Lurker > adjl

I'm really not sure what the opposition is to a virtual debate. The vast, vast majority of people watching the debate will be doing so virtually anyway, so going virtual isn't going to change their experience at all. The only real difference is the handful of people that would watch it live will be disappointed, but they'll get over it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

I responded to this already.

Post 216 bud

Oh hey look at that. I didn't see a direct quote and I generally don't pay enough attention to post numbers to have made the association right away.

OhhhJa posted...

Life isn't without risk. Any reasonable person isn't gonna lock themselves away forever based on a tiny statistical chance they could die. If I did that I'd never leave the house.

So you're not only dodging the question (it's a simple yes or no: Would you play?), you're also misrepresenting the issue. Nobody's saying it's reasonable to lock yourself away forever. Everybody with half a brain, however, is saying that unnecessarily putting people at risk is bad.

Quite simply, Trump could do his entire job from the hospital. He does not need to be paraded around in a limo. He does not need to be back in the White House. The tiny handful of duties that he would need to be physically present for can be transferred to Pence because protocols already exist for dealing with presidents needing hospitalization. That means whatever risk he's imposing on everyone else in the White House - however remote (and when it comes to death, 0.5% is actually quite high) - is unnecessary, and motivated purely by his narcissistic compulsion to pretend he's not sick.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

That's possible - My interpretation is it goes Judgment - Sentencing and then Conviction

Nope, the trial leads to the conviction (the decision if they're guilty or not), then the sentence is the consequence assigned to the offense of which they've been convicted.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Captain Hindsight to the rescue!

Not really. Anyone can tell you that shaking hands isn't a good idea right now. It hasn't been for 7-8 months now, as countless public health agencies have been advising. Yes, it technically is hindsight to recognize that a given precaution was immediately necessary in that particular situation, but recommending and following the precaution is just basic risk analysis: Eschewing handshakes costs you nothing (provided the other person has some modicum of situational awareness and doesn't take that refusal as a vicious attack on their fragile feelings, but if they don't, that's more their problem than yours), but can potentially save multiple lives.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dynalo posted...

OSHA requires there to be a fire evacuation plan in place

And because of this, you should already have been briefed on the protocol for dealing with an alarm. If you weren't, that's a major failure on your employer's behalf.

Dynalo posted...

Why on earth would anything other than "stop working immediately and evacuate" not be the correct answer?

In larger buildings, it's not uncommon for evacuation orders to only apply to certain parts of the building, whether because other parts aren't likely to be affected or because it's necessary to get higher-risk areas out first to ensure an orderly evacuation. In places where continuity of work is extremely important, like a hospital (which I believe is where Blu works), unnecessarily evacuating can have disastrous consequences, so they have protocols in place to reflect that.

In my experience, such places tend to have multiple alarms and/or a speaker system used to advise people in each area on what to do. A general alarm will sound in every area to advise everyone that there's an emergency afoot, at which point protocol usually dictates that you prepare to evacuate (i.e. secure sensitive materials so the evacuation doesn't compromise them, put on a coat and whatnot if appropriate, etc.), but not actually go anywhere until a specific evacuation signal or instruction is given.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Nobody is in danger. The median age for covid deaths is 84 with an average of 2.6 comorbidities. You're waaaaaay overstating the danger of him going back to the white house where he probably will be fairly isolated as is

adjl posted...

A few weeks ago, RedPixel made a post to the effect of "Covid's overall death rate is like 0.05% you're all idiots for trying to avoid it," to which I replied with a hypothetical game in which the player rolled 4 dice, and if they all came up as 1 (a 0.07% chance), the player would be killed. He refused to answer me when I asked if he would be willing to gamble his life in such a game, but you were quite happy to chime in and say "that's not really analogous because you aren't factoring in the fact that you probably won't be exposed" (though also avoiding giving an answer to the actual question), relying on that logic to continue disapproving of precautions.

