domain:parrhesia.substack.com
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
5m ago
America does not really seem to have a coherent philosophy
Of note - "America" isn't a person and can't have a coherent philosophy. Many individuals are equally incoherent to what you posit here, but others really aren't. There are plenty of police-state enthusiasts that think people shouldn't own firearms. There are plenty of firearm enthusiasts that want to eliminate no-knock raids (outside of rare, extreme circumstances).
Foster was allowed to open carry a rifle.
Again, many individuals may have an incoherent stance, but mine is fairly clear - blocking streets is a crime, using a firearm to do so is an escalator, and the government should have cracked down on BLM intimidation tactics. They didn't in Austin because Austin is a left-wing city and the city leadership offered tacit or explicit endorsement of BLM and its tactics.
Recently, I found that for raw facts, the Youtuber going by "Military Summary Channel" is quite good. The flaws with it are that he has a very obvious pro-Russian bias that he tries to mask but that usually manifests itself in the form of calling absolutely every Russian advance very important and every problem experienced by Ukraine catastrophic, and picking video captions that exaggerate Russian gains that disagree with what he actually winds up saying in the video. This, along with the extremely formulaic script that may be due to bad command of English but still wanting to use "professional-sounding" expressions, makes him useless as a source of opinion and prognosis. However, I found him unusually well-calibrated when it comes to integrating the various sources to determine who actually controls what piece of land at a given time and colouring the map, with many instances of him being correctly skeptical against both all the pro-Russian mappers and the doomer contingent of pro-Ukrainian ones, while not just being unidirectionally slow to accept changes in control that are eventually confirmed.
zeke5123a
11m ago
Blocking roads is turning the public property into private. It is wrong and shouldn’t be seen as “American discourse”
pataTactician
12m ago
The mention of Gideon the Ninth (which I loved) and Ninefox Gambit (which I thought was just alright) got me to stop lurking for a minute, but I have a question.
What part of anything that you're saying is right-wing?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
21m ago
OK, I think I've shown that this is obviously false and repeating back at me mostly convinces me that you're not willing to deal with reality. Thanks for the Heritage link though, very official, very trustworthy.
zeke5123a
21m ago
Foster (and his crew) was committing a crime (trespass, false imprisonment). So I disagree with your description.
I would like to see felony murder charges brought against the other “protesters” who surrounded Perry’s car.
naraburns
nihil supernum
23m ago
goatfucker patriarchy
Write like everyone is reading and you want to include them in the conversation, please.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
27m ago
Do you have a favorite maxim or aphorism? What is it?
naraburns
nihil supernum
28m ago
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
34m ago
"a whole bunch of illegal voting" I would think that having an order of magnitude error in your thinking pointed out to you would maybe reign in unsubstantiated claims of large amounts of fraudulent votes. There simply is not wide spread voter fraud going on in the United States, when it does happen, even in stupid instances of a college kid voting at school and at home, it is eventually found and prosecuted for the most part.
SSCReader
34m ago
Alot of this is what I was trying to get at and I agree. Guns are both a right to carry around and a cause to be shot. Should someone open carrying a rifle raise your alert level or not?
If it should then an open carry right is going to trigger some number of escalations. If it shouldn't then cops overeact to people who are legally armed all the time. See Castille et al.
epohon
41m ago
I am a hlynkian right-wing progressive, and I don't recognize any of you as such.
Politically, my preferred outcome would be to exalt White bisexual antitheistic males above all others and make this identity the pass to being treated as aristocracy. I don't want meritocracy, equality of opportunity, judging the content of someone's character. I certainly don't want any retvrn. All I want is progressive stack with me at the top, laughing as I kick those below.
Aesthetically, I subscribe to everything my enemies love. Promiscuous girls with tattoos and one side of their head shaved make me go crazy. Some of my favorite sci-fi series are Ninefox Gambit and Gideon the Ninth (the same number in the title is not a coincidence, because nothing is ever a coincidence — the author of that reference is hardly a tradcath himself). I adore skyscrapers and strive to spend as little time in nature as humanly possible.
Does this describe anybody else here? And if it doesn't, you are not progressives with a palette swap, as alleged. And does this describe anyone anywhere at all?
SSCReader
45m ago
And both those things can be true, that both the killer and the slain could have had a reasonable fear for their life.
This is a good point, and I agree! Not all situations are clear cut.
SSCReader
46m ago
I completely agree protestors should not surround and attack vehicles. Those who do should certainly be arrested and charged.
