172114 pts ยท February 8, 2014
I'm not very good at this.
Who turned Batman up to 11?
Honestly, yeah, this is probably fine, just slightly confusing to look at. Railing is the only missing piece.
*Nice.*
NGL, I enjoyed a few of his interviews back around 2014. It, uhhh...went downhill fast. He was always kind of credulous, but it seemed there were limits.
100%. I don't actually know Resnick, but I like my chances on a pure guess.
Bizarre mix of Sadducee and Pharisee. Literal, yet overstepping, with deliberately magical interpretations but with complete capitulation to our Rome. The most consistent element is the denial of Christ's ministry, so "Old Testament" fits.
Come on, man, let's not go insane with our criticism. Newsom sucks in a bunch of ways, but if you're not understanding the absolutely ludicrous improvement over Trump he would be in office, you're simply blinding yourself. Do everything you can to get someone better, and if you're serious, put down roots for better in future. But keep perspective. Literally every election, most people on the left will find the candidate disappointing at best, likely in contradictory ways. It still matters.
Lol, my thought exactly. Like how you gonna pad that tiny amount of cheese with egg from the sides of the ohhhhh...
Very curious what you thought my narrative was, though.
You forgot to explain why being rare matters. No, it's just the step that most closely mirrors U.S. elections. Sorry, but it is. The issue is getting the candidates into position, which is always an issue and not in dispute. "My narrative" would be that we underestimate the popularity or at least acceptability of populist candidates in the present situation. Hence Trump and Sanders, despite initial resistance, for our own examples. Post-Trump, expect that the left needs to run one to compete.
Nah, the final runoff is the correct comparison point for U.S. and other single-step, two-party elections. This isn't an "omit things to push their agenda" situation *at all*. The oversimplification is more that there was an opportunity to hear several different views in order to get to that runoff. But that is where party primaries would fit.
Dang, that's an *advanced* evil glee, even without a laugh.
Unfortunately, we enshittified this world so much that we avoided the problem of needing too many jobs that require higher levels of abstract thinking skills.
Eh, its it's fine. It's kind of like saying your favorite food is ethnic food, speaking in the U.S. It'll get the general idea across, but your actual favorite food is probably more specific than that. Maybe you just don't know which, and it's just a vague notion of preference. I imagine you could at least say Protestant.
The Eucharist is specifically Catholic doctrine. It's 100% symbolic for most denominations.
If your stated mechanisms were what they meant, it (a) wouldn't be a "revolving villain" situation at all, which *is* a conspiracy theory, and (b) wouldn't support the same conclusions. Even electing Manchin is a huge win under your framework (thus far). I have no illusions about what difference he makes versus the average local opponent *or* versus the average Democrat.
Yeah, I see that. *And* I see various statements that downplay that, specifically the "rotating villain" conspiracy narrative. Overall, it's a bad position. I agree it's better than typical both sides bad stuff.
Oh, but it worked. Even with a razor-thin margin requiring Harris, with two Senators being Sinema (via Green) and Manchin (deep red state), a bunch of stuff *actually got done.* Everyone "somehow" focuses on whatever problems didn't get fixed in that short window. So naturally, we then voted to not get any good things done and do tons of bonus bad things, like usual. "Ugh, those rotating villains, better shoot myself in the leg instead of ever once voting in marginally more okay candidates."
Thanks, this is exactly the context needed! And yes, her response to his dodge was entirely appropriate. I have an immediate skepticism when I hear demands for a black and white answer (in this case, it's much less restrictive). But it was a truly black and white matter in this case, with qualifications/explanations for either situation.
Depending on the question, "neither"/"mu" can be a valid response, especially with the kinds of questions we see in politics. The problem with that answer depends entirely on the question posed, which isn't included here. The issue would be that they're unwilling to put forth a reasonable stance on serious issues. Which is obviously the case. But we need to be prepared to address bad questions, too. Demanding yes/no answers is silly. Demanding clear answers is what we want.
*sobs*
There's some challenge here with the level of analysis. That perspective makes sense for judging *her.* That is, to criticize the politician. But from a voter's perspective, we're having a discussion of what makes sense. Pros and cons. Rationales and so forth. Unless we're saying something like "voters are so foolish that they're beyond agency or reproach or even discussion," we can still argue in favor of better choices. And try to become less foolish.
You're talking about two different things. You're right that Harris' political strategy was flawed and her personal characteristics disfavored...obviously in retrospect and arguably in advance. AND she was objectively the better choice in the election, to the point that all other options were outright bad decisions on the part of each voter.
Looks like only *almost* every single one is planning to vote against it.
They're right, to be clear, but in an obvious way. What *could* be collectively good enough besides a full resolution? And I also think part of your point matters. Deliberate tactics to divide any potential opposition are probably as visible as real people on the left, and we can get used to and even agree with those narratives. Yet we need everyone possible united to have any chance. Uniting leftists and liberals would be a good indicator that there's hope to build a serious coalition.
I think the first shot could be judged as voluntary manslaughter with some leeway, yeah, and I wouldn't risk a murder charge in a trial against an officer with only that piece. I do think it's wrong because it's based on losing emotional control reasonably based on more than words, and he drew before the forward motion could reasonably be interpreted as a threat requiring lethal force. So it's still murder. But I'd say shots two and three make the combined action a clear murder 2.
The mask is common, though, and doesn't distinguish him or effectively protect his identity after. His early draw matters a lot but *could* be due to malice stemming from the situation. So you can interpret it from a 2nd degree position easily. Deliberately trying to give himself cover here could still be spur of the moment. It just shows that he fully intended to kill and knew he needed cover to get away with it. I don't think that counts as premeditation. Though with evidence is also criminal.
Probably 2nd. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 There's no evidence yet that he was planning it prior to the confrontation's start. Not until he reached for the weapon, which was the start of the crime.
