Messages

very, I certainly don't condemn your choice, it's still a choice to support genocide.

Bullshit.  If I'm a vegetarian, and both candidates eat meat, voting for one of them isn't a choice to support meat-eating.

You select who to vote for based on the differences between the candidates, not what they have in common.  If you don't vote, then you're saying that the differences between them don't matter.

Let's say you have a choice between voting between two of the worst specimens of humanity, who have identical policies in almost every respect, but one will load the supreme court with judges who toss out Roe v. Wade, and the other wants to protect abortion rights.

If you don't vote, that would be a declaration that you don't support women's rights.  Nothing else. 

Nobody is going to pat you on the head and praise you for not voting for either of the two monsters when you sit back and let the worse monster win unimpeded. Not voting doesn't keep the monsters out, and it doesn't give you the moral high ground.  It makes you a moral coward.

You don't like the choices?  Do something about it after you've voted.  Or before.  But like the Würfel said, if you don't vote against the nazis, you voted for them.

Not the mention the fact that there is no way Trump wouldn't be worse for Palestine. He wouldn't even do the basic "please follow international law" shit, he'd let Palestine be leveled entirely.

Gaza is currently being leveled, entirely.  When international law asked for that to stop Biden withdrew funding from the UN relief agency trying to feed Palestinians.  I can't see Trump doing any worse, and based on his complete incompetence when it comes to things like his border wall, or his Muslim Ban I can see things getting a lot better for Palestinians with him in charge, not because he's a better person, but because he is a less competent bad person.

I can't personally vote for someone actively committing genocide, not even to keep the other person, who also wants to commit genocide, out.

In the context of this thread, the choice presented is voting against the person who wants to kill you, or not voting at all.

How fucking tone-deaf are you?

very, I certainly don't condemn your choice, it's still a choice to support genocide.  Supporting genocide in the interest of self preservation, when there's not an option to stop the genocide is completely understandable.

I can't personally vote for someone actively committing genocide, not even to keep the other person, who also wants to commit genocide, out.

[Public remarks by CSPD Officer Lt Byrd]

Personally I see Babbit as one more victim of the police, along with folks like Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, or Patrick Lyoya.  I don't agree with her politics but that doesn't excuse her murder.

I believe Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd were clearly victims of the police.

It appears that the case against Christopher Schurr, the police officer who killed Patrick Lyoya, has yet to go to trial. However, if the Court of Appeals allows the current charge of second-degree murder to stand, I suspect Schurr, now a former police officer, will rightly be found guilty.

But, I don't believe Ashli Babbitt was an innocent bystander, or innocent peaceful protester on January 6th. And, here's some of what the Wikipedia article, "Killing of Ashli Babbitt," has to say:

"Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby, and was shot in the left shoulder by a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer.[5][6][7][8][9] After a USCP emergency response team administered aid, Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she died.[10][11] The USCP deemed the shooting was "lawful and within Department policy" and "potentially saved Members (of Congress) and staff from serious injury and possible death".[12][13]"

And, further along in this article:

"Public remarks by CSPD Officer Lt Byrd

"After being cleared of wrongdoing, Byrd made his name public in an August 2021 interview for NBC News.[73][74][75][76][77] He said his name had been previously revealed in right-wing media and online forums and that he had received racist (Byrd is African-American) and violent threats, causing him to remain in hiding for several months. Looking back on his January 6 experience, Byrd said: "Once we barricaded the doors, we were essentially trapped where we were. There was no way to retreat. No other way to get out. If they get through that door, they're into the House chamber and upon the members of Congress." He stated that he had pulled the trigger as a "last resort" after the mob of protesters ignored his repeated orders to get back, and that he had no idea at that moment that Babbitt was unarmed and was a woman. Byrd commented: "I know that day I saved countless lives. I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that's my job".[59]"

Now, it's been a while since I last watched the video clip of Babbitt climbing through that broken window. But, nothing I saw on the several occasions I did watch that video, or have heard, or have read, since January 6th, has made me any more sympathetic to her fate, than what I have already written in my original post. So, I think we should agree to disagree about Ashli Babbitt.

Perhaps.  I'm sad to see someone who understands that Trump is a monster but not that ACAB, meanwhile I'd like to see more folks who don't understand that Trump is a monster learning that ACAB, between Babbit and they way that they've gone after that particular monster I think a few are starting to understand.

