If we compare two Robi/yns.....
One of these has worked in ways that advance social justice, and if engaged after workshops over issues with metrics and models she's used, is also aware of the problems in realistic, adequately simple systems to scale or classify complex humans, and has worked to improve same. (That I know from in person discussions after events.) The other does social justice warrior (SJW) virtue signalling, but is a dangerous nutcase the world might be better off without. Shouldn't be hard to tell which is which:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Ochs
https://www.robindiangelo.com/about-me/

Then look up the Peggy McIntosh "knapsack", and consider whether it's a realistic model, or a sign of the Northhampton, MA neurotic bitches cult camp.

Which is most likely to have some rather problematic influence over Google HR practices, and in turn how staff treat users?

> @Zurich04 I totally agree i live by the Einstein quote where if you can’t explain something simply or to a level where someone can understand you don’t fully understand it yourself.

Are you really that dishonest, or prone to misrepresenting Einstein (an all too common logical fallacy practice)?

Einstein admonished to "keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Common law interpretation of laws that are widely violated in practice, with impunity due to broken courts and corporate and government bad actors, is NOT simple. The paragraph of DMCA on which that was focused is, but there's no way anyone too lazy or stupid to find and read one paragraph, can be spoon fed the context and meaning.

Malicious law is drafted by treacherous, underhanded, sick fucks in power and their henchmen. Try reading the two paragraphs of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that purported to revive and expand the long since overturned Comstock Act. They were written to look like simple legislative codification conformance language, but were anything but that. They were also not obvious as to real meaning even to civil rights activists and counsel who tried to read that devious Bill, until months after its passage.

Sometimes tolerating facial hyper-simplicity is dangerous, and when other process fails, we need public drawing and quartering for officials. Lacking that, mandates for more detailed legislative justification, and bans on amendments that change meaning without new sections and clear topic headers, could be important protections even if more complexity is added.

What percentage of Americans are functionally literate enough to do such reading? I'd consider all who aren't, which is most, incompetent to be responsible adults in our democratic society, a serious paradox of competency and inclusion.

Israel... But there, since the entire country is a genocide fabrication newer than the ICC Crime of Genocide adoption, the very existence of government and its mercenaries is criminal, at the same time as being lawn forcement.

One can tell a lot about countries with cyclic domestic issues by what ammo is being dumped cheap on the world market.

When the Balkans blew up and trashed Yugo exports and a major world infrastructure of lead and cadmium mines used for batteries and hardware plating, 9x19 and 5.56x45 NATO rounds with YKK headstamps that had been prolific and cheap in the USA (imported via Hansen et al), dried up, and Weird Al forgot to include that in his Madonna parody, "Like a Serbian" (bombed for the very first time). But then, IMI rounds replaced them, as at the time, Israel had lots of surplus capacity, until the next cycle when the Zionist Jews4Jenocide just knew more Palestinians needed killing, and the UN process was still rigged to ignore the whole of relevant law.

Study the history of Zionism, and how it played on the UK ending colonialism plus sympathies post-WW-II, to extend a century of rigged land sales into seizing Palestine by military invasion, in the same year the Crime of Genocide was adopted in international law (largely pushed by sympathy for Jews being victims of Germany's NS-DAP, which was actually more similar than different from Zionists, as supremacist violent gangs seeking exclusive homelands).

If one studies international war and related law, it's pretty easy to conclude that most people belong in prison or dead, and that any exemptions are more likely in nations with brutal dictators, and never in participatory democracies where paying taxes or voting meets the (impossible to enforce) legal tests for the Crime of Genocide.

So by that standard, the USA and UK, among others, go down with Israel, or at least everyone acting as military or economic or social allies do.

There are also issues as to whether being a Rome Statute signatory should matter. It's a bit like questioning if the archaic Law of Nations is really realistic in a global telecom, travel and economics village, alongside whether at the nation-state level, if the equivalent of a bank robber has a valid claim to not being violent major criminals if each individual bank robber didn't proactively agree up front to be subject to criminal laws.

> Zionism is no different than "America First".
@Yussuki ₪
But it is different, at least in terms of historic development of international law, and formation by crimes at the time of the country's origin. The US Trail of Tears for Indian tribes was a lot like the century of rigged land sales in Palestine that enabled the 1950's war based grab for the remainder, but that predates any such modern law. The entire Doctrine of Discovery based colonialism of most of Africa and parts of the Americas and Asia was a human rights scam and genocide competition among at least 7 European powers, but that's a bygone era of history now.

Zionism (and actions it drove) differ mainly in terms of its genocide scams falling into the period of modern world class crimes, where many political and military allies had assumed obligations to prevent that.

Relevant to that ICC/UN framework, Israel;s existence being a fraud and criminal isn't subjective. It was primarily based on violent crimes at the time of land seizure and formation.

There are major issues with how that body of law works, and now after generations of Israelis, what can be done about it. But, that history cannot be undone.

