Saul, please do a little more research here. NaNoWriMo are a shit organization, and the statement they released at that link is a backtrack of their original position of 'Any AI is fine!'
And they took that position because the only people willing to sponsor them after last year, when all their volunteers quit, is the AI industry, who has never had a problem being child-abuse adjacent.
In case people are unaware, NaNoWriMo _imploded_, very spectacularly, last year. This is because they defended someone who abused children, and then basically had _all_ volunteers leave, en mass, because of their response to everything.
They also lost all their sponsors. Except, of course, the AI techbros who, are always willing to step in and dump huge amounts of cash on cash on things.
And because AI techbros will say and do literally anything to justify heir plagiarism, machine, they have come to this position.
So, what is happening here is that a bunch of AI techbro morons are speaking the language of disability rights to justify any incredibly stupid position, and the end result of that is people thinking the problem is the way they are talking instead of the fact that a) what they are saying makes nonsense, and b) is trying to justify a very bad thing.
The reason it is stupid is threefold:
1) AI (or, rather, LLM) is not an assistive technology of any sort. It does not help someone do a creative thing, it just...strings together a bunch of stuff that it asserts is a creative thing. There are. indeed, uses of machine learning that are very helpful to disabled writers, like speech-to-text and text-to-speech, or even better predictive text or spelling corrections, that are assistive tech.
But generative LLM Ai is not that because, again, typing a prompt into a screen and having it invent a story is not assisting _you_ write, it is 'writing' for you, and it's not even really doing that. Getting someone else to do things for you is not assistive technology.
2) Of course, if you are disabled, and _need_ things done for you, we shouldn't criticize that. Except, this isn't _that_. There's a difference between saying 'We should have a handicapped accessible bus so disabled people can get between two distance points' and saying 'Handicapped people should hire taxis so they can participate in a fun run', which is, in fact, what NaNoWriMo is. It is not a job, it is not a requirement, it is a self-imposed challenge, and it is utterly insane to think that anyone would even want to hire someone else to do a self-imposed challenge for them.
3) The people saying this, who I remind people are _supposed to be a writing non-profit_ but are actually just now a bunch of AI dudebros who took it over, appear to think that the difficultly in writing is 'Coming up with a concept'. This is, in fact, the exact _opposite_ of a true thing.
What do you mean, if my claims are correct? What part of my statement is disputable? I pointed out what was happening and how it differed from post-war Germany losing territory, and posed a hypothetical about how the German people would feel about that. There were no 'claims' in it except 'settlements still exist and are still currently being created', and unless you think they've somehow permanently stopped sometime between the last announcement in March and now, none of that can be wrong.
then why are the settlements not such a big deal in the peace negotiations
The peace process literally is based around the settlements first being barred from added, then removed, and then no longer able to happen because Israel doesn't control Palestine anymore.
That is how every peace process have literally started as a concept. It's not a 'big issue' because it is literally _the_ entire premise, from start to end. (This is why Israel doesn't propose any peace settlements any more, or work with anyone trying to create them, because that would literally be the first order of business, and Israel cannot stop doing that.)
but an Israel-destroying right to return is worth walking away from the table over?
Oh, so now they're just _constantly_ doing that, huh? The only supposed 'example' of that is Arafat in 2000, Israel hasn't even bothered to have peace talks since then.
You have, and I almost could add this to any post by anyone here on this topic, ingested Israeli propaganda on this. So, some facts:
Accepting a limited right of return would not have, at any point, destroyed 'Israel'. It wouldn't have even meaningfully changed the demographics of Israel. The only thing Arafat actually wanted was the right of return to Jerusalem. That was the thing he wanted, but, of course, this 'peace deal was something worked out entirely between the US and Israel with Arafat being given the finished product and having basically no input on it'
Meanwhile, the deal thrown in front of Arafat didn't even include _compensation_ for Palestinians who had been removed. It sorta handwaves that as something that could be done later. Is your argument that Palestinians shouldn't even get that? You know, a thing that actually could _end_ this, if Palestinians were actually _paid_ for the land they were forced out of at gunpoint? It would certainly make things look more legitimate, wouldn't it? But Israel won't even do that.
In fact, that peace treaty had a _lot- of the things that Palestinians were demanding to be done put off until being figured out later, and everything Israel wanted (Which included annexing huge settlements, aka, formalizing Israeli's land theft, and a completely demilitarized Palestinian state that Israel basically ruled) done immediately.
Please note this was seven years after Oslo, which had done the same thing: Had the Palestinians make a bunch of compromises in return for figuring stuff out in the future, whereas Israel got everything it wanted.
That is how every treaty offered by Israel has been. Some major concession on the part of Palestine, some very minor one on the part of Israel, and a promise that the important stuff will be done later. That last thing never actually happens, because the next step is yet another treaty where Israel demands more stuff.
They have basically made it the foundation of their demands in the same way that people in other mass population movements have stopped.
Hey, how much do you think the Germans would be okay with losing parts of their country _in the present_ to the same people who took it after WWII? If Poland constantly took new parts of Germany, moved soldiers in, evicted everyone and build new housing for Poles?
Do you think that not only would they be upset about the _current_ theft, they might also still be talking about when this _started_?
"Wow, Germany sure is holding on to their grudges about the land I took decades ago." I say, as I literally take more of their land at that exact moment. "How irrational!"
I would like a _single_ person in this discussion to actually address this very obvious point, that wounds do not and cannot heal until the _actual injury stops being repeated over and over_, and it's incredibly telling how none of you will.
I’ve argued with Palestinian Enthusiasts in the past who have screamed that Israel is delaying ambulances by searching them and that’s a war crime.
Hey, here's a fun question: Why would Palestinian ambulances be entering Israel?
Oh, they wouldn't? Of course not.
Then what was Hamas hypothetically trying to blow up?
Israeli soldiers at checkpoints? But...wait, why are there checkpoint in Palestine to start with? Except to...search people so they can't...attack checkpoints...wait, no.
Or, wait, are the soldiers there to defend illegal settlements? That's actually it.
This is the whole 'resisting illegal arrest', times a billions. 'We have to do really bad things to you because you will not accept our illegal authority, and the things you do in response to your illegal authority turn around and justify our reaction.'.
This is sorta the root problem of everything happening there: Absolutely none of it would be a problem if Israel would just get the hell out of Palestine. Hamas would just be reduce to lobbing rockets, which are nearly completely inefficient. (And, as I pointed out, Hamas would not have popular support for doing that long.)
And before anyone says 'They'd do more 10/7', I remind everyone that a huge chunk of soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza border to go maintain order in the West Bank. That's the only reason that worked.
Israel actually has more than enough military to defend its _actual borders_, what it doesn't have to enough military to defend is the huge deliberate zig-zag of settlements and checkpoints it subjects Palestinians to _within_ Palestine.
It would be nice if the critics of Israel can actually provide a clear and realistic instructions on what Israel should do and take reality rather than idealism into consideration.
It'd be nice if you didn't pretend those instructions have not been very clearly given. But here are the instructions again:
Withdraw all settlements immediately from the West Bank. 'Legal', or otherwise. And, while we're at it, Israel doesn't get to tear those down like they did in Gaza. They can take down Jewish Temples, that's fine, but all houses and infrastructure and everything remain...you _built it illegally in another country_, it's theirs.