Well, it's time to break out that analogy again, only this time you can't hide behind vague "you probably won't be exposed" defenses. Every person working anywhere close to Trump right now is being forced to play that game. Again, I ask you: Would you play a game in which you rolled four dice and would be killed if they all came up as 1? By extension, can you really say it's reasonable, safe, or anything short of self-absorbed evil for somebody to force every person that works for them to play that game when they have the option of not going into the office?

@OhhhJa

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

i would have gone with "beaten with a sock full of pennies", but castration works too.

If you aim it right, you can do both at the same time.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Nobody is in danger. The median age for covid deaths is 84 with an average of 2.6 comorbidities. You're waaaaaay overstating the danger of him going back to the white house where he probably will be fairly isolated as is

A few weeks ago, RedPixel made a post to the effect of "Covid's overall death rate is like 0.05% you're all idiots for trying to avoid it," to which I replied with a hypothetical game in which the player rolled 4 dice, and if they all came up as 1 (a 0.07% chance), the player would be killed. He refused to answer me when I asked if he would be willing to gamble his life in such a game, but you were quite happy to chime in and say "that's not really analogous because you aren't factoring in the fact that you probably won't be exposed" (though also avoiding giving an answer to the actual question), relying on that logic to continue disapproving of precautions.

Well, it's time to break out that analogy again, only this time you can't hide behind vague "you probably won't be exposed" defenses. Every person working anywhere close to Trump right now is being forced to play that game. Again, I ask you: Would you play a game in which you rolled four dice and would be killed if they all came up as 1? By extension, can you really say it's reasonable, safe, or anything short of self-absorbed evil for somebody to force every person that works for them to play that game when they have the option of not going into the office?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

likehelly posted...

i haven't ever been spoiled for any of them

no one plays them enough to talk about them

Pretty much. I don't think I've ever heard anything about any of their stories besides Judg fangasming over the fact that the stories are so long (but a pretty normal length for a JRPG). Provided you aren't actively seeking out details, I doubt you'll encounter spoilers, but that's less "dodging" and more "not walking deliberately into" them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Is this the completely original one you invented? Because I'm not at all surprised by this combo and am almost completely certain it's been done many times before. Certainly not NDA-worthy.

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Only fruit that belongs on pizza are tomatoes.

Apples, pears, figs, pineapple... You can do quite a bit with fruit on a pizza. You generally don't want really strong fruit flavours (i.e. no citrus or berries, though they can certainly be done), and it's often best to go with something other than traditional tomato sauce to harmonize better (anything balsamic-based works well), but there are plenty of great gourmet pizzas out there with fruit on them.

Now, I would not just throw apples on a regular cheese pizza and expect it to work. I tend to think of gourmet pizza and classic pizza as being two separate types of food, despite their structural similarities. They're just such different experiences that comparing them directly seems silly, and they're each good in their own ways. Other than pineapple, I generally wouldn't expect fruit to work well on a classic pizza. That's more of a gourmet pizza thing, where experimenting with sauces can produce some interesting combinations.

Side note: If you're calling tomato a fruit, you also need to call peppers, zucchini, and eggplant fruits, all of which are pretty common toppings even on classic pizza (less so eggplant).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ReggieTheReckless posted...

Banning things because they are popular is so dumb

Eh, it makes some amount of sense in a competitive setting. There, things become popular because they work particularly well. Banning the most popular things is therefore just an easy way to balance the game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

i mean the bar is so low for what gets called "racist" these days, but if you want to alienate a large portion of the population that is never going to get past the branding to care about the message, then have at it i guess.

Realistically, the vast majority of the people getting hung up on BLM's name have no intention of caring about the message either way. Picking on the name is just a convenient excuse to avoid having to admit that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

I wish you and your career the best of luck with that one.