[A martyr? Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt's past tells a more complex story]

"A martyr? Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt's past tells a more complex story"

As per this article:

"The first time Celeste Norris laid eyes on Ashli Babbitt, the future insurrectionist had just rammed her vehicle three times with an SUV and was pounding on the window, challenging her to a fight.
Norris says the bad blood between them began in 2015, when Babbitt engaged in a months-long extramarital affair with Norris' longtime live-in boyfriend. When she learned of the relationship, Norris called Babbitt's husband and told him she was cheating."

And, further along in this article:

"But the life of the Air Force veteran from California who died while wearing a Trump campaign flag wrapped around her shoulders like a cape, was far more complicated than the heroic portrait presented by Trump and his allies.

In the months before her death, Babbitt had become consumed by pro-Trump conspiracy theories and posted angry screeds on social media. She also had a history of making violent threats."

It's unfortunate if this woman was gullible, taken in by the con artist, and lost her life because of her gullibility and temperament. But, I'm certain many of the people who showed up to support TFG on Failed Coup d'état Day didn't really care one way or the other that TFG had been telling the world the Big Lie. And, this woman may very well have been one of the latter.

Here's the link:   Ashli Babbitt's Past Exploits

Personally I see Babbit as one more victim of the police, along with folks like Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, or Patrick Lyoya.  I don't agree with her politics but that doesn't excuse her murder.

It depends on the deck, there's a few different ways to assign meaning to the cards, the five of cups usually means disappointment and frustration with your failures that keeps you from realizing you have successes as well.  I'd read that as he loses the election but doesn't go to prison, and whines like crazy. 

9 of pentacles meanwhile usually means a harvest that comes from investment of time and effort.  I'd read that as Biden wins the election because he's put the work in to do so, particularly after the 5 of cups for Trump.

For context I have been thinking logically that Trump is going to win, so that reading goes against my logical read of the situation, but that looks like what the cards say.

9 of Pents can mean lots of money, but that's usually in a context involving investment, or business decisions.

['Uh-oh': Psychic on Fox News pulls the Grim Reaper card for Trump]

"'Uh-oh': Psychic on Fox News pulls the Grim Reaper card for Trump"

Jesse Watters took a break from dealing in conspiracy theories on his prime-time show for an awkward moment with a psychic.

I think this clearly fall into the category: "If You Won't Like the Answer, Don't Ask the Question." And, this answer does not at all sound like it was very welcome to the Fox News Noise propagandist.

As per this article:

"In between peddling conspiracy theories and seeming to advocate violence on his show, Fox News host Jesse Watters has had no shortage of odd moments since taking over Tucker Carlson's prime-time slot in July.

On Tuesday night, he had another awkward moment when he brought out a psychic, Paula Roberts, to do a tarot card reading for Donald Trump, telling her to select a single card. Roberts, a self-described clairvoyant and ghost hunter, then pulled out the Grim Reaper card."

And, believe it or not, the tarot card reading got even worse from there. Now, I know nothing about tarot cards, but I found this whole incident to be hilarious.

Here's a link:      Psychic Predicts Bad News for TFG

That card is called "death" not the grim reaper, and it represents a dramatic change, a break from the old way of things and the birth of new.  It isn't positive or negative by default,  depends on the context.  (I've been reading tarot since I was a child, and was professional for several years)

[December 31, 1973 - AC/DC Played Their First Official Gig]

December 31, 1973 - AC/DC Played Their First Official Gig

The now legendary band played their first (I assume "official" actually means "paid") gig at the Chequers nightclub in Sydney, Australia. And, I suspect it was a memorable New Year's Eve for all in attendance!

Brother Rock Gods Malcolm and Angus Young came up with the idea for the band's name after their sister Margaret pointed out the symbol "AC/DC" on the AC adapter of her sewing machine. (Non-technical people may not know that AC/DC is an abbreviation for alternating current/direct current electricity.) Anyway, the brothers felt the name symbolized the band's raw energy, and the power-driven performances of their music. I can not in any way disagree!

I remember reading that the lead singer was unaware when he chose the name that it was used to mean bisexuality, but amused when he found out.

I'd say we agree on what Israel is doing not being ok, I also think we agree that nazis should be called out, and that associating with nazis is no good.  Where it looks like we disagree is in being ok with a legal conflation of anti-semitism with nazism, which for me is completely due to the legal conflation of anti-semitism and anti-zionism.  Anyone who thinks Jews are any worse than any other sort of people is a racist at best, and probably a nazi, but a Jew who criticizes Israel's actions in strong and appropriate ways (comparing the treatment of Gaza with the Nazis clearing of the ghettos, for instance) is legally an anti-semite, and if the law you are angry about Republicans passing had passed, would legally be a nazi.