Withdraw the IDF as much as possible from the West Bank. Remove all checkpoints. I will compromise and allow them to remain at the borders for now, but Israel is going to have to realize that border defense happens _inside your country_, you don't get to set up outposts in the country you're holding off. If they feel some Israeli inhabitants are too close to the border and indefensible, it is up to _them_ to move father back. Borders don't move because you built houses up to them. But, that can be a process.
What's going to have to happen next is a new election there to replace the compromised puppet government, which needs to happen anyway. If the IDF can control itself and be helpful, I have no objection to them maintaining the peace before and during that, but it not, request UN peacekeepers. Or Jordanian security forces.
There needs to be a timeline for making sure the IDF doesn't have a single person in the country. Say, one year. If the West Bank cannot function at that point, and needs some sort of outside help, literally anyone else should be providing it.
All this West Bank stuff should actually happen independent of the war, because that is not where the war is.
Ending the war is more complicated, but Israel could always say 'The war is over in exchange for the hostages', and really hasn't said that...they always demand Hamas surrender on top of that. Now, Hamas leaders did commit war crimes by kidnapping civilians, and Israel _could_ hypothetically complain to the Hague about that, but it would be rather hilarious. The actual end of this is the Hamas leadership getting away with all their stuff, which sounds bad until you realize exactly how much Israeli leadership has gotten away with things, then it's, like, eh. Often the worst people get to walk away without accountability.
I am not sure this would actually work in Gaza, but the interesting part of this is you can free the West Bank by itself and that almost immediately undercuts Hamas's position in Gaza.
Please acknowledge your receipt of these instructions so we don't have to do this again.
The entire “No Israel No Jews” plan, long predates what the West views as the occupation.
Yeah, it dates all the way back to the time that a bunch of Jews forced them move, at gunpoint, so those Jews could take part of the area and proclaim a 'democracy' that only had the right sort of voters in it.
But we're not supposed to talk about that, we're supposed to pretend Palestinians should have gotten over that, you've specifically said that, so it's reallly weird to use things that were said back then as a justification for _Israeli's_ action.
Either the entire context counts, or it doesn't, and we should just include, I dunno, five years, I say, randomly picking a number. And for five years, Israel has constantly illegally blockaded something it claims is an independent nation (Gaza) which is an act of war, and stolen land for an occupied territory (West Bank) at gunpoint in violation of international law.
Eventually resulting in a war. (Which, because somehow this has to be said every time, _also_ committed war crimes.)
However imho them stopping won’t bring peace because it has little to do with the underlying conflict.
You have inhaled the propaganda entirely, where the problem is Hamas and Hamas has a problem with Israel existing at all. Maybe they actually do, I'm sure they've even said that at some point. But they are a militia, they take somewhat extreme positions.
But in actual reality, the only reason Hamas has any _support_ is because of the behavior of Israel inside of Palestine against Palestinians. All Israel has to do is actually give up Palestine, which would completely uncut 99% of the opposition to Israel by Palestinians.
You keep talking about how irrational it is to want to recover land stolen 70 years ago, and _you are right_. Bet that _isn't_ what Palestinians are pissed about. They're pissed because Israel literally stole their house two years ago, after years of illegal settlers harrassing them with the help of the IDF. And incidentally shot their brother and his wife as part of that.
Hell, if I were they, I'd be indescribably angry at an occupying force making me jump though insane amount of hoops just to move around in my own country...Palestinians often have to get to checkpoint at five in the morning just to _get to their jobs_.
And that's the West Bank. In Gaza, they have to cope with near starvation because Israel won't let them actually set up any industry or farming due to the blockage
That's what norm Palestinians are actually pissed at Israel about. The direct impact of Israel on their daily lives. Trying to recover land in Israel is just a rallying cry, it's not anything they expect to happen, and they would not continue some sort of hypothetical war with Israel to get that if Israel leaves them alone.
And, no, what Israel did in Gaza doesn't count as a withdrawal...the fact they no longer had any people on the ground doesn't change the fact they completely controlled every aspect of it, including entrances and exits and shipping. That actually made things in Gaza much worse, but even if it hypothetically hadn't, it doesn't change the fact Gazans also consider the West Bank part of the same county (Cause it is) and will, rather obviously, not stop while _that_ is occupied.
However, giving up Palestine is the one thing that, politically, Israel is completely unable to do because the far-right party has, for _decades_, been asserting that eventually all that land will belong to Israel. (And everyone else got the hint when the prime minister who made motions towards that got assassinated)
As for the Palestinians, from what I can see, they seem utterly unable to get over “Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial state.”
Maybe Israel should stop _currently acting_ like one, then, and stop stealing land _right now_?
They seem to want revenge for the wrongs they believed they suffered since 1881 rather than doing anything positive and constructive.
I don't see any evidence they don't want revenge for wrongs they suffered this year: https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-panel-greenlights-nearly-3500-new-west-bank-homes/
It is nearly delusional how everyone person seems to talk about how Palestine cannot 'get over' things _are literally still happening to them_.
LeeEsq, solemnly, to a man on the ground: Revenge against your attacker is not the way, you need to let it go and move on with your life. You cannot change the past.
Palestine: You can see the guy is still standing there kicking me, right?
LeeEsq: You must move past the harms that you claim were done to you 32 seconds ago, and forgive, and realize you both need to live in peace.
Israel: *kicks man on ground again*
Palestine: *ineffectually throws a punch, which Israel's iron dome deflect*
LeeEsq: Stop it! Holding grudges is not the way, Palestine. Let it go! It's over! What happened 3 seconds ago is not important.
Define, “ceasefire”. If that means “Hamas surrenders and let’s Israel take over Gaza” then I’m all in favor.
LOL, you think, it's _Palestine_ that is stopping Israel from taking over Gaza and the West Bank?
Do you actually think Palestinians would object?
They wouldn't, in fact, they'd laugh and agree to it. It's called the One State solution. This is because Palestinians actually understand why Israel hasn't taken all of Palestine in one of the innumerable times they've had the chance (Including the literal formation): At some point, Israel would have to explain why they weren't letting these new Israelis vote.
It's the same reason Israel builds 'settlements' in the West Bank instead of just annexing parts of it that might have Arabs in it that demand the right to continue to live there and be citizens of Israel(1). It's because Israel is willing to be a Democracy as long as only the right sort of people are voting.
That's literally why they had to drive Palestinians out of their territory before declaring 'independence' to start with, after all. To make sure the people voting would vote _the right way_.
1) Except East Jerusalem, which they have annexed back in 1980 and...for some reason don't let Arab residents vote in national elections, despite them being _supposedly_ Israeli citizens living in what is now supposedly Israel.
It's like if the US annexed Puerto Rico or the Philippines, and instead of just not letting them vote in national elections (Which itself is very shameful, and we've mostly admitted that.), we only let _white people_ there vote.
They're sorta showing their whole ass on that 'only democracy in the Middle East' thing, aren't they? Making it extremely clear that they are only a democracy insomuch as the people vote the way they want.
And, hell, they aren't even at risk of losing a Jewish majority there...they're just at risk of losing the far-right majority.
Maybe at some point you'll ask yourself 'Wait, what if Israel stopped trying to steal Palestinian land constantly with new settlements and _actually_ withdraw from it all, including from border and air control, not just pretend withdraw like they did in Gaza? How long would the anger at Israel actually last?'
Asserting that a group of people who were very seriously harmed in 1948 and have constantly been harmed since by land theft and unlawful detentions and randomly shot and humiliated in the streets should somehow 'stop being irrational' is nonsense.
Israel needs to stop doing what it is doing, period. It's illegal, it's unethical, it's immoral, and it constantly makes things worse for them.
