@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

IIRC NY is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Such a recording showing up here might be the biggest surprise evidence since Kavanaugh writing down all his social interactions starting in his teens.

Power and status are highly contextual, and I've found general attempts to rate "privilege" don't map well to the full gamut of situations.

We have a few non-CW threads. Maybe they need more traffic. Although I would be cautious personally about crossing too many other domains there for opsec.

I hope the full text of her actual statements to police get released

It is interesting to me that all the media outlets claim to have the Title IX case file, which I assume they got from Jane Doe --- leaking it from the university would, AFAIK, be a felony under FERPA. I'm fairly confident she has, or could get, a copy of the police statement and full report. I haven't seen the media claim to have seen those. My best guess is that what we're seeing is heavily spun in the interest of getting a settlement, but I have no doubt there will be plenty of collateral damage.

She has given multiple versions of the events, and most of the citations here are to the least favorable of those. The DA's summary is probably technically correct, but I doubt it's the most flattering version of the original tale. The more recent version is viscerally unpleasant and I can imagine she feels today like it was exploitative, at least in hindsight. I'm not sure advertising her to the whole fraternity without her knowledge wasn't.

It seems quite possible to me she was sold a "modern, libertine, anything-consensual-goes sexuality" by the culture, only to run headlong into "lol, but not actually" in how the rest of campus reacted. It's unclear how she went to all the trouble of making a victim statement to the police without seemingly including the facts to make it a crime. I am really confused by that one, actually: is reading comprehension and general knowledge that bad among Ivy League undergraduates and police departments?

But it seems to me now she's been taken for a ride by the lawyers, and promised financial compensation, criminal charges, and fame anonymity by her lawyers with this highly-public strategy, who I suspect know deep down she'd be lucky to get at most one. I don't see anyone but the lawyers winning this even if she does settle with the university. Is settlement even an option with the other parties? The facts, even only her accounts, don't seem friendly at trial (not a lawyer, interested in opinions), and there doesn't seem a case for reputational recovery worth a settlement for the guys even if they had money.

All 8

Don't forget the Marine unlucky enough to have the same name as one of the 7 and his mother whose address was incorrectly listed in the docket.

I feel bad for Jane Doe, but those two didn't even do anything!

But at least based on texts, Male #1 didn't talk about.

Do we know which of the numbered parties sent the Snapchat message?

I suspect the open Internet is permanently dead.

I feel this, as someone who has been around it for like 3 decades now. I've watched the digital frontier get explored, claims staked, fences erected, gardens walled off, and IDs checked at the door. The last one is happening now, between various proposed legislation worldwide and informal methods used in the name of "fighting bots". Within the last few months, Reddit is no longer usable without an account, and I can't even consistently make Google searches in incognito mode.

Some things have certainly gotten better. Video was once a [BUFFERING] exercise in [BUFFERING] patience. Now it streams in HD while I download whole video games. A large local AI model can replace much of the information you'd be looking for anyway. But I do think something of value has been lost.

I'd love to see some good "closing of the digital frontier" stories in fiction.

I see where you're coming from, and it does seem relevant here but "kissing can be fine, but kissing and telling is rape" is not, IMHO, a viable legal standard. Especially since I'm not aware of it being codified anywhere relevant here. It's dangerously close to ex post facto to criminalize actions based on words separated by months or years, unless it was considered a separate crime.

And if this was truly the standard, going on a nationwide media court-of-public-opinion press tour as part of your civil litigation strategy is, uh, not a good look either.

Is Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird a bad man on the basis of defending a convicted rapist? I don't remember that book on my far-Right Patriarchy reading list (/s).

Criminal conviction is a line there, maybe even one of the better ones, but hardly the only one.

How else would you expect fraternity leadership to react to "Things (almost) went too far that night"? I have at least some sympathy for the "let's not do that again" option there. Maybe not the best way to implement that, but certainly the easiest.

Maybe libertarian sexuality works really well for some subset

I'd like to stan libertarianism here: while I'm maybe a bit jaded on the overall concept these days, the notion is that you can (voluntarily) choose your sexual norms within your community. Libertarianism here, in theory, allows both headscarves and, uh, Aella to share the same streets. You can choose to wait until marriage and find someone into that. You can join a celibate monastic order. You can just do things.

I will admit it falls short in some situations: it's pretty easy to imagine the parties here aren't always acting purely voluntarily, and that there isn't coercion within communities to adopt tighter (or looser!) codes. I'm not sure you can build a community without at least some structure of convergent orthodoxy, but maybe a line could be drawn there.

I've long wondered whether parents of twins really manage to consistently identify them from birth, and never managed to accidentally swap them before they learned their names.

This cow question seems like the best opportunity to use mu.

