Schadrach

Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.

He didn’t take it out of his home. The gun was never in his home. This was covered in the trial, because if he had had the gun at home, it would have been illegal due to differences in firearms possession laws between WI and IL. That’s why the gun was kept in WI.

Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.

This is such a nothing, but it makes it sound like a big deal. Kenosha is right by the state line, he lived in a town just on the other side of the state line. So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn’t allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.

Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.

What shitty laws are we talking about? He made a pretty basic and straightforward self defense defense. He didn’t invoke Stand Your Ground, in no small part because WI doesn’t do Stand Your Ground (and all Stand Your Ground generally means is that you don’t have a duty to try to flee from an attacker if possible, and it was only really possible for Rosenbaum and he did try to flee from Rosenbaum).

The only case where he got off on a charge because of “shitty laws” I can think of would be the weapons possession charge and that’s because WI has different ages for different classes of guns, and the kind of gun he had was in the 16+ rather than 18+ category. Ironically, there was at least one person with an illegal gun on the scene, and it was Grosskreutz, and then it was because it was a concealed carry with an expired permit.

I can go into detail if you’d like to know why I agree with the self defense argument made for each of the shootings, but for now I’ll leave you with the point where I knew Rittenhouse would be found not guilty for Grosskreutz, since that one had a single question that changed everything:

“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” the defense said.

“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.

Because that question was the difference between self defense or not self defense.

I mean, based on history so long as you don’t chase him down and try to take his gun, knock him to the ground and move to bludgeon him, or try a false surrender with intent to shoot him you’re probably fine.

But seriously, if you think he just started shooting at the drop of a hat, watch the trial footage.

He’s a dumbass kid who should never have gone to the protest in the first place (but had every legal right to be where he was) turned right wing grifter because no one else will have him, but all three of his shootings definitely fall under self defense.

I’ll take my downvotes now for not expressing views that contradict trial evidence now, thanks.

He’ll use tax money to pay for that judgement or some shit.

Can’t do that. President doesn’t control the purse, both revenues and budget come from Congress. He’d have to get Congress to include paying his legal fees in the budget and manage to pass that budget. Then he could pay for the judgement with tax money.

You know that whole “fiscal cliff” thing that keeps happening? That’s a consequence of this - Congress assigns a maximum amount of debt that the President can issue bonds until it is reached to pay for things in the budget (issuing bonds is technically a power of Congress, but they delegate it up to a set value via legislation so that they don’t have to bother). Congress also assigns how much money will be spent on each thing (aka the budget). When the President is required to spend more by the budget than there is in tax revenue plus bonds he is allowed to issue, that’s the fiscal cliff. It’s literally a problem that Congress creates (by creating a budget that spends more than is available in taxes and bonds), that only Congress can fix (typically by raising the amount the President can issue in bonds), but that usually gets blamed on the President.

No, no, you’d want to name it for a black civil rights activist from the 60s who never rose to national prominence but is from NYC, that way his tower is named after someone who’s both black and he wouldn’t think was important enough even if he were white.

I suspect we’ll be fine until Gabe dies. Then, it depends on who ends up with the company and what they do with it.

Except instead of you having to split your revenue with your fellow lawyers and having the work split among hundreds of similar firms, you now don’t have to split it, but the available lawyering work is split among everyone who can buy a chunk of compute. Unless you being an actual human lawyer is still advantageous, in which case we wouldn’t be at the point where AI is actually replacing lawyers.

Right, but that’s not what we’re talking about here - we’re not saying “Hey LLM, write a convincing sounding legal argument for X”, we’re saying “Hey LLM, here’s a massive block of text, summarize what you can and give me references to places in the text that answer my questions so I can look at the actual text as part of building my own convincing sounding legal argument for X.”

It’s the difference between doing a report on a topic by just quoting the Wikipedia article, versus using the Wikipedia article to get a list of useful sources on the topic.

Paralegals won’t have jobs in 3 years. Lawyers won’t have jobs in 5-10.

I think you’re only partially right about paralegals, but lawyers will be fine because of how the profession is protected. It’s essentially a guild system, where you have to be a part of the lawyer’s guild (aka the bar) to legally be allowed to lawyer. And AI cannot join regardless of how good it is because lawyers want to keep their jobs. It would take legislation breaking the requirement to be a member of the bar to lawyer to change that, but the people writing legislation are themselves mostly members of the bar.

A FORMER President, or what we also call a private citizen. If you’re thinking that you’re buying a President with a 500 mil bond, then you’re betting on him winning against the guy he lost against last time, which feels like as good a bet as taking Trump’s claims of what his properties are worth at face value.

That would be a more accurate statement, yes.

