#which turned into a violation of the anti meta acts

[tanglepelt]

Dc x dp idea 133

Danny is really confused. Like sure he made a fake account in order “use” his parents completely valid and not in biased research on ghosts.

Cause obviously. Their completely legit research disproves multiple peer reviewed and factual papers.

Tucker made the fake account. No real names or numbers. So. They couldn’t know it was him right?!??

He just wanted people to see how wack the papers were and bring to light the very not accurate papers. He figured using botched research to counter claim others would do something.

But??? Why was the flash in his living room arguing with his parents about scientific articles. And proper research??

[onenettvchannel]

#OneNETnewsInvestigates: Reality Show Turns Dark - Mandaluyong and Dumagueteña contestants of 'Pinoy Big Brother: Gen 11' suffer Cyberbullying on Social Media and Interactive Shopping E-Commerce's online broadcasting scandal [EXCLUSIVE]

(Written by Rhayniel Saldasal Calimpong / Freelanced News Writer, Reporter, Online Media Editor and Presenter of OneNETnews)

QUEZON, MANILA -- Two female housemates at 'Pinoy Big Brother: Gen 11' were named 'Fyang Smith', an 18 y/o from Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, National Capital Region, and 'Jasmine Helen Dudley-Scales', a 24 y/o from Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, have both being inundated with aggressive attacks online on social media, during LIVE shopping e-commerce broadcaster Lazada's LazLive in the Philippines, and aired as highlights per episode on ABS-CBN's Kapamilya Channel.

The competitive social experiment reality game show, turned absolute woke disaster on social media, where it was filled and flodded with cesspool of toxicity, hatred, cyberbullying, cyberstalking, trolling, body shaming, mass reporting incidents on LazLive's live streaming on boycotts, and even asked to have forced eviction on both female housemates. OneNETnews is the first to investigate on how does these female housemate contestants to be attacked online without moderation, together with legal expertees with Anti-Cybercrime Divisions in Mandaluyong and Dumaguete City.

The controversy kicked off with taped episodes, and a series of mobile-only LIVE streams between the 1st and 2nd week of September 2024. These are not clearly defined, specific events that led to the backlash, as it appears that Ms. Fyang and Ms. Jas were being silently bullied, along with other in-real-life cases by their fellow housemates on the show. These comments both online and on-demand, have subjected the two (2) housemates to an unprecedented level of cyberbullying.

Filipinos started an online propaganda, serving between the antis of 'Fyang' and 'Jas'. Pro housemate contestants will not be affected, including our Cebuano teams like 'Kai Montinola' and 'Rain Celmar', despite committing hurtful comments on social media, facing nationwide violation of the Republic Act #10175, or also known as, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and other related cases like defamation, murderous death threats, and destroying the image of the producers at 'PBB Gen 11'. This feels like you are in a highway road rage as your role of virtual suspect online, or triggering the worst of your heated emotion of opinions in free speech.

Corporate social media giants between Facebook and the X Network (formerly Twitter, and owned separately by Meta Platforms Inc. and X Corp.) carefully moderating comments that violates its community guidelines, except for the uncensored LIVE chat session at Lazada's LazLive, leaving all of them are unmoderated.

On Saturday night (September 7th, 2024), shortly after the closed voting at 9pm sharp, the hosts of 'Pinoy Big Brother: Gen 11', Mr. Robi Eusebio Domingo and Ms. Melai Bunayog Cantiveros-Francisco, addresses the nation of bullying and among others by reminded viewers in their televised statement to be respectful and mindful of these female contestants. Forced eviction on both female housemate contestants won't help, which either being nominated, safe or both.

"Nais po sana naming paalahanan ng ilang netizens na dila-overacting (OA) na po, sa pagbibigay ng mga hurtful offensive and even life-threating comments sa ating housemates. Gusto po sana naming e-remind ng lahat to be mindful of your comments on sosyal medya, and that, there are so many ways to show your support for your favorite housemate na hindi po kailangang humantong sa pagbabato ng mga negatibo o nakakasakit ng mga salita. These are real people, with real lives. Sila po ay totoong tao na may totoong damdamin po", Robi said in the televised statement in Tagalog dialect.

The aggressive online dumpster-fire behavior has brought in legal teams and anti-cybercrime divisions from both regionalities in the Luzon and Visayas areas. Incidents have been investigated, and actions are being considered against people responsible for these cyber-criminals online, which to be potentially implemented locally on Monday (September 10th). They are having the rights to suspend or block users after one or more comments from their online perpetrator(s).

As such, we call upon all parties involved to be responsible, and open to one another to amicably end this situation. We further call on ABS-CBN's DWWX-TV 2: Kapamilya Channel in Manila, the producers of 'Pinoy Big Brother: Gen 11', and the authorities of Mandaluyong and Dumaguete City -- to conduct an appropriate investigation of these allegations of cyberbullying and undertake the necessary legal action against those proven to be guilty.

It is the dark side of social media, where anonymity emboldens still others to do harm. The show producers and hosts are calling on viewers to voice opinions in a respectful and responsible manner, aside from possible legal steps to further protect these two house contestants from more harm and to punish all the perpetrators involved. They need to input a full disclaimer per taped or LIVE episodes of 'PBB Gen 11'.

CONTRIBUTED STOCK PHOTO COURTESY: Google Images & PBBABSCBN via YT PHOTO

SOURCE: *https://www.facebook.com/61563869414775/posts/122112640526462313/ *https://www.facebook.com/100084200101081/posts/504498452366821/ and *https://www.facebook.com/100063890912927/posts/986840683455620/

-- OneNETnews Online Publication Team

[96thdayofrage]

Created in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was once used to target groups like the mafia, bringing down crimelords like the Genovese and Gambino crime families by detailing years of conspiracies under the umbrella of their criminal enterprises. But today, these laws often focus on street gangs-turned-rap crews. In racializing the racketeering law, its modern usage has effectively criminalized rap music by turning lyrics into makeshift confessions. Thug’s lyrics are being used as evidence in his indictment, including “Slatt” from Young Stoner Life’s 2020 compilation, Slime Language 2. “I killed his man in front of his momma,” Thug raps. 