If they do stop, and Palestinians remain irrational after it stops, that is entirely different discussion, but the person who beat someone else senseless and has continued to kick them and steal stuff from them while they are on the ground doesn't get to complain that that person is irrationally angry at them. (And no, it doesn't matter that people who look like that person assaulted their parents.)
And third parties shouldn't be walking up and be complaining that one of them is kicking someone on the ground, but the person on the ground sometimes manages to get a punch in, and thus 'everyone is irrationally violent here, there is no solution'.
If even critics are coming out and saying “these things happen in war” and “they’re investigating”, then there’s a lot of cover room for Israel Enthusiasts to explain how it’s not that bad.
I wasn't pointing out that it happened. I was pointing out the response Israel had to 'discovering' it happened. Specifically, the far-right Likud immediate defended such behavior and riot to protect the soldiers. I don't mean 'some of them', I mean 'actual political leadership'.
Incidentally, 'discovering' is actually a bit absurd...there have been very well documented evidence of sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees for decades. This is just an example that got caught on video because it happened outside at a detention center because Israeli soldiers could not delay their hatred and rapey-ness to long enough to get the victim inside, I guess.
Dark Matter just mentioned the torture the US did, which I remind people that our government attempted to defend by defining it not as torture, by pretending it was really important, and by having the CIA instead of soldiers (who have very clear training about war crimes) do it, and eventually charged some people.
You know what didn't happen in the US, even in the completely deranged post-9/11 universe of 'We can do anything?' We didn't defend ramming brooms inside people's anuses. Did any soldiers do that? I don't know, I don't think so, I hope not, but maybe. But we sure as hell wouldn't have rioted in the streets if someone had gotten charged with it. We wouldn't have had people defending that in Congress.
When I say Israel society is sick, people need to understand I'm talking about N*zi Germany sick. I'm not saying their actions are comparable, at least not yet, but their belief in the humanity of the outgroup are. They have managed to nearly _completely_ dehumanize Palestinians.
And a lot of Americans have fallen for it, fallen for the propaganda that the situation is exactly the other way around, that Palestinians hate Jews for no reason, instead of them quite sanely hating a state that is doing _this_ to them.
The criticism that “Israel is acting like an apartheid state!” isn’t found in searching ambulances for bomb belts and only finding a few.
...why do you think _that's_ the example of them acting like an apartheid state?
Wouldn't 'They have set up armed and defended-by-soldiers enclaves inside the legal borders of Palestine that only Israelis are allowed to live in and shop in and enter at all' be much better evidence of apartheid? That's pretty much textbook apartheid, that's the origin of the term apartheid, 'apartness', where Black South Africans were segregated into their own areas and forbidden to come into the white ones.
I would just rather the entire structure by torn down.
Arbitration is a reasonable tool for corporations. That's what it was invented for, two companies that are aware a contract between them might need to be hashed out, specify an actual neutral third party that exists for that purpose in said contract.
It is not a reasonable tool for people, at least not any sort of _advanced_ agreement. People should have a right to access the court system, period.
In fact, I'd like to see a lot less 'People having to agree to contracts to purchase things'. I thinkwe need new...sales terms? I don't know what to call it, but there should be some reasonable set of expectations that just _exist_ when I do almost every transaction, and the fact a good percentage of them are pretending to be 'contracts' that I hypothetically have to pour over because they can insert random terms in is a serious problem.
In fact, a good portion of those are either standard terms, or utter gibberish that will not stand up in court. (It's funny how all software disclaims 'fitness for any particular purpose'. Yeah, that's not how that works. You can't sell people things and say they do things and then later tell them what they bought might not do those things, no backsies! They try to go on and disclaim all liability for damages, again, not how that works.)
I find it odd we're talking about ultrasound machines and not the stuff that happened two months ago.
You know, where ten soldiers were caught, on video, holding shields to help hide the very obvious rape of a Palestinian prisoner by each other. And this isn't some dubious allegation...there's very clear video of it happening and the prisoner ended up in the hospital with very serious injuries, there's not really a lot of debate over the facts. At minimum, every single soldier standing there helping shield things is an deliberate _accomplice_ to rape.
And the IDF, to its credit, is investigating. And I'm not going to try to act extremely outraged, this stuff sometimes happens in a war.
But, the actual thing people should notice: Israeli's far-rigth rioted over charging these soldiers, storming a military base.
And this rape was defended in the Knesset by Likud members, saying it's perfectly fine to do _anything_ to them if they're Hamas militants.
I think a lot of people here do not quite understand how deeply sick Israeli society is, how weirdly poisoned they are by decades of dehumanizing Palestinians because they need some sort of moral justification for what they have been doing.
...but anyway, if we're talking about 'places where Israel has gone too far', how about: Two months ago, had a political discussions about whether it is fine to rape enemy soldiers.
I'm actually disappointed that Disney backed down for PR reasons, because people need to understand just how this sort of thing works.
In fact, I heard everyone to have a fun little thought experiment of how far this could extend. What's the absolute worst case scenario you can think of here, where doing something decades earlier could lock you into arbitration permanently?
Maybe in 10 years, as society continues to move cashless, you buy food from a vending machine. Using a credit card. A vending machine that, when you purchase something from Nabisco, it pops up an agreement from them. 20 years later, they sell you actual literal poison, and you can't sue them because you clicked I Agree on a vending machine.
I'm sure it's possible to imagine that you would be able to avoid situations like that, that you would never be dumb enough to do that, except... Y'all do know that almost everything you buy is from a megacorporation, right? And it's purchased through either that corporation or another megacorporation.
There is no one who can live their entire life without buying stuff from companies that would like you to agree to permanent arbitration.
And hell, it doesn't even have to be a company that you used. Oh look, the FedEx driver fell asleep and drove into your house due to the policies of FedEx, what you would really like to sue FedEx over, but, unfortunately, you once bought something from a company that ships using FedEx, and despite the fact that you didn't even get it shipped via FedEx, when you sign the agreement with that company you agree to arbitration in any disagreement with a contractor of theirs, which FedEx is.
People do not understand how dangerous and insane it is to allow companies to require people to waive the right to access the court system, and them attempting to extend that right permanently as opposed to the interaction you were in when you agree to the arbitration is just makes it much worse.
Which is exactly why Disney backed off, this would look bad enough that what they are doing might get challenged in something done about it, But be sure that they will continue to use disputes that don't outrage the conscience. The guy who booked a trip to Disney World and had his reservations at his Disney hotel canceled with no refund and no explanation, but he agreed to the Disney Plus thing, he's the one they'll happily screw over because no one cares enough, the story doesn't sound bad enough.
Are you asserting that Trump being unable to implement his promise of ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.' is somehow to his credit?
Hey, everyone, here's my new political idea: We take a system in our society that is just completely broken, like, is an actual bad idea in every possible way, and, hear me out, we make it trivially better in a very specific way. Often in a way that does not actually change anything.
And don't think this tip thing is the end. Next, I'm proposing adding a lane to the busy highway near you! Yes, a single lane, added to that one highway! Imagine how much better that will be!
The interesting thing about this editorial is I somewhat think it is wrong. Sort of.
Politicians indeed don't have a duty to talk to the press, but they do have a duty to respond to the concerns of the American people, which is traditionally done via the press asking questions that supposedly some amorphous blob of American people want answered.