Who turned Batman up to 11?
Honestly, yeah, this is probably fine, just slightly confusing to look at. Railing is the only missing piece.
*Nice.*
NGL, I enjoyed a few of his interviews back around 2014. It, uhhh...went downhill fast. He was always kind of credulous, but it seemed there were limits.
100%. I don't actually know Resnick, but I like my chances on a pure guess.
Bizarre mix of Sadducee and Pharisee. Literal, yet overstepping, with deliberately magical interpretations but with complete capitulation to our Rome. The most consistent element is the denial of Christ's ministry, so "Old Testament" fits.
Come on, man, let's not go insane with our criticism. Newsom sucks in a bunch of ways, but if you're not understanding the absolutely ludicrous improvement over Trump he would be in office, you're simply blinding yourself. Do everything you can to get someone better, and if you're serious, put down roots for better in future. But keep perspective. Literally every election, most people on the left will find the candidate disappointing at best, likely in contradictory ways. It still matters.
Lol, my thought exactly. Like how you gonna pad that tiny amount of cheese with egg from the sides of the ohhhhh...
Very curious what you thought my narrative was, though.
You forgot to explain why being rare matters. No, it's just the step that most closely mirrors U.S. elections. Sorry, but it is. The issue is getting the candidates into position, which is always an issue and not in dispute. "My narrative" would be that we underestimate the popularity or at least acceptability of populist candidates in the present situation. Hence Trump and Sanders, despite initial resistance, for our own examples. Post-Trump, expect that the left needs to run one to compete.
Nah, the final runoff is the correct comparison point for U.S. and other single-step, two-party elections. This isn't an "omit things to push their agenda" situation *at all*. The oversimplification is more that there was an opportunity to hear several different views in order to get to that runoff. But that is where party primaries would fit.
Unfortunately, we enshittified this world so much that we avoided the problem of needing too many jobs that require higher levels of abstract thinking skills.
Eh, its it's fine. It's kind of like saying your favorite food is ethnic food, speaking in the U.S. It'll get the general idea across, but your actual favorite food is probably more specific than that. Maybe you just don't know which, and it's just a vague notion of preference. I imagine you could at least say Protestant.
The Eucharist is specifically Catholic doctrine. It's 100% symbolic for most denominations.
If your stated mechanisms were what they meant, it (a) wouldn't be a "revolving villain" situation at all, which *is* a conspiracy theory, and (b) wouldn't support the same conclusions. Even electing Manchin is a huge win under your framework (thus far). I have no illusions about what difference he makes versus the average local opponent *or* versus the average Democrat.
Yeah, I see that. *And* I see various statements that downplay that, specifically the "rotating villain" conspiracy narrative. Overall, it's a bad position. I agree it's better than typical both sides bad stuff.
Oh, but it worked. Even with a razor-thin margin requiring Harris, with two Senators being Sinema (via Green) and Manchin (deep red state), a bunch of stuff *actually got done.* Everyone "somehow" focuses on whatever problems didn't get fixed in that short window. So naturally, we then voted to not get any good things done and do tons of bonus bad things, like usual. "Ugh, those rotating villains, better shoot myself in the leg instead of ever once voting in marginally more okay candidates."
Thanks, this is exactly the context needed! And yes, her response to his dodge was entirely appropriate. I have an immediate skepticism when I hear demands for a black and white answer (in this case, it's much less restrictive). But it was a truly black and white matter in this case, with qualifications/explanations for either situation.
Depending on the question, "neither"/"mu" can be a valid response, especially with the kinds of questions we see in politics. The problem with that answer depends entirely on the question posed, which isn't included here. The issue would be that they're unwilling to put forth a reasonable stance on serious issues. Which is obviously the case. But we need to be prepared to address bad questions, too. Demanding yes/no answers is silly. Demanding clear answers is what we want.
*sobs*
There's some challenge here with the level of analysis. That perspective makes sense for judging *her.* That is, to criticize the politician. But from a voter's perspective, we're having a discussion of what makes sense. Pros and cons. Rationales and so forth. Unless we're saying something like "voters are so foolish that they're beyond agency or reproach or even discussion," we can still argue in favor of better choices. And try to become less foolish.
You're talking about two different things. You're right that Harris' political strategy was flawed and her personal characteristics disfavored...obviously in retrospect and arguably in advance. AND she was objectively the better choice in the election, to the point that all other options were outright bad decisions on the part of each voter.
Looks like only *almost* every single one is planning to vote against it.
They're right, to be clear, but in an obvious way. What *could* be collectively good enough besides a full resolution? And I also think part of your point matters. Deliberate tactics to divide any potential opposition are probably as visible as real people on the left, and we can get used to and even agree with those narratives. Yet we need everyone possible united to have any chance. Uniting leftists and liberals would be a good indicator that there's hope to build a serious coalition.
I think the first shot could be judged as voluntary manslaughter with some leeway, yeah, and I wouldn't risk a murder charge in a trial against an officer with only that piece. I do think it's wrong because it's based on losing emotional control reasonably based on more than words, and he drew before the forward motion could reasonably be interpreted as a threat requiring lethal force. So it's still murder. But I'd say shots two and three make the combined action a clear murder 2.
The mask is common, though, and doesn't distinguish him or effectively protect his identity after. His early draw matters a lot but *could* be due to malice stemming from the situation. So you can interpret it from a 2nd degree position easily. Deliberately trying to give himself cover here could still be spur of the moment. It just shows that he fully intended to kill and knew he needed cover to get away with it. I don't think that counts as premeditation. Though with evidence is also criminal.
Probably 2nd. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19 There's no evidence yet that he was planning it prior to the confrontation's start. Not until he reached for the weapon, which was the start of the crime.