domain:alexberenson.substack.com
anti_dan
2hr ago
It is necessary in the face of increased violence of the protests as well as the bizarro world prosecutors that bring cases against people being kidnapped.
Essentially, the reality is this article, but using the same stats to say the opposite: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2021/10/vehicle-rammings-against-protesters/tulsa/
This is also not "blocking roads" (although I oppose that as well and would defend criminal and civil immunity for rammers) the guy in this present case was carrying a rifle, the person in the "sob story" in that Globe article was part of a group that was throwing bottles and significantly damaged the truck in question. Its not that peaceful protests dont exist anymore, its that they cannot be a reasonable presumption, so the BOP needs to be shifted. And because prosecutors cant be trusted (the ABA and the profession as a whole are heavily partisan) places like Oklahoma and Florida are correct to protect drivers.
What we have right now is near total lawlessness in many states with regards to these riots. People have taken the peaceful protest meme/loophole from the media and attempted to turn it into the Chicxulub crater. My proposed pushback isn't even extreme, its temperate given the problem we are facing.
ulyssessword
2hr ago
Alright, so what would be a “good sign”?
Assuming that the evidence was genuinely unclear...
Communicate that in an unambiguous way, and find him not guilty. If necessary, explain the presumption of innocence and lay out exactly how and why the evidence was insufficient to convict him. That's how the system should work with genuinely unclear evidence.
Instead, he was found guilty, the rationale was not communicated clearly and effectively, and there isn't even agreement over how it should be judged.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
2hr ago
At this point, it's hard to imagine it ever going away, or why there would even be competing designs in another few decades.
The only real thing wrong with the AR is that it doesn't lend itself as well to mass production (read: aluminum/plastic extruded upper, polymer lower) as the AR-18-based designs, and that if you're on a rifle replacement schedule that exceeds 50 years, you want a gun with slightly-beefed-up parts whose wear surfaces you can change out so that you don't have to do what the US does and replace bolts every 10,000 rounds because getting any kind of military spending in most Western countries is like pulling teeth.
Which is why all the modern rifles that kind-of-but-not-really compete with the AR all do the things that you'd do to an AR if you weren't constrained by its existing design, like:
- Replaceable cam tracks (that part held in by external screws on the top left side of the Spear; that's internal on the SCAR and Brens) and stopping the cam pin from being driven into the receiver (which happens on the AR)
- Bigger bolt, which means it stops being as much of a wear part like it is on US Military ARs; also allows for a better extractor and a more long-lasting spring within
- Making the upper an aluminum extrusion, and attaching the stock to the upper rather than the lower so it can't break off (which lets you make the lower a polymer extrusion); ARs can crack their upper receivers at the threads holding the barrel nut on at high round counts and these guns won't do that (traditional-style AKs eventually develop similar cracking problems at the front trunnion, as it bends there every time you fire)
And then the tactical considerations, which is that because these guns are a bit heavier up front, they can stand up to more use as ersatz automatic rifles; as far as I'm aware, you can dump your entire combat load in one sitting without destroying the gun or making it catch on fire (it'll sure cook your hands, though; hope you brought gloves!). If your nation is small, why not just give everyone slightly heavier RPK-equivalents so they're still perfectly serviceable in 50 years?
The HK416 is notable in that it does literally none of these things. Granted, it was the first real attempt to make the AR-15 a serious automatic rifle, but it fails to improve in any way on the original design and even makes some problems worse (it's heavier and the carrier tilts; contrast the MCX, which is a significantly better design).
Oh yeah: foreign manufacturers could always get development on their rifle platforms too, if they felt like passing the savings onto the customer (and actually commit- Beretta actually sold the ARX-160 at a very reasonable price, and that was even before hyper-light rifles were made cool again, but none of the other promised features materialized). But they won't.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3hr ago
That is why the prosecution were trying to establish Rosenbaum had the gun pointed at him prior to him charging.
This is a common and extremely perverse pattern in prosecutions of self-defense cases, as well as in the general discourse.
At this point in the altercation, Rosenbaum had chased a fleeing Rittenhouse a considerable distance, and then cornered him. With no further retreat available, Rittenhouse turned and pointed his gun, hoping that Rosenbaum would stop. When Rosenbaum instead charged him, he fired.
As I understand it, the prosecution's claim is that if he were legitimately in fear of his life, he would have fired immediately, rather than trying to warn Rosenbaum off. That makes his threat illegitimate and thus gives Rosenbaum a right to self-defense against him, which he exercised by lunging at Rittenhouse.