These questions can be anything from 'that policy proposal looks incredibly expensive, how is it going to get paid for' to 'you appear to have changed your position multiple times on this, why did you do that and why should we believe you're going to keep your current position' to 'you hung out with some white supremacist this weekend, do you think that's okay?' to 'explain the bribery charges that have been filed against you by the FBI'.
So I'm not saying the press should only ask policy questions, but they should only ask _real_ questions. Things people actually want an answer to, that the answer to is plausibly a concern of the public. Not 'how do you feel about Trump saying stupid stuff about you?' or even 'how do you feel about the latest polls?'
But those questions have been how things worked for decades. I'm not entirely a fan of calling this vibe-based, because just as much questions are about horse race minutiae that aren't important either, and there's another set of questions that sound like the scandal questions I talked about above, but are literally just made up, and do not have the minimum amount of research that the press should be doing before asking these questions. Or worse, are deliberate lies by the 'press'.
Harris's campaign has no actual scandals, or at least the press hasn't bothered to find any, so she doesn't need to address any of them, and the press won't talk about her policies, so there's literally no reason for her to interact with the press.
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read that the person intended to take seriously:
bypasses the argument that the media is a critical part of our political system and any candidate who wants to be president — whether they are winning or losing — should be regularly subjected to scrutiny from the press
The really funny thing is that statement doesn't make an argument that the media actually is a critical part of the system, because that actually would be a very hard argument to make.
Instead, it's making an argument that Harris is just _getting away_ with showing it isn't a critical part of the system, instead of being forced to keep pointing that out over and over again. His problem is not that she is showing that the media is useless, it's that she isn't _arguing_ that with the media about that, as Democrats have been doing for decades, demanding that the media stop running random lies and making things about vibes and stuff...she's just ignoring the media.
His theory is that she looked at the media, and said 'literally nothing you do is even slightly useful to me versus directly speaking to voters' and walked away. And he doesn't seem to understand how badly this makes his industry look.
Now, I don't know if she's actually intending to do this, but considering how much other things that she has started doing that everyone (I don't just mean the left but almost every activist Democrat regardless of where in the party they are) has been screaming for politicians to do for decades... I think it might be deliberate.
Now, what she's doing can look bad, but I think there's a clever way for her to blunt that...she should agree to an interview if, and only if, there are literally no questions about Donald Trump or fluff about her campaign, she will answer policy questions about her future presidency, (and how she intends to manage to implement those, things like that related to future governance), and that's it.
They wouldn't be able to do it. The press would be literally incapable of managing this. I know that sounds weird, and it's hard to think of how they would fail at this, but they would. They have been trained, for decades, to ask the other kind of questions.
Disney got criticism for remaking the movie at all, one of the things that they decided to do was rename the movie to put less emphasis on the character's dwarfism, and they then renamed the movie back.
There wasn't any indication they weren't going to be dwarves, just that the term and the emphasis on them being dwarfs was going to be reduced due to criticism, and then they decided to rename it back due to other criticism, I guess, cause they're idiots.
I think some of this is internal dwarfism politics, about whether or not their condition is a disability or not. I don't think any of us belong to that community or know anything about that, but they do sort of have a point, it would actually be kind of weird to identify characters solely by their disability in the title of a movie. Like you wouldn't name a Spider-Man / Daredevil team up movie "The Web Slinger and the Blind Guy"
Yes, Jaybird, you shouldn't see it because you have decided it's the sort of movie you don't want to see due to political reasons, whereas perhaps you didn't think that in 2017.
Actually, I really suspect you did think that back in 2017, and my point is that in fact you're sort of living in a perpetual present where a bunch of huge changes happened recently Destroying Movies Forever (TM) due to wokeness, instead of that literally being how movies have been since the 80s.
Yes, if there's one place that we don't need to make sure wording is precise, it's laws protecting people's rights.
?!?!
Please make some sort of reasonable argument that a law protecting the rights of women to get an abortion is better than a law protecting the rights of people to get an abortion. Because you can't, the only difference would be that first of those laws allows you to exclude some people from those rights.
That's literally it, the only reason you would be trying to make that argument, except just sort of general transphobia and not actually thinking about things.
It wasn’t so long ago that Disney made movies that everybody wanted to go see and, if they were on the fence, had a friend (or a spouse!) that wanted to go see it.
It sure is amazing how everything was constantly different in the past and no one ever complained about Disney movies.
It has become startlingly clear that, to a lot of people, we are living in comic book time, where attitudes all changed 5 years ago, this is a very definite fact, and no one has noticed that they've been saying that for about 20 years at this point.
There is essentially no difference in the movies that Disney makes now and the movies that Disney made in, for example, 2017. The difference in ticket sales is (as is incredibly obvious) covid and the fact that people stopped going to movies during that, and never really came backp because they realize that movie theaters are actually kind of stupid and it's much easier to watch at home.
By the way, interesting fact: You know how everyone has been repeating as true that Florida law, with regard to whether or not felons can vote, follows the rules of the state that the felony was in?
So, it turns out not only is that not true, that's literally not a law in Florida, but the Florida Constitution would explicitly prohibit such a law. The Florida Constitution says everyone convicted of a felony gets their voting right suspended until restored.
Everyone appears to have repeating the same source, the Florida Division of Elections, but, and this is incredibly odd, those people appear to be just lying. That is not the law, not even vaguely.
No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.
It is not whether the original state wants him to vote or not, it is whether he has finished serving his sentence. Yes, those two sentences are sort of confusing, but they they operate independent of each other. The first sentences say can't vote or hold office until your civil rights have been restored, and the second sentence says your civil rights are restored upon completion of your sentence... And unmentioned there is that the state government can also restore your rights. But they have not. (And before you ask if New York can restore those rights, New York isn't going to take them away in the first place.)
(And if anyone has having trouble parsing that, be aware that the (b) that is referred to makes sure that they are not restored to certain classes of felonies, ones Trump did not commit, but it shows that that first sentence alone is not what restores them, or the second sentence detouring would make no sense.)
Now DeSantis has promised to restore Trump's voting rights, but apparently his rights haven't officially been taken away, it happens every January 31st and July 31st.
They should have been. Desantis, instead of letting that happen and then restoring Trump's voting rights, has apparently meddled in the process to the point that Trump's rights were never taken away, despite the fact that Florida law makes it extremely clear they already should have. (The removal of the rights is based off a felony conviction, not the sentencing, which has not happened yet)
However, that is not as useful as it appears to be, because it is still illegal to vote even if the state has not formally taken away your rights. All it actually means is DeSantis can't restore them yet because Florida hasn't done the paperwork to formally remove them.
The “Tampon Tim” moniker relates to a new Minnesota law that mandates that menstrual products must be available in all public school restrooms used by students in grades 4 through 12 with no exception for boys’ bathrooms.
This is at best extremely disingenuous, and really could be described as a lie. Almost no boys bathrooms will have tampons in them.
The bill he signed requires schools to provide free tampons in restroom to all menstruating students.
If there are menstruating students in the boy's restroom, yes, schools have to provide tampons for them to use. Otherwise, no they don't.
What exactly is the logic of the complaint here? That if schools have trans boys that are using the boy's restroom, they _shouldn't_ have access to the tampons?
The actual objection by Republicans, of course, is that schools are allowing trans kids to use the restroom of their gender, but that doesn't actually result in any sort of valid complaint against Tim Walz because that certainly isn't anything he's done. That's something each school desides the policy for themselves. (Most of them actually designate gender neutral bathrooms, but some do not.)
