ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
8hr ago
the details don't look particularly bad
In addition to the encrypted messaging group chats, Song, Arnold, Morris, and others met in person on July 3 at a "gear check" at Morris and Arnold's residence. There, Arnold asked Song whether they would be bringing guns to the July 4 action. Song replied that they would because he would not be going to jail. Song repeated words to this effect multiple times throughout the evening, putting everyone there on notice of his intent to shoot at police rather than be arrested.
(Caveat: The jury did not necessarily decide the truth of this specific paragraph, as opposed to the overall charges on which it convicted.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10hr ago
The number one purpose of punishment is punishment?
Sorry, I should have said "sentencing".
The issue isn't with criminal punishment as a deterrence—it's with with judicial discretion regarding deterrence.
The judge's discretion is limited by the minimums and maximums prescribed by Congress. For example, the sentence for rioting can be anything from five years to just a fine with no prison.
What's the alternative? Congress isn't interested in prescribing a zillion specific degrees of rioting that all have different, narrower sentencing ranges.
According to the final indictment and the jury verdict:
(1) "Setting off fireworks, making noise, and vandalizing stuff" still counts as "rioting" and "using and carrying an explosive to commit a felony". Eight of the nine defendants were convicted on those charges. (The ninth defendant is the one who just hid some papers.)
(2) The prosecutor is in possession of "several group chats on an encrypted messaging app" showing that four defendants definitely were explicitly planning to bring guns, even if others were not made aware of the true plan and thought that only fireworks would be used.
The members of the Core Chat [defendants Evetts, Song, Morris, and Rueda, plus two other people not charged] planned what materials to bring to the riot and attack, including firearms, medical kits, and fireworks. For example: Evetts asked the Core Chat group whether they would be "doing black bloc and rifles". Gibson [not charged] stated that they would be wearing "bloc" and keeping "kit" on hand, "bringing a wagon to hold armor and rifles". When Rueda suggested that "rifles might make the situation more hot", Song replied that rifles would be used to intimidate law enforcement, stating: "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle, so it tends to make them back off."
Song also advertised the July 4 riot on a larger chat (the "Large Chat") but left out certain details in an effort to avoid being identified as one of the organizers.…
The Large Chat included [defendants Song, Arnold, Evetts, Morris, Rueda, and Ines Soto, plus] dozens of "trusted" individuals. Song circulated a flyer for the Prarieland riot in the Large Chat, stating: "Share with trusted folks only. Do not Post. Mask up! Be loud!" Members of the Large Chat discussed the event as a "noise demonstration" involving fireworks.
The prosecutor also alleges in-person coordination among the eight main defendants (again, not including the paper pusher) prior to the riot.
In addition to the encrypted messaging group chats, Song, Arnold, Morris, and others met in person on July 3 at a "gear check" at Morris and Arnold's residence. There, Arnold asked Song whether they would be bringing guns to the July 4 action. Song replied that they would because he would not be going to jail. Song repeated words to this effect multiple times throughout the evening, putting everyone there on notice of his intent to shoot at police rather than be arrested.
[Defendants Song, Arnold, Evetts, Morris, and Rueda, plus the uncharged Gibson,] staged at Morris and Arnold's house on the evening of July 4 and carpooled to Prairieland. [Defendants] Elizabeth Soto, Ines Soto, and Batten drove together and arrived at Prairieland a little later than Song and the others.… The Antifa Cell [of at least 11 people] brought a total of 11 firearms, four of which had been purchased by Song.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19hr ago
A moment of social weirdness pales in comparison to literal hours of figurative torture.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
Pokémon arguably are sapient, not bestial, as many canonically are able to talk.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23hr ago
Letting other people drag you to events that you hate sounds like textbook loser behavior to me.
