Space Coyote

Member
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Space Coyote

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,375 profile views
  1. Very reasonable explanation once rioters begin storming the building, but do you believe it was inevitable to let it get to the point of having to fall back in the first place? It would seem a larger security presence from the start would have keep the first soft line from being stormed in the first place. Or do you believe that too would be seen as coming down hard on the rioters? Also, unless the amount of security people behind the real line was much higher than it seems I don't see how they chould have held it if the mob was more committed to an all out seige. Work of fiction but it came to my mind "history is filled with stories of great sieges, but sieges don't make the history books because the smaller force won they make history because the smaller force fought well before being killed". The optics at least are of the capitol police coming uncomfortably close to being that smaller force. How likely would you say that the optics are misleading and the real line was actually much better defended than it seems? Again the raw numerical advantage of the insurgents look to my untrained eye to be too great to effectively counter had they kept advancing without capitol police having numerical reinforcement of their own at the ready (which doesn't seem to be the case). Do you disagree?
  2. So he says while quoting a left leaning source covering the supposedly suppressed dissent. Your own posts can't even keep up an internally consistent illusion of right-wing prosecution.
  3. A much needed contrast to the gross taking selfie with rioters cop. An amazing display of not just bravery but situational awareness and judgment in a life and death situation. His quick thinking may have averted a catastrophe from occurring.
  4. What do you conservatives think your gaining by offending liberals exactly? You being offend would leave me in exactly the same state I was before minus time wasted. It is nothing more than trolling and Leo has a old video on this: trolling is nothing more then procrastination in a different form. And procrastination is only fun till you realize your just screwing yourself.
  5. @The Don You have repeatedly demonstrated you do not understand how the constitution you are supposedly defending actually works, Example: This Thread from May, where you failed to understand the simple constitutional and conservative principle of: propriety owner having the right to decided who get to be and speak on their own property. Not even the most conservative Trump appointed Judge in the land would side with your "interpretation" of the constitution, which would massively increase government size and power btw. Here is a litmus test: With out cheating, can you off the top of your head give me an explanation of the difference between a rational and strict level of review and how it applies to this debate? If you can't you don't have deep nut and blots understanding of how the constitution is actually applied. Your constitutional knowledge is superficial at best. Which is ok most people have an extremely superficial understanding but most haven't created an identity around this superficial understanding. Your love for the constitution is the same "love", as a guy who sees a hot girl from across the room, starts having wild fantasies about them together and declares her their soulmate, before even talking to her. Every post you make about the constitution... isn't. It about ego and tribal allegiances to your conservative identity. Note I said identity not values, you identify as a conservative but their is nothing conservative about your views on speech rights in the link thread above for example. Why is this identity so important to you? It easy to see this as being true if you look at 1st amendment as what it is, part of a legal document outlining legal rights. Conservatives however talk about it as if it is a political ideological manifesto that outline what should be on a cultural level. They can't wrap their head around the law working 100% as intended and it not someway somehow privileging conservative views. Again, every post a self identified, Trump voting, republican makes about the constitution (legal debate)... isn't. It about ego and tribal allegiances to a conservative identity (cultural debate).
  6. Alright let just let the government censor everything unchecked. What could possibly go wrong? See, I can make strawmen too. I literally said "no one listen to whatever the hell it is they are saying. Close the app, find better resources and uses for your time;". Popularizing the idea of digital minimalism which I already mentioned would do more to depower Facebook than government regulations ever could, (and wouldn't require rewriting the Constitution to do it.) You want to give Facebook a slap on the wrist (while effectively tearing up the constitution to do it); I want to stab it in the heart. Again your more pro-facebook then I am and can't even see it.