SSCReader
48m ago
Well they claimed that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum twice, once to trigger Rosenbaum's charge and then once during (after/during fleeing).
If the first was true (and this is a big if of course!) then Rosenbaum charging Rittenhouse in the first place was legitimate self-defence. Then Rittenhouse fleeing may have "reset" that, but then pointing his gun at him again again counted as a threat.
In fact its possible Rosenbaum started with the one having the self-defence right (again only if Rittenhouse did point his gun at him first with no provocation) then lost that right when Rittenhouse fled, and Rittenhouse gained it when Rosenbaum kept chasing him.
And that is why although I think Rittenhouse being acquitted was correct, I think him being brought to trial was reasonable. Whether he was the one who kicked off the encounter is potentially the matter of a couple of seconds of time based upon Rosenbaum yelling about not pointing his gun at him. And being based on what a "reasonable" person would have felt such that I think a jury of peers not DAs or cops should be making that determination. Especially when you look at cases like Arbury where they were like, no chasing someone down with guns and trucks seems reasonable to us. No charges!
Having DA's and judges and the like be elected positions and so explicitly partisan seems like a big problem to me. Not sure how you can have a blind justice when they have to keep peeking to see who is voting for them. But that horse has left the stable, won the Kentucky derby three times and retired.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
53m ago
I hate to do this but you did the math wrong in the earlier post.
I actually very much appreciate it. I've referenced this a few times and haven't had anyone point out the error, which was going to result in me continuing to reference it. That this goes back to 2008 rather than being a single year count probably makes the per election frequency roughly an order of magnitude lower. So, duly noted, and thanks for that.
With regard to the second paragraph - yeah, I know, and I've tried to be pretty consistent about stating that none of these numeric estimates are intended to prove that 2020 was "stolen" since they don't even provide evidence on the direction of fraud and error. The point here isn't that each instance is a vote that should have gone the other way or that I think all of these people are criminals (in fact, I'd bet almost none of them intended to do anything illegal), but that the system is so shoddy that it allows a whole bunch of illegal voting that everyone shrugs at. I don't think we need to go track down a bunch of illegal votes from 2012 or something, we can just implement a system going forward that makes a reasonable attempt to have clean databases and require identification. Personally, I would prefer elimination of absentee balloting, but I know this isn't politically tenable. My offer to opponents would be replacing it with excellent early in-person balloting and making election day itself a holiday; I still know that's not getting done, but I do believe that it's a good-faith position to hold for someone that cares about security but isn't actually trying to engage in nefarious voter suppression.
Finally, while these numbers don't give any definitive data on fraud, I strongly believe they bring the lie to the ridiculous claims that there is basically no illegal voting. When we literally can't stop mentally incompetent people that are explicitly ineligible to vote from doing so, it seems pretty obvious that there are going to be at least a few other categories of illegal voting. The core of my position is that we should make a good effort to stop illegal voting and that we're obviously not doing that right now.
This is needs help or else trolling: https://archive.is/w0mfi
I was merely drunk. I thought that removes responsibility for our choices in current year? Or is it only for female sexual choices?
Forgotpassword
2hr ago
True. I found my dating mostly trended Asian but in my experience trying to filter by non-obese, non-singlemom, non-tattooed, educated and white-collar job having meant that I was left with 90% Asian girls.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
2hr ago
Not even propositioning, just acting interested long enough and then responding positively to some inexperienced advances.
Forgotpassword
2hr ago
My defacto Mother in Law & Grandmother in law practically fainted from shock when I proactively changed diapers and bottle fed the newborn. Not that they disproved, but the bar for childrearing involvement seems to be Marianas trench levels in East Asian cultures.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2hr ago
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
I think there is a higher standard to convict someone of murder when they have a legitimate self-defense claim, compared with the standard of having a legitimate self defense claim in the moment.
The standard for self defense is: Would a reasonable person have felt like their life or limb was threatened in that moment? So lets look at an alternative, what if Rosenbaum actually got his hands on Rittenhouse and killed him? Would Rosenbaum have had a legitimate self-defense claim? I don't think so, because of how far he chased Rittenhouse. But if it was a shorter distance, then maybe.
And both those things can be true, that both the killer and the slain could have had a reasonable fear for their life.
gus
2hr ago
I would just like to add that GHB the most infamous “date rape drug” is actually amazing and fun to take.
RenOS
Dadder than dad
3hr ago
FWIW, I actually apply this moreso to the protesters, in particular Foster, than to Perry. Even if they technically stay within the realms of the law, they're just asking for something to happen. I mostly read Armed's first paragraph, thinking he would be talking about Foster, and skipped straight to the comment, not noticing that in the second paragraph he calls out Perry in particular.
