Lurker > Pogo_Marimo

bsp77 posted...

Fuck that. Whether she was aware of the full extent or not, she still brought in these women without telling them why she was bringing them in. That's pretty awful at the very least.

...? She brought her in to the house be a nanny because she was friends with Scarlett. She didn't bring Scarlett in to have sex with Gaiman. What are you referring to?

LightSnake posted...

She stated she was aware of numerous other complaints against him and was still bringing in vulnerable young women.

She never said she was aware of "numerous complaints". She said he had "done this before to 14 other women". By this point, Scarlett had not talked about being sexually assaulted by Gaiman. As the article states, she did not frame this conversation as sexual assault--She framed it as being seduced by Gaiman. The article doesn't provide additional context to this statement.

I made my post strictly because it plays very loose with how it characterizes Palmer and defines her role in this. That's... fine, to be honest. The article exists to get the victim's story out, not protect Amanda's reputation. But I read the article and it does not support the kind of statements posters have made in this topic.

Amanda's just as much a victim of Gaiman as the other girls. Amanda knew Gaiman had lots of BDSM types of relationships with women but she wasn't aware of anybody being raped. They were both very vocal about having an open marriage and being into "hardcore" sex. Amanda didn't want Gaiman to have a consensual sexual relationship with the new nanny because she thought his type of sex would be too harsh for her. Pavlovic was the first person to come to her about it being non-consensual and that was only a while AFTER she had raised concerns about Gaiman's inappropriateness around their son. It doesn't help that she was sending mixed messages up to that point to Amanda by still seeking out a personal relationship with Gaiman--Not that that's the victim's vault, but it is why Amanda's reaction to everything seems so delayed. As even the article states, when she brought Pavlovich on to be a live-in Nanny she still had faith in Gaiman's decency not to make a pass at her because Amanda asked him.

I'm sure people will now lambast me in the responses below but this article is not a detailed breakdown on what Amanda knew and didn't know and what she facilitated. Amanda Palmer was not Neil Gaiman's Ghislaine. It's a lot more complicated than that. Just because the article makes the situation seem very obvious in hindsight to the reader that does not accurately represented what Amanda Palmer knew about the situation in the moment.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

Also his sister is Loll.

Lock and Loll. That's so iconic.

I watched the first movie right before hand. Very tight movie. There's a good joke in EVERY scene. The writing moves the story forward at a quick pace without skipping any beats. Great characters. Effective exposition. It ticks off all the boxes then roll credits.

Start up the sequel. They made me watch Monica Bellucci assemble herself for, like, 4 fucking minutes at the beginning of the movie for no reason. I thought to myself, "What a waste of time. This movie is probably going to be a sloppy mess". The movie was a sloppy mess. Not even half as many solid jokes. Some of the new characters are just flat (Dafoe obviously kills it though). Ortega's character is pretty much just diet Lydia Deetz. The only things that work in this this movie are the things that worked in the last one, which is pretty damning about the internal inspiration for this sequel.

He just needs to learn how to pose better tbqh. When he's not doing his hunched up gorilla flex his muscles look great.

Ryangrad posted...

I don't know, but that particular poster does it on so fucking many different subjects, and is so confidently wrong. It's funny as hell. He does it so much that when he says something that I thought was accurate I have to Google it to make sure I'm not wrong.

I know he does it all the time, that's why I'm so explicitly exasperated by it. It's like watching someone stub their toe over and over on a piece of junk in the middle of their house and never move it. It's baffling behavior.

Winterking posted...

Im curious: does a single molecule of something have a state, or is state specifically describing the relationship that a molecule of something has with its surroundings?

In terms if "phase changes", no. Kind of. Phases essentially describe the relationship a molecule has with it's surroundings. You could theoretically measure the energy of a molecule at any point in time and then postulate what it's state would be if it was introduced to other molecule. The issue is that individual atoms are constantly undergoing crazy quantum transformations that cause their energy levels to widely fluctuate. The measurement doesn't make a lot of sense unless you measure a shit load of atoms at the same time, which is what Temperature is--The average energy of trillions of simultaneous wild energy fluctuations.

