@zoink's banner p

zoink


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 23:23:49 UTC

				

User ID: 753

zoink


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 23:23:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 753

I do not miss Hlynka as a mod, but I kind of miss him as a poster. I'm a wannabee tough guy and he's start start to wax Soldier of Fortune and I couldn't wait for a take from that perspective and then it was just meandering and the point was really bad.

Democrats do something very similar to January 6, and I think Republican rhetoric is virtually the same (insurrection, overthrow the government, terrorism, etc.) as what the Democrats have been using. Democrats would probably riot over the death of their version of Ashli Babbitt.

BLM protests are difficult because I have a lot of trouble imagining what similar conservative kinetic actions would look like. Maybe it's a massive blind spot, but I just can't picture a realistic scenario. The closest I can think of are small groups or individuals attacking abortion clinics, which are very much affiliated. Or the Murrah building, but again, that was very specifically targeted.

Now, the next take would be that the protesters did very little rioting, but opportunists were attacking random private businesses. So what does a right-wing protest with violent opportunists look like? Probably the right-wingers would try to actively help the police stop the looting.

Give this man a prognostication medal.

I'm not fishing for compliments what is the evidence you see for this being true? The aggressiveness of the prosecution of January 6th rioters, lack of action against Palestine protestors, or... ?

I have a few comments there:

January 7, 2021

So what are some material outcomes of yesterday's event? I'm guessing:

*Patriot Act v2, this time we trade even more of our few civil liberties and become even more China-like in our surveillance state to secure ourselves from, "domestic terrorism"

*A possible crackdown on the 2nd amendment?, It doesn't really matter if guns weren't being used by yesterday's mob, but I feel with this emphasis on keeping weapons away from domestic terrorists will be used to justify all sorts of new restriction on guns

Any other effects you all think are plausible?

It will primary be used as a trump card to dismiss the months of violent leftwing violence across the country.

https://archive.is/owXYG

"I never want to hear how horrible and violent antifa or BLM are ever again"

Also to bolster the narrative that white men are the most dangerous element of society.

I think the comment I was replying to was overly hyperbolic. I have a minor quibble with my first claim, as I think democrats largely don't think much nefarious happened during the BLM riots, so January 6 stands alone as an insurrection and an attack on Our Democracy. No need to use January 6 as a counterweight when there's nothing to counter. I didn't anticipate Trump running for president again so that changed the dynamics around the narrative a bit.

January 8, 2021

I know this has been said over and over again but I'll go on the record.

Libertarian thoughts on "public property" and politicians being HVTs quibbles aside; I am not virulently against the norm of shooting people in these types of situation. I am against what I perceive to be a massive double standard. It's super clear that Kyle Rittenhouse is a mass murder, all these police shootings are racist, lives over property. But shooting a rightwing protester crawling through a window is a good shoot.

Norms need to be consistent or... They aren't norms. Ashli Babbitt saw the left violently rioting, looting, committing arson, and occupying government buildings for months without getting shot.

If we're gonna play the game this way, fine. Just as long as everyone knows that the rules are that it's legitimate to shoot you - even if you're protesting - when you start breaking stuff that's not yours or try to go places you're not supposed to go.

I still stand by this but I also acknowledge (and would have at the time) that normies aren't me and will consider attacks on the "Seat of Our Democracy" to be greater than attack's on private civilian property.

I largely agree, I didn't think it was that bad but the split screen was killer. Significant portions of the debate Biden was staring off (at the wrong cameral?) slack jawed with a blank look on his eyes while Trump did normal Trump faces. I don't know what view the CNN panel had and the other channel commentators but I think there was major social momentum around "panic" that swept through a lot of elite democratic circles in the first 30 minutes.

If they had circled the wagons it probably wouldn't have been so bad but you had Anderson Cooper asking Kamala Harris tough questions. Now tons of Democrat talking heads are on record saying this is a disaster, and if that keeps momentum in the elite circles Biden could come under pressure.

Things are broken all over reddit, /r/neoliberal threads aren't working. The most functional conversation I'm seeing is in /r/pics

"Joe Biden holding a "Dark Brandon's Secret Sauce" can before the first 2024 presidential debate"

Every single person on the CNN panel are saying this was a disaster. "Democrats are panicking".

I will never, at this stage in my life, feel regret about not yoloing into Bitcoin in 2013. I bought modest amounts back then (and have the Blockchain transactions to prove it) and sold almost all of them over the years, particularly in order to put a down payment on a house. The stress reduction alone was worth the price. I'd have had to bought a ton of them and held through insane market swings to get truly life-changing wealth out of it.

