karaddin

Crazy to try go to sleep to as well. Feels like the highest chance in my life that I'm going to wake up to a nuke having been used or something.

Still don't think that's likely, but civil wars are chaotic.

It's amazing when you see history pivot pretty radically around specific things. If Zelensky had done what Putin probably assumed he would do (and what most would do) and fled, Ukrainian resistance might have faltered in the face of that very first attack.

Instead the comedian President looks set to outlast Putin.

And it's quite reasonable to avoid disclosing capabilities which may harm national security when you know the people in question are dead. There's only a more complex equation there when your info points to them being alive and could maybe save them.

59 minutes ago, IFR said:

This goes both ways, though, doesn't it? I don't know about you, but I often see accusations that frame objections to the change of ethnicity as racist in origin. There seems to be a strange unwillingness to acknowledge that, as you said, there are multiple ways to engage the text and it is perfectly valid for someone to not enjoy the changes in ethnicity for purely story related reasons.

It doesn't feel great to be accused of being a racist. And it makes a discussion particularly frustrating when people refuse to engage that you may have a valid position, but rather immediately declare that the true motivation behind your objections are suspect.

Surely it's not controversial to say that racists will object to diversifying a cast which they expected to be all white. Those same racists will also fixate on that point a lot more than someone who is objecting to it for non racist reasons, and it's reasonable to call out that racism as... Well, racism.

The problem comes when the two get conflated which only serves those racists by given them cover to pretend they're actually just principled, and I'll concede that the conflation gets made by both people unhappy with the casting and by those that like it, but I don't think a significant number of people would insist there's just one group. 

So unless you personally are being identified/accused of being racist about it, in which case none of this applies, try to see that criticism as being directed at the behaviour of racist outrage and that this isn't talking about you at all rather than seeing it as calling you out. Essentially if you aren't engaging in the behaviour being criticized, you aren't the subject of the criticism. It comes up in a lot of contexts and it's always a shit show of people mostly arguing past each other

4 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Who needs skills?  The woke younguns he hired had enthusiasm!   Plus, they worked cheap, what was the worst that could happen?  The story is so quintennial capitalistic American; hire the cheapest workers, buy the cheapest gear and supplies, call yourself a genius, a forward thinker and innovator.  Come ride my exciting death sub.  The CEO was so delusional he said he knew it was safe, had to be, so he went too.  Oh, yeah, he fired an employee who pointed out it wasn't safe not long before this trip.    

 

Contempt for safety regulations is certainly one of the defining traits of the left after all!

I'm not denying that judges are people or expecting them to be super human, that's the entire point of having very clear lines saying what is and isn't acceptable, having those rules to point to can work in their favour as well by deflecting any need for decision making or seeming like a rejection of the person offering the gift.

That's not asking them to have no social circle either, not sure where that idea came from.

Haven't you heard? These people were killed by woke because woke won't let 50 year old white men (literally the only people with any skills) work on it. So it's clearly not his fault

ETA: That take is coming from the quartering, I think I saw something about that guy in the last few days already, maybe the one obsessed with hating Brie Larson?

I think Mormont was saying we don't have to imagine that, it happens all the time

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65981876

Could the thread title be any more apt? Hoping for double knock out by ball kick. 

In case those outside the UK can't access, Musk and Zuck have agreed to a cage match.

I am going to repeat myself from US Politics. Reality is being written by an absolute fucking hack. Maybe the parent universe is also having a writers strike?

On 5/27/2023 at 11:40 AM, IlyaP said:

Hey, don't you forget about those of us who watched Lexx for you so you didn't have to! 

Its the most powerful weapon of destruction in the 2 universes. It's like 15-20 years since I watched it, but I'm never going to forget that! That show is such a weird mixed bag of....weird. With an amazing chess episode, and I think I quite liked its musical episode too. I also remember <spoilers for a very old show>

On topic for this thread - I've been avoiding this thread and found myself suckered in, I think I need to do the opposite of Ran and watch the show but not read this lmao. Not saying you're all bigots, just not jiving with my experience with the show at all and the last thread showed I didn't handle that well.