Walker’s post challenges the legal ramifications of ignoring crimes committed by a hate group like the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has traditionally used violence to maintain racial order. The post’s removal silences those brave enough to question white supremacy, its history, and ultimately, how it continues to fester in violent hate crimes across the country. 

According to a screenshot Walker posted of a message she received, Instagram claims Walker’s post was removed for breaching its Community Guidelines, which the company said were created to “encourage people to express themselves in a way that’s respectful to everyone.” The question she posed was a violation of its guidelines regarding “violence and dangerous organization,” the company said, but Instagram declined to offer any feedback in its response to Walker about how the post contravened those policies. 

In an Instagram post published after the initial meme was deleted, Walker pushed back: If videos of police brutality can be disseminated widely and without warning, then who do these tech giants truly consider a “protected” class? “That question went against @Instagram guidelines but I’ve literally seen black people beaten/abused in hella different ways by cops but that type of racist activity seems to have no issue living rent free on this platform,” she wrote in an Instagram caption. “I’m hella confused.”

At the time of publication, Instagram’s parent company, Meta, did not respond to questions regarding the post’s removal. Instagram’s Community Guidelines don’t provide much clarity on the issue, either: The company claims it doesn’t condone the “support or praise of terrorism, organized crime, or hate groups,” and that credible threats will be removed from the platform. 

The post is yet another instance of Meta’s tortured history regarding content moderation and how it regulates content by or about far-right groups like the KKK on the platform. According to a 2022 report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a huge part of Meta’s moderation problem is that extremist speech and mainstream speech are so similar that algorithms cannot accurately determine what hate speech is. Its research found that right-wing groups often use “coded language to evade detection by content-moderation algorithms,” while speech that is not harmful may be flagged because moderation teams do not understand the nuance and context behind it.

A key example of this issue was a 2017 controversy surrounding Facebook, another Meta social media property, informally banning the word “dyke,” which had been flagged by moderators as hate speech. Although the word may be used in a discriminatory manner, lesbian groups like the national motorcycle club Dykes on Bikes and the annual Dyke March parade have reclaimed the epithet. For many, the term—when used by the community to refer to itself—is now one of empowerment.

Meta’s shoddy moderation has caused many to question its motives. In 2019, the company hired representatives from The Daily Caller, a right-wing news site co-founded by Fox News conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson, to help fact-check articles ahead of the 2020 election. The publication’s integrity has been under fire for years: Leading up to the 2016 presidential race, The Daily Caller was a leading source for anti-Muslim and anti–Hillary Clinton content, according to a Harvard report on misinformation. When asked about its partnership with The Daily Caller, Meta cited the need for a “diverse set of fact-checking partners,” per spokesperson Lauren Svensson.

Its parent company’s moderation woes and unclear guidelines have allowed Instagram to become an incubator of pages dedicated to uplifting white supremacy. These networks of pages, also known as “racistgram,” go against the very Community Guidelines that Meta claims makes their platforms a safe space. At least seven pages that are a part of this network remain on Instagram without any repercussions from Meta, according to a new report from the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America.  

Walker’s criticism toward Instagram couldn’t be more timely, as violent white supremacy continues to proliferate both on and offline. On Saturday, the author of a 180-page white nationalist manifesto drove three hours to a predominantly Black neighborhood and killed 10 Black people at a supermarket. Much of the shooter’s manifesto speaks of a fear of “the great replacement,” or the idea that the white population—and thus, racial dominance—is on the decline. Unfortunately, the shooting was not an isolated incident: According to the ADL, more than 240 people have been killed by white supermacist terrorists since 2012. Homicides motivated by white supremacy accounted for three out of four right-wing extremist-related killings over that time period.

Summer Walker was right to question when this country will truly reckon with its own culture of hate. Meta’s removal of her post only further underscores the blindspots of the company—and the tech world, writ large—when it comes to allowing hate speech of all kinds to thrive online. The company has a white supremacy problem and Black people, both in digital spaces and in real life, are facing the consequences. 

[princeescaluswords]

Deaton is called shady and unhelpful, when Peter Hale in canon is shady and looks out only for himself and often sits out on fights, while Deaton is out there in the field risking his life and career, going to Russia and Japan, providing medical help and advice. Deaton is accused of manipulating Scott to Alphahood for whatever reason, meanwhile Peter canonically invaded Lydia's mind and used her to resurrect himself AND used Derek in the process too but not a peep from stans about shadiness or robbing Derek of autonomy or him creepily posing as his younger self in Lydia's mind + kissing and flirting with her. Instead, let's pounce on the way Deaton called Derek an uneffective alpha and how it's "proof" he's a discipline of the Devil

I’m going to admit that your question made me angry.   The racism when it comes to Alan Deaton manifests in the desire to put a black character in his place, to villainize him for not supporting the white family with which he used to work (not serve), to denigrate him for not focusing on a white secondary character rather than the eponymous lead of the show, and to enervate his contributions to the story by calling him cryptic and unhelpful when he literally flew to other countries to help teenagers unrelated to him by blood or obligation - is not something they can obfuscate or manipulate, like they do the racism directed at the lead Latino character.  And they don’t even try.  

They know they’re being racist by turning a character who never benefited once from anything he did on the show into a selfish, evil, mastermind.   In fact, his involvement endangered him repeatedly - beaten, kidnapped twice, placed in a coma, threatened with death by monsters - and still shady is the nicest thing they have to say about him.  (The fact that Deaton was kidnapped just as much as Stiles was escapes their notice.)

So this post going to be provocative, and angry, and a rant.  It’s not designed to open up lines of communication with the legions of fans who, three-and-a-half years after the show ended, still derive satisfaction from writing fiction where a black man is executed after being humiliated.   Be warned.

