pingveno @ pingveno @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

212

Joined

11 mo. ago

You get a lèse-majesté and you get a lèse-majesté!

On the plus side, they don't send people to prison over having walkie-talkies like in Myanmar, so... win?

Ah, it's all good. This discussions can be a little hard to follow in terms of who is responding to who.

The text is here

I started looking into this further and the tweet is misleading. To start with, the graphic is totally inaccurate. This was a vote by the UN Human Rights Council, not the full general assembly. The US was the only country that voted against, with one abstaining. Israel wasn't involved. It's also worth emphasizing that the right to food has been established in other international agreements, which the text cites extensively and the US justification refers to near the end.

Edit: I was somewhat incorrect on the vote, there was a later general assembly vote, which the Instagram account that created this links to. However, their effort to imply that the US somehow hates people being fed is still misleading.

No. Don't go. Please.

Anyway.

you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire

This SCOTUS case has been largely overturned. It's from Schenck v. United States, a case involving people distributing fliers to draft age men during WW1 encouraging them to resist the draft. The ruling was narrowed in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to only allow free speech restrictions based on imminent harm, not just making the government a little uncomfortable.

The specific example of causing a stampede in a crowded theater could be criminalized as imminent harm. Speaking of that specific scenario, apparently it had come up because there had been multiple deadly stampedes in crowded theaters from false alarms. I wonder if now we would not have that. People have been trained from childhood to evacuate a building in an orderly fashion.

The President isn’t running for reelection

I wouldn't necessarily count that out, since Biden still has an interest in boosting Kamala Harris' chances.

Okay, what requires more assumptions:

Biden goes along with a hair brained Trump era plan with a nebulous link to the Trump administration. News media sources have found no link to any official agency, but fortunately we have social media to discover a link (based on nothing). Biden then goes on to prosecute the perpetrators for weapons smuggling. None of the perpetrators complains about a deal being broken.

OR

This only had links to political figures in the Trump administration, but not anyone in the intelligence services. Those figures are long gone. No one bothered to tell Biden on the way out the door. Biden is prosecuting the perpetrators of an operation he allowed for fun and they're happy to stay quiet while they get imprisoned for running weapons.

All it said is that this group that was not part of the US government was in touch with someone in the Trump administration. That could be literally anyone, likely some Trump sycophant. The Trump administration leaves, attempts a coup on the US presidency on the way out, and now whoever was in contact is probably gone. Then the incoming Biden administration doesn't even know this bullshit is going on, let alone who's supposed to be contacted to call this thing quits. Now that same administration is prosecuting them for running weapons.

First, the definition of appeal to authority, since it's one of the most misunderstood fallacies. Citing someone based on their area of expertise is not appeal to authority. The problem is when you cite the stated opinion of someone, but their area of expertise is not directly relevant to that opinion. I'm a software developer, I could give you an expert opinion on various topics in that area. But outside of topics I am an export on, appeal to authority.

I didn't say he's necessarily wrong. But at the same time, he got his Nobel prize by being an economist who made a substantial contribution to economics. He is not an expert on fascism. His expert opinions in economics often run counter to many other credible expert economists, so you should consider those other expert opinions as well and not just listen to the person who tells you want you want to hear. That's certainly not anti-intellectual.

Experts and intellectuals should absolutely be considered to better understand a subject, but they're not some infallible oracle of truth. They contradict each other, are often limited by an ivory tower environment, and operating in the same societal context as everyone else.

This feels like an appeal to authority. He's an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he's held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn't mean it's right.

I'm well aware of the history of covert CIA involvement in Latin America, at least in broad strokes. But you're still making assumptions to get to "why didn't Biden immediately shut this down?" Just apply Occam's Razor, he couldn't shut it down because the Trump administration used unofficial side channels.

As long your strings aren’t null terminated

What kind of monstrous bug prone language would do that?

The article makes no mention of the CIA. The plotters were not only non-governmental but also violated US law (not that the CIA hasn't done that before). They were in contact with the "Trump administration," but that could be anyone. Given Trump's distrust of the intelligence services, I suspect any operations would have side stepped them.

I found one tweet where she talked about the need to have trans actors play trans roles. I don't think that would even occur to many TERFs.

Not as much as it used to. There's some very good vegan ice cream out there. Just expect to pay more and have less selection.

Someone with very large fingers?

It is, but when I am skimming a list of titles for talks or a description for a talk, I mix them up for a half second.

In my job, there is a concept called Attribute Based Access Control. I always do a little double take when I see it as an acronym, especially in a professional context.

The right has its persecution complex narrative. Better to not play into that and just get him unlimited rope to hang himself with. Which he promptly did and has continued to do. Republicans have been trying to crack the Black vote for decades and Trump lost any hope of that this cycle.

Personally, I'm inclined to use Kamala Harris' first name just because it's fun to say. It has a rhythm and repetition to it. Also, we've already had a President Harrison, so it distinguishes her.

With Hillary Rodham Clinton, I usually used her first name, initials, or full name to distinguish her from her husband. As much as I loath that she was always in his shadow, she was a force to be reckoned with. They may be a power couple, but she deserves her own recognition.

As for Tim Walz, Tim is just too common and uninteresting. Walz has character and it's close to waltz.