@AshLael's banner p

AshLael

Just here to farm downvotes

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 2498


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
AshLael


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Just here to farm downvotes

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2023 June 15 03:16:03 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 2498


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Also has this charming post where, in a reply to Passage Publishing, the "journalist" posted a picture of the Passage Publishing logo upside down, next to a photo of Mussolini hanging upside down after his execution. The message communicated clearly being "Passage Publishing are fascists who should be executed by firing squad."


No idea what they did to earn such a response, but I'd put money on it being boringly inoffensive.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You absolutely can though. To the normie mind, "racist" equals "doesn't like (group)". If you talk in a way that doesn't actually imply any dislike of a group, they won't grok you as racist, and won't pay any mind to people who accuse you of racism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They really don't. The journalists love to imagine that's the case, but it isn't.


If normies thought what the journalists told them to think, the Voice referendum would have passed with 80-90% of the vote.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


By normie ideological purity standards sympathy for incels from a man is misogynistic. Pro-HBD guys like Razib Khan and Stephen Hsu are racist.




Nah. Left wing hit-job-writing "journalists" aren't normies. If your standard is "what will ordinary people think" as opposed to "what will the Guardian think", the ideological purity standards are not that high. I know they claim to speak for all decent people, but they really don't.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for June 14, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Honestly the show lost its way pretty early on. Up to the point where the boys blow up Translucent, it worked because they had a clear goal (kill the supes) and were working towards that goal in a meaningful way. But after that? Homelander is an excellent villain, but the heroes have made no progress in their goals and mostly seem to have lost sight of what their goals even are. Choosing not to kill A-Train in particular demonstrated the lack of narrative direction that had crept in. Instead you get silly subplots about how Hughie doesn't feel like enough of a man.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I disagree entirely, I think American politicians are far more timid than Australian ones. Our political culture is utterly ruthless.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm kind of excited that we're going to get a serious debate over nuclear power this election.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Australia is certainly more authoritarian (for good or ill), but I think that's primarily due to cultural difference rather than institutional design. If anything I would say the type of highly-engaged Australian who would still be a reliable voter if voting were optional is more authoritarian again than the random person who doesn't care about politics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you're misreading me. I'm saying "journalists" (if they even deserve that title) write stories to get clicks. That doesn't mean every outlet will cover every story, there's subgenres and market segments. But if there's clicks to be had, someone will write the story.


If the question is why did no one except conspiracy theorists cover Epstein until 2018, I respond by asking how much traffic those conspiracy theories did. I rather suspect the answer is that it only attracted interest from a niche audience.


I also note that my model says nothing about which stories are true. Indeed, precisely because the truth is often uninteresting and the media optimises for attention, it's not very far wrong to say that the media optimises for deception. But that's an outgrowth of market incentives rather than a scheme to control the public mind.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All I can say is it was ever thus. Politicians optimise for politics, that's what makes them politicians.


My recommendation if you're uninterested in supporting one of the candidates on offer is to write something on your ballot instead of leaving it blank. Give whoever sees it some indication of what you want and why you're dissatisfied instead of making them guess.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Because there's a market for left-wing stories and there's a market for right wing stories and these are clear and distinct markets.


If you're asking why left wing outlets don't run stories about Epstein stuff, well, they do.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm making the point that different outlets are serving different markets. Vox.com is not running stories about castration fetishists influencing medical standards for the same reason BTS isn't putting out death metal songs: that's not the market they're serving. Someone else does that.


There's plenty of clicks to be had running stories about how the perversion of the left is leading to the downfall of society. That's why the Daily Wire exists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's also a market for conspiracy theories of course, and outlets dedicated to filling that demand.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The point is to get clicks.


It gets clicks by frothing up lefties about how awful and illegitimate those terrible republicans are and they're a danger to democracy, can you imagine what's going to happen to us in a country where a judge's wife can hang a flag the wrong way up, etc, etc. There's a demand for "Republicans are the spawn of satan" stories, so they get shoveled out the door.


The media is awful, but in most cases it's because the audience is also awful.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I haven't followed this case at all closely, but my impression was that he didn't comply with his discovery obligations and so the court said that the worst possible inference should be drawn from his lack of disclosure, and that's why the judgement was so astronomical?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ambition or pride has to be close to 100%. Not quite literally 100, but high nineties. Even if people have other motivations as well, choosing to be the candidate yourself takes a lot of ego.


Anecdotally, politicians in my experience tend to be extremely vain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, I've looked at the FECA text, I've looked at the FEC website, I've listened to some pods, I've looked at the jury instructions, I've read some commentary. That's what I've got. I'm not going to be able to produce anything more than that.


All those things seem to me to answer the question of "what is the law here" in a fairly clear and consistent way. I can be convinced they're all wrong, but at the least you need to be able to tell me what's specifically wrong, and what the right answer is. But as far as I can tell you don't have any alternative formulation, it's just wrong because of the vibe.


Like, say you're the trial judge and you have to write jury instructions. What are you going to tell the jury they need to find to determine if a campaign finance violation has occurred here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Cool!


If i can bother you for more info - what tribal allegiances have shifted as Israel has moved to the right? E.g. who do all the people who used to vote Labour vote for now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Were you amending your answer to the Trump hypothetical or the random ass-individual hypothetical?




Great question! And a question that was explicitly answered in the two sentences immediately preceding the one you quoted, and bolded in my previous post. Let me capitalize it since bolding was apparently not enough.