A claim of Zionists is that Jews have some claim to Palestine, as they're Jews, and Jews are entitled arrogant pieces of shit. On that basis, why didn't we help Hitler clean up that crime problem? Those same Zionists were on record claiming it'd be worth the deaths of half of Jews worldwide, if they could steal Palestine as Zion. Lots of respect for more peaceful fellow Jews there, eh?

And with the UN, process was rigged to exclude Palestine from having a seat to timely protest, sort of like how Somalia during civil wars was excluded from process to demand to not be used as Asia's HazMat dump, making cheap stuff for the US and EU.

There is no such thing as "absolute morality", and most users of that term are either self-deluded and wearing blinders over core societal issues, or predatory frauds trying to manipulate others who fail to see that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

Most of those land sales were rigged with the help/conspiracy of the UK, as part of its colonialism involvement.

Oddly given how my awareness has shifted as I've over many years realized how Israel was formed, I as an intellectual techie have more affinity with education-focused, generally English speaking Jews, than most Arabs.

I see reparations as an issue of historic "old" abuses. Since Israel is part of the modern law era internationally (that I see as starting to evolve with the war crimes conventions as Berne & its updates, or Geneva on POW's etc), it qualifies to be eradicated and land and economic assets returned to Palestine control. The post-Ottoman Empire split of Arab tribes into modern geopolitical nation-states with governments that have a challenge to wrestle millennium old feuding tribes in a single nation, falls on the other side of that "old history" line at this point, but I agree has lots of messy issues, both internally, and as to what or how external threats qualify to be externally regulated, or not.

It'd be interesting to see if the issues of suicide bombers and other terrorism cells ever formed, had the US, UK, and allies not backed the wrongful formation of Israel on stolen land. That's one for the hypotheticals arena at best.

In terms of military strategy, most of the series of follow up wars and related war crimes perpetrated by Israel make sense, but only if the foundational existence of Israel is valid. Since it's based on fundamentally criminal and fraud based origins, within the current era of international law, that validity seems void.

==

As to the Downing Street memo, I was among those who once available, inspected it, and noted the Word metadata headers that identified its origins as a specific LAN node PC in Scotland Yard. Linguists I know, and others of more notoriety, observed it was also the wrong language for the alleged interception source.

Whether the point at which GHW Bush stopped our first Iraq invasion was wise, or was misguided even if reflecting his ethics to comply with select war crimes limits, is a messy question that at least shows him to be an intelligent, honest politician (of whom I have some added knowledge as he was in my dad's Yale class).

What his son the Chimp in Chief later did, along with Blair and Scotland Yard, qualify the whole bunch of them for summary extermination, albeit the EU operating the Hague court seems to disdain anything beyond caging such criminals, if it's even allowed to prosecute them. (Note, GW Bush as Bab's "accident", hatched when Ms. Pierce was fucking the returned Army Air Corps fly boy from WW-II, after she graduated the Northampton Neurotics Cult Camp (Smith '47), and had to wait around for Yale '48 to end before heading down to Texas to pop out a more orderly series of planned kids.) Or, too bad the Chimp didn't die while coked up and drunk, AWOL from the TANG assignment rigged for him to avoid the heroin laden festivities in Nam....

Strange how history can be shaped by those dark underbellies of power families, and not just their public faces. One could also note how the Bush Chimp's SAT scores were way too low for Yale admission, but were waived due to robber baron Prescott's old money, and GHWB's legacy status.

All that's irrelevant to the issue of the 1948 violations of Genocide law, even if applicable to whether additional crimes were perpetrated in the conduct of (but not the existence of) later wars or secondary issues.

When the very issue of settlements arises only as "poison fruit" of prior Rome Statute related crimes, it cannot undo those prior violations used as the basis for what followed.

As mentioned before, how the UN process was rigged to empower Zionists as Israel, and outcast Palestine, raises serious legitimacy issues with major aspects of so-called peace process and international law.

Try going back and consider 1800-1945, 1948 era, and 1950's on, as elements of that progression that need separate review as blocks built upon each other, and different eras of evolving global law.

This is complicated shit, but to use another analogy, there are classic fairness issues of two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. If one wolf is the Zionists, another their supporters, and Palestine the sheep, how the UN was manipulated is more like the sheep not being voted down, but excluded from being in the room to vote at all.

In theory UN process recognizes how political factions can attempt gross abuses and to get UN process used to call them legitimate. That's why Security Council and some other processes have a strong veto option. But if the key players aren't allowed a voice, that process doesn't work.

> Basically Israelis failed to protect the civil population, which lead to a massacre
@Yussuki ₪
Prior to shifting from genocide by paper, mostly prior to that law being adopted (and so then ethical rather than criminal issues), to war for land grabs, there was NO Israel. And so no Israelis to defend.

Even if the UN rigged scams were badly broken, Palestine has some right to defend against crimes against it, to this day, and Israel is ALWAYS wrong, to the extent its very formation was criminal and void (even if it got away with it, and for various evangelical faux-xtian politics and oil economics reasons, has some large military allies since).

Also of note, Zionist leaders claim to represent 100% of Jews globally. That's obviously not true, as there is Jewish opposition to Zionist crimes, or as most people included in such claims aren't politically active or aware participants (eg, few Warsaw ghetto Jews were parts of the French bankers foreclosing Kaiser homes, nor London Zionist core).