Atoms DO have different energy levels, desribee by ionization, that affect how many electrons can orbit the nucleus based on their energy. These energy states don't map directly with phase changes, but they are responsible for a lot of important chemistry. This a gross over-simplification of ionization but it's the concept which probably best matches your question

Tyranthraxus posted...

Because it dissipates into the air.

The solid version of this is called dissolve.

Evaporation does not change the water into a gas. It's still liquid water, it's just mixed into the air now.

Why.

Why.

Just google it. There is no reason for people to be wrong about the most easy to research things possible. How does this constantly happen on the internet. What drives these people to constantly just pull shit out of their ass.

Bishop9800 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/db3ffd13.png

The point is still the same...... She's just a girl wearing a cat outfit

She's not wearing a "cat outfit".

Bishop9800 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/a2a5719c.jpg

Maybe you should do some research yourself......Now please keep quiet when grown folks are talking .

https://soranews24.com/2014/08/28/hello-kitty-isnt-a-cat-we-called-sanrio-to-find-out/

"His response: 'We never said she was a human.'"

When I asked you to do a little bit of research I was implying you should do more than screenshot the first sentence you get from Google Search.

Phanir posted...

Reminded me that I played this way back when. My introduction to VNs, lol.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/582992-do-you-like-horny-bunnies-2

Well, do ya? Punk?!

Thanks to Steam, Ero-Games have had an absolute golden age over the last five years.

Bishop9800 posted...

It's not misinformation, it's true.

Might want to put your detective hat on and try that investigation again, because whatever TikTok you got that info from is missing out on a very important piece of evidence.

Bishop9800 posted...

She not. She just a girl wearing a cat outfit

I too like to spread misinformation on the internet.

As far as I'm aware, there's no reality-warping leprechauns working in Hollywood right now so there will probably be some CGI involved.

They are demonstrably a part of the left but they have literally no political influence in America. Everybody universally agrees they are not serious people.

I'm watching my wife play FF16 and it legitimately seems like the most boringly written game in the entire series aside from 1. Even then, the writing in FF1 at least doesn't overstay it's welcome.

Adding the dog seems like a decision they made halfway thru development to give you something worth even caring about. Nearly every character is so drab, grey/brown/maude, dirty, overserious, and indistinguishable.

This was not a case of complications from the correct application of self-defense. The victim didn't have a blood clot or brain aneurysm from being restrained. He was choked to death beyond what a reasonable person would do with the training the perpetrator had. The victim, while obviously a threat to others, never met the criteria to be a deadly threat to the perpetrator or others, and was CERTAINLY no longer a deadly threat once he was restrained and unconcious and held by multiple people.

Bad verdict.

So basically the interviewer was talking in weird Tumblr-speak and normal people (Including Ariana and Cynthia) didn't know what was going on.

Necronmon posted...

The fact that most functional democracy states can get the perks without all of those horrible broken phases says a lot to.

Just look at Cambodia...it destroyed itself and NEVER really recovered.

Yeah. Basically every country has improved it's quality of living in the last 100 years. Communism did not provide any shortcuts in this process aside from radical land reform. But, as an example, Russian serfs would have almost certainly been much better off if "land reform" meant breaking the power of the landowners and distributing the land as private property to the serfs who had worked it historically. Then the government could invest in mechanizing the agricultural sector to improve the efficiency of the independent farmers. During a decade of modernization, the amount of unneeded farm hands could have been hollistically moved into extraction industries or cities to continue industralization efforts without risking a massive famine.

Beany posted...

Almost every communist nation markedly improved on what existed prior.

