All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Catlady in training]

Russia is just a little further ahead of where the Republican party wants to go.

And they are not the only country where the government is increasing their control of people's sex lives.

Indonesia passes criminal code banning sex outside marriage

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63869078

Indonesia's parliament has approved a new criminal code that bans anyone in the country from having extramarital sex and restricts political freedoms.

Sex outside marriage will carry a jail term of up to a year under the new laws, which take effect in three years.

The raft of changes come after a rise in religious conservatism in the Muslim-majority country.

Critics see the laws as a "disaster" for human rights, and a potential blow to tourism and investment.

Several groups of mainly young people protested against the legislation outside parliament in Jakarta this week. It is expected the new laws will be challenged in court.

They apply equally to locals and to foreigners living in Indonesia, or visiting holiday destinations such as Bali. Under the laws, unmarried couples caught having sex can be jailed for up to a year.

They are also banned from living together - an act for which people could be jailed for up to six months. Adultery will also be an offence for which people can be jailed.

Sex before marriage was already banned prior to the approval of this new criminal code, but the law was often not enforced.

[babyblob]

So with the Trump Organization found guilty what happens? Like what is the punishment after the appeal?

[Kirby101]

So with the Trump Organization found guilty what happens? Like what is the punishment after the appeal?

Fines of $1.6 million dollars. But AG James can use this to bring the hammer down on the whole company. And if DA Bragg has any balls Henan indict Trump and Family, a big if.

[Tami]

Fines of $1.6 million dollars. But AG James can use this to bring the hammer down on the whole company. And if DA Bragg has any balls Henan indict Trump and Family, a big if.

$1.6 million is chump change. I do hope that a way is found to make the penalty even higher.

[DrNewGod]

So with the Trump Organization found guilty what happens? Like what is the punishment after the appeal?

Fines of $1.6 million dollars. But AG James can use this to bring the hammer down on the whole company. And if DA Bragg has any balls Henan indict Trump and Family, a big if.

In (US) football terms, this a touchdown in the 1st Half. A big deal, to be sure, but lots of game to go.

On the topic of gay marriage before SCOTUS:
The plantiff hasn't even opened for business. This kind of pre-emptive strike feels like an attempt to manufacture a MAGA Rosa Parks analog.

[Mister Mets]

That's not an answer about the chain of custody, which is important for a reason.

The general argument was that the information on the laptop may have been manufactured, rather than that it was legitimate, but that we should ignore it because of how it was obtained.

Except there is nothing illegal about someone given a position because of who a relative is. So, no sweat.

But they could look into whether the person hiring unqualified relatives of politicians expects something in return.

I remember that too. The hypocrisy was staggering, considering Santorum had a Bachelor’s degree from Penn State.

The general view from Republicans would be that it's fine to go to college, but that people should be able to live fulfilling lives without a college degree.

Yours. Don't play dumb. You know that you're the one we were talking about.

I'm trying to figure out when I have defended what I've done with the claim that it's not illegal.

That's the context of the comment by numberthirty.

Let's see just how many people have to say "Well, what I am doing is technically not illegal...", and let's see who starts to sweat it.

Tendrin took in a different way.

We can read, Mets. It doesn't make it any smarter.



'Well, what they're doing is technically not illegal' is advancing the same argument.

On the first point, plenty of people seemed to think Greenwald was being hypocritical or actually calling for restrictions on speech. Absent any explanation, someone here could get the wrong impression about why what he said is so frustrating.

In this, reading comprehension isn't the problem. You could read a tweet, and understand it without realizing it's meant to be a parody.

On the second point, pointing out that something is technically not illegal is relevant when we're trying to figure out how to stop it. It can be important to point out that we may need to change the laws here, or that proposed laws may have major consequences. There's something dangerous in the idea that pointing out flaws about an aspect of an argument is meant to shut down the entire argument when it's the main way to make arguments better.