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

Well, I don't think SCOTUS should be deciding basic human rights. Who made them the boss?  So let's stop there.  

SCOTUS should be opining on what follows the Constitution and what conflicts with it. 

Basic human rights in the USA as founded at least, should derive from a mandate from the people, as expressed by their fairly elected legislatures.  

Unless you're anti democracy?

I mean they're making decisions that draw lines around constitutional rights and misspoke, I think contextually its pretty clear what I'm talking about. It doesn't need to be about human rights either, their decisions directly impact the lives of 300 million people, thats a lot of power and a lot of responsibility, and it behooves anyone that takes that up to avoid even the appearance of corruption.

2 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

This is basic FMEA stuff. You go through everything and identify failure modes, likelihood of failure modes, severity of the failure, etc. “not being able to steer the boat until everyone dies”, would score very high on “severity”. 

and I guarantee you, if these things are being used in various military applications, there’s a military spec that includes some kind of validation and testing and the use of a specific controller, not some off-brand piece of crap. Also a maintenance schedule for changing batteries. 

Yeah, Logitech aren't a bit player but in terms of controllers their production volume is still far lower than MS has for their primary Xbox controllers. And with the attitude we've seen on display with regards to safety regulars, I highly doubt he has the rigorous protocols around maximum operational hours etc.

I can certainly see the argument for reducing cost by going with a product you can easily replace at scale at low cost, but its also worth noting that one argument I've seen for this approach was pointing out that Xbox controllers are also used on the newest US attack sub class, but there's a big difference between manipulating the periscope mast (or whatever the replacement is called now its camera systems rather than an actual periscope) and piloting the actual sub with it. The former is what the navy sub is using them for, the latter is what the Titan did as far as I've seen.

My wife is cis, my step-kids are cis, every other member of my very large family are (to the best of my knowledge) cis, almost all of my friends are cis. 99% of the world is cis. I'd bet that at least 99% of the people using cis in a way that people in this thread object to are also themselves cis. And this is a huge part of why the idea that its a slur is even more outlandish than the idea that TERF is. Almost no one actually holds a bias against cis people, and those that seem like they do from out of context arguments on the internet are actually just holding it against those people that are being "snow flakes" about the term.

Yes, there will be a handful of trans people that genuinely hate all cis people, but take one second to try and empathize. Look at the above ratio about me to the cis people in my life, and think about just how fucking horrifying a life someone has to have had, how many times they have been betrayed by the people they were meant to be able to trust, to arrive a point where they are alienated from literally almost everyone that should be in their life. Yeah, they're angry and taking it too far, but they're hurt and angry and utterly powerless. You don't need to fear them as a group, you also don't need to interact with them though - I can't handle that hurt and anger either. 

The point of just saying "no gifts at all, ever" is that it removes any grey area, and thus any excuse, at all. Its black and white, you can't accept anything. The end. At the SCOTUS level thees people are invested with the power to decide the basic human rights for 300 million people, they get paid enough to not need to rely on gifts etc from anyone. If necessary, give them an increased travel entitlements etc to offset some of it, but its not the end of their world if they cant accept random gifts from random people. 

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Cisalpine Gaul would like some words.

Exactly the one I was thinking of earlier with geography using it lol

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 I honestly think most judges do all of this regularly regardless of ideology. They rationalize accepting gifts as not having any impact on how they rule. 

Seriously? What the actual fuck at your system allowing them to accept gifts at all. My "power" over purchasing decisions at my job is limited to recommendations I make to my boss and I'm not even allowed to accept having my $20 lunch paid for by a vendor. I declare the potential conflict of interest from my cousin working in a barely relevant position at a vendor.

This shit is the most basic anti corruption/even the appearance of corruption measures that should be present everywhere, I was assuming it was simply the the most powerful judges (SCOTUS) had simply left the grift open for themselves rather than that door simply being open for all judges. Why on earth are they allowed to accept gifts at all, let alone from people connected to upcoming cases.