This is not how it is supposed to work. Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse is an illegitimate threat, and cornering him is an illegitimate threat. Rosenbaum is very clearly the aggressor, and Rittenhouse is very clearly in a position of legitimate self-defense. Pointing his gun at Rosenbaum is a threat, but it is a legitimate threat, because all three elements necessary to establish the legitimate use of self-defense very clearly exist: Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. Giving an aggressor a last chance to back down or surrender before employing lethal force is not supposed to invalidate a self-defense claim, and the prosecution's attempt to do so is appalling.
Compare the Arbury case.
Screaming at people, chasing them, and intruding into their personal space are innately threatening acts... Arbury did not appear to be acting in a criminal manner, so he had no obligation to refrain from self-defense. He was presented with what appeared to be an immediate, serious, criminal threat to his life, giving him ample reason to employ self-defense. Given that he was unarmed against multiple gun-wielding assailants, his self defense options sucked, but getting attacked by multiple gun-wielding violent criminals is likely to suck even if you make no attempt to resist. Attempting to fight his way out of the situation was some extreme combination of bravery and desperation, but given the stress and immediacy of the situation it was certainly not an "obviously stupid choice".
Arbury was clearly a case of self-defense because he was clearly not the aggressor: his attackers had no reason to consider him threatening when they initiated their attack, and he retreated from them until cornered. Rosenbaum was the aggressor for the exact same reason that Arbury's attackers were, because he illegitimately pursued and forced an altercation with no plausible justification. In the case of both Arbury and Rittenhouse, assuming that they did nothing to provoke their attackers, retreat should not have been necessary, and they would have been entirely within their rights to shoot their attackers on the spot. Still, to the extent that circumstances may have been ambiguous, the fact that they retreated until their attackers cornered them and forced an altercation should make their claim to self-defense immutable.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it actually works out. Motivated prosecutors and commentators routinely play the salami-slicing game with self-defense cases. It should be obvious that if you are justified in shooting an attacker outright, you should also be justified in pointing a gun at them in warning of the impending shot, provided the situation is favorable enough to leave you the option of a pause. And yet it's common to see this game played, where anything other than an immediate shot fired is used as evidence that the shooter wasn't really in danger, because they had enough time to try for a warning. Alternatively, if the shooter fires immediately, prosecutors can ask why they didn't give a warning first. What it comes down to is that some people don't believe legitimate self defense actually exists, and will twist the facts however hard they must to achieve their desired result.
edmund-nelson
3hr ago
Yeah I'll agree that both are flawed in the same direction, it's just that every other source is even more flawed aside from the austrian army.
The us naval war college doesn't post reports anywhere for example. I sometimes read Russia today but while I get info from them I find it more dubious than ISW stuff (though it's useful corroboration).
The austrian army is the best source but they are so infrequent when I need updates roughly once a week/month for forecasting reasons. I have to rely on the ISW and Wikipedia mainly. do you have any suggestions other than the ones mentioned above?
HalloweenSnarry
3hr ago
To be fair, art and voice AI was literally trained on existing examples of the respective media. I don't think the criticism comes from a place of "the AI makes me feel worthless," it comes more from "the AI is basically carbon-copying my style."
PierreMenard
3hr ago
That Perry fellow obviously knows that 'Around Democrats, never relax'. The best course of action in this case was to take a large detour around the city and not get in this situation in the first place.
After that it's kind of a coin-toss. Do I trust the armed anarchist high on holy fervor to let me go with my life? Would I rather go through the gauntlet of the American judicial system? The question at this point for the right-winger who ends up in this still-rare predicament, is the following, once you've started shooting; why did you stop? Why'd he let the wannabe-defunded-kneelers put him in a cage?
pigeonburger
3hr ago
Oh, I'm not implying YOU'RE trying to market her to us, but for her to have attracted the attention of two of the very few places I spend my time online means that someone is doing a good job of getting her to appear on my radar, and it could very well be simply by just spreading her content virally.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3hr ago
Wikipedia is full of Ukrainian partisans. They waited about 6-9 months after Ukraine lost Bakhmut to declare it a victory for Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut/Archive_5#Result
The ISW put out a report (written by two Ukrainians and a neocon) saying that Russia's only chance of victory was its efforts to manipulate our perceptions of Ukraine and that we can and should mobilize our economic resources to win Ukraine the war. They cite a nominal GDP graph to back up this point. This is pretty dubious - despite a high GDP the West apparently lacks the industrial power needed to compete with Russia in munitions production. A lot of our GDP is in services, finance and real estate, not heavy industry.
Furthermore, Russia has thousands of tactical nukes. The US seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea and Vietnam, peripheral wars with fairly low stakes. Why should we assume that Russia would not go nuclear in a much more serious conflict in its core area of interest, should it seem that they were on the back foot?
