a motive and an agenda; a preferred outcome from his activities. No, you werent ever going to change the opinions of this debate bro in real time. His back and forths were in service to advocacy.
But outside of some very insular and high-minded communities... this is as good as it gets. This is what every political and public advocate does. It has always been the case whether this was a Uni gig or a Monk debate.
The accusation that Charlie didnt operate in 'good faith' - in the same way I might with a good friend when discussing contrary politics - seems true in a very narrow sense. But if it doesnt count, almost nothing does.
hanikrummihundursvin
29m ago
Two law enforcement sources tell CBS News, the BBC's US partner, Tyler Robinson's father relayed his son's confession to a clergy member - the family friend we heard about earlier.
That clergy member took the tip to the US Marshals Service, and then Robinson was detained.
Is this allowed from a religious standpoint? Beyond that, would the shooter have gotten away with it if not for yapping to his dad, or his dad yapping to a clergy member?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
30m ago
The reality is he's an Isma'ili muslim shown visions of paradise while under the influence in a castle in Persia, and the entire rest of his life is a series of ruses designed to throw us off the scent. But we won't be fooled! We know the Safavid-Ottoman conflict has moved to NYC, where else can the Isma'ili menace be found than in Utah?
I am not OP.
That said, I looked at the two of your links that described clear incidents that are well known, and as I say they were from a time before my parents were born. The Wikipedia page I take seriously but it's a list of literally every violent incident or attempted violent incident that happened to a person who might have been LGBTQ, some incidents obviously anti-gay some incidents almost certainly not; I accept that there is significant anti-gay sentiment in some parts of the rural backwoods but you could compile a list of violent incidents affecting Jews, Christians, or indeed pretty much any identity group in a country of 300 million people and have it look pretty bad.
Ultimately I'm almost sure nobody here was alive in the 50s and I doubt most of us were alive in the 70s. OP seems to me broadly correct that the period of greatest gay-activist belligerence coincided with the period of greatest gay tolerance everywhere except the most rural of Red America.
Not aiming this at you but stating generally: I have a broad distaste for guilt-trip based activism based on events that happened far away and outside my living memory, and I think we have too much of it from a lot of groups. I also think that the campaigning around gay marriage served as the prototype for a lot of cancel culture, and vastly increased the harm done by transgender campaigners because everyone remembered what had happened to the people who expressed doubts about gay marriage.
Historically from the timing I think it's pretty clear that gay marriage had nothing to do with not wanting to get beaten up and very little to do with wanting hospital visitation rights - we had Civil Partnerships in the UK before we had gay marriage. Brendan Eich wasn't fired in 2014 to prevent academics getting chemically castrated and Tim Farron (head of the UK lib dems) wasn't defenestrated in 2017 to stop them getting stabbed. Broadly, as a pro-gay-marriage activist at the time I would say gay marriage was powered by It's About Time progressivism and a deep optimism about the flexibility and direction of society that was not borne out by events.
gilmore606
35m ago
Seeing you of all people say this is a real indicator of what time it is.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
38m ago
So that in three years, when Presidential Candidate Vance is debating Presidential Candidate Newsom, and the topic of extremist violence comes up, the CNN moderator can "fact check" Vance when he tries to bring up Charlie Kirk's assassination that actually the motive of the shooter is unknown.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
38m ago
I don't think he literally believes in Valhalla either. I think it went something like this: he wanted to eulogize Kirk, but invoking heaven would be weird since that's not what Hindus believe. At the same time he doesn't want to invoke Hindu thought on the afterlife because that would also be weird. So he resorts to a third option, referencing Valhalla which is indeed a common enough reference for people joking around/larping but is uncommon in a eulogy for a devout Protestant and would be considered in poor taste by Protestants in general.
Reading what you said, I agreed to the point that I would put down a (virtual) bet, but thinking some more, I've seen some crazy, crazy deflections and downplayings from people I thought were normies. I think certain leftists are extremely uncomfortable with the facts that are being put forward here, and they refuse to accept the framing of right wingers at all. In these circumstances, I could easily see many of them try to redirect in the fashion he means, similar in the ways that his image is tarnished - on this very site! - with out-of-context quotes in a mad attempt to make this seem more like a natural outcome of the line of work he was in, rather than the pure evil murder it was. Will anyone buy it? I'd argue probably a lot of people. The left was willing to swallow anything to ignore all the utterly insane activists calling for the police to be defunded during 2020.
More options
Context Copy link