The distinction I was drawing was that I believed UNCONNECTED INDIVIDUALS did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".




The natural reading is that I was amending the answer I specifically said I was amending.




Wow. Let me specify. "these types of expenditures" means, in the context of the conversation we were having, "a use of personal funds by a candidate that is within the constitutional scope of the definition of 'expenditure'". Like, I didn't think I had to specify this. After all the detail I went into to show how there are these important concerns that aren't captured by the broad definitions you might first encounter, this is basically a non-responsive reply from you. Really just throwing in the towel.




I'm confused. You quoted a handbook that said the general definition of campaign expenditures was what I've been saying it is this whole time. You asked for a FEC interpretation that said that was the correct definition, I provided one. I don't understand what's missing here.


Like, I see that the handbook quote you provided also says that the definition of campaign expenditures has been judicially limited in the context of public communications. But we're talking about a NDA payment, not public communications. So I don't see why that judicial limitation is relevant.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I continue to find Smith very puzzling. He outlines what the rules are:




“You read the law and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation — all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”




Ok, so there's some specific things that can't be campaign expenditures. Presumably there's no specific exclusion for NDA payments, so we ignore those. And then there's a general rule to catch any other weird things that don't fall into the specific personal use buckets, and that's the "irrespective" test. Ok cool. So that's the rule?


Well no, because he then goes and highlights a couple of situations which clearly fall within the definition that he's provided but then he says nope, these don't count. Ok, why not? No explanation. Just "my personal belief".


I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Brad Smith's personal belief can't be the standard by which the law operates. There has to be some sort of actual standard, and the only articulated standard I've seen proposed says Trump is guilty.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I mean, I feel like I'm not the one being confused. The hypo was specifically about Trump, and you said that you were amending your answer to there being no reporting requirement... in context of a hypo specifically about Trump. But this is why I asked, to make sure that you were saying what I thought you should be saying instead of what you actually said.




That's not true.


You said




Hell, we don't actually need to go all the way to Trump doing it. Could again just say that I, a random ass-individual, spent a few hundred dollars on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (presumably because you picked it out; I don't think I'd ever do that otherwise), but let's immediately forget that parenthetical and assume that I did it because I thought it would implicitly bolster support for Trump and help Trump's election campaign. Reporting requirement? Criminal?




I said




Neither. Not a reporting requirement, not a crime.




You said




Express advocacy has reporting requirements




I acknowledged that you were right, and said




The distinction I was drawing was that I believed unconnected individuals did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".




You asked me a hypo about a random individual, I answered about a random individual, I amended my answer in the context of a random individual, and I said so clearly.


Okay, on to the concrete issue.




Do you have any citation from any statute, FEC interpretation, or DOJ manual, that "these types of expenditures" actually meet the definition of "expenditure", as limited by the Supreme Court, and that they then trigger a reporting requirement (where it is a criminal offense to fail to report)?




The FEC website says:




An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value to influence a federal election. "Disbursement" is a broader term that covers both expenditures and other kinds of payments (those not made to influence a federal election). All disbursements are reportable by the campaign.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
At the time I wrote my post, I hadn't seen anything Mr Smith had written.


I've since googled and read this article, though if there's a better piece by him that I should read for a more full explanation of his perspective, please point me to it. And I have to say, I'm very confused by Mr Smith's argument. Not because I think he's wrong. But because he seems to think he's disagreeing with Judge Merchan, while it seems to me like he's arguing for the exact same standard.


Merchan's jury instructions say:




Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.




Brad Smith says:




FECA specifically prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, defined as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”




They seem to be saying the exact same thing. Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels is a campaign expenditure if and only if Cohen would not have made that payment in a counterfactual world where Trump was not a candidate.


So I reiterate my statement. Every lawyer discussing this case appears to agree on what the legal standard is, including Mr Smith.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you've gotten confused. I don't need to "amend my answer back", I've been consistent that candidates face reporting requirements for these types of expenditures. Read back our exchanges while bearing in mind the distinction between candidates and unconnected individuals and you'll see that (even though I did err initially in thinking there was no reporting burden on unconnected individuals rather than a lower burden).


So, yes. There's a reporting requirement, and he violates FECA if he doesn't report it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I don't think that's normally how American law is applied, but admittedly I don't know much about it.




I'm open to being corrected, but as far as I can tell, it is. It's the standard that's laid out in the legislation, and as far as I know there's no case law on the books saying that those particular words don't mean what they appear to mean. The legal podcasts I listen to (Prosecuting Donald Trump, Serious Trouble) have asserted that's the standard that applies (and sure, I'm willing to buy that e.g. Andrew Weissman is biased against Trump, but I don't buy that he's intentionally misrepresenting what the law is). None of the lawyers I've seen arguing against the verdict have raised the definition of "campaign expenditure" as incorrectly applied (e.g. Steve Calabresi argues that campaign finance limits on hush money payments are unconstitutional, but he doesn't dispute that the statute purports to limit them).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think that if you were able to secure Morris' testimony that he paid Hunter's liabilities as part of an agreement with Joe Biden to prevent bad press that would hurt Joe Biden's election chances, it would be a comparable situation. Currently Morris is claiming he made the payments out of the goodness of his heart and with no electoral motive. I don't believe that for a second, but in order to successfully bring a prosecution you'd need some way to prove that Morris is lying.