But there’s more to it than just semantics. There’s also the level of certainty - civil trials have a dramatically lower standard of evidence than criminal trials.

So when you say he’s been convicted of rape, you’re saying that 12 people were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed rape. But that’s not the case - instead a judge was convinced it was at least slightly more likely than not that he committed rape. That’s a very different standard.

Either way, whoever wins this time can’t run again without either a constitutional amendment or a literal coup. So 2028 will have at least one new face.

Maybe a Democrat that isn’t running on sheer.terror.that the other guy might win.

Problem is: They believe too hard literally all the time and base their self off an ideology built on narratives, true or false.

I don’t think that’s a conservative specific thing there, and if you do odds are you’re doing the same thing but privileging the ideologies and narratives you are using in a way that you don’t think they count as narratives or ideologies but as either facts, justice or something along those lines.

To put it another way, I suspect if I asked for a list of your ten mostly firmly held and allegedly defensible political beliefs and we really drilled down to the bedrock on them we’d hit some bits that are more ideology or narrative than you’d be readily comfortable to admit. Or cases where you built the position around a principle that only applies when it otherwise neatly aligns with your preferred ideologies and narratives.

For example, pro-choice people tend to be able to invoke one or more general principles that they often claim being pro-choice is an example or expression of (bodily autonomy is a popular one), but it’s shockingly common for nearly the only controversial case where they’ll apply those principles to be abortion (and I say this as someone who is pro-choice).

Kelly Oliver (philosophy professor at Vanderbilt specializing in feminism among a few other topics, ironically including ethics) once argued that feminist theory isn’t about producing true theories or false theories but rather strategic theories - in other words it’s not about whether or not it’s true but whether or not it is useful for activism. This sounds shockingly like something conservatives might say about some of their hot button claims of the moment if they were being unusually honest.

Because unless most of the populous is going for the same alternative you are, voting for some other party mostly benefits the major party farthest from your views. It’s a consequence of FPTP, which always collapses into a two party system.

Like his SCOTUS pick. He announced he was choosing a black woman well before he had an actual pick because having the “historic first” to brag about was of value to him and he knew there were black female judges out there who were at least as qualified as any Trump pick.

given that there are only two viable options in the United States, where do you suppose that they will go?

To whatever right wing party replaces the GOP.

There’s nothing magical about Democrats or the GOP, there’s nothing that requires they be the two parties. But FPTP always collapses into a two party system. Rarely a third party gets some power, it and it’s closest of the main parties lose several elections to stealing each other’s votes, and eventually one of them absorbs the other, often with some policy adjustments.

So presuming this kills the GOP as we know it, either another right wing party emerges and absorbs whatever is left of the GOP or the GOP adjusts and reabsorbs the fleeing rats, making some adjustments to make them willing to stay.

and manipulate the legal system to purge voter rolls

They have about 4 months during which they can do this (removals have to be done 90 days prior to an election). And they either have to have documentation supporting that the person is dead or has moved, or that person has to have missed two federal elections, been sent a letter about verifying their info, and the person has to have ignored that letter and missed another federal election (at which point the government is allowed to assume you are dead/moved). If they remove you in practically any other situation it violates the NVRA and it’s probably time for a lawsuit.

The thing I find most interesting about the Zoe Post is that the response would have been **radically **different had it been a woman making similar allegations against a man. That Quinn herself made much less detailed allegations against another man 5 years later that led to his career imploding the next day and his suicide 4 days later and she’s seen as being in the right for it I think demonstrates that notion pretty well.

Collecting lists related to a disenfranchised group

Didn’t know a consulting company was a disenfranchised group.

4chan lost the right to complain about anything related to D&I in gaming and be treated as anything but subhuman slime after Gamergate.

Amusingly, one of the people Quinn cheated on Gjoni with works for Sweet Baby, just to tie things together. The one that was involved in doxxing and trying to DDoS that crowdfunded game jam project thing that the Vivian James character was created for.

I actually had no idea bout this scandal until yesterday, when it was talked by a streamer while playing Cyberpunk 2077. The guy complained how other games are ruined by SweetBaby. What is golden for me is that he said he loves Cyberpunk 2077, that it’s very fun game, but in the game you have straight, gay, bi, trans NPC characters. You can even be gay, bi, trans yourself.

Notably, Cyberpunk 2077 is not to my knowledge a game Sweet Baby was involved with. So clearly it’s not simply anger at non-straight characters existing in games.

I know more people who are angry that a character in a repeated murder mystery visual novel game isn’t actually trans like they want him to be than I know people who are angry that characters in games are occasionally trans. Or people upset about Kaine from Nier Gestalt/Replicant in general.