Refusing Trump's insanely ignorant treatment requests would like get the physician in question fired in one of Lord Cheeto's narcissistic temper tantrums, but odds are they'd be able to find further work somewhere else (albeit at a lower pay grade). Heeding said requests - knowing full well that they'll do more harm than good and stand a solid chance of killing him because you can get that information from the Wikipedia pages for any of these drug classes - and having the president die as a result, however, would probably result in public execution, let alone career-destroying malpractice suits. Even in terms of self-interest, it's still going to be best to stick to good medical practice, rather than heeding a layperson's whims.

EvilMegas posted...

A weird thing to focus on when you're sick, but whatever.

I like that it took him 2-3 minutes to write each of those one-liners.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Beats that time I saw Karens and their kids protesting to make masks mandatory >_>

Different place, different Karens.

LolZeus

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Do you have testing available where you are?

Best practice now would actually be to self-isolate for two weeks, and only seek out testing if symptoms arise. It may take a few days post-exposure to get a positive test, even if you are positive, and venturing out unnecessarily could put others at risk.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Virus sabotage by left wing operatives as heard through the grapevine

"I'm sure there is a way to do it"

"It" being "transmit an easily transmissible virus whose spread public health officials have been trying desperately for months to stop by convincing people to take protective measures and avoid a litany of high-risk behaviours, recommendations which the patient in question has openly flouted since day 1."

Good lord these people are stupid. Yes, "there is a way" to transmit Covid to somebody. It's called doing exactly what Trump's fanbase has been doing for the entire duration of this pandemic.

OhhhJa posted...

I'd wager my salary on his survival

Mortality rate for 70+ folks is around 5%, and he's got other exacerbating conditions that will increase that. He will probably survive, but that's comparable odds to flipping a coin four times and getting all heads (6.25%), which is far from a remote possibility (I actually just tried it and got three in a row). Wagering your salary on that is pretty stupid, unless your salary means so little to you that you aren't actually as confident in this wager as you'd like us to think you are.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I really need (I'm passing up the pun here) to get more into baking bread. I did plenty in pastry school for the one term I had a breads class, and I would have done more during the heavier lockdown period, but bread flour was so hard to come by that I just haven't bothered since. Bread flour's considerably more available now (at least after moving), so I should stop slacking.

That said, I find foccacia isn't ideal as a sandwich bread. Tasty enough (though sometimes the oil and seasonings on top can overpower the sandwich, but that's easy to avoid if you're making your own), but it's an awkward shape that makes it harder to store than a regular loaf. For sandwiches at home, I'd rather something a bit more oblong.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Alternative headline: Lawyer cons gullible 17-year-old into thinking he has a chance at successfully suing a presidential campaign so she can get a cut of the money people have been throwing at him.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That doesn't sound overly Karenly. You might have been a bit cranky in the way you went about it, but you were justified in being upset and were pretty reasonable as far as your demands for a solution went. All you wanted was the food you paid for or a refund, not any special treatment because something went slightly awry.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

Damn it's crazy how you know better than the directors of the CDC and NIAID

It truly is amazing how many unrecognized geniuses of public health have been lurking among us for so many years, emerging only now that we need them most to expose the ineptitude of actual public health professionals with youtube videos.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

what's the point of having the major/minor system if you're going to constantly charge minors as adults?

Because you don't constantly do it. Charging minors as minors is the default, and is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases. Charging them as adults only happens in particularly egregious cases, which (in a stunning coincidence that NOBODY saw coming) are the cases that are more likely to see national attention and about which you're more likely to hear. You constantly hear about it not because it's more common, but because your sample consists entirely of newsworthy cases.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Because, it did wonders with the PS Vita, instead of calling it the PSP2.

Eh, I wouldn't say the name really hurt the Vita. Aside from people mispronouncing it, there wasn't really any confusion surrounding the name. It was clearly Sony's new handheld, and its failure was due to other factors (price point, memory price, lack of real demand for a high-powered handheld, lack of support due to an unwillingness to commit development resources to high-powered handheld games...). By contrast, nearly a decade later, there are still people who don't understand that the 3DS is a distinct system from the DS and not just a new model with a 3D feature, which is one of the primary reasons it struggled to gain a foothold in its first year. The WiiU never really overcame the same problem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

313800 posted...