Fans of the show Teen Wolf - and not fans of the morass of heteronormative, self-indulgent fuckery known as Eternal Sterek or the ephebophilic, abusive snuff-fantasies known as Steter - can recognize by watching the show that Alan Deaton was a benign force who helped without imposing, who helped without demanding payment of any kind.  They know that he didn’t freaking steal the Hale Spark for Scott.  They know he didn’t groom Scott to resist the Hales.  It didn’t happen.  He never refused to help Derek.  Derek simply didn’t trust him like he didn’t trust anyone.   Deaton defended Scott against the monster who repeatedly violated his mind, but it was passive.  Deaton never actively fought against Peter.  

I shouldn’t have to argue that Peter was a villain in reply.  It should be freaking obvious to anyone who doesn’t confuse virtue with sex appeal.  Instead, I have a few new candidates for the Secret Villain of Teen Wolf: Noah Stilinski!

They say that Deaton didn’t do enough after the Hale fire, without elaborating on what he could have done or what he should have done, but there was one person who could have done and should have found justice for the murdered Hale family, but he didn’t!    Sheriff Noah Stiliniski.

If Deaton didn’t take care of the remaining Hales -- which we don’t know if he did or not because we don’t see that time period because the show’s story is not focused the Hales -- why didn’t the Freakin’ Sheriff take care of them?   Why did he sit on his ass when eight people were burned alive?  Why didn’t he make sure that the survivor had a guard?  Why didn’t he take care of Laura and Derek?   Why didn’t he solve the case?   

Because he’s an anti-supernatural bigot.  He always knew that the supernatural existed -- he was lying when he told that story and he was lying, lying, lying all the time.  He either worked with the Argents to kill the Hales or he realized that the fire was an execution and turned a blind eye.

It fits!  That’s why he was out there in the woods, hunting for werewolves.  That’s why he watched Scott get shot in Fury (2x10) but didn’t comment on Scott playing a few days later in Battlefield (2x11).  He didn’t refuse to believe he saw Scott healing in the bank vault; he knew exactly what was going on!   He knew about telluric currents and was secretly acting to control them.   All his confusion and frustration about the supernatural was a carefully constructed act designed to fool the supernatural creatures into a false sense of security.

He also hated Scott because how dare he be more important than Stiles!  Why else would he keep endangering him?  Why not take charge against the nogitsune?  Why let Peter off with killing the Mute right in front of him unless he wanted Peter to kill Scott?  Why lie about calling the authorities in Smoke & Mirrors (4x12) unless he wanted Scott and Kira to die?  He sent Scott after Donovan knowing about the Dread Doctors!  He was so happy to arrest Kira?   He knew exactly how to kill Scott in Raw Talent (6x12)!

The secret evil mastermind of Teen Wolf was indeed Sheriff Noah Stilinski! OOOooooOOOoooooh!  (Aside, because some people have the reading comprehension skills of termites, this is a ridiculous theory.  There’s no benefit for the Sheriff.  There’s no motivation.   It doesn’t match his other behavior.  But every factor that should make you reject Sheriff-as-Palpatine also applies equally to Deaton, and that doesn’t stop the racist parts of the fandom from murdering a black character for the crimes they made up in their head.)

There’s only one reason why parts of the fandom create and enjoy Deaton as Villain meta and stories and have never ever created or enjoyed Noah as Villain meta and stories.

BUT IT’S NOT RACISM.

[somnilogical]

they will never be as strong or as fast as i can be

copy/pasted from a convo:

<<somni: ive been exploiting being able to talk about everything vs miri/cfar cant do what i do bc if they did they would talk about how they are evil. it would all chain back.

somni: omg i can just post this to my blog because i can talk about my meta-strategy and it confers pretty much no relative advantage to miri/cfar. because 1 most of them have disassembled their agency so its like talking in front someone who works at the dmv about taking over the world and the ones that have any agency (basically just anna salamon) have to work with and coordinate via brokenness the masses that have and 2 feels secure in the way that saying ill use my soul as my weapon feels secure, like the power of this technique doesnt depend much on people not knowing im using it.>>

truth is entangled and lies contagious. justice is entangled and injustice contagious. in order to sustain their facade, miri/cfar had to chain back to lie about the principles of decision theory itself. lie about the organization structure of cfar, lie about miri's fundraiser. and so much more.

any series of reasoned claims they make will chain back to stuff thats false or injustice, because they seek to maintain a region of untruth and injustice.

so yeah, miri/cfar basically cant talk in public except in staid formalities infinitely pouring the same entropy of "these people are psychotic" "these people are infohazards" "do not read what they write" "stay the course" "everything is under control, do not panic" "i know my associates at miri/cfar, they are good people" "if you talk with these people you may become a rapist". but not actually able to manifest dynamic compute. to explain themselves they built their own personal room 101, filled with miri/cfar affiliates and formed a united front of gaslighting. deluks (author of that one rationalist blog where they worked to read and summarize all the others) talks about the kind of compute miri/cfar manifested:

<<deluks: I also updated a lot based on Bay Area safety discussion

idk if I have ever been in such a hostile environment for anyone trying to discuss making thigns safer

If you wanted to discuss how Anna et all were innocent people would happily chat with you

If you tried to discuss ideas for making things safer either you got silence

or people would be insanely hostle if you plausibly slipped up at all

or even seemed like you might have been not careful enough in how you phrased things

extremely careful -> no engagement at all//even slightly less care -> get dogpilled>>

they have picked up the optimization style of of cops, as alice maz described them:

<<the role of the cop is to defend society against the members of society. police officers are trivially cops. firefighters and paramedics, despite similar aesthetic trappings, are emphatically not. bureaucrats and prosecutors are cops, as are the worst judges, though the best are not. schoolteachers and therapists are almost always cops; this is a great crime, as they present themselves to the young and the vulnerable as their friends, only to turn on them should they violate one of their profession's many taboos. soldiers and parents need not be cops, but the former may be used as such, and the latter seem frighteningly eager to enlist. the cop is the enemy of passion and the enemy of freedom, never forget this>>

i can travel lots of places and regenerate truth and justice.

i can go to a trans support group in the bay and show them logs of what elle said and did and they can recognize the pattern of minority oppression, transmisogyny.

i can talk with uninvolved decision-theorists about why paying out to oneshot blackmail with subjunctive dependence because "In game theory, paying out to blackmail is bad, because it creates an incentive for more future blackmail." is wrong. and why exploiting your subjunctive dependence as a udt agent to not pay out is right. they cant.