Besides the contested logic of the matter, it's pretty perverse for two Ukrainians to be writing an article decrying Russian propaganda narratives and psy-ops while asking for unconditional, near-blind faith in Ukraine.
https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1772941705903313328
I don't know about the other sources but I recommend serious caution on wikipedia and ISW. This is a hard war for anyone to be objective on.
If I believed that there was a tattoo that perfectly encapsulated something essential about me (or my kids), and I knew it would do that forever, then I'd be in favor of such a tattoo. I just don't think that actually exists for me, or maybe anyone else. And it's certainly not gonna be the flaming skull head snake-rose combo. I do worry that people get tattoos these days for mostly bad reasons that won't hold up for any length of time. I talk to my friends who get them, and it sounds like they put close to 0 thought into their next tat, like "idk, I like owls so I figured why not get an owl riding a horse'. And I also worry about the normalization aspect, too that you mention.
I suppose I also think there's a certain pride that I take in having unmarred skin, being my natural self, that I would like to instill onto my kids. A natural body is prettier than most tattooed ones. Tattoos are certainly addicting and people who start often end up having the opposite value, trying to think about always getting the next one, seeing how little of their body can remain natural.
I think tattoos have become ubiquitous in part because they allow anyone to showcase their taste. Whether it's good or bad, that's irrelevant.
How long does one's taste really last for before it should naturally start to change? Could tattoos have a retarding effect on one's growth as people struggle (subconsciously) to maintain their same taste for the rest of their life to not have buyers remorse?
SSCReader
3hr ago
Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.
HalloweenSnarry
3hr ago
As far as AR alternatives out on the market, I think most only have any success in their country of manufacture (examples: VHS-2, Howa Type 20, MSBS), and any country without enough of a home industry to draw on (e.g. France) will probably just buy AR-15s, HK 416s, or maybe CZ Bren 2s.
anti_dan
3hr ago
It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing.
Only in the barest sense. It is very important to note he was carrying while committing a crime that crime was false imprisonment and every "protestor" that stops traffic and begins to surround a vehicle should be so charged.
In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position!
Again no. While some jurisdictions would charge you with manslaughter or murder for ramming an illegal protest I think this is a genuine misapplication of prosecutorial discretion and we should probably have a federal civil rights banning such prosecutions. IMO any one whos car is stopped or is being threatened to be stopped by a riot is rightfully in fear of death or great bodily harm. See: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CCtoRHcyirs
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?
Nope, like I said. He Foster forfeited his life rightfully when he join a mob attempting to intimidate and functionally imprisoning people.
SSCReader
3hr ago
I accept the pardon is a legitimate outcome, elections do indeed have consequences! And expression of political power overriding the judicial system is part of those consequences. It's entirely within bounds as far as I am concerned.
I'll get back to you on the consensus part.
Rov_Scam
3hr ago
The evidence against Perry was prejudicial, but that's not the end of the analysis. All evidence is prejudicial to some degree. The question is whether the prejudicial nature is outweighed by the probative value, and it was because it was clearly related to motive. The argument wasn't that it was evidence that Perry was a bad dude but that he specifically contemplated the actions which he was accused of. The evidence of Foster's prior actions wasn't admitted because it would only be relevant if Perry was aware of it at the time of the incident, and there's no evidence that he had seen those posts. Even then I don't know if it would be admissible because simply blocking a street isn't a deadly threat, and intent to intimidate doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure, but since Perry didn't see the posts, we don't need to go that far with the analysis.
2D3D
4hr ago
This is a fairly common consequence of webbing parallel benefits. Its like asylum claims in Europe: on the face of it the individual benefits of the doubt accorded to asylum seekers to process their claims seem innocuous, but combined they just mean it is better to be a total noncompliant asshole. Burn your papers, deny all attempts at age verification, claim religious/sexual discrimination and deny requests for proof on the grounds of 'danger', claim benefits while working illegally, fight deportation requests all the way, then bring your family over or convince a leftist that their love will stand the test of time. Stay six years and once your asylum request is rejected say you have built a life and cannot go back, letting a new court adjudicate your stay.
Individually all the above actions are minor points meant to ease the life of 'traumatized' individuals, put together they are an ironclad web of perverse incentives that impoverish the state for no benefit.
Forgotpassword
4hr ago
Super slowburn romances, lots of grand gestures of romance, incredibly pretty boys without particular masculine push.
anti_dan
4hr ago
Its not that rare, its just that people typically understand the formation as if it would be difficult to not be in that status anymore. Most high school boys are virgins. But they generally have no way of alleviating that. Any post pubescent girl can "fix" being a virgin by going up to an unattached guy and propositioning him.