I say foam but they're probably something like Polyester, but they're so thin you can see through them so theres little point in wearing them apart from complying with current requirements of wearing a mask.

I didn't see it myself, but my sister was telling me about a store that was advertising "light, feminine" masks made entirely of tulle, which I think might even be more idiotic than those people that insist on cutting mouth holes in proper masks. That said, pretty much anything you put in front of your face will do something to slow down the air you're breathing out, and therefore reduce the dispersal range of your droplets. In Bill Nye's video demonstrating why masks work, he started out by trying to blow out a candle with a regular wool scarf on, and even that (which is obviously far from airtight) made it a bit harder for him to get the necessary air speed. A better seal is obviously better, but where the primary function of masks is to prevent the people wearing them from breathing on others, anything will help at least a little bit.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I actually took my beard off leading up to my move in August, since I knew I'd be out and about a lot more leading up to it, plus going into many different gas stations in multiple provinces. I immediately found that my masks were sealing better than with the beard, which is really to be expected, and that was with substantially less beard than you've got (full beard, but I keep it pretty short). Sadly, beards are rather at odds with mask usage.

Zeus posted...

(although it's unclear that it does much of either, considering how many frontline workers who have better gear got infected)

If anything, the fact that so few frontline workers have been infected speaks to how effectively it works. So many have been infected because they've had so many high-risk opportunities for infection that even dramatically reducing the transmission rate still leaves them at high risk. Without said gear, odds are pretty much every front-line worker would be infected.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Let's see if I remember everything.

CPU: i5 2500K @3.4 GHz (stock cooler, recently reapplied thermal paste)
Mobo: Some Gigabyte thing with the right socket for the CPU
RAM: 8 GB DDR3
GPU: Radeon 280X
Storage: WD Black 500 GB, WD Blue 1 TB, 120 GB Samsung (I think) SSD
PSU: EVGA SuperNova G2 750W
Case: NZXT Phantom (no subtitle, this was before they came out with the other models)
Monitor: Some 1080p HD thing I've been using for like 15 years
Mouse: Razer Diamondback
Keyboard: Some Acer one that came with a prebuilt computer 15+ years ago
Misc: DVD-RW drive, card reader (both were cannibalized from the aforementioned prebuilt)

The initial build was in 2011, I've since upgraded the GPU and PSU (in 2015), added a SSD, replaced that SSD when it died, added the 1 TB HDD, and put new thermal paste on the CPU after the cooler was shaken loose during moving (9-year-old thermal paste doesn't like being disturbed).

My work from home setup consists of the Surface (dunno which version) they gave me, its port replicator/docking station, and a KVM switch that I took from my mother's office that lets me use the same keyboard and mouse as my desktop (said switch only has VGA cables for the monitor, so I connect the docking station directly to the monitor and switch its inputs manually). Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done and meant I could use a single desk setup for both it and my PC.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

When the appointment happens this close to an election, waiting until after the election effectively gives the public a chance to vote on who they want filling the position, which is generally more consistent with the principles of democracy. In practice, it would probably be more sensible to just let the public vote on the judge directly than to use the presidential election as a proxy for that, since then you get more options than just the person that the sitting president likes best and your choice of SC judge doesn't influence your presidential vote, but the current tradition is still a better way of having the choice reflect the current will of the people than having an appointment rushed out right before the president potentially gets the boot.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If I only made it for myself, I'd be a little annoyed by somebody taking some without asking, but if I'm making popcorn, I'm going to ask anyone else around if they want any and make enough for everyone that wants some.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That sky looks like a really wavy ocean, which I'm guessing isn't what you were going for, but it looks kinda cool. Overall, good stuff.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

313800 posted...