Interestingly, once you go meta the guns are irrelevant to this case - both the car and the mob are deadly weapons, and IIRC car vs mob situations had ended in fatalities without guns being present in other BLM-related clashes. The issue is the American (mostly Red Tribe) culture of escalatory self-defence. (Of course, there is a feedback loop because self-defence culture makes permissive gun laws easier to pass and carrying a gun makes it easier to engage in escalatory self-defence).
The best take on the theory I have found is this post by Mark "Animal" MacYoung - his business appears to be training for violence professionals, but his website is mostly targetted at the general publ[ic with a message of "if you are not a violence professional, it is sufficiently easy to avoid situations where violence is likely that learning how to do this has a much better effort/reward ratio that learning combat skills". My summary of the idea is that
Because I am lawyer-brained, I tend to think of it as the difference between "duty to retreat" (DTR) culture and "stand your ground" (SYG) culture. (Note that the legal DTR isn't an invetion of modern hoplophobes - it is a codification of centuries-old English common law that was originally made by and for warrior-elites. But in the late 19th century most US States (some through the legislature, others through their Supreme Courts) decided that backing away from fights when you were in the right was unmanly and/or un-American, leading to the first wave of SYG laws. There is a second wave in response to the 1970's crime wave.
DTR culture says that the right to self-defense does not generally extend to fighting situations, even if you are right on the merits. This doesn't have to apply absolutely everywhere - the "castle doctrine" is the idea that the rules in your own home are SYG even if they are DTR in the streets. This means that the appropriate police (or other authority figure) response to a fight is to punish both parties unless one was so badly hurt that their crime was self-punishing. And if there is a fight ending with a corpse, then the winner is going down for some lower-degree homicide regardless of what was being fought over or who threw the first blow. A corollary is that to make DTR culture work at urban population densities, you need something like broken windows policing to stop obnoxious blowhards ruling the streets by behaving badly and treating a request to stop as a challenge to a fight. Someone who spits on the floor in a biker bar is going to receive a challenge to a fight which will end with them backing down or getting beaten. Someone who spits on the floor in your local golf club clubhouse is going to be warned by the Secretary and kicked out (ultimately backed by a threat to involve cops) if they continue. Someone who spits on the street needs to face the same kind of consequence.
SYG culture says that a man should only back down from a fight if you are wrong on the merits or have no reasonable chance of a good outcome(and that a RealManTM has developed combat skills to the point where the latter should only happen if massively outnumbered), and that challenging someone to a fight is praiseworthy if they are engaging in sufficiently anti-social behaviour. The corollary is the response of the authorities to a fight needs to include investigating the merits of the dispute - although common police practice is to arrest both parties and let the lawyers sort out blame. But if SYG laws are enforced as written, most fighting situations involve both parties having a sufficiently plausible claim to self defense that they could raise reasonable doubt and secure a criminal acquittal if they hired a fancy lawyer. The other problem is that most fights happen in sufficiently confused situations and investigations are sufficiently difficult that "investigating the merits" usually means "blame the guy who looks more like a stereotypical wrong'un". It probably isn't a coincidence that American SYG culture developed at a time when the wrong'uns were conveniently colour-coded, although there isn't anything inherently racist about it.
It should go without saying that DTR culture produces better outcomes if you have cops doing their jobs - you have a lot less fighting, and a lot less community-breaking post-fight litigation. But if the cops can't or won't do their jobs then the alternative to SYG is anarcho-tyranny. This is a particularly serious problem in the places which need most policing and often get least - schools and prisons.
The Perry case looks like a fighting situation - you have evidence that both sides were spoiling for a fight beforehand, a series of decisions by Perry to end up in that situation that would be a display of truly shocking poor judgement if he was trying to avoid the fight, and mutual escalation by threat display (car driven towards a crowd, crowd swarming car, gun kind-of-sort-of brandished). So from a DTR perspective, Perry is morally guilty and it is easy to make a close legal call (was Foster holding the gun in a way which made him a threat in the legally relevant way) against him. From a SYG perspective, the key question is whether Perry was right on the merits, which comes down to how sympathetic you are to street protest in general and BLM in particular.
This post is too long already so I won't do the list, but I think most scissor shootings that do not involve cops (Zimmerman and Rittenhouse) are fighting situations and the scissor is that DRT and SYG are working from completely different moral frameworks.
More options
Context Copy link