Tankies are literal authoritarians. People say they're "authoritarian communists," which ignores they're mostly Maoists or Stalinists, both of whom were closer to fascism than the left. It sort of ignores the basic premise of communism or even socialism to have a single authoritarian ruler. Kind of like how the Nazis called themselves socialists. I guess they were a workers' party to start, but I don't think you can reasonably conflate their ideology with the tenets of socialism.

Didn't he tour with Mastodon?

I don't see anywhere that you can't also just buy a battery and charge it yourself if you'd prefer that over a subscription.

Sort of like how you pay over and over for gas, without which your car doesn't work?

Everyone I've spoken to about it has noted that it's become a very different place. I'll still use it for reviews and getting tips for serious things like privacy and some basic DIY. But a lot of that advice will be obsolete in a couple years and very few people are replenishing it. Who's going to give a shit about the best home theater setups of 2023 in two years?

It is the easiest thing in the world to not actively be driving while video calling in to a court hearing, regardless of what the hearing is for. He could even physically be in the car sitting in the passenger seat with it parked and be fine, but why take the risk? Especially when the consequence is jail.

The US didn't sign on to the treaty that creates the ICC's jurisdiction. In most countries, you still need to at least pretend to have jurisdiction to bring criminal charges. Unlike people, states can only be sued to the degree they consent to be sued. It's what sovereign immunity is based on and it's a very double-edged sword.

Also, outside of a few warlords, the ICC is pretty bad at enforcing international law because they have no way to do so. The ICC is inefficient and slow. Someone has to actually bring the defendant to them to stand trial, then countries negotiate over who doesn't have to deal with jailing the person if they're convicted.

It's also arguably super imperialist, given that it was designed by a bunch of Western powers and has mostly been used to enforce international law against individuals from Africa. The two Russians who are being "prosecuted," Putin and Lvova-Belova, can't be detained because the ICC has no power to enforce their warrants. Granted, these people are often evil, but it's not like the West doesn't have its fair share of evil people.

All that to say, while this looks good, it's mostly just PR. We also arguably don't want the ICC prosecuting Americans. We should instead make our domestic system better.

Source: Used to work on analyzing ICC cases and I've read thousands of filings from various cases. It's a well-intentioned but highly flawed system that is basically only designed to prosecute international crimes in Africa and doesn't really focus on anything else.

Don't do the thing you're being accused of while appearing before a judge is common sense though. It is so incredibly easy to not physically be in a car for this hearing.

It's a fairly routine argument by the defense (we're being singled out/the regulations are unclear). And regarding federal enforcement, there's a lot of hamstringing by Congress.

All that to say, this is arguably a good sign of the FTC properly enforcing, not a reason for pessimism.

I'm not sure how that's indicative of the FTC not being serious? You're quoting a defense argument, of course they're going to argue the agency is wrong.

Yeah, but it's in Akademgorodok when it should be in Mousecow.

Because as important as it is to deplatform these idiots, we also need to know what they're doing. They're still going to be out there actively radicalizing people and you can't fight this shit if you don't know it exists.

Pretty caucasius of you.

Fun fact: most libertarians don't want to be left alone. They don't want to be regulated. They still want a society with rules, they just want those rules to be whatever they decide works for them, without regard to whether those rules would fuck over someone else.

Some so-called libertarians actually do want to live apart from society but at that point they're just antisocial. Because being libertarian means you need to be part of a group, which is antithetical to the ethos of being left alone.

Both of these cohorts are no fun at parties.

A standard plea deal is an admission of some form of guilt, usually less than what the prosecutor would charge for trial, in exchange for a lighter sentence. You (defendant) are not admitting you did it regardless of whether or not you actually did it. You're just admitting guilt.

What you're describing is called an Alford plea. This is where, in making the plea, you maintain innocence but acknowledge the prosecutor has enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. There's an excellent documentary called

that results in one.

It's medical ethics, not the Hippocratic Oath. Most doctors swear to an ethical standard. Besides, "first, do no harm" is a bit unhelpful if you're a surgeon.

Otherwise you're right, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the side effects of birth control, which is why birth control for women doesn't have as high a standard for mitigating other consequences.

Through lots of lying, most likely.

From what I can tell talking to teachers, the public bullying among Gen Z has ebbed (excluding anything gang-related) but the private stuff is way worse. My guess is it's related, given how performative social media is and how much of an influence it has on Gen Z. Not saying Millenials are immune, but we came up in a society that actively cautioned against putting too much of yourself online whereas Gen Z grew up in a post-Facebook society that encouraged it.

Also, behaviors generally across the board are worse post-pandemic. It's apparently like no one knows how to be nice to each other anymore.

It's the network's rule:

Kennedy has already hit CNN’s 15% polling threshold in two out of four qualifying polls. But the network also announced that participants must “appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency prior to the eligibility deadline.”

I think as a bare minimum requirement, being able to appear on the ballots of enough states to actually have a chance of winning makes perfect sense as a rule. With all the things to shit on the parties for, why make up a strawman?

You'd think the dewormer would have fixed it.