[Mister Mets]

Death Metal, Speed Metal, Heavy Metal, and other genres of Metal exist and are still Metal. People don't use that to deny any smaller sub-genres are actually Metal. If you want to discuss what your specific interpretation of "Modern Drag" you are free to, but when it is used to deny that other Drag which has provided positive representation exists as Drag and is being created as we speak, then it is being used to shut down honest discussion and to make it seem as if all Drag is salacious, subversive, or whatever negative connotations you want to attach to make it unfit for consumption by minors so you can excuse your feelings on the matter. In doing that you are working to help LoTT, Chris Rufo, Tucker Carlson, and every other enabler of violence and misinformation that is working on spreading the same message you are on these forums. You are making yourself part of the problem.

When you're talking about Drag Queen Bingo or Dragon Queen Story Hour it's a different genre than Some Like It Hot. Going with your Metal example, it's a bit like someone claiming that Bob Dylan is Metal because Judas Priest took their name from the song "The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest" and then thinking that any disagreement is to imply anything about the artistic merit of Metal music, and its various sub-genres.

I've explicitly rejected the negative connotations of modern drag, and I said so a month ago comparing it to Hip Hop, where you have material that is not appropriate for children, and material that is.

Lying about drag queens isn't going to help defend performers from negative reactions.

This guy gets it:


If you are doing this and advancing their ideas as valid, you are both defending them against criticism/accusations of wrongdoing and enabling them as you are saying it's acceptable for them to do it. This is not really up for debate, and maybe you could understand it if you replaced LoTT, Shrier, etc with Nazi and reread what you've posted on the matter. Until you can stop this behavior then it doesn't matter what truth you post about them when the posts are tainted by claims like "no one's arguing she's wrong about mutilation" revealing why you are making them. Any actual factual information provided at that point is just like when people include some truth in their lies to make them more believable. Finally, trying to shift the focus off of this discussion by claiming it's important that we hobbyists come up with detailed policy that will never be implemented or even seen by anyone with actual power to do anything about it if we want to continue discussing it is not arguing in good faith at best.

I think this attitude encourages sloppy thinking, and encourages politicians and grifters to appeal to people who don't think things through.

I get that people vent online, and sometimes don't want to be called out on specifics. They'll complain about movies, and don't want to hear actual answers to things they whinge about. It makes for bad communication.

If you say something should be illegal, you should have some understanding of how the law should work.

If the idea of saying stuff that is meant to signal but not be taken literally (IE- all you're trying to indicate is that you don't libsoftiktok; you don't want to consider the implications of any law that would apply to her) works at all, it's only in a context of people who have very similar frames of reference and understandings. Even then, it could be dangerous, given the potential radicalization when likeminded people get together, and push each other to be more extreme than any individual.

BTW, anyone actually mocking or thinking this argument is worth mocking must want to ignore the last decade, because if you compare every mass killing that's been motivated by political motives you will find the scale HEAVILY weighed down by conservative philosophies based on the hate spread by those who are using their positions to actively encourage this sort of behavior every time they find excuses for those who commit the violence or blame the targets of the violence for it as a smokescreen. There is no excuse of "I didn't know what they'd do" if they've been doing it regularly for years now, and thus why I think this situation is an indictment of our justice system.

His view seems to be that if the situation were reversed, people on the left would be calling it stochastic terrorism.

Now Mets, if you honestly want to discuss involved policy & standards I have a topic I'd like to hear your ideas on: How would you get the radical and violent elements out of the GoP and restore the ones who are enabling them to actual reasonability? As most of us here are lefties who can't comprehend how the average GoP voter rationalizes supporting these hateful people and policies year after year, your insight on this matter would hopefully be helpful. I'd much rather you present any ideas you have for something that would be workable and acceptable to said Average GoP voter than ask those who clearly don't understand them come up with ideas which you believe won't work.

This is a fair question.

Individuals who have the power to do so should not support the likes of Trump, or any radical and violent elements. That's a small percentage of the population of elected officials, political activists and the like.

