albertsquest.bsky.social
Ill-tempered, absurdist, vulgarian shitposter.
Partying like it's 1929.
I also post gaming and entertainment content. Find meaning wherever you can.
869 posts
1,329 followers
676 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
taking a broad "don't set anyone on fire" stance rarely steers you wrong
comment in response to
post
This is not hard.
"Netanyahu is committing genocide", and "old ladies in Colorado who support Israeli hostages should NOT be set on fire" are two thoughts that are in no way mutually exclusive.
comment in response to
post
A big part of the success of the political right is the amount of money it spends, even between cycles, on its "hate the left" message. It isn't part of any campaign so there are no limits and it doesn't get reported anywhere.
comment in response to
post
This is why I am on Bluesky.
comment in response to
post
I followed you because of it.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but they try to catch every murderer. The goal is zero murder. The goal in the speed limit was never that no one exceeds that speed, ever. But I've already explained it for you folks. Up to you if you want to understand it or not. Bye now.
comment in response to
post
Yes, and the purpose if the speed limit is to punish the most egregious violators. If set the number to ticket some of them, and you set it right, and you change it to ticket all of them, and you don't change the number, the number is now wrong.
comment in response to
post
Its a law that exists for selective enforcent. Changing it to universal enforcement would create bizarre and unfair outcomes without a corresponding change in the underlying law to prevent that. Don't ever lick the boot.
comment in response to
post
No, its on point.
comment in response to
post
As is driving all cases
comment in response to
post
No. I'm saying it is the state not the drivers who broke the social contract here. Not that it can't change, but if you change it by changing enforcement rather than by changing the law, and people feel that's unfair, it's because it is.
comment in response to
post
Suppose they made a machine that scanned cellphone position data to automatically write jaywalking tickets or set up cameras for the same purpose. Also in favor?
comment in response to
post
The purpose of a thing is what it does
comment in response to
post
I didn't say that though. What I said is that a law designed for limited enforcement changed to universal enforcement is a violation of the social contract. Because it now has the effect of being an entirely different law.
comment in response to
post
Lets ban cars and have no car related deaths? The point is, no rule was officially changed, but what was allowed before is now not. It is the government not its victims who broke the social contract in this scenario.
comment in response to
post
The cop who decides if this one is worth stopping or not. Bootlicking is bad enough when a human wears the boot. Don't submit to a machine.
comment in response to
post
Is it? Every where? At every possible time? No. It is not. Thats where human judgement comes in. You can't take rules that have worked and gotten fair results with selective, judgement based enforcement and get a fair and sensible result with automatic universal enforcement.
comment in response to
post
I think the problem is that, when humans are doing the enforcement, there's a certain amount of slack built into the system. The real social contract is, "Don't speed when it's dangerous." And that's usually how it's enforced. That's the contract that's being violated by automatic enforcement.
comment in response to
post
Damn they're good. See? Thats the kind of propaganda engine the left needs.
comment in response to
post
The Democrats can capture the change dynamic by talking about what they already do, if they do it with the right people in the right spaces. That's why there's a shadow campaign to paint Corey Booker as pro-genocide. Its why they hit Mayor Pete so hard and so often.
comment in response to
post
If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it change a vote? "Here's how we're working to make the economy benefit everyone." Is a good, authentic message. "This is what we did and here is how it helps you." Is food too. The problem is the delivery.
comment in response to
post
We can emulate their budget. We can compete for their airwaves and screen real estate. Watch Tubi for a couple of hours. The ad time is uncontested. They bought whole television and radio networks covering the country. Not just fox and oan
comment in response to
post
Oh, I agree. Its not about economics. I just don't think that the demographic is breaking so sharply MAGA for fundamental reasons. They are being marketed to by the right. I mean it spends serious money pushing its agenda to them in the places where they spend their time. We don't do that
comment in response to
post
I mean, we kind of need to try. Socially isolated young men aren't irredeemable. Their principle trait isn't that they are racist or misogynistic. Its that they haven't found their place in life yet. That means they are recruitable. By racists, or misogynists, or leftists, or us, if we try.
comment in response to
post
Was it you?
comment in response to
post
Copy that
comment in response to
post
I think it's axiomatic that any response one side feels is proportional, the other will feel is escalatory. Whether it's countries or businesses or spouses.
comment in response to
post
Me too, bunny. Me too.
comment in response to
post
Yes, that will solve the unhappy incel problem for sure!
comment in response to
post
No, its authoritarian but has no connection with communism which is a very different thing, and also bad. This is about social, not economic, central planning
comment in response to
post
Wait, that's not how you're supposed to treat pets? Has anyone informed Secretary Noem?
comment in response to
post
Link it I'll take a look.
comment in response to
post
So you're saying its better. A step in the right direction. Progress.