Glassnoser
4hr ago
What do you mean it isn't wrong? My friend with by far the most successful love live in high school and university told me that getting a girlfriend is something that "just happens" and that you don't need to try. Is that what you're referring to? Because that doesn't work.
SteveKirk
4hr ago
My favorite teacher always told us tattoos were stupid because identifying marks show up on arrest warrants and interpol dossiers, so real professionals would never be caught dead with one.
Best thing you could say to influence 11 year old boys.
Forgotpassword
4hr ago
Yeah. Lots of girls will do that where they'll make an app account, be exposed to the firehose of approaches, maybe do a date or two and if that person is good they've got a boyfriend and if that person is lacking they'll delete and be back in 6 months.
Forgotpassword
4hr ago
Yes. Definitely hugely skews that way in my geographic area.
How can I convince my kids in 5 years that they do not need or want to have one just to fit in, and that they're too expensive and most people will regret having them for various reasons?
Do things that get them to respect your values and opinions. There is no argument you can provide that will convince them if that foundation isn't there.
I'll also give you a different perspective, since there are many people who are anti-tattoo here. If you really hate the idea of tattoos on your kids, you can consider my point of view and work against it for maximum protection. Personally, I would say your post is a great argument against bad tattoos, and making permanent decisions based on peer pressure. Hopefully your kids don't fall into either of those traps. It's important for you to instill a good sense of taste and self-assuredness in them - that may or may not mean that they end up getting into tattoo culture, but hopefully that means they avoid a saggy butterfly tramp stamp.
I only recently got into tattoos, and I am in my 30s. I had no desire in my younger years - my earliest memory of a tattoo was a no-longer-recognizable rose on my mum, which she didn't like, and I thought was weird. I recently got into tattoos because I am very familiar with my body, and I like art. Now I can get a tattoo and see cool art any time I want, and I don't miss having bare skin (I might have when I was younger). It's a similar experience to something like carrying a nice pocket knife (which I also do when I am working). I can take it out, look at it, and it brightens my day a little every time. And similar to a nice pocket knife, I expect it will last decades, and change over time. Do I expect it to look the same for decades? Definitely not, but seeing the change is part of the experience. Old tattoos have a certain charm for some people, just like grandpa's over-sharpened slipjoint.
Of course there are people who get tattoos for the image of being a gangster or individualualist (and of course there is an irony to the latter that they will never understand). The majority of tattoos, like the majority of any cultural expression, reflect bad taste (as you note with your examples). But I think that's a bad argument, because it doesn't apply to everyone, and even the people it does apply to won't think that is does. I think tattoos have become ubiquitous in part because they allow anyone to showcase their taste. Whether it's good or bad, that's irrelevant. What matters is finding people who share it or respect it, and tattoos do that well. They can be an immediate talking point, and for people who are really into tattoos, they are a hobby like any other to bond over - both the result on your skin, and the experience of getting them.
The other aspect to their popularity is that no one can take them away. You note their longevity as a negative point, but that's double-edged. Go back to the pocket knife example - they are durable, can be beautiful, and are certainly more useful than a tattoo. But they are also extremely easy to lose, and produced in large numbers (well, aside for extremely expensive customs). Tattoos fill a gap that is hard to fill in contemporary life: individualized modification, which is an external representation of change that you enact on your surroundings. Some people like modifying their cars, some people like modifying their homes, and some like working in their gardens. But the fact is that tattoos can be less expensive than any of these, and are more accessible and meaningful for many. Many younger people can't afford their own spaces, which means they can't meaningfully modify their environments to reflect their tastes - but they can modify their bodies.
So maybe get your kids into landscaping?
Aside from having some form of output (if they are prone to needing that) and building a foundation of respect for your opinion as their parent, you have to protect them from the notion that tattoos are normal. That's tough because eventually you will have no control over their social circle, and many normal people have tattoos these days. Having friends or colleagues with tattoos is the biggest impact, I would guess. I started getting tattooed because my partner has tattoos, and I wanted to have that shared experience. I think that is something different from peer pressure. It's not the idea that you should do something because others want you to do it, but the idea that you can do something because you want to and the people you respect won't judge you for it.
Good luck.
Glassnoser
4hr ago
I've noticed the best women I meet on dating apps downloaded it about a week ago, haven't been on a date yet, and are about to delete it because it's overwhelming.
I feel like it would be an improvement over the first term if he manages to fully staff his administration with people who are willing to at least pretend to be on his side.
More options
Context Copy link