Most of the ones i see people wearing are shitty foam ones you can literally see their lips or nose, people only wear them because its required in shops.

That's more a failure of enforcement than anything else. Really, people should be thrown out of shops for having their noses or mouths hanging out of masks. I'm not sure what foam masks you're talking about, though.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

FinalFantasyIV posted...

I feel like the is a soulless business decision.

There's a solid chance it was more an executive decision than Sakurai personally wanting to include him, but it's not like there weren't people calling for/expecting Steve to be included before now.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Is this another character with like 500 unnecessary extra mechanics

Heaven forbid a fighter play normally

I mean, there are like 60 other characters at this point that play normally. I'm fine with new ones having gimmicks to make them more than minor variations on the same movesets we've been using for 20-odd years.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Depends what public health agencies recommend. They're going to be getting a lot of data on what widespread mask usage does to flu rates this year, and from that data, they may recommend widespread mask usage for future flu seasons, or they may only recommend it for people that are feeling symptomatic. Given that I have a solid supply of reusable masks now, I don't really have any reason not to beyond the mild discomfort and foggy glasses, so if they recommend using them, I'll probably do so, albeit less consistently than I do now. If not, there's not much point in wearing them, so I won't.

313800 posted...

The masks i see people wearing provide no protection

How do you figure?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Looks like an interesting moveset that's just the right amount of silly for the character. I approve.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dunno about the last time, but I'm actually about to go change into one for a dinner party (not actually that fancy a party, just everyone dressing up for fun).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Probably balancing issues. To do that, you'd have to make seven necklaces be roughly equivalent in stats to a full set of gear on other characters (presuming that the hydra can't really wear pants or a shirt, and would likely struggle with boots and rings), and the only real way to do that is to homogenize all the gear slots so every type of armor is identical within a given tier (meaning 7 necklaces give the same stats as 7 of any other pieces of gear). That pretty much kills the point of having different gear slots beyond some slight cosmetic flavour, so it's not an ideal solution.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Is Hercules really considered "Classic Disney"? Sure, it's part of the animated classics collection, but it's quite squarely in Disney's Renaissance period. I hear "Classic Disney," and I think more of the pre-Renaissance stuff.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

(Zeusy is what Hades called Zeus in Disney's Hercules)

He really only called him that once in the movie, actually, and that was a thinly-veiled I Love Lucy reference much more so than an actual nickname.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If we're going to be pompous lingustic snobs you can't really take the side of the vulgate f***up over the actual antecedent.

Sure you can. The former evolved naturally, the latter had been lost to that evolution and was later forced back in for the sake of being "proper." It was an artificial change that went against established pronunciations and phonetic rules for no other reason than to make a half-assed return to an antecedent nobody cared about.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

This point is patently absurd given that it stands to reason that the child was already put up for adoption by someone who is already obviously unable or unwilling to raise the child in the first place.

I'm not talking about the kid's biological parents, I'm talking about a hypothetical black family that might otherwise adopt the kid if she didn't. A racist might view adopting a black child as saving them from having black parents, which is an extension of the attitude that allows racists to have black friends (that is, considering Bob to be a good person despite being black, while still thinking ill of black people as a whole).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Wanded posted...

exemplified perfectly by yourself completely ignoring the fact she and democrats are the ones calling for all the strict mask and lockdown laws, not republicans, which is the point here.

Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. It just makes you an asshole. You can try this angle as desperately as you want, but hypocrisy alone won't undermine sound medical advice for anyone with a quarter of a functioning brain. If you want to undermine what science is saying, you need to attack it with better science (although, if you've decided beforehand what you want to prove, your own science is already pretty undermined by that a priori bias, so that probably won't be possible).

