domain:betonit.substack.com
ace
32m ago
Yea, the incentive structure of birthright citizenship is insane. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum is a permanent generation-on-generation underclass of non-citizens like Turkish and Arab immigrant communities in Germany. Seems a difficult needle to thread.
vorpa-glavo
32m ago
I do think a lot of that is part of the sub role, but I was also trying to describe the appeal from "both sides."
There are people who want to become the bimbo, and I agree that a large part of the appeal for them is literally "turning your brain off" and giving in to blissful ignorance while letting another person take control. But there are also people who want to make the bimbo, and I think for them it is all about the feeling of seeing someone who was smart being taken down a peg and becoming a parody of themselves.
I think the bimbo sub has a lot of overlap with the sub in ageplay, petplay, hypnoplay, etc. All of those involve embracing a more simple-minded mentality and letting someone else take control for a while.
A much more speculative part for me is why particular kinks end up appealing to particular people. I have a second hypothesis, which I might call the 'horror story hypothesis.' I think that the power dynamic that becomes part of a person's fetish is often a thing that they worry about a lot. Classic examples would be the girl obsessed with staying skinny who ends up with a weight gain fetish, or a smart guy whose greatest fear was brain damage getting a bimbofication fetish - which are both examples I've seen in the wild. I don't think that this explains every instance of someone fixating on a single power hierarchy, but I think it probably explains a good deal of them.
2D3D
34m ago
Thats more a reflection of only idiots wanting to have sex with 16 year olds (idiot teenagers, perverted men). The most successful girl I know (extreme outlier) got pregnant at 17 to her godly christian boyfriend, popped out 3 more before 25 and is now a happy grandmother at 45 with a home based baking business supplanted by her husband (same dude) being a highly successful investment banker being pressured to take over the family business. This is an extreme outlier and much is contingent on the success network available to the woman, but it goes to show that not being idiots has outsize benefits. That the more common story is the girl getting knocked up and the young man abandoning her early on is reflective of poor mate filtering on the girls part and lack of social censure on the mans part, though being honest the man behind closed doors in high censure environment tend to be abusers so thats the main risk.
2D3D
38m ago
My daughter is more at risk of NEVER having any sex because she is at her tender age already obsessed with degenerate homosexual kpop boylove fics (RIP the Chatgpt server instance tasked to her). Between that and her godsis already being a degenerate goonette whose collection of bad dragons highly upsets even her somewhat liberal mother, the risk is more in the opposite direction. While the risk of infiltrators in good christian churches or feminist groups are both extant, the greater risk of women having impossible standards for men and defaulting to the internet rabbit hole instead is unexplored.
HighResolutionSleep
39m ago
A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child"
I said that referring to it by name is against the rules.
If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.
I didn't say that, I just said you can't say "the purpose of the law is support the child because the law says so, it's in the name, stupid". You do this multiple times so I'm only addressing it once.
The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority
This is also compatible with the mother support theory.
the calculation of support is based on the child's needs
Do the needs of children scale with the father's income? They eat more food? Wear more clothes?
how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support
I'm less concerned about this part than other elements, but to the extent that it matters, it is a solved problem. You make it an EBT card with similar controls. Courts can pull the records on a moment's notice. There's way less deniability because the funds aren't co-mingled. This isn't rocket science. Wouldn't be surprised if some places already do this.
You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.
If this were the modal impact of the policy, that would be a great point in favor of calling it mother support.
almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice
I will cop to feeling that there's a great amount of injustice across nearly all policy that touches men and women as such, and that I harbor a considerable measure of bitterness about it. No point in denying it. I guess that means my beliefs about the world are wrong because they come from a bad place, huh. Where do your beliefs about child support come from? Only love and honey, I'll bet. That means they're better than mine.
It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations
How do we know that child support policy as it exists today isn't "punitive"? Sounds like a motivation that could be attached to the fact it scales with income.
I have financial obligations to women all across the country and their children. No bailing on that one, unfortunately. I'd probably feel less bad about child support if it meant I never had to pay strange woman to raise another man's kid. Hell, raise it 10x if that's what it takes. Throw men who can't pay into lithium mines.
not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.
Who cares? Nobody has any concern for the welfare of children when it collides with the needs/wants/whims of women. If a woman's right to drink smoke and snort as much as she wants while pregnant is inviolable, I don't see how a man's right to stay home and play video games shouldn't also be etched in sapphire. There's a thousand different policies we could pursue that would have manifest benefits to children to the inconvenience of women, and we implement exactly zero of them.
anon_
42m ago
Indeed. I don't disagree.
But at the very least the core of his appellate claim is on a relevant (to the TX legislature) factual matter about what happened. It might be weak, but at least he's arguing the right actual thing.
That alone puts it far ahead of the majority of far-less-defensible capital appeals that are about everything else.
gattsuru
58m ago
Problem in this case is that it's possible that any DNA under the victim's fingernails match one of the Gutierrez's compatriots, and Gutierrez still entered the trailer and participated in the murder -- just without being scratched. Indeed, because one of his compatriots lived with the victim and had 'found' the victim's body, some of the samples should be reasonably expected to be not-Gutierrez's even if he was totally guilty as can be.