> Your assertion that "If you have no land, you have no people" is wrong.
@Yussuki ₪
I've been talking mostly about issues of certain laws and their parameters. Of course I'm aware of demographics not connected to national governments, and civil wars with mass killings or displaced people and refugee issues where there may or may not ever be a home to return to. But, most of that, does not apply to laws of governments being formed by illegal wars of aggression or genocide efforts.

We might also consider Tibet, Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Cote d'Ivoire, Burma/Myanmar, and other cases of internal regions or oppressed minorities, or demographics widely dispersed. But, a fair amount of international law, is based around the concept of nations as players, not dispersed populations.

Israel is part of a globally important mess, and in part because it's a small and focused region, the issues involved are more possible to identify and analyze than other cases of far more spread out events over time and place.

> I agree but Big Countries should in theory protect weaker peoples right?
@Yussuki ₪
That one's not so easy. I see a need for a precarious balance between standards and systems to leave others alone, versus intervene in rights protections.

When most US states violate international human rights law, where do we turn for international help shutting down those violators?

When human rights law sounds so idealistic in its first paragraph, but then turns to Swiss cheese in the second with exemptions for national laws that uniformly oppress everyone (even if religious or cultural minorities, or key related practices including views on "nudity" (that cannot so much as be defined in valid ways), sex/sexuality, speech content, etc, that pretend to not reflect the biases they do), what good is that law?

As we've recently discussed, just in the USA, there are some serious messes between states and Federal jurisdictions, and issues of malicious enforcement of bad laws or twisted interpretations, as well as non-enforcement for political scam reasons.

To use the Balkans civil wars as an example, the USA pretended to have serious human rights concerns there, despite some far more lopsided predatory abuses in other world regions. An old partner in crime who founded a small newspaper where I was one of his editorial Board years ago, turned by then NY Times foreign Bureau Chief, ran three articles on the mining and refining infrastructure there, and its economic value, as reasons for the US to use human rights as a fake excuse for military intervention with less than zero real concern for war victims. Wall Street Journal noticed and ran one derivative article. Other US press was a black hole of silence.

When Team Amerika, World Poleece, is a financial predator scam, and ignores more serious rights abuses lacking economic targets, what does that say about the state of human rights or enforcement process?

Or conversely, George Soros, or institutions hiring guys like John Perkins or some of his former associates, as economic hit men to use predatory foreign loans and takedown terms to destroy nations? No bullets required?

It's not helpful when Zurich makes false claims, possibly failing to read the very recent comments he alleged don't exist directly above.

I could expand many examples in cultures and religions, but have too many other tasks active to do so now. And no reason to, unless some good faith discussion arises, which delusion or lazy/reckless ignorance is not to me.

> Perhaps reality is something like chaos and oder
@anurag
Shaped chaos IS a form of order, and very common in nature.

Protecting chaos is intrinsic to rights protections for diverse groups, while limits on chaos may also be part of survival and function, or forms of abuse when driven by cult dogma or emotional dysfunction in some or many.

Travis's next partner will undoubtedly come from old school Haight-Ashbury, and know about handing tickets out for god?
(Bernie Taupin had witnessed some white robed xtian evangelists trying to recruit subjects for a ride on their old school bus, from that SF neighborhood, to a monastery an hour or so away, where they were captive to religious presentations.)

The defects in so much as legally defining "pornography" from Jacobellis v Ohio in 1964, have never been cured and likely cannot be.

Dominant religious or cultural lens bias is a major issue for audiences to wrestle with as their own issues, separate or triggered by the docu-drama. US-ians tend to be pathetic and grossly immature if not hostile bigots over that range of issues.

Sexually suggestive cultural rituals are normal for 10-12 year olds in some world regions. When AIDS was at its worst in some regions of Africa, girls pushed child bearing downward towards age 12 as a coping strategy, so they'd be alive with their kids when many were dying around age 17.

We've got our own problems, with a paradox when most humans are not yet functional adults in complex economics-industrial society by age 25 or even far later (regardless of legal bright lines for majority), but civil rights standards require consideration to puberty as an entry to sexual adulthood, and median first consensual sex norms are age 17 in our culture. As a global village of immigrants dragging in many cultures and religions, all of those become part of our mismatched human and legal standards in ways that often diverge.

What kinds of idiots expect reconciling that mess to be "comfortable"?

> @Buddha I feel like the only who likes the movie and is against the sexualization of young girls, but for what it’s worth, that’s the whole point of the movie. There’s literally an interview where the woman who made it says that she was concerned about really young girls mimicking what they see online and wanted to draw attention to that happening. I’m starting to wonder if anyone here actually watched the movie lol
@Katelyn

I have not watched yet, but it is in my cue to be notified when it's more readily available on streaming services I use.

Anyone pretending there's a "bright line" between "adult" and other "acts", fails to recognize development is a transition process, not some politician or lawyer defined arbitrary convenience, nor what some hate cult preacher or financial predator group may spout as propaganda.