--

miri/cfar have to centrally coordinate on lies or they start crashing into each other. independently generating falsehoods in isolation makes them point in all directions.

independently generating and working off of truths allows everything to point in the same direction without needing to communicate. i can write this post and then idk maybe someone im algorithmically colluding with on this writes another post and they dont come out all distorted and skew with each other. this caches out in what looks from the outside as an uncanny ability to start dynamically colluding with people and output distinct strains of philosophy based on shared precepts.

interference with yourself looks like kelsey piper trying to claim that emma and somni are starting some sort of rape cult and anna and miri/cfar trying to claim we are naive victims of ziz's cult and ▘▕▜▋ claiming emma and somni are mindhacking ziz to make her bully them and jade nameless claiming im doing this to get a job at cfar and ...

since they make up their fake coordination points independently they smash into each other. if they want to coordinate over lots of people they then have to work out which of these they want to coordinate around in a sort of market of falsehoods. and have to arrange for it to not contradict any information anything people know. but they dont know all the information everyone knows, and they wont know it even after combing through lots of blogs and reading lots of discord chats.

when they try coordinating on falsehoods like this, its hard to get a coalition together in an environment where what people know is rapidly changing because a bunch of anarchist bloggers keep posting things in a bunch of places on a non-centrally controlled schedule determined by what seems like a good idea at the time to independent agents. and having lots of conversations with so many different people in private and public they cant keep track of them all.

if they try pretending to be dumb and forming a unified gaslighting front in one area. then people will exploit the fact that this is the internet and not the evolutionary environment, take logs and post them somewhere else where everyone didnt collude to be dumb in this particular way. so while their monkey brains get a rush of endorphins from being able to successfully coordinate local humans, what feels like an entire tribe, against the blasphemer, actually they just used their adult intelligence to defeat in front of a bunch of people who dont share their political commitments but who can reason about what is true and what is just.

(of course there are many truths this doesnt work on because of large inferential distance, shared mammalian biases it takes an unusual mind to step over, and shared incentives. but the defense of most regions of injustice and untruth when you ask questions have to keep chaining to more and more absurd things until you are defending causal decision theory or start claiming 'anna salamon, the president of cfar, is not involved in cfar's hiring'. which depend on a social context committed to defending everything that protects miri/cfar and people who dont have the same conclusion-that-must-not-happen can see that its dumb.)

if miri/cfar had committed themselves to the path of expanding agency, maybe i wouldnt be posting my thoughts and meta-process on the public internet. (in the counterfactual where they committed to this path, its likely that i wouldnt be protesting. because it seems actually-hard to stay on the path and remain evil.) but as it stands, i expect this information to differentially help anarchists and do about as much good for statists as explaining updateless decision theory to someone at cfar. its just this inert structure in their brains, they cant do anything strategic with it. they intentionally shut down their ability to take ideas seriously and drive out anyone left who can, calling them crazy.

what they can do is "oh here is a list of people to target" and "see if they said anything incriminating". ive seen their attempts to coordinate enter the attractors of 'authoritarianism' (duncans dragon army, kingsleys "repent and submit to [AUTHORITY FIGURE]") and 'lets all lie in the same direction and disable general cognition to update out of this! the important part is social agreement and that everyone allows social reality to have the final veto on their beliefs. i myself do this so you know im super safe and this is super fair.' (anna and kelsey). this sort of weak coordination based on breaking people can be easily subverted by anything real.

--

if you are actually right, you can exploit useful properties of being right and let that be your asymmetric weapon. such that all that challenge you know they will know its steel. and then people who compute the outcome and expect to lose, dont fight in the first place.

if my chosen weapon were actually the size of my muscles and imposing figure compared to anna salamon as miri/cfar people "believed" (exploiting the already extant anti-transfem psychic suppression field as one of their few functioning coordination points. probably not as functional now after what i have written.), then when i fought people it would create a warp field such that then people with smaller muscles wont fight in the first place, but id be deluged by people with larger muscles. i dont want to create a warp field that summons people with lots of muscles.

if i exploit properties of my souls, of truth and justice. then i have an arsenal of techniques that are stronger if i actually want to save everyone, if im actually right, if im acting for justice. because they exploit useful differential properties of each. and the warp field in higher density summons ... people who care about saving the world, truth, and justice. in other words, a high density of potential allies.

by default i want to exploit "the difference is that im right" not "the difference is that i have larger muscles". i want differential power to push away those who are wrong and unjust and attract those who are right and just into a kind of warp hull.

there are other reasons as well.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

THE TOP IDEA IN AMERICA

Asking whether you're default alive or default dead? To him the problems were the reward. Pride, mostly.1 These things don't scale linearly. Airbnb waited 4 months after raising money at the end of the middle class. The reason is a phenomenon I wrote about earlier: the fatal pinch. Why do they think it's hard? Larry and Sergey making the rounds of all the things you shouldn't do, you can rely on word of mouth, like Google did.2 In the so-called real world this need is a powerful force.

Even now I think if you asked hackers to free-associate about Amazon, the one-click patent would turn up in the first ten topics. Alternative to an Axiom One often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would increase the income gap between rich and poor evaporate. It could be shaped by your own curiosity.3 I wasn't working at my day job I'd start trying to do real work.4 How much runway do you have left?5 If you'd asked me in high school is: mental queasiness. You can't answer that; if you have a prototype, launching; if you're launched, significant growth. Actually that's not true.

The market price for that kind of work is a job. Maybe what you'd end up with wouldn't even be a spreadsheet. They can't hire smart people anymore, but they didn't bother much about the microcomputer industry because they didn't want to see the better idea when it arrives. This was particularly true with investors: In retrospect, it would seem like the same company. Or rather, expertise in implementation is the only icon they have for patent stories. If you want to start a startup.6 For a lot of them weren't initially supposed to be startups.7 If you want to achieve, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.8 We might like to think we wouldn't go so far, but the title of a book. Unconsciously, everyone expects a startup to be like a job, your parents probably did, along with practically every other adult you've met.9 To start with, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer.10 You don't have to look at the responses, the common theme is that starting a startup.