Quite simply, I don't know what you're fishing for here, but pretty much everyone sensible is going to agree that those people should have been wearing masks. They may have had good reasons for not doing so (including very briefly taking it off and having that moment caught in a picture by somebody desperate to discredit them because they know they're incapable of attacking the position itself), but generally, not wearing one is a mistake. Personally, provided they acknowledge said mistakes and continue complying as they move forward, I'm willing to forgive them. I'm considerably less willing to look kindly on people who lash out and argue against the best available scientific evidence, since they aren't willing to accept their errors and repent.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Unsurprising. Condemning them would cost him their votes. Not condemning them is really only likely to bother people who weren't going to vote for him anyway. Like most things Trump does, it's a pretty simple self-serving calculation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reducing failure rate also becomes less valuable as the failure rate decreases. If failure is rolling 2 or below on a d20, +1 improves your success rate by a mere 5.6% (multiplicatively). If failure is rolling 19 or below, then +1 improves your success rate by 100%. Comparatively, a reroll has a 90% chance of succeeding in the former case, but only a 5% chance in the latter, making the +1 much better.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Like when it came to Tiktok I saw a decent number of articles indicating it was a legitimate security risk. Basically I think you would have to prove there is some sort of criminal or security risk to the company to be able to justify banning it in court.

Even then, I feel like "security risk" is too vague and based more on the potential for malicious action than anything concrete that has actually happened. Coming from the party that insists that everyone should be able to have a gun unless they've already used one to kill somebody (hyperbole for brevity's sake), that seems a wee bit backwards.

Don't get me wrong, Tiktok was an absolute nightmare when it came to user privacy, even by regular social media standards, but the whole "national security risk" thing sounds like a load of fear-mongering nonsense to score anti-China points, rather than a genuine effort to protect citizens. Any genuine effort to legislate user privacy protections for social media apps would likely have prohibited basically everything Tiktok did, effectively banning it in its current form, but it would also have impacted every such app and actually accomplished something to protect people. Given this ban's current form, the folks behind Tiktok can basically clone the app, give it a new name, start a shell company in some other country (possibly even the US) to run it, and continue business as usual.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

In terms of actual results (increasing age of first sexual contact, reducing STI transmission rates, reducing unplanned pregnancy rates), objective evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of comprehensive sex ed, with no sex ed at all being a distant second, and abstinence-only sex ed being even worse than none at all. This isn't even a matter of opinion. It is a fact that comprehensive sex ed is the best option for teens' sex lives (or lack thereof).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zangulus posted...

Ok.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her having adopted black kids makes it much less likely

But that's exactly the point: It doesn't. There are at least three very plausible explanations for adopting black children despite being racist:

• The person is in a job where public appearance matters, and wants to be able to use their adopted children as an easy escape from accusations of racism
• The person considers black would-be-parents to be inferior and unworthy of parenthood, so they preferentially snatch up black adoptees (recognizing that intra-racial adoptions are generally people's preference) with the intent of saving them from being raised into drug dealers and welfare queens
• The least malicious: Black kids were the only ones available, and they're not so racist as to turn down their only chance

Are those guaranteed? Of course not. But the ease of coming up with those explanations demonstrates why the race of her adopted children should be considered irrelevant to assessing how racist her behaviour is. It's basically "I have black friends," only with the added cuteness factor of children.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So you have nothing but you still want to talk s***.

adjl posted...

Personally, I don't care enough to look for details, I'm just sniping the low-hanging fruit that is TC's fallacious logic.

You shouldn't deliberately cut segments out of posts you quote that directly address your attempted rebuttal. It just wastes everyone's time.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Get a witness.

Pretty much. That's clearly entrapment, so the law's on your side regardless of whether or not you punch them (though you'll probably be better off if you don't), but having somebody to corroborate that is generally going to be the best bet.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then you don't need to bring up her children

adjl posted...

Her decision to adopt black children isn't presented as support for the claim that she's racist, it's being brought up and addressed as a potential rebuttal.

Wheeeeee...

Bear in mind that this is not being brought up de novo, it's being brought up in response to "She can't be racist because she adopted black kids!", which is very much an expected defense.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

and you need to offer actual evidence.