A doctor friend with grad degrees in Psych and Soc, while working in supervisory central administration of a state child and elderly protective agency, noticed her younger sister's 12 year old skinny blond kid on Facebook, hitting on 18-20+ year olds for sex. The younger sister/mother had a long problematic history, and there had been a period of years when my friend had the niece living with her.

Friend walks down the hall a few times over subsequent days, to discuss what child abuse intervention options may exist in law or practice, talking mostly to senior/supervisory social workers of some field experience. Conclusion, nearly anything that agency could do to "protect" the kid, would likely be more harmful than not intervening. (Another now deceased and far brighter Psychologist friend took over another state's CPS for 3 years under contract and developed a model carrots and sticks plus parental support services model program, but it's too expensive to fund absent grants and grad student slave labor, within budgets and case loads of most states.)

Anyway, bad mother kid sister gets more involved after a few not so pleasant family conversations, and friend tries to resume more frequent contacts with the niece, until as an older teen, the kid moves out sporadically for a series of not so healthy young adult relationships.

And that case didn't involve the triple cocktail of gross illiteracy, addiction, and poverty, that's part of nearly all termination of parental rights severe abuse cases. But CPS systems where in discussions between those in theory developing functional policy, were found incapable of doing so. And they're still overloaded pretending to put out serious fires. But, public case data is sanitized to protect political bosses, though as someone who's done IT work on CPS cases, confidentiality protects politician scammers from being called out using factual evidence.

Is some movie that reflects kids involved in arts and culture activities that are controversial by other cultural expectations, somehow a bigger deal than that reality?

BTW, contrary to law and political treatment, the 12 year old in that case was the one acting as a sexual predator....

Well, obviously Federal law and Facebook policy prevent a 12 year old from even making a profile, never mind one that claims a higher age that's fake, with deceptive pictures that appear to maybe be of an older teen, so that can't happen? Or, are both alleged child protective laws and Facebook policy dysfunctional bullshit when most bright kids learn to circumvent them?

I've already used the term "paradox" to describe how I see the chaotic mix of developmental human reality with legal bright line artificial standards for alleged clarity law is mandated to offer, and civil rights criteria where I see cause to protect rights to be sexually active by age 12 for those who are ready (but that's often hard to determine absent hindsight from age 40-50 or so), along with protection from imposing kids on society unless capable of parenting responsibly (which is never for far too many humans). You may find I've also called the mix of divergent and precisely fuzzy issues there "messy".

I'd probably support national civil rights standards that mandate an age of sexual consent for US state laws around 14 as Canada developed in its major overhaul some years back, but restrictions on hatching kids by anyone below majority or possibly absent licensing proving parental resources and skills (that'd get hissy fits as racial and other bias, but really, hatching a kid is the most burdensome thing humans can impose on the ecosystem and society). Just as with immigration law, I'd be surprised to see such changes as possible absent revolutionary changes. My exposure to CPS data and abuse cases reinforces that there are millions of cases, where it would not violate civil rights to ban people from hatching kids.

Also, I see the movie Cuties as potentially useful to society if it prompts serious discussion of important cross-cultural issues. I'd be curious to see more responses from around the world, as it appears the producer intent and movie content may be a bit different than Netflix promotions in the USA. Netflix seems to show more predatory financial interest via button pushing, than social benefit concern that seems closer to the intent of the movie as produced.

One other reflection.... I don't think it's possible to subject a kid to the stressors overloaded society the USA now has, without it being abusive in many ways. Despite any issues of legal criteria, mature parenting is a mix of skills and process, where much of that can be taught but not in ways that translate well to online discussions or formal regulations. There is also a need for support systems, but many of those people seek from government are contrary to our legal limits on government, while others develop by private groups that are also often subject to conflicting claims of values or practices that may be helpful to some kids and harmful to others, or to society overall.

There are Psychologists and Social Workers I've known who clearly should have licenses revoked if not be in prison, and others whose wisdom and skills ideally could be replicated more widely. Just as with parents, it's really hard to use words alone to define what that reflects.

t's not a "hate statement" to say that arrogant little Jewboy piece of shit Zuckerberg should be live streamed being slowly lowered into a hot tar bit, after several days drizzled inn honey and tied spread eagle near fire ants.

One cannot honestly discuss maor elements of US Constitutional law, nor world history, without discussing reasons specified in various official standards for when and why some people qualify to be heled becoming dead, or demand same.

However, to others, nearly the same words are incomprehensible as not being hateful, and they're mental midgets who need to be ridiculed into suicide for that emotional and intellectual disability.

"I think it's properly lawful to shoot drunk drivers, except by cops."

^^ reasonable interpretation of MPC 2nd degree assault, and hte carnage done by drunk drivers. I've almost been killed by one; friends and relatives have been.

Drunk took out my electric and cable last night, but that'sminor compared to other shit they do. I'm only here hit and run until the predator vulture capital Canadians who hiacked the cable system replace the massacred entire pedestal next to the now patched until Monday replacement electric pole, among other daage.