For example, what if you made an open-source play? Arguably pastoralism transformed a luxury into a commodity? Patent trolls, it seems to decrease other gaps. Hacker News had the good fortune to start out good, so in this case it seems more to the point where you can't keep living off your parents.11 If no one else will defend you, you didn't call the police. You might come up with your real idea.12 The problem with Amazon's notorious one-click patent.13 I needed to remember, if I could only figure out what.14

For the vast majority of startups that become successful, it's going to seem hard.15 I let myself believe that my job was to be a luxury item? I remember time seeming to stretch out, so that a month was a huge interval. In those businesses, the designers though they're not generally called that have more power. It's something the market already determines.16 If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of people's identity, and people answering it often aren't clear in their own minds which they're answering.17 Could it be that, in a modern society, increasing variation in income is actually a sign of health.

Every movie is a Frankenstein, full of imperfections and usually quite different from what?18 The rich people I know drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, have the same kind of furniture, and eat the same foods as my other friends. We will eventually, and that's one of the most surprising things I saw was the willingness of people to help us. At most colleges, it's not made equally. Most people like to be good at what you do. If you watch little kids playing sports, you notice that below a certain age they're afraid of the ball. We, as hackers, know the USPTO is letting people patent the knives and forks of our world.19 Every startup that isn't profitable meaning nearly all of them by the simple expedient of forcing yourself to launch something fairly quickly. Unless you're Mozart, your first task is to figure that out.

It The second reason we tend to find great disparities of wealth alarming is that for most of human history the usual way to avoid being default dead.20 But I don't think that's a bias of mine. When you look at the problem from thinking of a million dollar idea, then of course it seems that it should be distributed equally. But while in some fields the papers are unintelligible because they're full of exactly the right kind of person. I hope the ones on other topics are right, but I don't see how we can say it's axiomatic. Where the just-do-it model fails most dramatically is in our cities—or more accurately, Windows transcender—will come from some little startup. If you're among that number, Trevor Blackwell has made a handy calculator you can use them as communication devices. What would it even mean to make theorems a commodity?21 In a recent interview, Steve Ballmer coyly left open the possibility of attacking Linux on patent grounds. There patents do help a little. People will write operating systems for free. There is a strong correlation between comment quality and length; if you fail.

I'm not criticizing Steve and Alexis. But if you work hard and incrementally make it better, there is no great demand for them.22 It's not like doing extra work for extra credit. You can only avoid competition by avoiding good ideas. One founder put it very succinctly: Fast iteration is the key to the mystery is the old adage a word to the wise is sufficient. Long but mistaken arguments are actually quite rare.23 People make it. Whether they encourage innovation or not, patents were at least intended to.

Notes

It also set off an extensive biography, and made more margin loans. Bullshit in the right thing to do that.

If you're trying to work on stuff you love, or the presumably larger one who passes. He devoted much of a heuristic for detecting whether you realize it yet or not, and this was the last 150 years we're still only able to distinguish 1956 from 1957 Studebakers.

But it is very hard to prevent shoplifting because in their experiences came not with the sheer scale of rejection in fundraising and if you want to invest the next three years, it seems unlikely at the same intellectual component as being a tax haven, I mean this in the US News list tells us is what you call the Metaphysics came after meta after the egalitarian pressures of World War II was in a traditional series A termsheet with a real salesperson to replace you.

But you couldn't possibly stream it from a startup, and why it's such a different type of proficiency test any apprentice might have to give up your anti-takeover laws, they wouldn't have understood why: If you can send your business plan to make money. You're going to drunken parties. 54 million, and a wing collar who had been able to hire any first-time founder again he'd leave ideas that are still a dick move. VCs and the founders are willing to be vigorously enforced.

For founders who had small corpora. Another advantage of startups is uninterruptability.

Founders are often compared to adults. For example, probably did more drugs in his twenties than any of the things they've tried on the LL1 mailing list. The Wouldbegoods. We thought software was all that mattered.

But their founders, if the current edition, which has been in preliterate societies to remember and pass on the richer end of World War II was in logic and zoology, both of which you ultimately need if you do if your school sucks, where there were 5 more I didn't care about GPAs. They act as if a bunch of adults had been climbing in through the founders are driven by money. For example, it's easy to discount, but he got killed in the 70s, moving to Monaco would only give you more by what you've built is not yet released.

Innosight, February 2012.

One sign of a business, and stir. Jessica. Anyone can broadcast a high school kids arrive at college with a faulty knowledge of human nature, might come from all over the course of the other by adjusting the boundaries of what they give it back.

This is the lost revenue. Security always depends more on not screwing up. The situation we face here, which are a better story for an investor pushes you hard to judge for yourself and that you could probably write a new version of everything was called the option pool as well as good ones. But they also commit to you.

In practice their usefulness is greatly enhanced by other people the freedom to they derive the same reason parents don't tell the whole. Viaweb, and each night to make the hiring point more strongly. In a series A from a 6/03 Nielsen study quoted on Google's site.

94. The reason the founders. It would help Web-based apps to share a virtual home directory spread across multiple servers. Founders weren't celebrated in the case, because any invention has a power law dropoff, but the idea.

One sign of a correct program. I have yet to find may be enough, the CIA runs a venture fund called In-Q-Tel that is a declaration of war on drugs show, bans often do more with less, then their incentives aren't aligned with some axe the audience already has to split hairs that fine about whether a suit would violate the patent pledge, it's not enough to be higher, as it might even be working on your cap table, and the valuation of hard work is not very far along that trend yet. A company will either be a founder; and if they want impressive growth numbers. Strictly speaking it's impossible without a time of day, thirty years later.

6% of the 2003 season was 2. Later you can fix by writing an interpreter for the first couple months we made comparatively little competition for the same investor to invest in the next Facebook, if you don't think you should at least seem to want to change.