We're being pretty fucking generous with that kind of standard. I don't think "Things EVENTUALLY got better after communism" has the same ring as "These countries almost always experienced MASSIVE purges of their citizens resulting in mass slaughter, followed by massive famine due to egregious mismanagment of the work force, accompanied by total oppression of their people's civil rights, eventually followed by a cooling of sentiments towards communist economic policies, EVENTUALLY leading to the reintroduction of salaries, private business, widespread capitalism, then foreign investment, THEN an improvement in their living conditions compared to prior to Communism".

The number of times this exact same model has played out should tell anyone with a clear conscious and sane mind that the totalitarian communist regimes merely held back what western liberalization would have done if it was implemented to begin with.

kirbymuncher posted...

I don't really see the problem with it in PoE at least. it's not a character creation game it's a character selection game

I don't really get the problem period. Most games without Create a Character already largely gender-lock classes by default and nobody bats an eye. You can't swap Tifa and Cloud's "class" in FF7 because it would be a narrative incongruity. Restrictions are GOOD when used with a soft touch. They encourage people to leave their comfort zones and experiment, and it can also give individual characters a more specific identity.

I think about Yakuza: Like A Dragon and how much less interesting all the characters would be if they all had access to the same jobs. The fun of putting each character in your party was getting to explore something new and unique that still felt cultivated and refined by the developers. Having Adachi be a 59-year old retired police detective Idol, while funny, would also fundamentally undermine the ludonarrative of the game in that it's already walking a fine line between the absurd and the serious.

pinky0926 posted...

This shouldn't be hard to admit and I suspect there's some kind of I dunno, whitewashing or whatever you want to call it going on. People con't want to admit they liked it.

Joe Rogan used to have a very good podcast and everyone used to sing praises about it. I swear most of CE was a joe rogan fan back before he started doing whatever it is he's doing now. There wasn't really a better platform for longform casual discussion with the world's greatest academics and thought leaders and people who had interesting lives.

I listened to him a little bit back when I was following MMA. He had a good perspective on upcoming fights and was obviously very plugged in. Then I heard a few of his non-MMA podcats and I was like, "Yikes, this guy should stop providing his thoughts and just ask questions of these experts".

There's probably very specific tasks where something like this would be better suited than traditional computation, like encryption breaking, but at the same time it's hard to imagine the technology being ubiquitous and versatile enough to make a big difference in my life.

The fact that the efficiency of the error correction scales with the qubits added is a positive sign for the technology's development, however.

havean776 posted...

Voters OVERWHELMINGLY voted Trump. The most corrupt law breaking felon we have ever had as president.

No this will not harm Dems.

So no I don't care, neither do you. You only want to pretend to care because its a Dem doing the pardoning. So you can have your little faux outrage over such a minor thing.
You don't care about the crime.

I care about as much about Biden doing it as I do Trump. The only difference is liberals have had an absolute limp dicked response to Biden doing it, which I DO care about. I don't want to sit here and pretend that Democrats normalizing pardoning rich white dudes for nepotism is fine. This is not what I want my party to become, not more so than it already is, so yes I am going to push back against every person who thinks normalizing this garbage is okay. I don't want my party to be as blatantly corrupt as the Republicans are. Who the hell am I supposed to vote for at that point? I hope for someday for the Dems to finally get a strong President who fights back against the ever-growing corporate government we're stuck with, and that's not going to happen if we don't signal to Dem leaders that this type of behavior is unacceptable.

I'm sure I'm that sucker for believing in making your voice heard though. What if the conservatives catch wind of it? They might not reelect Biden in 2028 if we criticize him too much!

HashtagSEP posted...

Besides that eye witness account, though, we know it was called in as a mental health call. We also know that they won't show the whole video and even refuse to talk about the rest of it. So it's definitely looking like it's very possible said eyewitness report is true.

We'd know if we could see the whole video, of course. Not sure why some people are so against that.

Yup, it's very plausible. It's why you'll never see me justifying editing bodycam footage (aside from personal protected info obviously). I believe he police have an obligation to answer all reasonable inquiries in these situations, and showing the complete bodycam footage is obviously part of that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You don't have to give a shit but voters will.

Dark_Moon posted...