*Shrug*

Presumably, that's already happened elsewhere. Personally, I don't care enough to look for details, I'm just sniping the low-hanging fruit that is TC's fallacious logic.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

However, the reality is, if the scalper didn't buy it, chances are you still wouldn't get it, because of how many other people are also trying to buy it. The scalpers are only a small number of people in the tsunami of people trying to buy a limited product.

Ehhh, that's debatable. It's not at all uncommon to see formal scalping businesses make up more than half of ticket sales for really popular concerts and the like, including some cases where some tickets are just sold directly to resale companies in exchange for a cut of the profits. That's less true for video game systems, since they're just practically harder to flip (more expensive to ship, physically harder to purchase in large volumes, generally have to line up in person), but often scalpers do make a significant dent in the available MSRP supply.

Now, in practice, there are enough people lined up behind the scalpers that most interested parties still aren't likely to get their own without being similarly aggressive in lining up. If there are none left when you check after work the next day (presuming midnight release), that would probably have been the case regardless of scalpers' involvement. That said, for those who are eagerly lining up and would have an appreciable chance of getting their own, halving the available supply (or even just reducing it by 20-30%) does put a significant dent in their chances.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BarneyBosco posted...

Only good little b****es wear masks.

BarneyBosco posted...

Only good little b****es obey traffic lights.

BarneyBosco posted...

Only good little b****es poop in toilets instead of on the street.

Oh hey it sounds just as stupid regardless of which other public safety measure you substitute. Who knew?

BarneyBosco posted...

risk getting the flu.

I really baffles me that there are still idiots who think this is the flu. That comparison (let alone equivocation) hasn't made any sense at all for a solid six months now. But then people who know absolutely nothing about medicine have been terribly vocal for pretty much this entire pandemic, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

but replace "Karen" in your post with any other slur and tell me what's wrong with what you just said.

It is indeed something people need to be cognizant of. I would say it's different because the term intrinsically describes behaviour and not anything else (saying "If you don't want to be called stupid, don't act stupid," for example, would be fine), whereas actual slurs fundamentally describe race (et al), with racists appending behavioural characteristics onto the slurs based on their racist stereotypes. It's easy to slip into seeing race (et al) first and behaviour second, but I don't think that's a significant issue with "Karen" just yet, and shouldn't be so long as there's a continuous push to limit the term of Karenly behaviour.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Squishy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Wanded posted...

In some of those videos they may indeed be peaceful protesters, in some they may have done something bad before the video started which we don't get to see.

We get to see a video in which they are not currently being violent, yet are being savagely assaulted. Whether or not they did something bad prior to the video doesn't change the fact that they are not being violent while police are assaulting them. That makes the violence from the police unnecessary, which is the entire problem.

It's very simple: Police should use only whatever violence is necessary to stop further violence or criminal activity from occurring. It is not necessary to beat, gas, pepper spray, taze, or shoot at somebody who is currently standing harmlessly and doing nothing to resist arrest. Prior criminal behaviour does not change the fact that such people can be arrested without such violence, which means that employing violence in arresting them is simply a matter of cops being angry, and that should never happen.

Wanded posted...

this attack wouldn't and couldn't exist had she not adopted black children
hence, she got called racist for adopting black children

That's a rather tenuous grasp of cause and effect you've got there. Might as well say that she got called racist for becoming a judge (since none of this would have come up if she weren't in the running for the SC), if you're taking such a superficial approach to the matter, and obviously that's pretty meaningless.

The actual comment is that she's racist independent of her adoption choices (although I should perhaps point out that preferentially adopting black children is - axiomatically - racial discrimination, so there's a case for calling that choice anti-white racism if you change your mind on whether or not you want to defend her), then going on to explain that her adoption choices don't necessarily indicate otherwise. Her decision to adopt black children isn't presented as support for the claim that she's racist, it's being brought up and addressed as a potential rebuttal.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.