Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

Thanks but I want to hear it from Tstorm

Not particularly clear given it's 80% statement, 20% question.

Can you tell me this:

Why is Trump special and gets treated so well so often?

Because America in the present is an amazing place where people get treated well in general, and anyone with the opportunity to take advantage of all of those treatments is blessed with privilege enough to be the envy of kings. The levers Trump pulls are not special treatment, they are the treatment everyone gets scaled proportionately to the magnitude of his wealth and fame. You would have to deliberately deprive him of the treatment any other person receives to not perceive him as "getting treated so well".

One does not need to design a system to entrench wealth or power, the rich getting richer is a law of nature. One would need to create a system to prevent that, but it is unclear if that goal is worth the cost even before every attempt in history to do so has resulted is mass killing. Trump is treated to well because to treat him poorly and also be fair, we'd have to treat most people poorly, we would bury the world in the pursuit of a jealous sort of justice.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Crazed gunman dies after doing crazy shit with gun again:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/pizzagate-gunman-killed-police-shooting/index.html

The fact that this guy wasn't sentenced to life in a psychiatric facility with access to nothing deadlier than a pillow basically guaranteed this would eventually happen.

 

[Silvanus]

It does include the rebate pocketed by the PBM because the insurer paid that.

They literally didn't. The manufacturer did.

 

[Trunkage]

Not particularly clear given it's 80% statement, 20% question.

Because America in the present is an amazing place where people get treated well in general, and anyone with the opportunity to take advantage of all of those treatments is blessed with privilege enough to be the envy of kings. The levers Trump pulls are not special treatment, they are the treatment everyone gets scaled proportionately to the magnitude of his wealth and fame. You would have to deliberately deprive him of the treatment any other person receives to not perceive him as "getting treated so well".

One does not need to design a system to entrench wealth or power, the rich getting richer is a law of nature. One would need to create a system to prevent that, but it is unclear if that goal is worth the cost even before every attempt in history to do so has resulted is mass killing. Trump is treated to well because to treat him poorly and also be fair, we'd have to treat most people poorly, we would bury the world in the pursuit of a jealous sort of justice.

So, you are going to have to clarify:

This sounds EXACTLY like what Hades said. You just think it's a positive, and the poor should get back in their place instead of having thoughts

And just to be clear, I'm not jealous of Trump. I don't want his money or power. I want him to stop destroying people's lives. I generally like the Rule of Law and really dislike how often he shits on it

All you have done is pretend what my attitude towards Trump is. And you are fundamentally wrong. Why would anyone be jealous of Trump? (I know there are people who are jealous. It's best to ignore them.) It is insanely hard to have a conversation with a person who just pretends what I think. You aren't conversing with anyone on the Left. Your punching at ghosts

 

[Trunkage]

Crazed gunman dies after doing crazy shit with gun again:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/pizzagate-gunman-killed-police-shooting/index.html

The fact that this guy wasn't sentenced to life in a psychiatric facility with access to nothing deadlier than a pillow basically guaranteed this would eventually happen.

Don't know about the first half of that sentence but being banned from guys? Yes. If you want a gun, show that you can be responsible first

 

[Casual Shinji]

Anita Bryant died lol.

 

[Cicada 5]

Square Enix has implemented a new policy to protect its employees from harassment.

Square Enix has announced a new "group customer harassment policy" aimed at protecting its employees and partners from harmful behavior and actions taken by its followers and fans.


"Square Enix believes that the feedback, comments and requests received from our customers are essential to the advancement of our group's products and services," the new policy states. "At the same time, there are instances where certain customers take actions directly or through our support centers, or towards our group executives, employees, [or] partners who are involved in the creation and distribution of our group products and services, that constitute 'customer harassment'.


"Such actions do not only prevent our employees and partners from engaging in their work with a sense of security but also causes disruptions to other customers. Square Enix will not tolerate harassment and will take action as necessary."


Those actions range from refusing support requests and implementing bans to, in cases "where such action is egregious or with malicious intent," legal action and possibly even criminal proceedings.

No points for guessing which side is against this.

 

[tstorm823]

This sounds EXACTLY like what Hades said. You just think it's a positive, and the poor should get back in their place instead of having thoughts.

No, there is no "the poor", nobody is defined that way, everyone should be thinking, and its not about it being positive, it just is, power is powerful, its a truism.

But people who don't happen to be poor, just like Trump, are not put in prison for mislabeling an expense. No poor person is subject to a defamation case by claiming they didn't rape someone. No poor people a treated as treasonous if they wanted a different election result. No president before him was raided over documents from their presidency. He's not getting away with murder in ways that other people wouldn't. Nobody goes to prison for these things. It is not an unfair advantage that he isn't either.