There's been fact-based determinations before focusing on guilt (even, rarely, ones that raised serious nontrivial questions of guilt: McCollum is pretty embarrassing to Scalia). I'm hard-pressed to see how that'd happen here.
anon_
59m ago
I think we should all pray that the US suffer many more disastrous times as bad at that awful period from 1988-2001.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton - Pornography 6-3 conservative opinion, Thomas. First Amendment does not prohibit Texas from requiring age-verification for pornographic websites. Kagan writes the dissent.
This one's weird.
The law is probably reasonable enough or close to reasonable enough (if not necessarily my idea of well-designed), but the lower court just set it against rational basis review. Previous SCOTUS decisions either put restrictions on adult content either fully in strict scrutiny (Ashcroft I and II, where restrictions were on the basis of the content's adult nature) or rational basis (obscenity to minors, movie theatres). And strict scrutiny, at least in a free speech context, is ruinously hard to achieve, in ways that even Thomas probably doesn't want to water down. The closest obvious parallel in previous law was adult theatres, which was admittedly a pretty jank decision of its own by pretending it was separating the effects of the content from the content to justify rational basis review. But that'd be the same as no review at all.
I guess this case didn't fall close enough to the commercial speech restriction cases for the adult theatre side to be even remotely palatable? But it's Thomas, and his willingness to go to the bat for bizarrely aggressive paternalism (eg, en loco parentis) is one of the bits that's long been a go to, for better or worse. Instead, he reaches (through BSA v. Dale for some reason) to the draft-card burning regulations from US v. O'Brien, saying restrictions on speech here are incidental to restrictions on behavior, so intermediate scrutiny. From that view, it's not unreasonable.
Then Thomas differentiates it from the strict scrutiny CDA cases by saying those "effectively suppresse[d] a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive”. But the analysis is just limited to privacy concerns and stigma (aka, more privacy concerns). Yet these restrictions have potentially massive costs to speakers, not just receivers, on adult-content sites or even mixed-content that don't go up to that mark. Likewise, he tries to distinguish the CDA as regulating noncommercial sites that would not readily take up credit card processing, but HB1181 applies to all commercial entities, not just commercial sites. Burden can't drive level of scrutiny up, but this sort of perfunctory analysis gives little idea of what the actual analysis is, especially since intermediate review is a little ad hoc to start with.
Some of that burden review is probably because the Free Speech Coalition advocate comes across as kinda a nutcase during oral args. He mentions costs to site managers once in oral arguments and it's a stunning 40k USD per 100k users, and then spends much more of his time ranting about the motivations of anti-porn people. But then intermediate scrutiny's biggest bite is specifically in the prong of the O'Brien test that asks if the government interest is tied to the suppression of information, which is where the whole anti-porn thing rises anyway.
It rounds out to normal -- Thomas does everything short of wink-and-nod to say that pretextual restrictions on obscenity-to-minors that try to cover restrictions on adults are invalid -- but it's just such a bizarre way of getting there, and it's going to invite a lot of mess from lower courts.
Gutierrez v. Saenz - ... My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years
Yeah, probably. I'm really skeptical that a DNA test with no return of Gutierrez's DNA from the few samples available would factually demonstrate that he was outside of the trailer (or for a positive result to have his advocates want him in the chair), and while I could kinda see the arguments for allowing it anyway, it's hard to care. There's a chance Texas will just punt on killing him, but it's Texas, so that's a real far outlier. The process and procedural stuff might matter for other cases, perhaps? The court just didn't like the lower courts ignoring past dicta?
anon_
1hr ago
I think testing finding DNA evidence under the victim's fingernails that matches a guy convicted of rape would probably be fairly weighty evidence. Of course, to be weighed against everything else. Of course, that's a just-so manufactured scenario.
In this case, the perp confessed he was there to rob the victim and his co-conspirators went inside and murdered her instead. This appeals doesn't challenge his overall guilt for what happens, only whether he actually killed the victim or not. And that's relevant because the TX legislature (not a federal judge) specifically made that a precondition for the death penalty.
In other words, there is an actual factual question about what exactly this guy did.
JarJarJedi
1hr ago
Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war
No they didn't - the fact that you falsely call it "illegal war" (it's not a war and it's completely legal) is owed solely to the organized effort of Democrat politicians and Democrat press. And it's working. It can't stop Trump - because, again, what he is doing is completely within his powers as the President and Commander of the military, so short of removing him from that position in some way, it is not possible to stop him from doing it - but it does what it intended to do, creates the false image of Trump violating the law.
anti_dan
1hr ago
Without knowing specifics of a case, what the hell would DNA prove in a murder case? Did some guy shoot his own hand splattering the wall then shoot the victim?