The reason why a priest having a mistress is generally considered a scandal is because the priest spent a lot of time denouncing that lifestyle. By contrast, the grey tribe is generally liberal in their position on sex

I somewhat disagree with this take: These folks label themselves "rationalist", but some of their most prominent public opinions are "give in to base sexual urges". It may be my traditional upbringing, but I suspect most people would agree that topics around sex are some of those people generally tend to be least rational about. I would have expected more explicit rejection of flawed human irrationality: are the Shakers and such irrational in adopting complete celibacy?

I believe the consequences of invading another country are always gruesome.

The UK invaded Iceland in 1940 and the Faroe Islands (then under the Danish crown), neither with loss of life. Iceland was never returned to Denmark. But I'd consider that more the exception that proves the rule.

I don't understand the signed victim statement to the police. It seems to really undermine the case, assuming the prosecutor's statement accurately summarizes it. It was done voluntarily working with the campus police, then she was given a chance to review it and apply edits before signing under penalty of perjury.

But the DA (several attorneys in the office) failed to, even assuming it completely true, find all the required elements of the purported crimes. Assuming the summary is accurate, this seems a really big own goal. Why submit such a thing at all? It was voluntary. I assume she didn't have a lawyer (I suppose "always have a lawyer when talking to police" remains evergreen advice), and either didn't know herself, or none of the parties she was working with bothered to tell her of the required elements. I could see some claim of impartially not prompting for details, maybe, but surely they were asking loads of questions about these details for their investigation ("were you coerced?"), and I'd expect at least someone friendly to make it known. Was she trying to claim "I went to the police" without really intending charges to stick? I'm really uncertain. ETA: It's not impossible that the Cornell police department and/or Title IX office steered this in a direction to reduce liability to the University.

I can at least sympathize that she has probably gone through a lot socially and self-imposed as a result of the events in question. The law doesn't give you a right to see the party who wronged you punished, unfortunately (not sure I'd want that generally anyway). And this case exists in a blurry line between longstanding puritanical and libertine post-sexual revolution norms: plenty of naive readers will think no woman would ever consent to that (probably few, but there are, uh, documented examples for better or worse). Or that any intoxication implies no consent --- if we jailed everyone that had sex drunk, I'm not sure how many would be many left. Others will assume she knew the long term implications of those choices. It's a great setup for a scissor statement, and I'm not even sure I have an answer myself.

IMO it's reasonable to let the justice system sort it out the specific case, but I think the meta-principles could use more open discussion.

Eric Schmitt

Admittedly, it took me a while to realize this wasn't Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.

Total traffic out of the Gulf is approaching pre-war levels.

Does this include refined products? IIRC the Gulf states had been moving up the value chain, and had built a lot of refining capacity there, largely displacing smaller facilities in other nations. I recall someone in the industry saying that refiners still operating were doing really well on margins because so much global capacity (Russia and Gulf states) was offline. I hadn't heard if the Gulf refineries are back online, even if crude shipments (or total volume?) are recovering.

Not knowing how to read the original text, is "Jewish" there explicit or just implied?

As a hypothetical, "the people" in the Second Amendment could be translated as "Americans" pretty reasonably for a global audience, but there are probably more than a few "shall not be infringed" stans that would explicitly claim the right should be universal, but probably not to the point of, say, invading Canada to hand out guns to everyone there. I'm not sure I'd claim either way is "correct" per se: the source material is a bit ambiguous.

I saw recently that Singapore has created a dating app that uses Gale-Shapley, so maybe there is mathematical hope for the monogamously-inclined. I'm legitimately curious how that will go for them.

ETA: Curious which variant they're using. The bias in the method is well-documented, but there are egalitarian forms.

My thinking was less "search and seizure law" and more "the Allies sent reconnaissance planes (without informing the pilots) places they knew enemy ships to be from code breaking, such that the Germans wouldn't suspect they could read Enigma messages."

But it seems less likely in this case.

Morality laws and norms varied a lot over the course of the Empire. Augustus criminalized adultery, for example. And the later part of the empire literally adopted Christianity, although I assume that wasn't your intended comparison.

Then a farmer saw

My conspiracy brain wonders whether this was happenstance or "parallel construction" on something that they expected to be there via means not intended to be disclosed.

On the subject of blockade, doesn't Taiwan just lose?

Maybe. But they could plausibly return the favor Iran-style. Blocking, or just dissuading via insurance premiums, a large fraction of traffic at the ports of Shenzhen or Shanghai would also be disasterous for China, especially if Japan, Korea, Vietnam, or the Philippines were to even quietly be supportive. Both Chinas rely heavily on imports for energy and agriculture. And Trump's Iran blockade has had to be pretty clear about not applying to food, too.

It seems quite possible that both sides could "lose" there.