Trump literally released his rich buddies and war criminals, including murderers and didn't get this kind of outcry from either side.

He got this outcry from me. If Trump didn't get this kind of reaction from the left then the left only has themselves to blame.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You want the reality? The reality is this fucking hurts the Democrats you absolute dunce. Yeah, we're going to win back all the blue collar workers in the mid-term by pardoning rich white board members! You're so right! You're living in reality and dumb-dumb me, who doesn't understand anything! Hah! I don't realize that voters actual LOVE brazen corruption! That most be the reason they voted for Trump!

Stop pretending like your position is justified. It's not. You're petty and you hold this position for petty reasons. Because no sane political actor looks at this and says, "Yeah, that's good".

havean776 posted...

He was late paying his taxes and paid the fine and .A-a-a misdemeanor?! The horror.

I understand your rage now. Even if I lived to be a billion years old I don't think I could ever forgive this monster!

I'm sure you would treat this with the same grace and compassion if this rich white person was a Koch brother or Elon Musk.

Hunter Biden is not your friend. He's cut from the same stock as all these others extravagant rich assholes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They have flouted their own ethics because Republicans did it. What do you want, a pat on the back? "I was a good person until it became difficult so I stopped". If your ethics and beliefs are dependent on the circumstances you find yourself in then you don't have beliefs. You have conveniences. Now you all weasel out of our responsibilities for accountability by using the same language as the Republicans. "Why should we play by the rules when the Democrats don't?!" The reality is you never wanted to play by the rules, just like them. You wanted to win. If that's how you want to live your lives then so be it. As snakes who shed their beliefs as easily as they shed their skin.

If you cannot fathom being good when it is difficult then you were never good to begin with. You just wanted the prestige of it. When the prestige of righteousness is no longer useful to you you discard righteousness as a burden. Then you look at me with contempt?

havean776 posted...

What crimes would those be Pogo?

https://www.justice.gov/sco-weiss/pr/robert-hunter-biden-convicted-three-felony-tax-offenses-and-six-misdemeanor-tax-offenses

NoxObscuras posted...

So, I'd like to point to this quote from an article about the incident

A mental health co-responder was at the scene, but wasn't allowed to go in and speak to the woman that was clearly having a mental health episode.

https://kansascitydefender.com/justice/independence-police-kill-mother-infant/

Would things have turned out differently? No one can say. But fact is, there was someone on scene that was better trained for this. They should have made use of that.

Bear with me here, but this statement that a medical health professional was there and was refused entry comes from an eyewitness report from the apartment manager as best I can tell, which should always raise suspiscion. For instance, if we went by eyewitness reports from the article then the mother never actually had a knife to begin with. That is very obviously not true.

I'm not trying to disprove there being a counsellor there, mind you, and if they were refused entry I would be seriously concerned unless there was EXTREMELY compelling reasons to do so. But I am also not willing to accept witness testimony at face value when it's not been corroborated by any other testimony, reports, or material evidence.

And yes, there is also the matter of whether a counsellor could have even helped. I am very, very close with someone with a masters degree in sociology with a specialization in trauma and extensive experience with crisis management. She has seen the full gamut of mental health episodes like this and the reality is that very often simply talking with someone cannot resolve the problem. That is no reason not to try, but it could very well mean the counsellor would be in the same danger as these police officers were. That is the cold reality of these domestic situations.

As well, many mental health crisis responders will simply not enter a situation if there is any realistic they are in danger.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Were the cops invited into the home? Did they ask if there were weapons in the room or if they could search the room for weapons? Was the knife actually completely obscured from view? We don't know because the full video hasn't been released.

Additionally, if the police have reason to believe that others safety is at risk, they can perform a search.

There were two cops there, I don't think it unreasonable to think they could have done more to keep the outcome that occurred from happening. The additional body cam footage could shed some light on that.