So Republicans have to lie and pretend that he mandated that there will be tampons in every boy's bathroom, instead of the law quite rationally saying 'Hey, if there are any menstruating students using a bathroom in a school, there have to be products for dealing with that'. That can't really have any logical objections to unless you object to the concept of providing tampons for students at all. (Which Republicans probably also object to, but they're at least smart enough to pretend otherwise.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/2/2024”
Saul, please do a little more research here. NaNoWriMo are a shit organization, and the statement they released at that link is a backtrack of their original position of 'Any AI is fine!'
And they took that position because the only people willing to sponsor them after last year, when all their volunteers quit, is the AI industry, who has never had a problem being child-abuse adjacent.
"
In case people are unaware, NaNoWriMo _imploded_, very spectacularly, last year. This is because they defended someone who abused children, and then basically had _all_ volunteers leave, en mass, because of their response to everything.
They also lost all their sponsors. Except, of course, the AI techbros who, are always willing to step in and dump huge amounts of cash on cash on things.
And because AI techbros will say and do literally anything to justify heir plagiarism, machine, they have come to this position.
So, what is happening here is that a bunch of AI techbro morons are speaking the language of disability rights to justify any incredibly stupid position, and the end result of that is people thinking the problem is the way they are talking instead of the fact that a) what they are saying makes nonsense, and b) is trying to justify a very bad thing.
The reason it is stupid is threefold:
1) AI (or, rather, LLM) is not an assistive technology of any sort. It does not help someone do a creative thing, it just...strings together a bunch of stuff that it asserts is a creative thing. There are. indeed, uses of machine learning that are very helpful to disabled writers, like speech-to-text and text-to-speech, or even better predictive text or spelling corrections, that are assistive tech.
But generative LLM Ai is not that because, again, typing a prompt into a screen and having it invent a story is not assisting _you_ write, it is 'writing' for you, and it's not even really doing that. Getting someone else to do things for you is not assistive technology.
2) Of course, if you are disabled, and _need_ things done for you, we shouldn't criticize that. Except, this isn't _that_. There's a difference between saying 'We should have a handicapped accessible bus so disabled people can get between two distance points' and saying 'Handicapped people should hire taxis so they can participate in a fun run', which is, in fact, what NaNoWriMo is. It is not a job, it is not a requirement, it is a self-imposed challenge, and it is utterly insane to think that anyone would even want to hire someone else to do a self-imposed challenge for them.
3) The people saying this, who I remind people are _supposed to be a writing non-profit_ but are actually just now a bunch of AI dudebros who took it over, appear to think that the difficultly in writing is 'Coming up with a concept'. This is, in fact, the exact _opposite_ of a true thing.
On “Kamala Harris DNC Speech: Watch It For Yourself”
What do you mean, if my claims are correct? What part of my statement is disputable? I pointed out what was happening and how it differed from post-war Germany losing territory, and posed a hypothetical about how the German people would feel about that. There were no 'claims' in it except 'settlements still exist and are still currently being created', and unless you think they've somehow permanently stopped sometime between the last announcement in March and now, none of that can be wrong.
The peace process literally is based around the settlements first being barred from added, then removed, and then no longer able to happen because Israel doesn't control Palestine anymore.
That is how every peace process have literally started as a concept. It's not a 'big issue' because it is literally _the_ entire premise, from start to end. (This is why Israel doesn't propose any peace settlements any more, or work with anyone trying to create them, because that would literally be the first order of business, and Israel cannot stop doing that.)
Oh, so now they're just _constantly_ doing that, huh? The only supposed 'example' of that is Arafat in 2000, Israel hasn't even bothered to have peace talks since then.
You have, and I almost could add this to any post by anyone here on this topic, ingested Israeli propaganda on this. So, some facts:
Accepting a limited right of return would not have, at any point, destroyed 'Israel'. It wouldn't have even meaningfully changed the demographics of Israel. The only thing Arafat actually wanted was the right of return to Jerusalem. That was the thing he wanted, but, of course, this 'peace deal was something worked out entirely between the US and Israel with Arafat being given the finished product and having basically no input on it'
Meanwhile, the deal thrown in front of Arafat didn't even include _compensation_ for Palestinians who had been removed. It sorta handwaves that as something that could be done later. Is your argument that Palestinians shouldn't even get that? You know, a thing that actually could _end_ this, if Palestinians were actually _paid_ for the land they were forced out of at gunpoint? It would certainly make things look more legitimate, wouldn't it? But Israel won't even do that.
In fact, that peace treaty had a _lot- of the things that Palestinians were demanding to be done put off until being figured out later, and everything Israel wanted (Which included annexing huge settlements, aka, formalizing Israeli's land theft, and a completely demilitarized Palestinian state that Israel basically ruled) done immediately.
Please note this was seven years after Oslo, which had done the same thing: Had the Palestinians make a bunch of compromises in return for figuring stuff out in the future, whereas Israel got everything it wanted.
That is how every treaty offered by Israel has been. Some major concession on the part of Palestine, some very minor one on the part of Israel, and a promise that the important stuff will be done later. That last thing never actually happens, because the next step is yet another treaty where Israel demands more stuff.
"
Hey, how much do you think the Germans would be okay with losing parts of their country _in the present_ to the same people who took it after WWII? If Poland constantly took new parts of Germany, moved soldiers in, evicted everyone and build new housing for Poles?
Do you think that not only would they be upset about the _current_ theft, they might also still be talking about when this _started_?
"Wow, Germany sure is holding on to their grudges about the land I took decades ago." I say, as I literally take more of their land at that exact moment. "How irrational!"
I would like a _single_ person in this discussion to actually address this very obvious point, that wounds do not and cannot heal until the _actual injury stops being repeated over and over_, and it's incredibly telling how none of you will.
"
Hey, here's a fun question: Why would Palestinian ambulances be entering Israel?
Oh, they wouldn't? Of course not.
Then what was Hamas hypothetically trying to blow up?
Israeli soldiers at checkpoints? But...wait, why are there checkpoint in Palestine to start with? Except to...search people so they can't...attack checkpoints...wait, no.
Or, wait, are the soldiers there to defend illegal settlements? That's actually it.
This is the whole 'resisting illegal arrest', times a billions. 'We have to do really bad things to you because you will not accept our illegal authority, and the things you do in response to your illegal authority turn around and justify our reaction.'.
This is sorta the root problem of everything happening there: Absolutely none of it would be a problem if Israel would just get the hell out of Palestine. Hamas would just be reduce to lobbing rockets, which are nearly completely inefficient. (And, as I pointed out, Hamas would not have popular support for doing that long.)
And before anyone says 'They'd do more 10/7', I remind everyone that a huge chunk of soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza border to go maintain order in the West Bank. That's the only reason that worked.
Israel actually has more than enough military to defend its _actual borders_, what it doesn't have to enough military to defend is the huge deliberate zig-zag of settlements and checkpoints it subjects Palestinians to _within_ Palestine.
"
It'd be nice if you didn't pretend those instructions have not been very clearly given. But here are the instructions again:
Withdraw all settlements immediately from the West Bank. 'Legal', or otherwise. And, while we're at it, Israel doesn't get to tear those down like they did in Gaza. They can take down Jewish Temples, that's fine, but all houses and infrastructure and everything remain...you _built it illegally in another country_, it's theirs.