Food for thought: Overall, which criminals inflict the most damage? Facebook, Indian robocall scammers, drunk drivers, or a lone murderer?

FB was founded on IPtheft, and its basic business plan is a fraud of privacy violations and misrepresentation.

It's also sold felony discrimination targeted marketing of rental properties and similar protected classes, while it;s cospired with Israel in genocide, and contracted to the Jew Propaganda front ADL for slander and defamation campaigns trying to sidetrack criminal investigations of its operations.

Plus, its idiotic religion and culture prejudiced censors attack protected classes, even if by selection of biased criteria or warped interpretations. eg, Travis didn't say he hates girls; but he did screw up claiming he sighted, vs cited, an example to a topic set off in quotations, of "I hate all girls".

==

(sorry about elevated typos on my part.... on mobile for a few, and Atlantic Broadband lied to me last night about fixing the torn up pedestal and trunk to drop damage.)

DMCA safe harbor is not a valid excuse for felony discrimination in illegal advertising. Among other violations and frauds. FB is just so big, it scares most state and local prosecutors who lack resources to go after it, great reasons to view it (et al) as illegal monopolies.

The dummy Ireland corporations (copied by IAC/I etc) is reasonably seen as evidence of frauds being malicious, and demanding elevated penalties.

If anyone followed the "two Roby/ins" example links I posted the other day, one's done life work for which Ihave a ton of respect, and is a respectable human in direct dealings with others. The other is a predatory fraud psychobitch, who society would be better having as pant food pushing up daisies. But, even that's not a "hate statement" (but could be from someone else); it reflects how harmful such scammers are, many of whom are in fact anger or hate driven.

plant food...

GIGO - False premises, non-sequiturs, even if there are some loosely related interesting issues.

What constitutes consent by the guest of honor in snuff?

Why?

What requirements?

How do we avoid prejudices of nutcase shrinks, or about ritual sex killing, when cleaning religious garbage from the DSM is still a problem?

PEPFAR is not supposed to be based on the politics of religious bigotry, but it is for Repugnicants. [sic, sick]

(That's a primary world health project of US Dept of State funding.)

Does the idea of collecting all 7 DSM releases (-iii & -IV had tr updates) to research political, religious, and other bias, that arguably amounts to medical malpractice, scare off everyone else here? (Yes, every edition is in my personal library.)

Want to borrow my AT897 shotgun mic, w/ a nice wind muff over the base windscreen, and on a shock mount and pole? Then add a musician's condenser mic boom headset so you're not holding your own mic, and have hands free for other needs?

You did well in that new video engaging some guys on pretty heavy meds.... But who weren't entirely honest about their comorbidities, when an anti-psychotic known for nasty side effects was part of the cocktail. Does AlbertaHealth push cheap formularies, over less nasty to users on such meds?

^^^ How abut if you dose that with Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin, as suggested by UK doctors Adam Kay & Suman Biswah?

Sure, but some other time. I'm on a less stable and limited cap AP until Iget my utiliities fixed from a drunk tearing stuff up Friday. '

> @m.miller I'm going to correct this a bit. Fallacious arguments are allowed, but if they are repeated over and over and over and it turns into "preaching" the same thing, then it can become bad faith. And yes, attacking the person and not the argument is not welcome. No level of defamation will be tolerated. For instance, if someone claims "Biden is a pedophile" and the evidence they site is him touching the arm of a young girl, that's defamation.
@ThePangburn

Politicians like that are inherently "public figures" and subject to different standards for libel or slander (often loosely called "defamation", confusing legal and colloquial meanings). US case law has two defining benchmarks.

"Roxanne sleeps with her trumpet" was close enough to factually true (in a several hour interview, Ms. Pulitzer described playing the trumpet, and storing it in the corner of her bedroom), to not be libel of a public figure. A parody full page Hustler ad for Campadre liqeur, mimicing a Playboy Dewars Profile, was found so facetious that a "reasonable person" (legal "term of art") would not believe it was meant to claim Jerry Falwell actually lost his virginity to his mother while drunk in an outhouse, regardless of the disposition of the goat.

Canada may get confused with UK law that isn't as clear as in the USA, where truth is an absolute defense against claims being libel or slander. There are also cases where someone's illegal actions in an official capacity deserve ad hominem against the underlying person, and destroying his professional career, eg the UK doctor who was paid to publish fake studies as commercial frauds, tricking many idiots into believing that thimerosol preserved vaccines somehow cause autism. Or, mental illness cases like Kanye West (and a few others less well known) allegedly running for political office, up to and including US President, despite not doing the legal steps required. Or malignant narcissists not as public figures, filing false criminal complaints or other vexatious litigation to torment or terrorize innocent targets.

Cases like Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg or Marissa Mayer (before being paid to leave Yahoo!) are also ones where illegal business plans and acts to advance them are inseparable between key individuals and those acts. The other class where derogatory speech is not legal "defamation" in US terms is smears that express opinion with no factual claim, often over political positions that are controversial, but seen as desirable to some, intolerable to others.