2 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Speaking as someone who very much falls into the "cisgender" category, I find this whole debate rather amusing, in the sense that if we had this whole discussion about any other group, a substantial portion of cisgenders would complain loudly about "political correctness gone wild" and how people are too sensitive these days.

I agree completely except I do think there's another term or two that potentially could wind up with a similar reaction.

BFC - the term came about to have a way to refer to people who are not transgender without stigmatizing trans people with the implicit "normal/abnormal" framing that comes from saying "not trans".

The same thing is present in discussion around neurodivergence with "allistic" being used the same way as "cis" is, in that case to pair with autistic. I suspect a lot of people reading this have probably never heard of that one, but if it became a prominent discussion it's the one I could see some of the same people objecting to.

And yes, it is impolite to continue calling someone something they don't want to be called but that doesn't make the words you use when doing so a slur. At most it's as Liffguard said - a pejorative. And I really wish politeness would stop being treated as such as important thing when it's papered over bigotry. There's nothing civil about someone using very polite words to tell me I'm sub human scum, and it's my choice to be impolite in return by telling them to go fuck themself. Obviously targeted harassment should be against any moderation policies and it should be enforced in an unbiased fashion, if that's actually being done then it takes care of the problematic cases of impoliteness and what's left is when people choose to not be polite. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that Twitter is not being entirely unbiased in it's enforcement however when a large chunk of it's employees are in a precarious immigration status reliant on the job and their boss enjoys fire people and has a record of very publicly disliking trans people.

But let's ignore that because it's not even relevant. The problem with targeted harassment is solved by banning... Targeted harassment. Not claiming a word being used by the harassers is a slur when it's not and banning that.

It's a simple description using the same construction as transgender with the cis/trans pairing used without controversy in a bunch of different areas including chemistry and geography. 

ETA: First part was meant to be saying Ty is correct but we don't even need to get into that but failed to quote 

6 hours ago, IlyaP said:

Yep. And it looks like the sort of fare I'd enjoy. But I also love me some Brie Larson. 

 

Yeah I was grinning watching that lol, I'm down.

If this disclosure winds up being abused to go after the patients, their families or the doctors and they get away with it, this is the template that will subsequently be used to go after abortion as well.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2023/06/20/vanderbilt-university-m-turns-over-transgender-patient-medical-records-to-tennessee-attorney-general/70338356007/

That's actually the other reason trans people are the current target which we rarely cover. Much of the principles at play relate to bodily autonomy and informed consent and they're the same basis for much of basic rights for women. Going after trans people let's you go after women too, it's not an accident or even an unintended consequence that cis women are being targeted over the bathroom shit, or that cis girls like that poor 9 year old are being interrogated* over their gender for playing sport while having short hair.

* Yes those fuckers have been banned from kids sport, but the trauma that poor girl has from a grown man yelling to see her genitals while his wife called the girls mother a pedophile doesn't vanish due to that

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

5th amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Ignoring the angle of defence Kal is talking about, does it being a violation of their constitutional rights actually make it a crime for the president to order it? Legislation that violates the constitution still gets to sit there until someone with standing takes it to court to get it over turned, but is violating constitutional rights of someone else actually a crime?

Police don't tend to get individually charged for unlawful search and seizure, the evidence tainted by that is inadmissible.

I think there needs to be a specific law that is being directly broken rather than just the constitution saying the government can't do that.

56 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Originally, yeah. 

I was also vaguely irked that instead of hiring a good Russophone actor, we got Russell Crowe. Like Cate Blanchett in Indy 4 or Michael Nyqvist in John Wick, it's yet another mangled/stereotypical accent on display. Just hire good actors from the Balkans and Baltics who speak the language! 

Aussies, Baltics... As far as Americans are concerned both environments are just trying to kill you so they're all the same :p

9 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Ah, it's the young staffers and advisers, that's how they can square the condemnation with their world view. Just a culture problem with leaders failing to discipline their employees. That will work with any cognitive dissonance!

Yeah I certainly feel like the constitution thinks it should be illegal lol