Withdraw the IDF as much as possible from the West Bank. Remove all checkpoints. I will compromise and allow them to remain at the borders for now, but Israel is going to have to realize that border defense happens _inside your country_, you don't get to set up outposts in the country you're holding off. If they feel some Israeli inhabitants are too close to the border and indefensible, it is up to _them_ to move father back. Borders don't move because you built houses up to them. But, that can be a process.
What's going to have to happen next is a new election there to replace the compromised puppet government, which needs to happen anyway. If the IDF can control itself and be helpful, I have no objection to them maintaining the peace before and during that, but it not, request UN peacekeepers. Or Jordanian security forces.
There needs to be a timeline for making sure the IDF doesn't have a single person in the country. Say, one year. If the West Bank cannot function at that point, and needs some sort of outside help, literally anyone else should be providing it.
All this West Bank stuff should actually happen independent of the war, because that is not where the war is.
Ending the war is more complicated, but Israel could always say 'The war is over in exchange for the hostages', and really hasn't said that...they always demand Hamas surrender on top of that. Now, Hamas leaders did commit war crimes by kidnapping civilians, and Israel _could_ hypothetically complain to the Hague about that, but it would be rather hilarious. The actual end of this is the Hamas leadership getting away with all their stuff, which sounds bad until you realize exactly how much Israeli leadership has gotten away with things, then it's, like, eh. Often the worst people get to walk away without accountability.
I am not sure this would actually work in Gaza, but the interesting part of this is you can free the West Bank by itself and that almost immediately undercuts Hamas's position in Gaza.
Please acknowledge your receipt of these instructions so we don't have to do this again.
"
Yeah, it dates all the way back to the time that a bunch of Jews forced them move, at gunpoint, so those Jews could take part of the area and proclaim a 'democracy' that only had the right sort of voters in it.
But we're not supposed to talk about that, we're supposed to pretend Palestinians should have gotten over that, you've specifically said that, so it's reallly weird to use things that were said back then as a justification for _Israeli's_ action.
Either the entire context counts, or it doesn't, and we should just include, I dunno, five years, I say, randomly picking a number. And for five years, Israel has constantly illegally blockaded something it claims is an independent nation (Gaza) which is an act of war, and stolen land for an occupied territory (West Bank) at gunpoint in violation of international law.
Eventually resulting in a war. (Which, because somehow this has to be said every time, _also_ committed war crimes.)
You have inhaled the propaganda entirely, where the problem is Hamas and Hamas has a problem with Israel existing at all. Maybe they actually do, I'm sure they've even said that at some point. But they are a militia, they take somewhat extreme positions.
But in actual reality, the only reason Hamas has any _support_ is because of the behavior of Israel inside of Palestine against Palestinians. All Israel has to do is actually give up Palestine, which would completely uncut 99% of the opposition to Israel by Palestinians.
You keep talking about how irrational it is to want to recover land stolen 70 years ago, and _you are right_. Bet that _isn't_ what Palestinians are pissed about. They're pissed because Israel literally stole their house two years ago, after years of illegal settlers harrassing them with the help of the IDF. And incidentally shot their brother and his wife as part of that.
Hell, if I were they, I'd be indescribably angry at an occupying force making me jump though insane amount of hoops just to move around in my own country...Palestinians often have to get to checkpoint at five in the morning just to _get to their jobs_.
And that's the West Bank. In Gaza, they have to cope with near starvation because Israel won't let them actually set up any industry or farming due to the blockage
That's what norm Palestinians are actually pissed at Israel about. The direct impact of Israel on their daily lives. Trying to recover land in Israel is just a rallying cry, it's not anything they expect to happen, and they would not continue some sort of hypothetical war with Israel to get that if Israel leaves them alone.
And, no, what Israel did in Gaza doesn't count as a withdrawal...the fact they no longer had any people on the ground doesn't change the fact they completely controlled every aspect of it, including entrances and exits and shipping. That actually made things in Gaza much worse, but even if it hypothetically hadn't, it doesn't change the fact Gazans also consider the West Bank part of the same county (Cause it is) and will, rather obviously, not stop while _that_ is occupied.
However, giving up Palestine is the one thing that, politically, Israel is completely unable to do because the far-right party has, for _decades_, been asserting that eventually all that land will belong to Israel. (And everyone else got the hint when the prime minister who made motions towards that got assassinated)
"
Maybe Israel should stop _currently acting_ like one, then, and stop stealing land _right now_?
I don't see any evidence they don't want revenge for wrongs they suffered this year: https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-panel-greenlights-nearly-3500-new-west-bank-homes/
It is nearly delusional how everyone person seems to talk about how Palestine cannot 'get over' things _are literally still happening to them_.
LeeEsq, solemnly, to a man on the ground: Revenge against your attacker is not the way, you need to let it go and move on with your life. You cannot change the past.
Palestine: You can see the guy is still standing there kicking me, right?
LeeEsq: You must move past the harms that you claim were done to you 32 seconds ago, and forgive, and realize you both need to live in peace.
Israel: *kicks man on ground again*
Palestine: *ineffectually throws a punch, which Israel's iron dome deflect*
LeeEsq: Stop it! Holding grudges is not the way, Palestine. Let it go! It's over! What happened 3 seconds ago is not important.
"
LOL, you think, it's _Palestine_ that is stopping Israel from taking over Gaza and the West Bank?
Do you actually think Palestinians would object?
They wouldn't, in fact, they'd laugh and agree to it. It's called the One State solution. This is because Palestinians actually understand why Israel hasn't taken all of Palestine in one of the innumerable times they've had the chance (Including the literal formation): At some point, Israel would have to explain why they weren't letting these new Israelis vote.
It's the same reason Israel builds 'settlements' in the West Bank instead of just annexing parts of it that might have Arabs in it that demand the right to continue to live there and be citizens of Israel(1). It's because Israel is willing to be a Democracy as long as only the right sort of people are voting.
That's literally why they had to drive Palestinians out of their territory before declaring 'independence' to start with, after all. To make sure the people voting would vote _the right way_.
1) Except East Jerusalem, which they have annexed back in 1980 and...for some reason don't let Arab residents vote in national elections, despite them being _supposedly_ Israeli citizens living in what is now supposedly Israel.
It's like if the US annexed Puerto Rico or the Philippines, and instead of just not letting them vote in national elections (Which itself is very shameful, and we've mostly admitted that.), we only let _white people_ there vote.
They're sorta showing their whole ass on that 'only democracy in the Middle East' thing, aren't they? Making it extremely clear that they are only a democracy insomuch as the people vote the way they want.
And, hell, they aren't even at risk of losing a Jewish majority there...they're just at risk of losing the far-right majority.
"
Well, you're halfway there, at least.
Maybe at some point you'll ask yourself 'Wait, what if Israel stopped trying to steal Palestinian land constantly with new settlements and _actually_ withdraw from it all, including from border and air control, not just pretend withdraw like they did in Gaza? How long would the anger at Israel actually last?'
Asserting that a group of people who were very seriously harmed in 1948 and have constantly been harmed since by land theft and unlawful detentions and randomly shot and humiliated in the streets should somehow 'stop being irrational' is nonsense.
Israel needs to stop doing what it is doing, period. It's illegal, it's unethical, it's immoral, and it constantly makes things worse for them.
If they do stop, and Palestinians remain irrational after it stops, that is entirely different discussion, but the person who beat someone else senseless and has continued to kick them and steal stuff from them while they are on the ground doesn't get to complain that that person is irrationally angry at them. (And no, it doesn't matter that people who look like that person assaulted their parents.)