BTW, site, sight, cite (casual abbreviation for citation).... Can we stop conflating those, along with fake pedophile smears by people who deserve to be defamed for not knowing accurate word meanings, or worse, knowing but inviting a Harry Frankfurt book style review as to being bullshitters versus just liars?

> @LokiV a joke is not defamation. You could afford to be more pragmatic in the delivery of your thoughts. Sometimes our phones auto correct incorrectly. This is just the reality of technology.
@ThePangburn

So Travis, you'd be willing to pay the legal retainers for Colbert and Kimmel shows, since jokes cannot draw legal action as they're incapable of being actionable as slander or libel?

Your claim is simply not true, while it's an issue of distinguishing relevant details that determines the difference. Give or take 5-10 years of one's life plus millions for legal fees, that the "joke" of a "justice" system imposed under threat of kidnapping or execution, pretends every target of its process must have available for potential litigation, even if patently absurd or malicious. Falwell even won a $400k judgment that could have stood, had Flynt not kicked in over $2 million in legal fees alone to get that fraud based judgment (Falwell's allegedly harmed mother was effectively a fiction character, not any actual person in context) reversed.

Do you remember when MasterCard had NYC law firm Baker-Botts sending often specious legal threat letters to satire and parody video and graphic ad publishers, whether for the "Priceless" theme, or "MasterRace"? They intimidated lots of targets to cave, until a couple got help from PILG projects at Harvard law and Public Citizen in DC, and shut down that abuse of legal process. In the process, US protections for such speech was expanded as clearly protecting commercial satire and parody, versus previously only noncommercial forms.

Too bad the best of those used older video tech, as the one that concludes with a girl's father telling her to give the guy a blow job already, was "Priceless".

There used to be a (now likely retired if not deceased) nudist from Hawaii who went by the alias Dr. Leisure, and who taught college courses in various aspects of leisure in our lives or society.

Did Pangburn miss International Talk Like a Pirate Day, Arrrggh!?

Which would make a more useful legal or cultural holiday, ITLAPD, or Moosemas? Moosemas is the flexible holiday which can be declared when needed, any day. Uncertain if it has special meaning to salesmen named Bruce, or pagans or SCAdians who've sung the Moose Song. Imagine, if you would, employers and government trying to deal with calendars and Moosemas, or the lengths they'd go to trying to suppress it?

> I'm breaking out my legos today :)
@m.miller
Are you making anything discernible, or just holding tribute to chaos as a form of natural order?

How about a Moose, a pirate, and a pirate ship?

Is that wingless avian on loan from Bible Camp, where faux-xtian sexuality predators do their best to indoctrine kids into delusion and fraud based dogma, intended to cripple healthy emotional or sex lives and pervert secular political standards?

> Best voting system is the Amazon Ranking System. Applied in politics, it will make things more fair.
@Yussuki ₪
Correction, more corrupt in new and more insidious ways.

Amazon is a fraud. Their size intimidates many prosecutors from filing charges against tthem.

Amazon among other things sells black market products, from their own warehouses, and gives them Amazon's Choice badges to boost sales. They sell spec frauds of many items. They only rarely fail to evade liability when they burn down houses, and pretend products where they handle goods and transactions under consolidated multi-seller listings, are somehow entirely a pro forma third party's liability.

Jeff Bezos belongs in prison, as do many of his IT and marketing people.

As to sales spec's, how does Amazon Prime free monthly books tweak sales, and make ratings not comparable to say NY Times best seller lists?
How has Amazon used extortionate and monopolistic abuse tactics to destroy most already out of business private book sellers?

What percentage of LED, battery, audio, and related tech products have listing frauds, or import restrictions such as radio spectrum legal compliance frauds, among Amazon sales? (It's huge, but hard to document.)

As to sales ranks, there are lots of other tricks used by corrupt sellers, often Chinese who play games of facial politeness while saying go fuck yourself from idiots and criminal gangs behind them, as well as Amazon itself, to manipulate sales in ways that would get a local seller a state could effectively prosecute shut down. As should be Amazon.

It'd also be interesting if China had sunshine laws for legal process, to see how dirty Jack Ma is.

> I was talking about the Ranking System of Amazon. Not about the Amazon company per se.
@Yussuki ₪

And I mentioned several ways in which Amazon per se and vendors pervert the ranking system, within such a corrupt system it's unfit for any trusted use. Not that most elections in the USA even have candidates who aren't crooks who belong not in office, anyway.

Address that issue, and some of security, and I'd favor anonymous token voting. That also requires TPM systems, but it could go far reducing or ending Gerrymandering and other election tampering, if there were no public records of who voted or when and where, but only who was authorized to vote, and outcomes.

PV (as defined long ago in Roberts Rules of Order), aka RCV, doesn't start to address those issues.

As to jobs creation if we're now rationalizing or seeking out opportunities for scammers to be crooks from difficult to prosecute locations and strategies, why not employ more people firebombing robocall scam centers? Or sex trafficking to high overhead specialties that could reduce global warming, like to necrophiliacs? Or, Soylent Green factories, as at least that allows voluntary termination of miserable lives, without resorting to larger scale crimes.