Translated to English:
This is a dumb "question", but I'm just flabbergasted in a low-key situation. I'm going to Mexico for my wife's friend's wedding. (I'm taking my small kids. It's gonna be something...) It happens to be over Mexico's first World Cup knock-out match. I don't like soccer (it's for the poors), but this falls under the "few-in-a-lifetime opportunities" category in my mind. The one guy I kind of know on the trip turned me down on going out to watch the game, because he hates crowds and sports. I've always struggled not to judge this guy as a loser (he sulks around and whines a lot), and this really doesn't help. Literally, I don't think any other person I know would turn down an invite like this. Am I being too harsh?
Am I being too harsh?
I fail to see what having no interest in crowds and sports has to do with being a loser. To such a person, a "few-in-a-lifetime" high-profile event would be more annoying, not less annoying.
(Disclaimer: There are several reasons for which I can be considered a loser, but I don't think that my lack of interest in crowds and sports is one of them.)
(Anecdote: In my freshman year of college, the university (or maybe just the engineering college—I don't recall the details) gave to every freshman a free ticket to a local baseball game and made a joking threat that everybody was required to attend it. I found it profoundly uninteresting, and left after the first inning (or maybe after the first half-inning—I don't recall the details).)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Note that document 1 is only the initial complaint. The document on which the jury actually made convictions is, not document 1, but document 127, the second superseding indictment.
Alarmed at the presence of unauthorized persons on Prarieland property late at night, unarmed DHS correctional officers inside the facility went outside to investigate. Other DHS personnel called local police for assistance. Within minutes, an officer from the Alvarado Police Department arrived on scene, stepped out of his police cruiser, and began issuing commands to a rioter who had been vandalizing government property. The rioter, who was dressed in black bloc, continued to run towards Benjamin Song. Song yelled, "Get to the rifles!" and then, moments later, opened fire on the officers, striking the Alvarado police officer in the neck area as the unarmed DHS correctional officers ducked and ran for cover. The wounded officer fell to the ground but was able to return a few shots. Song fired additional rounds at the wounded officer and the DHS correctional officers until his rifle jammed. The Antifa Cell then fled the scene.
On that basis, Song was convicted (in document 367) of attempted murder of the police officer (but not of the two ICE officers).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Sorry, clarification: "Persecution" is a crime against humanity only "in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court"—that is to say, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, "other inhumane acts of a similar character", etc. So in effect it's just an aggravating factor to the real crimes against humanity, rather than a crime against humanity in itself.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Technically, "persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined [to include only male and female], or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law" (defined as "intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of identity") does count as a crime against humanity, even though in common parlance it does not sound so weighty.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Or you can just use the Kiwi Farms thread. (I think people have mentioned previously that Catbox blocks access from many locations. It also has an explicit rule against uploading "heavy gore".)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
But how much of that is due to actual consumer preference, and how much is due to government regulation that imposes unreasonably strict fuel-economy standards on smaller vehicles, encouraging manufacturers to push bigger vehicles?
For model year 2031, the current standards are 55.4–74.1 mi/gal for passenger cars, but just 34.3–57.1 mi/gal for "light trucks" (SUVs, minivans, crossovers, etc.), with higher numbers for smaller vehicles within each class on the basis of footprint (wheelbase × track width). (It looks like Trump is in the process of reducing these ranges to 30.6–40.9 and 26.1–31.7, respectively. He also eliminated the penalty for violating the standards.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Vehicles like the Trinova are designed to deliberately exploit this.
RIP the Elio.
The Elio’s expected range is 672 miles, based upon an 8-gallon tank and 84 mpg highway, and greatly exceeds that of electric vehicles (typically 100 to 300 miles) and that of most other vehicles of its size (typically 300 to 400 miles). Configured in a three-wheel format, it is conceived with tandem seating for two passengers to travel in a front-to-back layout. With a targeted retail price of $7,450 per vehicle, we believe that the Elio provides the efficiency and environmentally friendly benefits without the price premium, driving range anxiety or safety risks of electric or hybrid vehicles.
But of course it turned out to be a scam.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
Did the convicted person commit the murders or not?