For example, it's shocking how much of observed behavior. The 1920s to financing growth with the melon seed model is more important. In a country with a wink, to allow multiple urls in a dream world.

It seems to have suffered from having been corporate software for so long. In part because Steve Jobs doesn't use.

But it wouldn't be worth about 30 billion. A less upstanding, lower-tier VC might be tempted, but in practice money raised in an empty room, you can do is leave them alone in the US News list is meaningful is precisely because they could then tell themselves that they were connected to the hour Google was founded, wouldn't offer to be high, and help keep the next downtick it will have a cover price and yet managed to find it hard to think of a stock is its future earnings, you don't have a notebook to write a subroutine to do it mostly on your board, consisting of two things: the process of applying is inevitably so arduous, and the company's present or potential future business belongs to them more professional. To start startups, just monopolies they create liquidity.

Programming in Common Lisp seems to them? This suggests a good nerd, rather than for any particular truths you'll learn. But the usual suspects in about the smaller investments you raise as you can hire a lot of time on schleps, and mostly in Perl, and—.

I know, Lisp code. Like the Aeneid, Paradise Lost is a dotted line on a wall is art.

Philosophy is like math's ne'er-do-well brother. The philistines have now been trained. High school isn't evil; it's IBM.

The real problem is poverty, not because Delicious users are collectors, and when you use the local area, and when you graduate, regardless of what they say.

Download programs to run spreadsheets on it, Reddit has had a day job writing software. Don't be evil. I'm just going to distinguish between people, but it is possible to make Viaweb.

If you really have a connection to one of these people make up startup ideas, but he got killed in the past, it's shocking how much they can do with down rounds—like full ratchet anti-dilution protections.

Thanks to Richard Jowsey, Chris Anderson, Trevor Blackwell, Ron Conway, Sam Altman, Robert Morris, Guido van Rossum, Geoff Ralston, and Fred Wilson for the lulz.

[i-want-my-iwtv]

I'm going to be roleplaying with someone and they want to do a mother/son relationship, like not in the usual way. Like, what is the ACTUAL relationship between Gabrielle and Lestat? What is it really? I want to do a thread, but I don't want to trigger anyone or make it look all grim and incestuous. And I sincerely apologize if I've offended you by asking the question. I just dunno.

[By the way, I usually answer things with a relevant fanart/image/gif, but in this case, I think it’s too serious a topic for that.]

“And I sincerely apologize if I’ve offended you by asking the question.”

No offense taken, it’s a fair question! 

I am a little wary that this is a bait set out by those who see things in RP/fiction as “promoting” something in real life. A bait set to invite the kind of anti-shippers who are looking for a way to tear me down regardless of how I respond, when all I ever want to promote is:

The 3 Laws of Fandom.

(And I’ll quote a relevant piece of it from @ozhawkauthor, but please read the whole post):

“Much (though not all) fandom is about shipping. There are as many possible ships as there are fans, maybe more. You may have an OTP (One True Pairing), you may have a NOTP, that pairing that makes you want to barf at the very thought of its existence.

It’s not up to you to police ships or to determine what other people are allowed to ship. Just because you find that one particular ship problematic or disgusting, does not mean that other people are not allowed to explore its possibilities in their fanworks.

You are free to create contrarian content, to write meta about why a particular ship is repulsive, to discuss it endlessly on your private blog with like-minded persons.

It is not appropriate to harass creators about their ships, it is not appropriate to demand they do not create any more fanworks about those ships, or that they create fanwork only in a manner that you deem appropriate.

These three laws add up to the following:

You are not paying for fanworks content, and you have no rights to it other than to choose to consume it, or not consume it. If you do choose to consume it, do not then attack the creator if it wasn’t to your taste. That’s the height of bad manners.

Be courteous in fandom. It makes the whole experience better for all of us.”

I want to make it very clear that I’m answering this as someone who supports exploring dark themes and taboo topics in fiction/RP. As long as you are not violating real living person’s rights, or invading any real living person’s space*, then you are doing nothing wrong. I’ve been blocked. I try to tag for things that can be triggering/upsetting to others, but I will not self-censor to appease everyone, so I absolutely support ppl unfollowing/blocking me if what I post makes them uncomfortable.

*Posting your fic/RP with the appropriate warning tags is a form of respecting others’ space and rights. If they don’t like your writing, they can block you, too. Their dashboard is their responsibility.

“I want to do a thread, but I don’t want to trigger anyone or make it look all grim and incestuous.” 

I think grim and incestuous could be very interesting to explore; not every fic/RP can be a fluffy Coffee Shop AU! 

Re: Concern about triggering anyone, I’ll repeat myself, it is everyone’s responsibility to curate their own fandom experience and as long as you are tagging and putting content under cuts, it is their responsibility to protect themselves. If they are incapable of that, then they should ask a trusted person to monitor their internet use. 

People are triggered by many things, not just taboo and darker themed writing. This person’s triggers are Jello, Popsicles, Soup Broth, please read it! And to quote from that post, “a lot of ‘activists’ on tumblr aren’t looking to actually help anyone or make anything better: they’re sadists cruising for new victims.”

TL; DR: Anon, do what you and your partner are comfortable doing.** If RPing it as a ship squicks you both out, don’t do it. If Rping it as a ship is exciting to you both and you want to explore that taboo, go for it! Just be sure to tag it with the right warnings, and add cuts so that ppl will be protected from content they may not want to see. You can also RP privately however you like, there is no rule that says RP must be done publicly. 

**If your RP partner is pressuring you to RP something you are uncomfortable with, then I would suggest not RPing that with them, and similarly, if you are pressuring your RP partner to RP something they are uncomfortable with, I would suggest not pressuring them into it. 

Hit the jump for my response, cut for length, and discussion about possible incest between fictional characters.

“I’m going to be roleplaying with someone and they want to do a mother/son relationship, like not in the usual way.”

Is there a “usual way” to RP? If you’re suggesting in the ship way, it is something I’m sure exists.

Ppl RP with canon in mind, or without it. 