  7. No, we most certainly do NOT! Never have, we have a First Amendment that prohibits our government and our representatives from being in charge of these things. They are very much, very explicitly, NOT supposed to be in charge of these thing, this is literally amendment #1 . You act like a cocky know it all saying Mark and Facebook are above the law when in fact they are in fact protected by the law. It is Mark's decisions to ban Q that is protected under law not Q being on his platform. You are argument depends on conflating a right to speech with a right to someone else platform. Facebook is a private platform (in regard to constitutionally first amendment law, your silly word games are irrelevant here.) Facebook has the constitutionally protected right to decide who gets to speak on its platform (this is part of their speech rights); none does have or has ever had a constitutional right to be on someone else platform. Platforms do always, have always and will always have the right to decide who get to be on their platform not the government. Shouldn't have come from Facebook???? Under the First it can only come from facebook. I get you really really want there to be some magical legal expectation for really big platforms but there isn't any. And there shouldn't If there where the government could force FOX News to air Rachael Maddow and MSNBC to host Rush Limbaugh. Also, our constitutional "participation" in this matter is extremely limited and far removed at best. This is not our call or even our representatives’ call; this is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. You could pack both Congress the White House with clones of datamosther and the Supreme Court based would still declare all of datamosther's "the government is in charge of this" bills unconstitutional. Again the 1st amendment and over 200 hundred years of legal percent are abundantly clear on this, tl;dr: Everything you say is not a glitch it is the US Constitutional working as intended. If you want to rewrite the Constitutional ,fine, but at least be honest about it and stop trying to deceive (mostly likely yourself) with word games about irrelevant economic definitions of private and public lol. False, we have the same mechanism we have always had to deal with private companies that abuse their free speech rights. Don't. Use. Their. Product/ Service. People act like FB is some sort of essential service and not a completely optionally part of 99% of people lives. One that 99% of that 99% would likely benefit from using less. It is logically and logistically one of the easiest things for most people here to give up, but psychologically one of the hardest. The deeper structural problem is not Facebook it the human dopamine addicted monkey mind. People shouldn't be getting any important information from Facebook in the first place, Using the worst sources of information has become normalized. This is a very difficult problem to reverse, made worse by the fact that it not even acknowledged as being a problem. "I read on Facebook" should gainer the same look as "I read in a 99-cent supermarket checkout tabloid". "Social media" is structurally designed in ways that make them the ultimate mis-information, confirmation bias, echo cambers. No amount of regulation is going to change these underlining structures. We need to stop debating what Facebook is doing and ask ourselves what are we doing on Facebook. We have to become wise enough to use social media differently then we currently are. This is a price of freedom we the public bare the responsibility of using or not using Facebook if we disagree with their decisions. I'll take this one step further; your stance is ultimately a pro-facebook and pro-Mark paradigm. Imagine the hammer industry suddenly convinced everyone to use hammers to drive in screws. Your stance is: "Yes but we need regulation on using hammer for screws". The hammer industry already won when it convinced people to use the wrong tool for the job. I'll defended Facebook right to speech and advocate no one listen to whatever the hell it is they are saying. Close the app, find better resources and uses for your time; stop using a hammer for screws. Aside: Everyone Read Digital Minimalism by Cal New Port. No one is forcing anyone to use Facebook here. No one is pointing a gun at anyone's head. It amazing that you are so concerned about the slippery sloppy of corporate control of their own platforms that you willing to give completely unprecedent control to the government aka that which can point guns at people heads to get them to do stuff... tl;dr (part duex): …while FB power is a real concern your cure is far worse than the disease.
  8. As the title says I have two 1 hours sessions (bonus as part of a paid info course) with a confidence coach coming up soon. Anyone who has done this type of thing have any tips for how to get the most out of it? Anyway I identified two areas I plan to ask about: 1. Feeling I need to accomplish abc before I can be confident in xyz. i.e. I feel I need to be more successful before I can be more confident with women. 2. Confidence and risk taking. Before the pandemic hit hard I got my cisco certifications to hopeful change careers in to the IT field. However due to the pandemic I've chosen stability. For now that ok I'm taking the time to: peruse another cert, do inner work, polish my resume, practice interview question etc. But at some point I need confidence to make that leap.
  9. Read So Good they Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport. From what I tell your are trapped in what he calls the Passion Mindset, which is bad. You need to move towards a craftsman's mentality, which is good. Brutal truth: the real world does not not care how passionate you are. It cares about results. Ask yourself can I become a master craftsman at this, whatever "this" is. An analogy think of a grenade, the grenade doesn't care what you are passionate about it doesn't care about your wants. Either you can throw it far enough to keep your self out of the blast and put the target in it or your fucked. Passion won't propel the grenade away from you a craftsman's like dedication to throwing form will.
  10. LOL You really think a few months at most of dissecting things on the side makes them more trustworthy then people whose entire propose in life is to dissect these things? This is the "halo effect" at its worst it laughable to think being a good business leader means your good at epidemiology. Smart leaders seek out the expertise of others, fools shun them thinking they can dissect it themselves.
  11. You first. Legal rights don't function the way you think they do. Agreed, but you have never had this "legal right" see: Compagnie Francaise &c. v. Board of Health (1902). Note even the dissent in that case said: the power of states to impose quarantines is "so well settled by repeated decisions of this Court as to be no longer open to doubt" The states are well within the constitution to imposed lock-downs and quarantines, this is not some radical challenge to our rights it how its been since the day you where born. You are the one purposing a radical change to our "legal rights" by massively expanding them well beyond what any court has ever upheld. Welcome to the Real World, human.