The most important thing is for voters to reject the radical and violent elements of the GOP. It was helpful that Trump lost reelection, that many of his preferred candidates lost, and that the rest still underperfomed (IE- JD Vance did much worse as a Senate candidate in Ohio than Mike Dewine did as a gubernatorial candidate.) It'd be helpful if there were political rewards for standing up to Trump. You don't need 25 percent of the population to change their mind. 5-10 percent can be enough.

Authorities should enforce existing laws. If someone makes a death threat, it should be investigated. If there's evidence, they should be prosecuted.

There are three general rules that would be helpful for individuals and institutions in diminishing the appeal of a Trump, or someone similar.

We should care a lot more about process. This is a hobbyhorse for me, but it should be more important to be right on a question than to be on the right side. If someone on your side (be it politics, the prominence of Marvel movies, sports or religion) fails to follow basic standards of decency, they should be called out. Too many people forgive obnoxiousness on their side, and this applies to all sorts of influencers.

Transparency is essential in communicating to people who have different backgrounds and frames of reference. We can't be transparent about everything (IE- locations of people in witness protection) but it's a useful lodestar to let people know what the rationale is for a potentially controversial decision. It's a way to shut down conspiracy theories, as well as legitimate misunderstandings, and to make it harder for people to cheat their way to preferred outcomes.

Don't treat crises as opportunities. Democrats spent a lot of money supporting idiot Republicans in primaries and it worked out well for them. I hope moderate Republicans can use this in future primaries as a way to get voters suspicious of someone trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But it didn't work out well for the left-wing media when Trump got much more attention during the Republican primary than primary polls, or even his eventual share of the vote, indicated. It was a bad idea to respond to an unpopular Republican nominee with the most left-wing party platform in American history. That's part of how he won, and how he came pretty close to getting reelected.

[worstblogever]

So with the Trump Organization found guilty what happens? Like what is the punishment after the appeal?

Fines of $1.6 million dollars. But AG James can use this to bring the hammer down on the whole company. And if DA Bragg has any balls Henan indict Trump and Family, a big if.

$1.6 million is chump change. I do hope that a way is found to make the penalty even higher.

They might be able to shut down business operations altogether and dissolve the company based on the fraud, unless the legal expert I saw is incorrect.

[Tami]

Who do you think will win? Warnock or Walker?

I think Warnock will win.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The general argument was that the information on the laptop may have been manufactured, rather than that it was legitimate, but that we should ignore it because of how it was obtained.

Yes, because chain of custody is important. Especially when we have foreign governments invested in misinformation campaigns. Or are you going to pretend that Russia didn't do everything they could in 2016 to help the GOP?

And for all the shrieking by the GOP and yourself, there's little evidence of any crime. What Hunter is accused of, selling influence, we know the Trumps did every day of their presidency.

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/statu...99043283943424

At this point, turnout in metro Atlanta would need to be unusually rough for Warnock (D) to lose. It'll be a close margin, but he's in the driver's seat now. #GASEN

[skyvolt2000]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/statu...99043283943424

Walker is LEADING according to Bing.

[Username taken]

I'm fairly confident that Warnock will win.

The deep blue areas haven't been reported yet and Warnock will have to underperform in them to lose the election.

[worstblogever]

Walker is LEADING according to Bing.

He went from 50K votes down to 30 K votes up a few minutes ago, because they counted a batch of votes from Atlanta.

That's how it's gonna go. We can all obsess about this horse race, but in the end, they're gonna have all the red counties voted, and then Warnock's just gonna pull away after we get to the "90% in" point when they start counting all the early votes.

[Mister Mets]

Walker is LEADING according to Bing.

The important question is where the remaining votes are. If it's evenly distributed, Walker wins.

As of ten minutes ago, 538 notes that in the released totals, Warnock is slightly outperforming how he did in November, which is good for him because he led in that environment.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blo...walker/#351714

So Warnock still seems to be the favorite.