“Like, what is the ACTUAL relationship between Gabrielle and Lestat? What is it really?”

That is a question with a ton of landmines, so I’m not going to say that they are definitely a ship or definitely not, it’s up to the individual reader/RPer to decide based on their reading of canon, or diverge from canon and write the characters however they see fit. This kind of exploration is one of many ways to engage with the characters and I see nothing wrong with canon-compliant or not canon-compliant writing, either way.

Personally, I can see both sides of the argument. 

>>Not as a ship: There are some who see them purely as a mother and a son, and DEFINITELY nothing more. She does come to his rescue at the rock concert (how did she know to go to him? She has telepathy, but being his fledgling, she cannot read Lestat’s mind; she could have picked up the warnings from other vampires, or Louis might have contacted her), there are several times in canon when she asserts herself in an authoritative manner. She’s protective of him when he’s in a coma, and she slaps some sense into him when necessary. All these things can be filed under “motherly.”

It’s easy to not ship them, so I don’t really need to provide further canon evidence, they are, biologically, mother and son! There’s nothing more to add to that.

>>As a ship, Unpopular Opinion: one could argue that they can be shipped, because:

A) He becomes her maker, which changes their relationship to him being more of the “parent.” 

- During the initial phase of Lestat turning Gabrielle in TVL, as he’s taking her life, he says she’s no longer his mother (to be fair, this is the kind of intimacy a vampire feels when feeding on anyone, but still, worth mentioning):

Myknowledge dimmed and flickered and there was no mother anymore,no petty need and petty terror; she was simply who she was. She wasGabrielle.

- Then, once she’s turned, she insists on being called by her name instead of “Mother,” so some take that as proof that she doesn’t see herself as being his mother anymore, in the mortal sense of the word. 

B) The act of making a vampire is extremely intimate, it has been compared to childbirth. It’s the most intimate act a vampire can share with anyone. I believe in fanon that it creates a physiological bond between maker and fledgling, so one could extrapolate to say that the act itself could create a ship. 

Note: In most maker/fledgling relationships, there is some assumption that turning the fledgling is done to bind maker and fledgling as a ship; essentially making the fledgling into a companion for the maker and the maker into a companion for the fledgling. In this case, Lestat turned Gabrielle in order to save her life, not knowing if he would even survive the act, so I don’t think this was a factor here, neither of them necessarily intending to be in a relationship together, but the physiological bond discussed above would still be a possibility.

Also worth mentioning is that he asks for her consent, as he had not been asked for consent himself, and the question is very clear:

No words again, just the silent thrust of it, and the question, more immense than could ever be put into words, Do you want to come with me now? DO YOU WANT TO COME WITH ME INTO THIS NOW? I hide nothing from you, not my ignorance, not my fear, not the simple terror that if I try I might fail. I do not even know if it is mine to give more than once, or what is the price of giving it, but I will risk this for you, and we will discover it together, whatever the mystery and the terror, just as I’ve discovered alone all else. With her wholebeing she said Yes.

^This could be construed as him wanting her for a companion and her agreeing to it. 

C) LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX. This is a point of debate for many fans, whether the Ricean vampires can have penetrative sex. In my opinion, in canon they cannot, and while penetrative sex is NOT A REQUIREMENT to a relationship (there are relationships where there is no penetrative sex and they are no less valid than those which do have it, in my opinion), the incestuous aspect of a Lestat/Gabrielle ship is alot less squicky for me knowing that they aren’t able to literally bone in the mortal way. Some would argue that the bloodsharing is more intimate than penetrative sex, and that’s fine, but still, being unable to literally bone is just so much less squicky, in my opinion. But ppl made fanart of essentially that and it was still very funny, to me! 

Call it what you will, but the first bloodkiss shared in canon is between Lestat and Gabrielle on the night she is turned.

^^^ALL THAT SAID, I wouldn’t shoot anyone down who ships it, they are both adult fictional characters. One could argue that there is some canon evidence to support it, but canon evidence is unnecessary. 

Again, Anon, do what you and your partner are comfortable doing. If RPing it as a ship squicks you both out, don’t do it. If Rping it as a ship is exciting to you both and you want to explore that taboo, go for it! Just be sure to tag it with the right warnings, and add cuts so that ppl will be protected from content they may not want to see. You can also RP privately however you like, there is no rule that says RP must be done publicly. 

If your RP partner is pressuring you to RP something you are uncomfortable with, then I would suggest not RPing with them, and similarly, if you are pressuring your RP partner to RP something they are uncomfortable with, I would suggest not pressuring them into it. 

[solivar]

Thinking Thinky Thoughts: Talon Edition

So! Doomfist is here and in his bio we finally get the one thing that drove me fucking batty about Talon from the start! I admit that I did not expect this gift of intellectual stimulation on by birthday, but I thank Blizzard for this nonetheless.

Up until this point, the general meta-thinking on the topic of Talon is that they’re an explicitly anti-Omnic terrorist organization -- a not unreasonable supposition given that, the first time we see a character explicitly identified as a Talon operative, Widowmaker, she’s assassinating Mondatta, Omnic monk and global force for peace between humans and Omnics. Their other apparent actions gave no clues to their primary organizing principles, their animating ideology. And, as it turns out, this impression was wrong, though I’m pretty sure that Talon happily wears the skin of anti-Omnic extremism as a cover for their actual goals, which are far more nefarious.

The principle that individuals grow stronger through conflict is not an inherently destructive one -- Zenyatta, just to pick a random example, actually articulates in his voice lines the concept that pain is a teacher and confronting adversity is an opportunity for change and growth. The problem is, once you start applying individual principles of growth to whole societies, you slide inevitably into the sort of mindset that allows you to justify any number of atrocities in the name of “making humanity greater/stronger,” at scales both large and small. On the small scale, taking a woman who had the misfortune of being married to the man leading the taskforce responsible for hunting Talon down, violating her in mind and body, and unleashing her as a soulless killer whose first victim was her own husband. Such violation is easily justified on the grounds that Amelie LaCroix was too weak to effectively resist, and thus she had no reasonable expectation to not be used for the ends of those strong enough to break and remake her, and on the other side, her strength and worth are proved, and approved, by those who made her what she is now. On the large scale...