  12. As has already been pointed out to you (so you can't plead ignorance, and we are left with deliberate deception). The "19" in the abbreviation Covid 19 is the year SARIS Covid 2, the virus that causes covid-19 was discovered.The full name is coronavirus disease 2019. It's the second SARIS-Covid virus and seventh cornoavrius know to effect humans. (Sentences like the preceding are what the STEM education you claim to support actually looks like btw.) Your denying what is literally in the name, that level of denial is actually kind of impressive highly disturbing but also kind of impressive. But it is election year 2020 , which is obviously the 2020th election because numbers at the ends of things are always iteration numbers right? What do you believe you gain by lying on a forum like this? What do you think your winning here? P.S. Even if it was the 19th the we beat it 18x so no biggie reasoning is also bonkers: "That cat 5 hurricane they announced is just an election year plot all the other named storm this year haven't gone above tropical depression, so why are we putting up shutters for this one? We beat all the other named storms this year with out shutters!"
  13. Clams conservatives/blue aren't censoring while being giddy about unconstitutional executive orders. This is not a liberal issue take trumps order to a conservative court and it'll lose.... hard. But it'll not likely to even get to get to court become no one is going to enforce Trumps temper tantrum in the first place. Ironically, proving why we need those evil fact checks. It is not the 19th iteration the 19 comes from the year it was discovered, technical name: SARS Covid 2. I know this may seem radical but I actually would have ,(if it were actually happening, which as Leo points out it's not), no problem with deplatforming and censorship always falling on the side the can't get past the damn name with out making false, unscientific, statements. The name. You literally don't understand the name of the thing and want to be taken seriously? The left/green has it own problems with science but we've at least got "the number represents the year and not the iteration" part down. If you can't master the name in over Five. Fucking. Months since it was named, I don't know why you think your ignorant ass deserves a platform. You want to be champion for STEM, start by educating yourself* in some of it before judging other lack of it. Modern conservationism has become the party of projection. Claiming other need to learn STEM (where there are many numbering/naming nomenclatures) when they can't master: Not everything is named like standard movie sequels. Calming others need to learn economics while calling loans "free money"...low interest is not the same as "free" Source: the very definition of those words. Also economic psych 101 even paying a penny makes something not free both in the literal sense and in that people behavior is demonstrably different when something is as close as humanly possible to free but not actually free. You can't reasonably call paying even a penny "free" ,if you look at all the research done on it, but you think it reasonable to call principle plus interest "free"). Also how do you think STEM majors pay for their expensive degrees? *Or more accurately stop willfully and deliberately spreading scientific ignorance, their is no excuse to not know this by now. It hard for me to believe this repeated lie is a result of ignorance and not malice. Conservative have no problem understanding: Friday the 13th is the first series, that 13 Angry Men doesn't have a dozen prequels, and that the "2077" in Cyberpunk 2077 is a year and not an iteration.
  14. I look at this in two ways: 1) What would make a substantially better more ideal-ish world? In the word of Martian Luther King: "we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society." 2) However, good our current vision there is almost always something better just outside the current limits of our imagination. A truly Utopian society would likely have a shift so radical to our current minds that we would likely reject it as nonsense if it were actually proposed in this thread. Something like like a shift in underlying metaphysical assumptions.
  15. Maybe she is financial irresponsible, I haven't researched her in depth so I honestly don't know. But going solely off the link you provided I'm not seeing any incompetence on her part but I am questioning your reading comprehension and/or economic theories. You are saying she can't pay rent (period); which I agree could be a bad sign, but lets look at what your link actually said: Nothing in the article says she can't pay her current rent, that her current budget isn't balanced, or that she won't be able to afford her future rent or balance her future budgets, or is doing anything financial irresponsible. If anything your article implies the opposite that she is affording her current rent, has planed for the transition period "squirreling away and then hoping that gets me to January", and will afford a DC rent once she starts a DC job. What she can't is pay her future (January) rent with her current (June) income, leading to an awkward transitional period in between. So, not moving until you can afford to move is incompetent and parasitic now? That actually sounds like a completely common sense, competent and non-parasitic, budget conscious thing to do. l. You are criticizing her for being unable to pay rent that is literally not hers (yet). Please do continue to explain to me how I should base people ability to pay rent not on their actual rent but on the hypothetical rent of a place they don't actually live or pay rent in yet. Using your logical equifax should preemptive lower my credit score today because I can't pay today for things I know I will buy in 2021.