Rottcodd @ Rottcodd @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

220

Joined

2 yr. ago

It doesn't matter if it's Reddit, Lemmy or anywhere else - if the username checks out, then the username checks out, and that's an amusing tidbit worth mentioning.

And this is definitely a case in which the username checks out.

Ah. And all the pieces fall into place.

Motherfuckers.

What the fuck business does Israel have "allowing" anything at all to do with Palestine?

And how the fuck does the US government negotiate with fucking Israel regarding Palestine and still continue to pretend that Israel isn't violating Palestinian rights?

And I stand by everything I said there.

And I also believe that the threadiverse will continue to grow overall.

And I don't believe that those two things are in any way contradictory.

And like virtually every one of the similar complaints, this comes from someone who isn't otherwise active, so basically boils down to "I've noticed that other people aren't providing me with enough content. What can we do to get other people to provide me with more content?"

If you want to get more activity in niche communities, POST! And not just once - do it again and again, day in and day out.

The communities that you appreciate didn't just spring into being - they grew, over time, because people did exactly that.

I doubt you'd even get a coherent sentence. Just random strings of emotive nouns and adjectives with irrelevant verbs sprinkled in here and there.

Yeah - I already did a rudimentary version of that (just searching - not going through the Wayback Machine though, and thanks for doing that), and didn't find anything

I'm positive it was there. My first reaction was actually that the judge must've come up with some bullshit excuse to not make the obvious ruling, likely because she didn't have the guts to go through with it, either because she didnt want to be the focus of a legal system that would certainly be shook up by it, or because she didn't want to be targeted by some violent fuckwit Trump supporter.

But then I read the article and switched entirely. I wish I could remember the precise wording, but in effect she said that it had to be an established fact that he engaged in insurrection, and that it was not yet an established fact, and not within the bounds of this case to make that ruling. So I wrote my response.

Then I got off the internet, gamed for a while, and went to bed.

And woke up this morning to... this. And that's unfortunately the extent of my knowledge on the matter.

Was I confused? Maybe, but I tend not to think so, not (just) because my ego prefers that view, but because what I read was sufficient to make my own view do a 180.

But if that bit about established fact really was there, where did it go? And why? And how is it not just gone, but nowhere else I've been able to find?

Damned if I know...

At the time I posted that response, the article included a section in which the judge went on at fairly great length about the need for it to be a fact that he engaged in insurrection, and made the point that it was not yet a legal fact and it was not within her authority to declare it to be such.

And sometime between last night and this morning, that all vanished.

I have no idea what's going on with that, but it was there. I didn't just make it up - I wrote my response based on what I read, 14 hours ago.

I did read the text, and at the time I posted that response, it included an entire section in which the judge said that it had to be a certain fact that he engaged in insurrection and it was not yet an established fact and not within her authority to establish it as a fact - that that was up to the appropriate courts to decode.

And all of that has apparently since been removed from the article.

Which is... odd, to say the least.

Something fishy is going on here.

At the time I posted that response, the article included a whole section of her ruling in which she said that it must be a certain fact that he engaged in insurrection, and that it cannot yet be called a certain fact, and that she is not empowered to decide that it is - that that's a matter for the appropriate courts to decide.

And all of that is now gone.

I'll have to see if I can find it elsewhere, because it was there.

I hate to say this, but the judge is right and pretty much everyone on this thread is wrong.

What she's saying is that she believes that he engaged in insurrection, but that her belief is not sufficient to keep him off the ballot. And she's right.

It's going to have to be an established fact that he engaged in insurrection, and in a court setting, that means that he's going to have to be convicted.

Not just charged, and not just pretty obviously guilty - convicted.

Like it or not, just like anyone else, as far as a court is concerned, he's innocent until proven guilty.

i would go so far as to say that eliminating the influence of psychopaths on civilization is the single most important thing we need to do for the survival of our species - that if we don't get all of these obviously profoundly mentally ill fucks out of their positions of power one way or another, nothing else we do is going to matter.

Yes.

I still don't even begin to understand how any human being could be so vile and repugnant, but yes - it's almost certainly the case that they got where they are through a lifetime of being vile and repugnant, so their current loathsomeness is just a continuation of a lifelong pattern.

And by the bye, that was notably well written. Kudos.

Even when I can see the ROI (I'm sure the money the Israeli government intends to leech from US taxpayers far outstrips the amount they'll spend to support politicians who can be counted on to vote in favor of it), I just can't understand the amorality of it all.

Are they all psychopaths? That's the conclusion I keep coming back to - that they're just psychologically defective, such that they just don't have any empathy or restraint or sense of shame - that they're as morally void as serial killers, and just exercise their evil in a somewhat different way.

No other explanation makes any sense. Anyone with even the tiniest shred of common decency would be unlikely to choose to do the things they do, and unable to live with themselves if they did, so it must be the case that they don't even have a shred of decency - that they're literal psychopaths.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to be that twisted and broken.

That entire article is nauseating.

A fucking group of psychopaths spending hundreds of millions of dollars in order to try to skew the elections so that they can more comfortably pursue their preferred pastimes of murdering Palestinian civilians, stealing their land and slurping up US taxpayer money.

How does anyone even live like that? Seriously - that's the thing I most don't get. How could any human being be such a reprehensible piece of shit that they can actually get up in the morning and spend their day trying to manipulate an election because they don't want the person who criticizes them for murdering civilians to win - they want to be able to murder civilians in peace? How do these people even live with themselves?

Yeah, and we'll see how this sack of shit CEO actually feels about cutting "entitlements" the next time the banks make a fortune blowing up a bubble, then look to the Fed to bail their asses out when it inevitably pops.

My first reaction when I saw it was that it appears to be the case that the justices are not only corrupt, but stupid. Or pathological. Or both.

It's not just that it's unenforceable - even though it's unenforceable, it also goes out of its way to be weak and mealy-mouthed. They couldn't even manage to make any clear statements - it's all vaguely non-specific gestures that boil down to "we sort of think that justices maybe oughta not do things that might look bad to other people." As if the whole notion of judicial ethics is so far outside of their awareness that they not only can't impose any, but can't even manage to put together a passable pretense.

Presumably it was supposed to help - to make it look as if they do actually have some ethics. And it resoundingly failed.

What it did for me was move me from reasonably sure that at least some of them are corrupt to dead certain that they all are, and not only corrupt but so grossly corrupt that they don't even know how to pretend otherwise.

SOS Pads and Scotch Tape

Mark Sandman

"Failing" implies that it was unintentional.

The evidence quite clearly indicates that it was not - that it was instead a very deliberate choice made in pursuit of long-term goals

Netanyahu explicitly rejects a two-state solution. His goal is to annex all existing Palestinian territory.

The Palestinian people are justifiably unwilling to submit to that, because they know that that way leads to them being made second-class citizens of an apartheid state.

The only alternative then is for Israel to conquer those territories - to kill enough Palestinians to terrorize the rest into subjugation. And that is, certainly not coincidentally, the exact strategy they're pursuing at this moment.

And the Hamas attack is the specific thing that made it possible for them to do so with at least some colorable semblance of justification.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that when the Israeli government learned of the planned attack, a deliberate choice was made to not move to prevent it - to allow it to happen, because it would serve Netanyahu's purposes when it did. As it has.