Presumably yes, since the error that the prosecutor conceded was imaginary.
Was the foostering about "okay, he dunnit, but we don't believe in the death penalty here so let's pretend everything was done wrongly so sentence can be changed to life imprisonment"?
Yes. It's a bit complicated:
(1) Conviction of murdering Crawford → life sentence.
(2) Conviction of murdering Richardson + prior conviction of murdering Crawford (aggravating factor) → death sentence.
(3) Appeal of death sentence? Nope—appeal is rejected.
(4) Appeal of conviction of murdering Crawford → no aggravating factor → another appeal of death sentence? Nope—appeal of conviction of murdering Crawford is rejected.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
The English of this document sounds suspiciously like it was written a hundred years ago.
A more-detailed subdivision design (previous discussion)
-
Road right-of-way: 60 feet (two 10-foot travel lanes, two 7-foot shoulders, two 5-foot sidewalks, and four 4-foot verges)
-
Curb inner radius: 30 feet (sufficient to accommodate a single-unit truck)
-
Pedestrian-alley right-of-way: 10 ft (5-foot sidewalk and two 2.5-foot verges)
-
Minimum lot dimensions: IZC zone R1d (width 60 feet, depth 90 feet, area 1/6 acre)
-
The rectangular lots are 1/5.9 acre. The nonrectangular lots are 1/4.7 acre on the outside of the curve and 1/5.3 acre on the inside of the curve.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7d ago
I was talking about a hypothetical situation where he wasn't lying, which is what the incentive system would be aimed at.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7d ago
Reuters:
French watchdog orders conservative news channel CNews to comply with pluralism rules
France's media regulator on Monday ordered rolling news channel CNews to comply with rules on pluralism and diversity of opinion, putting the ultra-conservative channel owned by billionaire Vincent Bollore one step away from disciplinary action.
The channel, which critics have likened to the US's Fox News for its opinion-driven format and polarising tone, has been accused by media watchdogs and opponents of near-constant coverage of immigration and security, which they say fuels far-right narratives.
Media regulator Arcom issued the order after reviewing hours of airtime last year in a probe triggered by a complaint from international media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which praised the decision in a statement.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Arcom head Martin Ajdari said its review of coverage in March 2025 showed "structurally unbalanced", one-sided output that left little room for opposing viewpoints.
He stressed that the regulator's role was not to police opinions, but to ensure media outlets showed viewers a diversity of views on each topic.
CNews contested the decision and said in a statement it planned to challenge it in the courts.
"Committed to freedom of expression, pluralism of debate, and the independence of its editorial line, CNews considers this decision to be an unjustified infringement of these fundamental democratic principles," it said in a statement.
The move comes less than a year before a presidential election in which far-right candidates are frontrunners.
France's 1986 broadcasting law requires television and radio outlets to ensure "honest, independent and pluralistic" coverage, including a diversity of viewpoints, particularly in news and current affairs programmes.
Almost uniquely in Europe, French broadcasters are required to count politicians' speaking time and ensure it broadly reflects recent election results and opinion polls.
The French media regulator also served a formal notice to public broadcaster Radio France last week, saying it had underrepresented the far-right National Rally in its programmes. It can impose fines and ultimately strip a channel of its broadcasting licence.
See also the US's former "fairness doctrine". In the words of the Supreme Court:
The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory equirement of § 315 of the Communications Act that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967.
There is a twofold duty laid down by the FCC's decisions and described by the 1949 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees. The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, and coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views. This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable. Moreover, the duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee's own initiative if available from no other source.
Blueprint for building a friendship:
Sit in your dining room with the prospective friend.
Pull out a long printed list of conversation topics.
Pick a topic. After discussing it in whatever detail seems necessary, cross it off the list and take a shot (1 2) of distilled liquor.
Continue until one of you vomits or passes out.
Repeat as necessary (on different days) until you judge that friendship either has been achieved or will not be achieved.
(This is a joke.)
More options
Context Copy link