I agree. I would also like to see the full footage as there could very well be evidence of negligent behavior of the cops. It's a valid complaint and my conclusion regarding the cop conduct is still open-ended until we have more facts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Do you really want me to drag all your posts in this topic? You've spent most of the topics saying non-sequitors and one liners. I don't know how you THINK your arguments are being perceived, but if I'm to be frank you come off as someone more interested in being cynical, non-responsive, and rude rather than actually engage with anyone else's opinions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You are not working backwards, though. That's what I am criticizing you over. You were just asking what the conclusion was over and over. No one is disputing what the conclusion was. So why ask? You are asking a rhetorical question. You KNOW you're asking a rhetorical question. So don't act surprised when you get criticized for asking rhetorical questions.

Things like this are already difficult enough to discuss in good faith without people spamming rhetorical devices to make their argument look good without saying anything substantive. Yes, the mother and infant both died. We are all abundantly aware of this. We all recognize the rammifications of this. Your beliefs aren't more righteous because you mention it more.

DrizztLink posted...

God fucking damn it, you broke your necklace.

Pearls all over the fucking floor.

"Don't care about things. Don't have ideals. Don't cause any waves. Just accept things as they are."

Some of us strive to not live like hypocrites. If you think ideals are worth shaming someone over then that speaks a great deal about you.

It's sad seeing the moral backsliding of liberals in this topic. You would think this would be a slam dunk opportunity for Democrats to prove they're above the tribal behavior of Republcians but instead they choose to stand by the millionaire nepo baby criminal because.... We hate Republicans?

It's so fucking bizarre. I thought we didn't like corruption, political nepotism, and the rich getting away with crimes due to their priviledge. You don't know Hunter Biden. You probably wouldn't even like the dude if you met him. Why are you going to bat for him? Are you really so fucking reactive to conservative criticism that you just take the opposite stance conservatives do? How utterly fucking gutless and morally bankrupt.

Fuck Hunter Biden. He's a rich corrupt white dude who brazenly comitted crimes and will now get off scott free. That should piss you off if you actually stand by your ideals.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


They were in the process of peacefully getting the baby out of the hands of the mentally distressed woman. If you need me to explain why this is a reasonable and justified thing to attempt I can. They failed to accomplish this. That doesn't tell us if they are morally culpable for the failure though. Obviously they were unable to get a good outcome but that is the case with every thing sometimes. That's why we don't judge things entirely by the conclusion, but by the process as well.

No one is disputing the outcome of the situation which is why you just pointing out the outcome was bad over and over is not a useful thing to discuss. Yes, it was a bad outcome. There are other very relevant things to consider before we cast judgements about the situation though. This is why I'm criticizing you for grandstanding the outcome instead of engaging with the other critical ethical components of the situation.

Zikten posted...

They should have just left. They antagonized her

The woman JUST committed domestic assault and was a danger to others in the household, and was very clearly going through a mental health emergency, and was holding a baby. People complain about officers "not having a duty to protect" then complain when cops actually try to do their jobs too. If they copa left and she did something awful to herself, her baby, or another member of the household the cops would be even more morally culpable for inaction.

ModernPost posted...

You guys know it's not hard to find video footage of cops (non-American ones, obviously) dealing with situations exactly like this, where a knife-wielding subject has an innocent hostage, right? They could try to negotiate, or to deescalate. They could have backed off. They could have attempted to use non-lethal means of stopping her, which they are equipped and trained for. The hostage in this situation is more than likely not in danger from the mother, she wasn't going to kill the baby herself, at least not without the escalation from the police. And I know that firearms training teaches to fire center mass, but in an extreme situation like this one they, as an absolute last resort, could have tried shooting at her extremities. Not a great strategy of course but certainly better than what they chose to do. I just don't think a normal person would be able to override the common moral sense that you should absolutely not shoot at a mother holding an infant. I couldn't do it. Maybe that means I would just die in that situation, or maybe not. But please stop pretending there was only one inevitable outcome here. It's disgusting.