And just to be clear, I'm not jealous of Trump. I don't want his money or power. I want him to stop destroying people's lives. I generally like the Rule of Law and really dislike how often he shits on it

Jealousy and envy have evolved in meaning in modern times, but the concept of both began not with wanting what someone has ("covetous" is a purer word for that), but rather to describe the resentment and contempt one feels to another with perceived advantages. Jealousy is resenting someone you think is undeserving of what they have or suspicious that they are going to steal the things that you have and feel you do deserve. There is not a political persuasion immune to sin, it's very obvious those on the right express their own version of this resentment, but sin makes for warped perspectives and really awful policy.

And whose lives is he destroying?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They literally didn't. The manufacturer did.

With the money they got from the PBM that came from the insurer.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

When a room full of tech journos are cheering att the mention of uk "rape gangs" from twitter spokeskunt (plz check renewed non-gendered Brit version c-word disclaimer/pass, officer - am here on legitimate business) we got ourselves a serious fucking rot to reexamine, to refine and reshape tactical defense, buffer zone and/or counter options beyond the usual tut tuttin of resignation.

In this episode we explore a variety of robots and AI enabled products and meet a soulless monster from the very pit of hell itself.

 

[Chimpzy]

Zuckerberg urges Trump to stop the EU from fining US tech companies

Comparing the bloc’s antitrust penalties to tariffs, the Meta boss argued that Brussels is “screwing with” American industry.

www.politico.eu

Hm, picture becoming clearer

 

[Silvanus]

With the money they got from the PBM that came from the insurer.

It is no more "the money they got from the insurer" than it is "the money they got from all their other income sources".

This is a distracting way of looking at it. What matters is the cost to the insurer and how they determine premiums (by that cost and the desired margin). The cost to the insurer is the amount they initially pay minus the portion of rebate they receive. At no point is that additional chunk of rebate factored in, because they never see it and never would.

 

[Cicada 5]

No, there is no "the poor", nobody is defined that way, everyone should be thinking, and its not about it being positive, it just is, power is powerful, its a truism.

But people who don't happen to be poor, just like Trump, are not put in prison for mislabeling an expense. No poor person is subject to a defamation case by claiming they didn't rape someone. No poor people a treated as treasonous if they wanted a different election result. ]No president before him was raided over documents from their presidency.

No poor person has ever had the power to do any of the things Trump has done and avoid spending even one night in a jail.

Really, this is your proof that Trump isn't getting special treatment because he's rich?

 

[Schadrach]

Not particularly clear given it's 80% statement, 20% question.

Because America in the present is an amazing place where people get treated well in general, and anyone with the opportunity to take advantage of all of those treatments is blessed with privilege enough to be the envy of kings. The levers Trump pulls are not special treatment, they are the treatment everyone gets scaled proportionately to the magnitude of his wealth and fame. You would have to deliberately deprive him of the treatment any other person receives to not perceive him as "getting treated so well".

One does not need to design a system to entrench wealth or power, the rich getting richer is a law of nature. One would need to create a system to prevent that, but it is unclear if that goal is worth the cost even before every attempt in history to do so has resulted is mass killing. Trump is treated to well because to treat him poorly and also be fair, we'd have to treat most people poorly, we would bury the world in the pursuit of a jealous sort of justice.

You think being convicted of 34 felonies and your sentence being "nah, you're good" is in the realm of treatment any other person receives, at least without having spent enough time in jail between arrest and sentencing that you've already been incarcerated for an entire typical sentence for your crimes?

 

[Cicada 5]

Why right-wing influencers are blaming the California wildfires on diversity efforts

Prominent right-wing influencers are claiming that the response to the Los Angeles wildfires was hampered by workplace diversity policies. It's part of a wider strategy to discredit those policies.

www.keranews.org

After a plane panel detached mid-flight on a Boeing aircraft last year, Fox News host Laura Ingraham said, "We can't link the diversity efforts to what happened — that would take an exhaustive investigation, but it's worth asking at this point, is excellence what we need in airline operations or is diversity the goal here?"

Commentary on leading, national news stories is a tried and true way for partisan media figures to drive engagement online. But stoking anger about diversity efforts in particular is also shorthand for a much larger story, said Ian Haney López, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the author "Dog Whistle Politics."

"The story is something like this: We as a society used to hire on the basis of competence and meritocracy. But that system has been hijacked by powerful minorities," he told NPR.

"Again and again, we see these efforts to trigger people's latent resentments against groups that historically have been socially marginalized, socially reviled in terms that do not embrace a blatant direct bigotry, but that instead seek to clothe themselves in some form of neutrality or even a commitment to fairness or excellence."

