quindraco @ quindraco @lemm.ee

Posts

5

Comments

764

Joined

2 yr. ago

This thread is a garbage fire - a bunch of people who didn't look anything up (or if they did, they cite no sources, so there's no evidence they did) spouting a bunch of mutually contradictory shit, all of it upvoted. I will never understand why anyone engages with Lemmy this way.

Here is the list of US charges against Assange, from the actual paperwork charging him.

As you can see here, each of the first 17 charges has a maximum penalty of 10 years (not including fines).

Charge 18 is messier. Under USC 371 the max is 5 years. I believe USC 1030 is also capped at 5 years.

So roughly a 175 year sentence, at cap.

Reclusive houses may or may not be recluse houses, you have to check.

Teaching people about racism isn't "pushing division", and this law aims to ban that.

Murphy called DEI efforts “quackery” and said the bill would require schools to stop teaching topics such as intersectionality, colonization, and white supremacy

Sounds like Murphy is a racism supporter - the primary effect of banning the teaching of history is guaranteeing it will be repeated, so this law's apparent intent is encouraging white supremacy.

It's insane to me that he couldn't appeal on the basis of not having been provided an attorney with an incentive to work on his case.

This is Lemmy, we don’t do "informed". Count yourself lucky if anyone in the comments even read the thread's post.

Do not buy a recluse house unless you love spiders.

Yes, they are. Obstinately refusing to understand the mathematics of voting doesn't change the math.

If you're legally allowed to vote in the USA, you almost certainly do vote for capitalists, largely due to fundamental flaws in First Past the Post - you have no way not to. Both abstaining from voting and voting third party are mathematically equivalent to voting for a capitalist, it just makes it messier working out which one you voted for.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/security_deposit

Basically yes.

Year, not years: your 5 year old is 5 years old.

if you aren't voting for him, then I really don't need to associate with you because I know you don't care about anyone other than yourself.

You know other countries exist, right? And none of their citizens will be voting for Biden?

People downvoting you apparently don't believe anyone on Lemmy is:

1. Not a US citizen.
2. 17 or younger come November.
3. An ex-con in a state where that means you can't vote.
4. A current convict unable to vote from prison.

1 and 2 get me the most. Imagine not believing in Italians or children.

We are specifically talking about forcing people to engage in pornography against their will, not political satire.

I mean, we aren't talking about that, because the topic at hand is specifically porn that people aren't being forced to engage in, but rather porn that pretends to do so really, really well. And that difference is at the core of the point you're ignoring.

I have a hard time believing anybody who isn't a sex criminal is incapable of understanding that difference.

Ah, yes, resorting to ad hominem when logic and rhetoric fail you. Stay classy.

Yeah, easy-peasy appeal material. The First Amendment absolutely bans modifying someone's sentence based on whether they're left or right wing. This judge just flat-out confessed to violating the Constitution.

1. Mondoweiss is a garbate site whose "news" is not to be trusted.
2. "Becoming"? Germany has been extremely opposed to free speech since before Israel existed. There's no "becoming" here, it's always been like this.

Yes, it's deeply weird that a judge would have that power. It's like forcing a grocery store to ban a customer who's been throwing tomatoes at people, rather than just locking up the tomato-thrower. Why would a judge have the power to punish someone who committed no crime and is just set-dress8ng for a criminal case?

Put another way: why is this judge ordering X to ban the accounts instead of ordering the account holders to delete their accounts?

The step function goes up every 50 bucks, as I recall.

Sure, we can use your logic and pick a religion that causes more murders - after all, without many Jews, there aren't many Jewish murderers. Would you prefer we swap to Islam or Christianity?

And don't think I missed you saying "peacefully". The proposed idea is that we incarcerate "peaceful" homophobes. That's the whole topic here, because we already incarcerate the violent ones.

Sure, let's pretend you're asking this in good faith.

Why did you make that specific leap when nobody else here did

1. Neither you nor I have any idea how many people who read that comment made the same leap. Since you've asked me about leaping to conclusions based on available information, surely you can see how weird it is, in context, for you to leap to such a conclusion based on no evidence at all, as you and I have no access to the minds of anyone who read this thread, cast no votes, and moved on.
2. Now, if you're asking why I made that leap when you did not, you must also acknowledge that I have no access to your inner mind. I can discuss with you why and how I made my leap, but I simply am not privy to why you did not make the same leap I did.
3. So reducing your question to the only one I can answer, which is "why did I make that specific leap", it's because I am a member of several minorities, including being ethnically Jewish, and I have both studied hiatory and lived my life, the circumstances of which wholly agree with each other: every time someone tries to set up a policy whereby people are punished purely for the ideas they have in their head, I get the short end of the stick, because I tend to have unpopular ideas in my head, and the people trying to punish ideas are trying to punish the unpopular ones.

what does it say about you that it doesn't say about us?

4. It could say many things, because people can disagree for many reasons. For example, a cis hetero white male neurotypical Christian who was born in the USA has, with high likelihood, gone his entire life not once being discriminated against based on the topic at hand. Of course he might not reach the same conclusion I have - he's never known any differently. But this is one example of infinite - I could sit here all day trying to answer you and I would never be done, because people are all so different from each other. Perhaps I gave you the right answer for Adam, but Bob's answer is that he was too tired to think seriously about it and hence reached no conclusions at all, and Carl's answer is that he has utter faith in the government to always choose the right ideas to punish. And so on.