They.... did. They spent 11 minutes trying to get the women to set the baby down and talk. We have no evidence (currently) of the cops doing anything aggressive or belligerent prior to the knife being pulled.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

Yeah, it seems that they should have done a better job securing the room and making sure there were no weapons

The cops can't search the room under these circumstances due to the 4th Amendment. The only way they could have secured the scene better was to use force to remove the baby from her and detain her before she grabbed the knife. But we all know the reaction the internet would have if a video showed up of a cop physically removing a baby from a woman and placing them in handcuffs. The irony is that a more proactive use of force to detain the women would have been much safer for everyobe but also brutally criticized as unreasonable use of force.

Nemu posted...

Yeah, the biggest problem is that they seem to think yelling and stern commands mean anything to someone off their rocker. The ability to back off and refocus seems to be outside their purview.

The use of "police voice" and legal commands is actually extremely effective and works in most cases. You mistakenly think that the extreme outlier videos that go viral on the internet represent the most common scenarios police experience. That's just plainly ignorant. The majority of people who begin to escalate at a police detention will be curtailed through the use of explicit and forceful verbal orders from an officer. That includes people going through emotional episodes or mental health crises.

ModernPost posted...

You guys know it's not hard to find video footage of cops (non-American ones, obviously) dealing with situations exactly like this, where a knife-wielding subject has an innocent hostage, right? They could try to negotiate, or to deescalate.

I don't think the cops had time to negotiate in the 2 seconds between when the woman draws the knife from the drawer and gets close enough to stab the cop.

NoxObscuras posted...

The video also says that they spoke to her for over 11 minutes trying to get her to put her baby down. Given that she has just had an argument with her mother in law about who should be the one to take care of the baby, she was probably having a mental breakdown thinking the cops were there to take custody of her baby.

No way they could have known she would pull out a knife, but if she was non verbal and refusing to move, they maybe should have backed off long before the 11 minute mark.

I think it's extremely naive and negligent to leave a non-responsive woman going through a very obvious mental crises, who just assaulted her grandmother, alone with her baby. I frankly don't know what institution would ever think that's a good idea, in the United States or elsewhere. That's actually crazy. Some of you people need to actually say this stuff outloud to yourselves to see how little sense it makes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Police aren't going to successfully and happily resolve every problem. Neither are counsellors. You are literally working backward from a conclusion to judge the decisions that were made, though. You intuitively understand this is an illogical way to to rationalize the world but you give yourself special exception to use this resaoning when criticizing cops. It's a rhetorical device under guise of a good faith question. If you need me to demonstrate why this reasoning is absurd I can happily do so.

He did not make an "AI" in 2004 because no one made an "AI" in 2004. No one has made an "AI" as of 2024. What's being described here is the technobabble version of a word cloud.

It's just one of those weak memes that doesn't have much structure, so it's just used to reference things and the punchline is "This is a thing you know of/Just a chill guy".

It's basically a Member Berry meme.

kirbymuncher posted...

just because you don't care about the "bad news" doesn't mean it's fabricated because clearly there are enough people that consider these sorts of things important issues

Those Haitians eating pets was a totally real and important issue, right?

Yeah. While neither side is exactly pure when it comes to digging for the "truth" of a matter, it is quite clear which side of the political spectrum has a more comfortable relationship with deceit. I would say only fervent tankies and outright communists are willing to engage with dogma and unfounded rumours to the same degree as a large portion of the American right, and I would argue that has far more to do with Horseshoe Theory than it does with the political ideals of the Left.

Become an opium tycoon in Afghanistan.

"The Father"

"1% Empathy"

Society.

tankboy posted...

By the same logic, we can't say if Whistler is beautiful, only that it has at least one beautiful view.

Very true. TC has not taken this line of reasoning to its complete conclusion.

"I don't like the taste of water" is legitimately some Idiocracy shit.

That's pretty good!

KeeperOfShadows posted...

Pretty much. I'm not changing my diet just for the sake of it. I'll eat healthier when I'm actually found to be in poor health.

I'm sure plenty of diabetics had this exact train of thought too.