Care to articulate a bit more procedural detail, for how that'd function for 150 through 100 million plus voters, and zero through 50 candidates?

As an example of another factional deal making system, Jagmeet Singh of Canada's NDP just cut a deal with Trudeau's "Liberal Party", to form an alliance majority and prevent an election that might unseat the existing pluralilty minority on top.

"On Thursday, the Liberals increased the proposed weekly unemployment payout to match the amount millions of unemployed Canadians had received as emergency support during the pandemic to win the NDP backing. "

That style of modified Westminster System would not be likely to garner the levels of support to amend the US Constitution to implement it. OTOH, ending our Electoral College might. They tend to get ignored by media and schools, but US ConLaw changes to election process, eg term limits for Presidents, direct election of Senators, etc., are the focus of more Amendments than any other field of government process change.

Also for the record, I am a fan of PV/RCV. However, when I've been party to elections in small and mid size NGO's where we've used it, even among relatively high IQ organization leaders, there have been disparities that show how many people struggle to think clearly about how such systems work. Given the types of errors made by voters after most election tech was updated in the US over the last 2 decades, PV would likely disfavor millions of less thoughtful or strategic voters (and very few Americans have a solid understanding of our election law and process).

I'd actually favor a competence test for voters, but I wouldn't trust any system of officials who'd likely manage one to do so. We'd also get racial and other complaints about (nonexistent) bias, because of race and IQ correlations that do affect how well people process information. As to competency standards (noting that's one factor explicitly exempt from discrimination protections here), I'd likely find guys like Nate Silver and his peers at Princeton and UMinn election projects to not pass, as they're too narrowly focused on excellent analysis of some issues while ignoring many other relevant, important ones. That's a problem of complexity and scale of our larger society though, when some of our brighter and engaged minds lack the time if not processing capacity to engage across what citizens overseeing political, judicial, and military actors do, can entail.

(A Buddhist/Taoist style polarity process might avert the incapacity of binary cosmologies to process facial paradox aspects of world realities.)

> "Care to articulate a bit more procedural detail, for how that'd function for 150 through 100 million plus voters, and zero through 50 candidates?" ===> Well, every person votes, and the candidate / party with most Stars, wins. The rest of the seats are redistributed according to the number of start each candidate has.
@Yussuki ₪
Unrealistic, and unworkable.

For a quick crude comparison of products, that's close enough in Amazon, except for the frauds where if they were penalized 10% of revenues for each case, Bezos and their investors would be severely underwater in about 7 milliseconds. And still deserve prison for the criminal aspects of that business plan.

For public elections with potentially more than 5 candidates, or expectations of specific vote counts, no way.

> do we have anyone who is wanting to do some street epistemology? Especially those of you not in the US or Canada? If you want more info, send me an email at michaela@pang-burn.com
@m.miller
Isn't that reserved for late night comedy talk show host bits, demonstrating just how few MwCK's have much clue about local through world knowledge?

But how many of those, are proud of their devout idiocy?

> I met some Mormon missionaries back when I rode my bike to work. They were really nice people. I attended their church the last day they were there before going back to Utah. Their churches are really cool actually. No paid staff and no pastor, for example.
@Empty - Mark

The difference between LDS doorbell ringers, and Yahweh's Witlesses, is that LDS requires a modicum of actual education before they go out to prey on the public. Both have their own nutcase dogma, not that many others don't also compete in that arena.

Unlike Witlesses, LDS field marketing rituals, at times when lead roles for Orgazmo-II, the movie, aren't open, are intended to teach the predators to be more effective predators. That invites trying to consume more of their time and energy away from potential victims if one is free to do so, or blowing them off knowing that to do otherwise assists their strategic role, even if as individuals stripped of the evangelical abuse strategy they may seem otherwise human (now, about Pentecostals, or murderous PCA Presbyterians, or flag, pledge, and money tampering P-USA Presbyterians, or genocide cult molester Cathy-licks....).

> Why so antagonistic? Perhaps too much red meat.
@ola
Medium rare looks more like 'think pink'?

Or Sci-Fi and Mormons saving the world, all the while explaining the young mother's t-shirt at a South Park school bus stop, with "DVDA"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgazmo

Do you have to be a meth addict who hires male prostitutes to be a notable "Christian" programmer?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/06/jesus-camp-christian-documentary-kids-10-years-later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

It's interesting to compare the production costs, box office returns, and MPAA reactions, across Jesus Camp, Dogma, Religulous, and Orgazmo.

Or, hypocritical use of child abuse standards, or obstruction of justice.

What would happen if so-called "christians" were actually expected to do serious bible study?

http://churchofallworlds.org/content/node/145

There are major defects in US tax law, but that's not the major issue with Trump.

Based on investigative work reported on several years ago and earlier, it's pretty clear Trump set up pro forma operators of fake business plan Trump branded businesses, and perpetrated some large securities frauds in debt for equity swaps using fraudulent valuations. The consequences of that include ripping off investors, and masking major business losses that if honestly reported, would have resulted in large tax liabilities, and more Trump company and likely an actual personal bankruptcy, as he didn't have the cash to pay those obligations he used frauds to hide.

