@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

Let's imagine there was no question whether he could dodge the car or not, that he was right in front of the grille. What would shooting Good have improved in this situation?

It could have minimized the time a friend of his would get dragged, if he got stuck the same way he did in the other incident.

I can agree that with perfect hindsight he shouldn't have shot her, but that argument strikes as kinda insane. How was he supposed to have perfect hindsight in the moment it was happening?

So does an eyewitness describing her as "very successful at blocking traffic" move the needle for you in any way?

And if it turns out she actually was pretty effective, and this moment wasn't representative of her activities on that they, will that change your mind about anything, or will we just move on to the next bowl of spaghetti to throw at the wall?

I am saying (implying) that if this was actually the case, we should expect him to have been trolling the last time he talked about starting a war for no tangible reason.

I absolutely disagree with this part, which is why I'm asking if you seen anyone claim he was just trolling about Venezuela. If not, that's evidence against your theory.

I would personally be pretty confident that I could get out of the way from the position he was in.

Everybody's gangsta when they watch a situation after the fact, in slow motion, from multiple perspectives.

I think it is excessively generous to frame the officer as actually being in danger,

Again, I think it only looks that way because of the ice factor. If the wheels didn't slip, he would get hit sooner and with more force.

There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.

Yes, but to a point. There's a reason why the "little green men" tactic was seen as below the belt.

N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars.

Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.

Did someone say he's trolling about Venezuela?

How "easily" is that, when he still got hit? And that was with the ice on the road making the wheels spin in place for a while.

Also, are you sure you're not moving the goalposts? You said he assessed a "currently unmoving car" as a threat, when he didn't do anything until the car started moving.

Well, again, can people like him start off with linking timestamped links to videos, pointing out to specific things that make them reach a particular conclusion, rather than starting off with an unbacked conclusion that later gets refuted by timestamped links to videos? I think this minor change in conduct would dispel most, if not all, accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

It's inaccurate and over the top. They probably should run it by some marketing / PR people to come up with a snappy term that's less severe than "terrorist" but still makes it clear she was acting with malice.

I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)

It's interesting you see it this way, because from my point of you it looks like LiberalRetvrn just gets to make shit up, and to even respond we have to provide timestamped videos.

Do you believe your in-laws literally want you dead and your daughter transed?

I suspect not.

Wrong question. People love to abstract evil away into mustache-twirling schemes to deliberately do harm, so they never have to face the evil in their own hearts. Evil isn't doing a "paperclip optimizer" routine, but for double mastectomies, it's convincing yourself your cause is so good, that you can, say, lie to promote / defend it because the chuds would """weaponize""" the truth.

What you want to ask in the case of his in-laws is, if his daughter said she's trans and he opposed it, would they hear him out, or write him off as a transphobe? Or for the "want him dead" part: if the cancel mob came after him, would they defend his character, or throw him under the bus (or for a borderline case: squirm like Alec Holowka's sister, hinting at the truth, but refusing to state it outright for fear of the mob going after her as well)?

You can conduct yourself in war the way Russians do in Ukraine, or the way Israelis did in Gaza (not to mention, heavens forbid, Americans in WWII). Existential war is no excuse for savagery.

What do you mean "do we actually know that"? She's dead, so I doubt they'll be pressing any charges, and I can't read minds over video, so I don't know what was going through their head when they decided to arrest her.

You asked what federal offense was she committing, and I gave you a link to a specific law that the situation seems to fall under under. Do you disagree? If not, how the hell was that an insufficient answer?

But I'm pointing out that they seem to be deliberately exploiting the right to self defense by putting themselves in danger in order to be allowed to defend themselves.

That seems like assuming the conclusion to me. It was a chaotic situation, and I doubt Agent Chud was scheming to manipulate people into suicide-by-cop. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to point what, specifically, implies this was all deliberate.

The hostility of the IRS is quite a thing to behold. Way back when, when I was still on Reddit, I ran into a thread where someone asked for advice on what to do with some income they, or someone in their family didn't declare. In my naivete I asked why don't they just come clean, and got told ny someone else this could land them in prison. Now I don't know if this was just Redditors spreading Redditisms, but I was rather surprised. This actually works in Europe! If you actively confess before they catch you, they don't even charge interest.

Integrating Substack felt too tedious so I opted for something more fun, which was hooking to https://gptproto.com/ to and have it describe and transcribe all bookmarked images. I think I'll focus on some neglected UI stuff like search and pagination.

How have you been doing @Southkraut? You've been reporting good progress the last couple of week, any cool screenshots to share?

Sure! For example a long time ago I heard of a case where the police was executing an arrest warrant, but got the wrong address. The owner thought he's being burgled and opened fire, and luckily for him, he managed to survive the whole ordeal that resulted from that. He got taken to court, where it was indeed determined that he was justified in shooting.

I mean, it's not great, but have you seen any top-level "DAE the outgroup are evil hypocrites?"

To start with, does an analogous top-level post come to your mind?

If "OP has to know this offends the local circlejerk, so he must be consciously baiting"

If it's just about offending the local circlejerk, why did you call it "not great"?

(...and either way, the Gabbard thing seems rather interesting and was new to me, so I don't think you can argue this is just bait.)

I dunno, it's kinda hard to have a discussion based on the post. Best I could do is something like "this kinda reminds me of..." the way functor did, which is essentially completely separate from the top-level post.

This is reminiscent of the Obama era.

Obama campaigned on a paradigm shift from Bush and the forever wars in the middle east.

And, for that matter, of the Bush era, as Bush himself campaigned on a humble foreign policy, and no nation building, to contrast himself from Clinton.

You're going to keep posting stuff like this at the top level, and when you finally get another mod warning, you're going to act like you're being targeted for your political views, aren't you?

First, the car is both the weapon and the means of transportation. The chef could easily drop the knife and then charge the police officer which, while they definitely should not do, would not be deadly force and not deserve death, even if it does deserve harsh punishment.

The car being the means of transportation is irrelevant. Like I said in the other post, there is no right to escape from cops, so she's not entitled to use the most efficient means of escape possible. From there it follows she could just get out of the car and make a run for it, the same way the chef could drop the knife. So choosing to escape by means of driving at an agent is roughly equivalent to charging at them with a knife

and not deserve death

This is a completely dishonest framing. Nothing short of an execution-style shooting implies that a death is "deserved".

Second, the police officer has a legitimate means of stopping the chef by physically blocking the door. Because people can stop people, but people cannot stop vehicles.

I can agree that detaining a suspect by standing in front of a car might be a bad idea, but I don't see how it nullifies the suspect's free will, or the agent's right to self-defense.

When Moloch has already sunk his teeth deep into the former norm, when the line is being trampled every day by millions of people, the calculus is completely different.

I don't know about that. Immigration under Biden was out of control, people here were saying even Trump won't be able to do much about it, but his policies fixed it practically overnight. The teeth might still be sunk deep, but you at least don't have millions more trampling the line each day.

It seems very hard for me to picture how a given illegal immigrant, individually, is doing any kind of "harm" to anyone at all.

Which just shows the folly of analyzing harm exclusively on an individual level. If a counterfeiter prints $1000 per month in fake money, his individual impact on the economy will be basically nil. If the government decided that throwing their ass in prison would cause more harm than he's causing the US economy, and as a result every American resident starts printing their own $1000 every month, this would result in total economic chaos. Many laws serve to guide collective, rather than individual, action towards a more beneficial trajectory, and I don't see a reason to suddenly stop and carve out an exception for immigration.