This is why these sorts of appeals and objections are such BS. People just seize upon any possible avenue to delay an execution. Usually in such cases its not like there was a semen sample in the deceased vagina and he was convicted without testing done. Its obviously going to be some other thing.
anti_dan
1hr ago
Well, this has happened to us once before, so using these two (which are similar) incidents, I don't think these food delivery people are just stealing all the food. From what I can tell, in both instances it was the last delivery of the day and they just had reached a breaking point where they wanted food. There was food. And this seemed like a way to get free food at that time. Both times it has happened to me were around 9:00 PM which is about the end of these apps delivery windows. Both times were also on Fridays.
So these people are generally okay employees most of the week (I suspect). And what they do is if at the end of their shift they think they can get away with something, they try it. And they do get away with it mostly because despite the prevalence of ring cameras, most people are too lazy to follow up and the companies can't really fire them for stealing 1/50 orders a week because the pool of replacement labor is even worse. She will probably eventually be fired if this is a pattern. But she will just move to a different delivery app at that point.
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
1hr ago
My understanding is that, in addition to the physical component of masochism (some people really do find pain pleasurable -- maybe it's to do with mild endogenous painkillers released?), much of the interest in submission among people who swing that way is about surrendering control and shutting off your brain, just like you say. Humiliation is probably something else entirely. And frankly my politically-incorrect view is that people with humiliation kinks are people who truly believe they're inferior in some way and believe being placed in a situation where it's called out is just revealing and acknowledging a reality they already fear is true.
Hadad
1hr ago
Yes, amnesty was entirely legal. It was also a disaster. It is but one of many reasons I no longer care if actions are lawful or not, merely whether they direct the country in the right direction.
anon_
1hr ago
The fact that they let the nationwide injunction stand for another 30 days is likewise indicative of this.
anti_dan
1hr ago
I will try but I have no idea how they work. We have had this happen one time before at our previous residence. The driver hung a bag over the fencing of the adjacent lot and took a picture then 3 minutes later I went to look for it and there was nothing. We never were told what happened in that case. I suspect unless I file my own police report (which I dont really have cause for because they fully refunded me) I would ever get any notice.
I know that on large purchases Amazon does file its own reports with local PD. But that is for over $1k at a single location, and then the PD will try to see if there is a camera and file charges. But for $50 of takeout we ordered because we both had really stressful Friday workdays? I doubt it.
anon_
1hr ago
Gutierrez v. Saenz - Criminal Procedure. A lurid murder case gives rise to a pretty boring dispute about death-row inmates' standing to request post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. I can't really figure out the nuances of the Texas law at issue or the procedural history, but it looks like the Sotomayor-led majority thinks Gutierrez has standing; he has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the ability to request post-conviction DNA testing, even though the prosecutor apparently has both the right and the express intention to refuse that request in this case.[...] My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years (Gutierrez was convicted in 1998).
Alternative read: An enormous amount of capital appeals has been about everything except whether the defendant actually murdered someone. This Court in particular has had little patience for endless appeals regarding mental capacity, culpability, IQ, age, execution methods, history of abuse/neglect and all the other sentencing-phase stuff.
But now they are signaling that they are amenable to something like DNA that can (theoretically) be relevant to the actual verdict. The message seems to clearly tell the appellate folks what not to focus on.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
1hr ago
Amnesty was an act of Congress signed by the President. The country was also a bit different then. We wanted the labor and felt compassion for people fleeing communist hell holes.
I'm not really arguing against ending birthright citizenship going forward given how much different the circumstances are now.
anti_dan
1hr ago
Fully refunded + $10 on the platform my wife ordered through. Not worth my time to file a police report, but who knows what their policy is. If cops come in the next 30 days and ask for the footage I will have it.
jkf
1hr ago
All of the effectiveness stats are 'effectiveness in use' -- so 'using' condoms includes 'yeah I use condoms but sometimes run out or whatever', just as 'using' the pill includes people who forget to take it, 'using' NFP includes 'but baby I need you now', and 'using' withdrawal includes... um, accidents.
anon_
1hr ago
"Nationwide" or "universal" injunctions have been part of the playbook for activists' (especially progressive activists) lawfare for a long time. The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country.
Oh short political memories. This was also the playbook of conservative activists, especially given that there are single-judge districts in the 5^th circuits with some very conservative jurists. You don't even have to shop them, you can 100% pick. And there were at least a dozen such nationwide injunctions against Biden-admin policies: Texas v. U.S (twice!), Louisiana v US, GA v US, NE v US Top Cop v Garland. Which was fair turnabout given Trump I given Obama (remember DACA and the DOL persuader rule, probably not) and so forth.
When there's next a D administration, it's gonna be short memories again, and everyone will trade places around a merry-go-round of pretending to be actually concerned about procedural matters. It's predictable and would be distressing except that I suppose we're all just numb to it now.
[ FWIW, if you care about my actual thoughts on the merits, I think the decision is fine. I would probably sign mostly onto Kav's concurrence which joins the opinion in full. ]
anon_
2hr ago
Again, you can wish for a different Bruen.
how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century represented a critical tool of constitutional interpretation (internal quotes removed)
And
Second, we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment” and found that they “universally support an individual right” to keep and bear arms.
Bruen isn't a decision that grants you, personally, the precise 2A jurisprudence that you want.
If the rule you followed led you to here, of what use was the rule?
More options
Context Copy link