The fake valuation debt-equity swaps are complex, and difficult to prosecute without cooperation across agencies regulating different facets of those civil frauds and crimes, and private parties with standing in various Trump operations.

Trump now seems to be using official immunity (that has limits he's our first President ever to test as he's done) and legal delaying tactics, hoping to age out Statute of Limitations issues on key parts of that. He's also paid many civil damage settlements, and even has a team of "fixer" lawyers, from Melania Knavss's porn model work as an illegal alien, to cam girls and strippers he's fucked, to more mundane business frauds.

Of note, one major accounting firm used by Trump declined to make the usual accuracy certifications found on such documents, but rather added a disclaimer that it was unable to certify some of its work as accurate.

==
More than likely Trump's lawyers and accountants delivered tax returns that accurately claim some twisted but no more illegal than what the IRS itself often pulls, interpretation of relevant 26 USC & CFR provisions, but based on assumptions that far larger underlying massive frauds and crimes are buried in complex financial scams that obviously were perpetrated in his case, but are hard to convict.

Is a parking ticket or a series of felony charges more serious, if the felony charges either can't be proven, or are too complex for legal process to enforce to match the actual facts?

A Twitter war by a nutcase is a reminder to watch what was done, not what is said. However, people who look to Twitter for their news on that kind of issues that are multi-thousand person projects (post-Doc forensic accounting, securities and tax law, and many support roles), may be trying to evade what's involved in actually doing serious analysis.

Is it possible to get Trump into prison for enough years before he dies, to watch his narcissist self-image be publicly shredded, and the ill gotten gains transferred to his wives and kids asset forfeited or paid in fines or damages?

Happy Schadenfreude Day!

> "You ought to go there an see the lake" = "Go there and see the lake" in My language.
@Yussuki ₪

In many cases, particularly in dogma or bullying tactics to pressure someone, "ought" and similar terms express passive-aggressive pressure on others, that oral and tribal languages of far fewer words cannot express.

Most languages with 10k or so words have only direct and active tense forms of expression, and any predictive or psych pressure expression either doesn't exist (some cultures see that as sick), or requires some mix of body and tonal expression or context, with cultural metaphors. Such languages do poorly in written translation of detailed ideas.

Even English, at around 1.6 million words not counting many scientific and other technical fields, fails to handle concepts like wu wei, is slow to recognize compersion or its complement schadenfreude, or refine ideas sanskrit refines in more detail.

==
In technical writing, it's usually by convention or specification clear when mandatory, optional, or discretionary conditions are used. Words like will, may, shall, must, and ideally also Oxford comma, XOR vs OR (still lacking in good words absent Booleans), have precise and uniform intent. In common usage, so many humans are grossly reckless in language use, that not even the humor found in German TV commercials can be presumed to be understood by a majority of general public audience.

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

I'm among those who had a chance to meet and talk with Bill Benson in both public and private about his research, and with whom he shared access to a massive amount of well documented archival legal and historic legislative research, back around 20 years ago and well prior to his health deteriorating, and then death.

It's pretty clear that the IRS is the ultimate tax fraud, and that various political and judicial operatives have perpetrated a massive criminal scam on the public, and contrary to a number of SCOTUS cases.

There are lots of nutcase anti-taxers, but former IRS CID agent Joe Banister (one of the sharper guys I've met pushing for honest tax law) and Benson as a former state tax official, are not that. They do however oppose government frauds, enforced by courts and guns complicit in major corruption.

How about evaluating the validity of the laws and regulations in question, before trying to inspect their applications or supporting compliance with illegal or invalid laws and regulations?

+++
nb: Both with Bill Benson (whose books were primarily accurate copies of government archives, Federal and 48 relevant states), and Irwin Schiff (whose books covered IRS crimes, and then suggested filing returns that in effect said fuck you crooks), the IRS attacked the speech content of the books as if not 1st Amendment protected, on the basis that it was commercial fraud (which it could not be in Benson's case, and wasn't in Schiff's either as he expressed truthful facts, and then an exasperated opinion that crooks should be flouted, even if 900 pound gorillas or worse).

Many officials belong in prison, from prison officials to judges and Cabinet level officials and their underlings, including for attempted murder of Schiff, Sherry Peel Jackson (a less seemingly bright, Southern black evangelical background CPA, and former IRS investigator), etc.

===
Or, consider this: Since most of the IRS's very existence is not legal (and much of that falls on Congress and courts), most people who've signed an 18 USC 1001 based return certification repeatedly, are in fact serial felons.

Not complying with IRS regulations is codified as criminal misdemeanors, but if the underlying basis for that is not legally valid, neither are those pro forma crimes in malicious legislation and regulations.

How many Americans are serial felons, even if not convicted, and are dishonest or clueless as to how or why? (Also consider Harvard law prof Silverglate's classic book, "Three Felonies a Day", his estimate of what badly structured and malignantly selectively enforced laws really define as the norm for Americans, just under Federal laws....)

===