We were hanging out in the same places back then and I feel the same. The best cast scenario where I had followed through and found a way to get my money into Mt. Gox when they changed their rules as I was waiting for my money to clear Dwolla and ended up with 30 coins for $150. There's no world where I hold them and sell for $2 million. I was going to pay off my house no matter what. My regret is I planned to drop some money every month after I sold but was lazy... that was dumb.

I'm not sure it's clear if drones/AI shifts the scales in favor of the larger military or not. Houthi's and Ukraine seem to be using drones to punch above their weight for now while Hamas doesn't seem to have been able to do practically anything against S tier military tech.

I was very confident that Russia would not invade Ukraine beyond taking the Donbas region, so what do I know? But I will once again register high confidence that China will not invade Taiwan. If Taiwan has any will to fight, then an invasion would be devastating. If Taiwan does not have the will to fight, then China can take its time and accomplish its ends with soft power.

Also, let me take this moment to say that this is the fault of midwit foreign policy strategic ambiguity. As the Good Book states: "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

I guess that's a reason I have trouble relating. My grandma is in her mid 90's, grew up more remote than Kansas with a father killed while she was a teen. She keeps an immaculate uncluttered house with no collectables to speak of.

I had forgotten about the gift aspect. Your husband and the rest of your family has a go to gift to get you so that can cause an accumulation over a few decades.

I'm looking for theories or just-so story on humans' desire to collect knick-knacks.

A house down the street was having an estate sale. I could tell it belonged to an elderly middle-class couple. The house was a monument to mediocrity. Granted, I got there on the second day, so the family and public had already taken the good stuff, but there wasn't exactly empty space anywhere. It wasn't hoarded, but there were thousands of figurines and collectibles. Some over-studious daughter or granddaughter had put a price tag on every single item. I was actually surprised that I wasn't tempted by a single thing.

Not an uncommon refrain, but this couple had spent a lifetime amassing stuff that no one really wanted. So my question is: why? Is there some misaligned wealth signaling going on? I have my own temptations. I like to buy tools, I want a library someday so I'll probably start amassing books, and I'll probably keep buying guns and end up with more of those three than I need, but I can think of use cases. Am I just rationalizing while I sneer at baseball cards, stamps, Funko Pops, and porcelain figurines?

What are the modern-day Precious Moments collections? Funko Pops?

Last night had a relationship conversation with my wife. The gist is she is "more motivated than me". The tasks she has hanging over hear head contributing to her anxiety:

Finish the front yard (the flower beds I mentioned)

Paint the cabinets

Organize filing cabinet

Organize the pantry

Organize the Desk

Paint internal walls

Get her tickets and lodging for my work trip that she insists she go on

Always have home made bread, pies, and pizza doughs on hand.

I got "You criticize me so little it makes me think you don't care." I'm still going to keep it as near 0 as possible. Similar to, "It's really annoying how you and your friends talk about things and just assume others understand." Yeah... not going the other way on that one either.

It goes with the narrative of all the uncompensated work women do. I get the impression much of this work is not at the behest of men. I like that the house is clean but I don't need it to be as clean as it is. Clutter doesn't bother me, it can completely dysregulate my wife. I like a tasty complicated dinner, but I could go without it. I don't need plants that need to be watered, I don't need decorations that need to be dusted, I don't need a rug with tassels that prevents us from having a robot vacuum, I don't need flower beds that require more work than just grass.

Must be similar to the height thing. I've heard women complain about how guys can't handle that they are taller than them. I've heard many women complain about men being too short. I've never heard a man complain about women being too tall.

From the jury instructions:

BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity

How common are convictions based on hypothetical crimes that a defendant hasn't been convicted of? Is that like a special New York State thing or is it common across the country?

I'm after a summary of summaries, seeing if I've got it roughly right. Bolding done by me.

SECTION 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175 § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

Post-Summation Instructions PDF

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

Is Trump now convicted of all or some combination of 1, 2 or 3?

I'm trying to recall who said it but the general idea is that the most dangerous type of people who believe they are doing something for the good of humanity.

C. S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Downvote, collapse the thread and move on.

I guess spoilers I guessed what was going on with the gaslighting part way through and was not happy about it. It made the majority of the book a waist of time for me.

"You got to piss with the cock you got" doubt he came up with but first heard AVE say it.

Gideon the Ninth tons of fun but Horrow was so bad. Nona is on the shelf... I hope Tamsyn Muir got good feed back on Horrow.