And third parties shouldn't be walking up and be complaining that one of them is kicking someone on the ground, but the person on the ground sometimes manages to get a punch in, and thus 'everyone is irrationally violent here, there is no solution'.
"
I wasn't pointing out that it happened. I was pointing out the response Israel had to 'discovering' it happened. Specifically, the far-right Likud immediate defended such behavior and riot to protect the soldiers. I don't mean 'some of them', I mean 'actual political leadership'.
Incidentally, 'discovering' is actually a bit absurd...there have been very well documented evidence of sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees for decades. This is just an example that got caught on video because it happened outside at a detention center because Israeli soldiers could not delay their hatred and rapey-ness to long enough to get the victim inside, I guess.
Dark Matter just mentioned the torture the US did, which I remind people that our government attempted to defend by defining it not as torture, by pretending it was really important, and by having the CIA instead of soldiers (who have very clear training about war crimes) do it, and eventually charged some people.
You know what didn't happen in the US, even in the completely deranged post-9/11 universe of 'We can do anything?' We didn't defend ramming brooms inside people's anuses. Did any soldiers do that? I don't know, I don't think so, I hope not, but maybe. But we sure as hell wouldn't have rioted in the streets if someone had gotten charged with it. We wouldn't have had people defending that in Congress.
When I say Israel society is sick, people need to understand I'm talking about N*zi Germany sick. I'm not saying their actions are comparable, at least not yet, but their belief in the humanity of the outgroup are. They have managed to nearly _completely_ dehumanize Palestinians.
And a lot of Americans have fallen for it, fallen for the propaganda that the situation is exactly the other way around, that Palestinians hate Jews for no reason, instead of them quite sanely hating a state that is doing _this_ to them.
...why do you think _that's_ the example of them acting like an apartheid state?
Wouldn't 'They have set up armed and defended-by-soldiers enclaves inside the legal borders of Palestine that only Israelis are allowed to live in and shop in and enter at all' be much better evidence of apartheid? That's pretty much textbook apartheid, that's the origin of the term apartheid, 'apartness', where Black South Africans were segregated into their own areas and forbidden to come into the white ones.
On “Disney’s Arbitration Maneuver: A Real Mickey Mouse Operation”
I would just rather the entire structure by torn down.
Arbitration is a reasonable tool for corporations. That's what it was invented for, two companies that are aware a contract between them might need to be hashed out, specify an actual neutral third party that exists for that purpose in said contract.
It is not a reasonable tool for people, at least not any sort of _advanced_ agreement. People should have a right to access the court system, period.
In fact, I'd like to see a lot less 'People having to agree to contracts to purchase things'. I thinkwe need new...sales terms? I don't know what to call it, but there should be some reasonable set of expectations that just _exist_ when I do almost every transaction, and the fact a good percentage of them are pretending to be 'contracts' that I hypothetically have to pour over because they can insert random terms in is a serious problem.
In fact, a good portion of those are either standard terms, or utter gibberish that will not stand up in court. (It's funny how all software disclaims 'fitness for any particular purpose'. Yeah, that's not how that works. You can't sell people things and say they do things and then later tell them what they bought might not do those things, no backsies! They try to go on and disclaim all liability for damages, again, not how that works.)
On “Kamala Harris DNC Speech: Watch It For Yourself”
I find it odd we're talking about ultrasound machines and not the stuff that happened two months ago.
You know, where ten soldiers were caught, on video, holding shields to help hide the very obvious rape of a Palestinian prisoner by each other. And this isn't some dubious allegation...there's very clear video of it happening and the prisoner ended up in the hospital with very serious injuries, there's not really a lot of debate over the facts. At minimum, every single soldier standing there helping shield things is an deliberate _accomplice_ to rape.
And the IDF, to its credit, is investigating. And I'm not going to try to act extremely outraged, this stuff sometimes happens in a war.
But, the actual thing people should notice: Israeli's far-rigth rioted over charging these soldiers, storming a military base.
And this rape was defended in the Knesset by Likud members, saying it's perfectly fine to do _anything_ to them if they're Hamas militants.
I think a lot of people here do not quite understand how deeply sick Israeli society is, how weirdly poisoned they are by decades of dehumanizing Palestinians because they need some sort of moral justification for what they have been doing.
...but anyway, if we're talking about 'places where Israel has gone too far', how about: Two months ago, had a political discussions about whether it is fine to rape enemy soldiers.
On “Disney’s Arbitration Maneuver: A Real Mickey Mouse Operation”
I'm actually disappointed that Disney backed down for PR reasons, because people need to understand just how this sort of thing works.
In fact, I heard everyone to have a fun little thought experiment of how far this could extend. What's the absolute worst case scenario you can think of here, where doing something decades earlier could lock you into arbitration permanently?
Maybe in 10 years, as society continues to move cashless, you buy food from a vending machine. Using a credit card. A vending machine that, when you purchase something from Nabisco, it pops up an agreement from them. 20 years later, they sell you actual literal poison, and you can't sue them because you clicked I Agree on a vending machine.
I'm sure it's possible to imagine that you would be able to avoid situations like that, that you would never be dumb enough to do that, except... Y'all do know that almost everything you buy is from a megacorporation, right? And it's purchased through either that corporation or another megacorporation.
There is no one who can live their entire life without buying stuff from companies that would like you to agree to permanent arbitration.
And hell, it doesn't even have to be a company that you used. Oh look, the FedEx driver fell asleep and drove into your house due to the policies of FedEx, what you would really like to sue FedEx over, but, unfortunately, you once bought something from a company that ships using FedEx, and despite the fact that you didn't even get it shipped via FedEx, when you sign the agreement with that company you agree to arbitration in any disagreement with a contractor of theirs, which FedEx is.
People do not understand how dangerous and insane it is to allow companies to require people to waive the right to access the court system, and them attempting to extend that right permanently as opposed to the interaction you were in when you agree to the arbitration is just makes it much worse.
Which is exactly why Disney backed off, this would look bad enough that what they are doing might get challenged in something done about it, But be sure that they will continue to use disputes that don't outrage the conscience. The guy who booked a trip to Disney World and had his reservations at his Disney hotel canceled with no refund and no explanation, but he agreed to the Disney Plus thing, he's the one they'll happily screw over because no one cares enough, the story doesn't sound bad enough.
On “Conservatives for Kamala”
Are you asserting that Trump being unable to implement his promise of ‘a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.' is somehow to his credit?
https://web.archive.org/web/20151207230751/https:/www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Seems extremely odd to complain that people are using the same words as Trump used to describe it.
On “Is Harris Limiting Press Access Helping Her?”
Then maybe you should ask the press to talk about them?
On “Trump And Harris Agree on No Tax On Tips”
Hey, everyone, here's my new political idea: We take a system in our society that is just completely broken, like, is an actual bad idea in every possible way, and, hear me out, we make it trivially better in a very specific way. Often in a way that does not actually change anything.
And don't think this tip thing is the end. Next, I'm proposing adding a lane to the busy highway near you! Yes, a single lane, added to that one highway! Imagine how much better that will be!
On “Is Harris Limiting Press Access Helping Her?”
The interesting thing about this editorial is I somewhat think it is wrong. Sort of.
Politicians indeed don't have a duty to talk to the press, but they do have a duty to respond to the concerns of the American people, which is traditionally done via the press asking questions that supposedly some amorphous blob of American people want answered.
These questions can be anything from 'that policy proposal looks incredibly expensive, how is it going to get paid for' to 'you appear to have changed your position multiple times on this, why did you do that and why should we believe you're going to keep your current position' to 'you hung out with some white supremacist this weekend, do you think that's okay?' to 'explain the bribery charges that have been filed against you by the FBI'.