["Can't Even Bring Themselves To Denounce Neo-Nazis": Texas GOP's Internal War Over Hitler Apologists]

""Can't Even Bring Themselves To Denounce Neo-Nazis": Texas GOP's Internal War Over Hitler Apologists"

As per the article:

"Don't hang out with people who praise Adolf Hitler! It should seem like an easy guideline for anyone to follow, as well as the personal preference of most people. But for Republicans in Texas, asking them to stay away from neo-Nazis is seen very differently. To conspiratorially-minded conservatives, it is a "Marxist" plot against them. Which is why, on Saturday, leaders of the Republican Party of Texas voted down a resolution barring members from associating with anyone "known to espouse or tolerate antisemitism, pro-Nazi sympathies or Holocaust denial."

That that this even had to be put up for a vote is a sign that the "don't pal around with Nazis" rule is viewed by many in the Texas Republican Party as too onerous a restriction. This entire situation started in October when it was revealed that Jonathan Stickland, a former state representative and current leader of the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, held a 7-hour meeting with some of the most repugnant people in American society, including Nick Fuentes, a loudmouthed Hitler apologist who has called for "holy war" on Jews and declared, "all I want is revenge against my enemies and a total Aryan victory." Matt Rinaldi, the chair of the Republican Party of Texas, was also seen entering the building during this time but denies being at the meeting, despite being an outspoken ally of Stickland and his far-right agenda."

It's really just another case of Republicans being Republicans.

Here's the link:   Republicans vote against denouncing Neo-Nazis

I dunno, I'm personally very careful about anything restricting anti-semitism, since there's a bill stating that any opposition to the actions of the Israeli government is anti-semitism.  Considering the Israeli government is currently committing genocide barring folks from associating with anyone who opposes them seems a bit problematic to me.

People need human contact, that includes conversation, which an AI might manage, or a human interacting remotely, it also includes touch, thus the need for realistic cyberskin, and it requires being able to smell one another, not the aroma, but the pheremones.  We're constantly communicating chemically and that's one of the basic social needs that we have, even if we aren't consciously aware of it.  For a robot caretaker to properly take care of someone they'd need to not only feel, but smell like a human.  Presumably we'd replace the "I'm at work, I'm annoyed by this needy helpless person" pheremones a human caretaker would have with "I love and care about this person and am fulfilled by taking care of them" pheremones, that might come from a devoted loved one.

Thanks for the insights. To me, robots are just machines, and I doubt my perception of them will ever change. But, even to me, it does make sense to "humanize" them for human caregiving purposes.

I haven't met a robot that felt or smelled like a human yet, but I suspect that would make me way more likely to think of it as a person, even if I knew it was just a machine rationally.

People need human contact, that includes conversation, which an AI might manage, or a human interacting remotely, it also includes touch, thus the need for realistic cyberskin, and it requires being able to smell one another, not the aroma, but the pheremones.  We're constantly communicating chemically and that's one of the basic social needs that we have, even if we aren't consciously aware of it.  For a robot caretaker to properly take care of someone they'd need to not only feel, but smell like a human.  Presumably we'd replace the "I'm at work, I'm annoyed by this needy helpless person" pheremones a human caretaker would have with "I love and care about this person and am fulfilled by taking care of them" pheremones, that might come from a devoted loved one.

["Engineers develop breakthrough 'robot skin'"]

"Engineers develop breakthrough 'robot skin'"

As per the article:

"Smart, stretchable and highly sensitive, a new soft sensor developed by UBC and Honda researchers opens the door to a wide range of applications in robotics and prosthetics.

When applied to the surface of a prosthetic arm or a robotic limb, the sensor skin provides touch sensitivity and dexterity, enabling tasks that can be difficult for machines such as picking up a piece of soft fruit. The sensor is also soft to the touch, like human skin, which helps make human interactions safer and more lifelike."

So, this is a second group that's also developing 'robot skin.'

Here's the link:   https://techxplore.com/news/2023-10-breakthrough-robot-skin.html

My wife and I were just talking about this, not the development but the need for it.  A popular use for robots is as caregivers for the elderly or disabled and one of the things that all humans need, that the elderly and disabled often only get from their human caretakers, is touch. Robots with humanlike skin could fill that need although I maintain that they would also need to exude pheremones.

I'm still around, and my life is going pretty well.  I've just learned the wisdom of shutting the hell up.

Is he toast, or is it an appearance of the Messiah?  Why not both?