iNow

I'll give you two badges. One for being a dumbass. Another for when you lose the first one.

It's easier to proceed with your own personal ideology and judicial philosophy when you can do so with the implicit sanction of the founding fathers... even better when you can personally interpret for yourself what the founders meant. It's a bit like believers who make up their own versions of god and his wishes to justify their behavior, except instead of white robes and mitered hats, the justices where black robes (and have moved away from the powder wigs).

Thank you. +1 We seem to be moving away from that. Less discourse, less trust in elections, more violence. Not just January 6, either. Conflagrations on airlines are way up. Traffic accidents and aggressive road rage behaviors are way up. People are getting into fist fights in grocery stores, and not just on Black Friday. Neighbors are throwing punches and bottles across the fence. Social mores keep the peace, and they're being rejected. See also: Refusal to wear masks during a pandemic or get vaccinated, but I digress...

Thx. I tend avoid opening unknown files so will take your word for it

The legislature could act here, and they could do so in a way that remains respectful of separation of powers. Specifically, they could write laws which mandate certain codes of ethics for the SCOTUS, and they could equally legislate authority into the hands of the Chief Justice for enforcing them. As it stands right now, despite the fancy title, all the Chief Justice can do is ask nicely for other justices to recuse themselves. That’s it. He can basically say “please” and then runs out of options. Not a perfect solution, and comes with its own potential risks, but giving ethics guidelines and authors of enforcement to the Chief would help to more consistently address scenarios like the one being discussed here. All lower federal courts have these types of ethics rules and mechanisms for their enforcement. The SCOTUS is the only exception in terms of this recusal issue where each justice can decide for themselves. Not really on topic here, but I also support 18 year term limits for justices. The current lifetime duration of appointments leads to some needless problems and execution of strategies rooted in game theory more than being rooted in a desire to protect democracy.

Please help make that happen by sharing evidence of it.

Nope

No, I mean opinions differ, especially on whether or not a comedians joke is offensive, and there’s no objective measure in this regard about which may be more accurate. I’m saying you should stop pretending otherwise.

I disagree, but yet again… since we’re operating now in the realm of opinion… both of our positions are equally valid.

It seems clear mistermack holds the opinion that the joke was not offensive. It also seems clear that others hold different opinions. Perhaps move on in the recognition that both positions are equally valid.

Much of the waste has also gone missing, thus raising future risk of dirty bomb deployment in population centers.

Nobody (who matters) cares how educated you are or what your life and living conditions are. All that matters is how you present your ideas and arguments, how you interact with the ideas and arguments of others, and how you respond to correction from others who happen to know more than you on various topics.

Correct

Science doesn’t arrive at single answers. It offers provisional hypotheses which are forever subject to change as we learn more and continue to grow. Some of those concepts are more robust and better supported than others, but they’re never immune from revision.

It seems Russia is also putting down land mines and fortifying themselves in a roughly 15 mile perimeter around Kyiv. This tends to signify their intent to dig-in and push forward from relatively stable regrouping points. I agree with the above. Their words mean nothing. Until they withdraw, they're lying.

Nearly, but not quite, zero. Nobody’s going to be charged with attempted murder here.

Would he have slapped Amy Schumer if she'd made the exact same joke? Nah, doubtful. Would the person slapping Chris Rock be in jail right now if they weren't Will Smith, especially if there were black? Yeah, probably. Why do people care at all? Mostly because we're a bunch of simpletons looking for easy distractions from the trials and tribulations of the world... moths chasing the light. Or... in this case... the light-hearted.

He wasn't actually wrong, despite all the dunking the internet has done. https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/paul-krugman-got-something-very-right-about-the-internet-the-fax-machine-and-the-economy "What people see as a major economic impact is really the social impact. From a true data impact, Krugman wasn’t wrong. “Productivity growth has been substantially weaker during the age of the internet,” Amarnath wrote. “The same deceleration is visible in terms of both nominal and real investment in software and even the broadest definition of hardware (information processing equipment). There has been some shifting and cannibalization of activity as a result of retail moving to e-commerce channels, and new media dominating advertising services at the expense of old media, but if we’re talking about macro impact beyond substitution, the burden of proof is with those eager to mock Krugman on this point.” You can see the chart here, showing that the era of the internet has not been an impressive one for tech investment. And we all know, of course, that measured productivity states have been mediocre. Furthermore, as Matt Darling, vice president of behavioral economics lab Ideas42, has pointed out, the quote came in the context of a big, national debate about how the internet would have some turbocharging effect on economic growth. There was for example a WSJ piece by Rudi Dornbusch that year arguing that we would experience a forever boom. <...> There was a considerable discussion at the time that the internet would fundamentally change something. Either lead to a perma-boom, or faster growth, or greater productivity, or something fundamentally new in how business cycles worked. And yet we've seen none of that. Instead we’ve had mediocre growth, long broad downturns, and declines in both productivity and general tech investment. So yes, for sure Krugman was wrong on the societal impacts, such as how much we all have to say to each other. But on the question of the difference between the internet and the fax machine, the data back him up."

What are the key differences you see between these two?

No

Oi

I’ve previously referred to this as the swarm of bees strategy. You release a bunch of bees into the space and people behind you start walking out carrying with them all of your valuables while you’re distracted. You also can’t really focus anymore on just one single bee, even if it’s the most important one (let’s call it the queen). Continuing the analogy of redirecting attention away from the point that actually matters… the swarm protects the queen.

Trump sues everybody. Litigiousness is kinda his thing.

The harm claim is a financial one. He alleges spending $24M in legal fees to defend himself, so of course is suing her for triple that amount and asking for $72M. It’s never about the actual legality or money though. It’s more of the strategy Steve Bannon described as “flooding the zone with shit” to distract the media, the public, and to keep the rabid base agitated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/