So I'm not saying the press should only ask policy questions, but they should only ask _real_ questions. Things people actually want an answer to, that the answer to is plausibly a concern of the public. Not 'how do you feel about Trump saying stupid stuff about you?' or even 'how do you feel about the latest polls?'
But those questions have been how things worked for decades. I'm not entirely a fan of calling this vibe-based, because just as much questions are about horse race minutiae that aren't important either, and there's another set of questions that sound like the scandal questions I talked about above, but are literally just made up, and do not have the minimum amount of research that the press should be doing before asking these questions. Or worse, are deliberate lies by the 'press'.
Harris's campaign has no actual scandals, or at least the press hasn't bothered to find any, so she doesn't need to address any of them, and the press won't talk about her policies, so there's literally no reason for her to interact with the press.
"
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read that the person intended to take seriously:
The really funny thing is that statement doesn't make an argument that the media actually is a critical part of the system, because that actually would be a very hard argument to make.
Instead, it's making an argument that Harris is just _getting away_ with showing it isn't a critical part of the system, instead of being forced to keep pointing that out over and over again. His problem is not that she is showing that the media is useless, it's that she isn't _arguing_ that with the media about that, as Democrats have been doing for decades, demanding that the media stop running random lies and making things about vibes and stuff...she's just ignoring the media.
His theory is that she looked at the media, and said 'literally nothing you do is even slightly useful to me versus directly speaking to voters' and walked away. And he doesn't seem to understand how badly this makes his industry look.
Now, I don't know if she's actually intending to do this, but considering how much other things that she has started doing that everyone (I don't just mean the left but almost every activist Democrat regardless of where in the party they are) has been screaming for politicians to do for decades... I think it might be deliberate.
Now, what she's doing can look bad, but I think there's a clever way for her to blunt that...she should agree to an interview if, and only if, there are literally no questions about Donald Trump or fluff about her campaign, she will answer policy questions about her future presidency, (and how she intends to manage to implement those, things like that related to future governance), and that's it.
They wouldn't be able to do it. The press would be literally incapable of managing this. I know that sounds weird, and it's hard to think of how they would fail at this, but they would. They have been trained, for decades, to ask the other kind of questions.
On “Open Mic for the week of 8/12/2024”
Uh, yeah, it took place back in 2022:
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/591439-disney-says-its-consulting-with-dwarfism-community/
Disney got criticism for remaking the movie at all, one of the things that they decided to do was rename the movie to put less emphasis on the character's dwarfism, and they then renamed the movie back.
There wasn't any indication they weren't going to be dwarves, just that the term and the emphasis on them being dwarfs was going to be reduced due to criticism, and then they decided to rename it back due to other criticism, I guess, cause they're idiots.
I think some of this is internal dwarfism politics, about whether or not their condition is a disability or not. I don't think any of us belong to that community or know anything about that, but they do sort of have a point, it would actually be kind of weird to identify characters solely by their disability in the title of a movie. Like you wouldn't name a Spider-Man / Daredevil team up movie "The Web Slinger and the Blind Guy"
"
Yes, Jaybird, you shouldn't see it because you have decided it's the sort of movie you don't want to see due to political reasons, whereas perhaps you didn't think that in 2017.
Actually, I really suspect you did think that back in 2017, and my point is that in fact you're sort of living in a perpetual present where a bunch of huge changes happened recently Destroying Movies Forever (TM) due to wokeness, instead of that literally being how movies have been since the 80s.
"
Yes, if there's one place that we don't need to make sure wording is precise, it's laws protecting people's rights.
?!?!
Please make some sort of reasonable argument that a law protecting the rights of women to get an abortion is better than a law protecting the rights of people to get an abortion. Because you can't, the only difference would be that first of those laws allows you to exclude some people from those rights.
That's literally it, the only reason you would be trying to make that argument, except just sort of general transphobia and not actually thinking about things.
"
It sure is amazing how everything was constantly different in the past and no one ever complained about Disney movies.
It has become startlingly clear that, to a lot of people, we are living in comic book time, where attitudes all changed 5 years ago, this is a very definite fact, and no one has noticed that they've been saying that for about 20 years at this point.
There is essentially no difference in the movies that Disney makes now and the movies that Disney made in, for example, 2017. The difference in ticket sales is (as is incredibly obvious) covid and the fact that people stopped going to movies during that, and never really came backp because they realize that movie theaters are actually kind of stupid and it's much easier to watch at home.
"
By the way, interesting fact: You know how everyone has been repeating as true that Florida law, with regard to whether or not felons can vote, follows the rules of the state that the felony was in?
So, it turns out not only is that not true, that's literally not a law in Florida, but the Florida Constitution would explicitly prohibit such a law. The Florida Constitution says everyone convicted of a felony gets their voting right suspended until restored.
Everyone appears to have repeating the same source, the Florida Division of Elections, but, and this is incredibly odd, those people appear to be just lying. That is not the law, not even vaguely.
It is not whether the original state wants him to vote or not, it is whether he has finished serving his sentence. Yes, those two sentences are sort of confusing, but they they operate independent of each other. The first sentences say can't vote or hold office until your civil rights have been restored, and the second sentence says your civil rights are restored upon completion of your sentence... And unmentioned there is that the state government can also restore your rights. But they have not. (And before you ask if New York can restore those rights, New York isn't going to take them away in the first place.)
(And if anyone has having trouble parsing that, be aware that the (b) that is referred to makes sure that they are not restored to certain classes of felonies, ones Trump did not commit, but it shows that that first sentence alone is not what restores them, or the second sentence detouring would make no sense.)
Now DeSantis has promised to restore Trump's voting rights, but apparently his rights haven't officially been taken away, it happens every January 31st and July 31st.
They should have been. Desantis, instead of letting that happen and then restoring Trump's voting rights, has apparently meddled in the process to the point that Trump's rights were never taken away, despite the fact that Florida law makes it extremely clear they already should have. (The removal of the rights is based off a felony conviction, not the sentencing, which has not happened yet)
However, that is not as useful as it appears to be, because it is still illegal to vote even if the state has not formally taken away your rights. All it actually means is DeSantis can't restore them yet because Florida hasn't done the paperwork to formally remove them.
On “Walz-ing Towards Election Day”
This is at best extremely disingenuous, and really could be described as a lie. Almost no boys bathrooms will have tampons in them.
The bill he signed requires schools to provide free tampons in restroom to all menstruating students.
If there are menstruating students in the boy's restroom, yes, schools have to provide tampons for them to use. Otherwise, no they don't.
What exactly is the logic of the complaint here? That if schools have trans boys that are using the boy's restroom, they _shouldn't_ have access to the tampons?
The actual objection by Republicans, of course, is that schools are allowing trans kids to use the restroom of their gender, but that doesn't actually result in any sort of valid complaint against Tim Walz because that certainly isn't anything he's done. That's something each school desides the policy for themselves. (Most of them actually designate gender neutral bathrooms, but some do not.)
So Republicans have to lie and pretend that he mandated that there will be tampons in every boy's bathroom, instead of the law quite rationally saying 'Hey, if there are any menstruating students using a bathroom in a school, there have to be products for dealing with that'. That can't really have any logical objections to unless you object to the concept of providing tampons for students at all. (Which Republicans probably also object to, but they're at least smart enough to pretend otherwise.)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.