It's the definition of a dog whistle, said Haney López, and it's been happening in various forms since at least the end of the Civil War.

As for the impact of DEI policies on putting out wildfires, "I give it only slightly more credibility than the Jewish space laser theories," said Mike Beasley, who heads the board of Firefighters United for Safety Ethics and Ecology. In 40 years of firefighting, he says he has watched wildfires become more extreme and "meaner."

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Too much to copy paste. Not here for that. More curious about Kash's photo op looking like a singers moody 'glance back' album cover.



Inspiration comes from unexpected places

 

[tstorm823]

You think being convicted of 34 felonies and your sentence being "nah, you're good" is in the realm of treatment any other person receives, at least without having spent enough time in jail between arrest and sentencing that you've already been incarcerated for an entire typical sentence for your crimes?

I think the standard punishment for what he did, paying a lawyer for a campaign effort and reporting it as legal fees, is a fine, typically one that costs dramatically less than what he likely spent in court fighting this. Nobody is punished for 34 felonies because of a reporting error.

No poor person has ever had the power to do any of the things Trump has done and avoid spending even one night in a jail.

Really, this is your proof that Trump isn't getting special treatment because he's rich?

Do you think if a much poorer person in a smaller election reported a payment to their lawyer as a legal fee instead of a campaign expense, they would even be charged with a felony?

 

[Cicada 5]

I think the standard punishment for what he did, paying a lawyer for a campaign effort and reporting it as legal fees, is a fine, typically one that costs dramatically less than what he likely spent in court fighting this. Nobody is punished for 34 felonies because of a reporting error.

Do you think if a much poorer person in a smaller election reported a payment to their lawyer as a legal fee instead of a campaign expense, they would even be charged with a felony?

Yes I do. And they likely would have faced far more severe consequences than what Trump has gotten if they did everything else he did.That you're even asking this question only betrays your naivety, and that's me being generous.

 

[Agema]

Ah, but you'd still look silly emphasizing how well adjudicated the case against him was, which was my point to begin with. If you think he's a piece of crap and sexually assaulted people, ok. If someone is arguing is "well, the judge of the case that found him liable for sexual assault said we can call him a rapist" then they look rather silly for taking any of that mess seriously.

Yes, and calling Trump a sex attacker puts one technically at risk of a defamation suit. We might very reasonably want to call him one based simply on the mass of sexual assault accusations against him, his boasting of carrying out sexual assault, and various other evidence such as his character, misogyny, etc. And yet were anyone to do so, they would have to word it very carefully with terms like "alleged" or other workarounds that avoided the specific accusation.

I mean, were I to receive a letter in the post tomorrow from lawyers because some rich tosser had gone through an internet forum and found something I said (and that it was me), levelling an accusation of defamation, I would probably immediately fold: because simply fighting a case could cost me everything, even if I won.

Now we don't have to be so careful. A man who has, let's face it, almost certainly sexually attacked a large number of woman could be called to his face a sex attacker on national TV, written about in op-eds as a sex attacker, described on 3-billion-times-viewed streams and podcasts as sex attacker, and he is all but incapable of legal action against them. Which, given that he's a sex attacker, seems to me a outcome we should all be able to cheer.

 

[Agema]

No poor person is subject to a defamation case by claiming they didn't rape someone.

Firstly, Trump was not subjected to a defamation case for denying rape. He faced a defamation case for extensive attacks on his accuser's character that he unnecessarily appended to the denial: he self-destructively brought it on himself through his lack of impulse control, and that is delicious.

Secondly, poor people are subjected to defamation cases... albeit perhaps rarely. There are practical reasons why: they rarely have a "voice" to make defamatory remarks worth responding to, bringing a case against them will be expensive with no meaningful financial recompense, and that most poor people threatened with the loss of the little they have even to defend themselves, will tend to immediately fold.

No poor people a treated as treasonous if they wanted a different election result.

Really? Some Republicans have been calling Democrats treasonous for nearly two decades just for wanting different election results and policies. I presume however you mean by the courts, in which case literally no-one is treated as treasonous just for wanting a different election result. They may, however, be convicted for certain illegal acts they carry out which affected, or were intended to affect, or otherwise were closely associated with an election result.

Let's also bear in mind that in this case, poor people went to prison and the rich guy got to just delete cases in process against him.

No president before him was raided over documents from their presidency.

How many previous presidents kept such a large amount of documents (some extremely sensitive), deliberately tried to prevent their recovery, and from available evidence also appear to have waved extremely sensitive documents in front of people not cleared to view them?

One might note that in a certain way, taking stuff that you don't own would normally just be called theft.