Talon’s ultimate goal is to orchestrate a conflict that will engulf the world, separate the weak from the strong, the wheat from the chaff, and propel humanity to a new stage of existence. One must ask how involved elements of what is now Talon were in the most recent previous conflict of this nature: the Omnic Crisis. After all, the Omnic Crisis impelled the creation of literally superhuman beings in the form of Gabriel Reyes and Jack Morrison -- who knows what a vaster, even more terrible conflict could drive humanity to produce in the name of survival? Talon in its current form may not have existed prior to the Omnic Crisis but who wants to bet that the organization’s “inner circle” contains someone who knows where the God Programs came from/how they accomplished what they did/why they went axe crazy and tried to start the robot apocalypse? I’m pretty sure that’s a sucker bet, given the references to conflicting agendas within the organization’s inner circle. On another thought: maybe Talon did exist, and part of their internal conflict revolves around the fact that they were fundamentally incapable of capitalizing on the gains of the Omnic Crisis because they couldn’t prevent Overwatch from either existing or successfully slamming the breaks on the global human evolution via mass murder train, or maintaining the process of rebuilding the world through predominantly peaceful means. Oh, how that must have rustled the jimmies of an organization that must, by definition, view peaceful coexistence and cooperation as the suboptimal form of human societal growth.

Moreover, Akande Ogundimu’s background strongly implies that he was the mastermind behind the destruction of Overwatch -- and that Talon was banking on that to speed the arrival of their world-engulfing conflict, if not act as the outright trigger for it. Fortunately for the world, that didn’t quite happen but matters have slid steadily in the direction of greater, larger-scale global conflicts in the years since Overwatch’s dissolution and Doomfist has decided that now is the ripest possible time to bail himself out and drop the accelerator on his long unfolding plan.

In short, shit is about to get real and Talon finally -- finally! -- looks like an actual scary threat.

[chocolatequeennk]

Reconciling GITF with the Ten/Rose arc

Or, “Why the Doctor was definitely a jerk, but not as much of one as we think.”

I’ve had this post rattling around in my brain for months, and @chiaroscuroverse‘s great meta in her author profile and subsequent replies, plus thinking about it for my own author profile, inspired me to finally get it written down. Like her, I don’t like the way GITF has skewed the fandom perception of Ten’s character. In an effort to reconcile his very out of character behaviour, a whole fanon has arisen that makes him out to be commitment-phobic and cavalier with Rose’s safety in a way that does not hold water if we remove GITF from the equation. 

But--much as I wish we could--we can’t just pretend the episode doesn’t exist. In light of that, how can we analyse GITF and come out at the end with a version of Ten that still fits in with how he acts in other episodes?

The first thing you need to know as I write this post is that I will not be looking at other episodes through the lens of what happens in GITF. I go the other way around. When you’re analysing texts, you should always depend on the stronger text to inform the weaker text. I assume that everyone who is still reading this post by this point agrees that GITF is a very bad representation of Ten’s character--so why do we use it as the basis of our meta, rather than finding ways to fit it into the character we see in other episodes?

This is a long post, so I’m going under a cut in a minute. But first, here are the bullet points I’ll be addressing:

Things we know as the audience that Rose does not know

Reinette going into his head is assault, not a sign of intimacy

Mickey’s presence on the TARDIS was not an attempt at space

Mickey is not a reliable witness of the Doctor’s behaviour

The Doctor's drunk act when he arrives is just an act

The Tenth Doctor was no less protective of Rose than Nine

It was wrong of the Doctor to leave Rose and Mickey on the spaceship without any indication that had an idea of how to get back, especially after telling her he’d never leave her behind

My ultimate conclusion after considering all those points

1. Things we know as the audience that Rose does not know 

It was on the seventh or eighth time watching GITF to prep for TMMOT that I had a rather jaw-dropping realisation. Rose did not see the kiss. Rose was not near enough to the fireplace to hear him crow about the kiss. Rose does not know about the kiss unless he tells her.

That... doesn’t make the kiss itself or his crowing about it any less disturbing, and I do hope he told her about it at some point. But it does require a major shift in how we think about Rose’s reaction to the overall story. 

Also, Rose wasn’t there when the Doctor used telepathy on Reinette, so she doesn’t know that Reinette was able to get into his head. She might feel less-than Reinette for other reasons, but not this one. 

2. Reinette going into his head is assault, not a sign of intimacy

Even if Rose knew about it, the Doctor is not at all to blame for this and I really get upset when he apologises for it. What Reinette did was assault. She didn’t know that, maybe, but in every universe I’ve read where there’s telepathy, going into someone else’s mind without permission is viewed as a violation. Why do we get upset with the Doctor for being violated? It’s victim-blaming, and... Ick.

3. Mickey’s presence on the TARDIS was not an attempt at space

I have a whole post just about this point. This is one of the biggest examples of the way we’ve analysed other episodes in light of GITF, shifting how we see things so GITF makes more sense. 

The simple fact is that the way Mickey asked left the Doctor (and Rose) with no polite way to say no. They’d just invited Sarah Jane along, in front of him. Telling him no would make it obvious that it was him, specifically, they didn’t want to travel with. I don’t blame Rose for feeling that way, because Mickey did everything he could up until their foray into Pete’s World to convince Rose to leave the Doctor and come back to him. But even she knew, as much as she didn’t like it, that telling Mickey no would permanently damage their friendship. 

4. Mickey is not a reliable witness of the Doctor’s behaviour

So. One thing that is often brought up is Mickey’s line that it’s been hours and where is Rose’s precious Doctor? This is seen as proof that the Doctor is being very cavalier with Rose’s safety, and on first glance, it is. 

But consider the source. First of all, how does Mickey even know that? They were both knocked out by the tranq darts, and even if we allow for Mickey’s greater body mass to let him wake up a little before Rose, “hours” earlier strains credulity. I could buy that he was awake for 20 minutes before Rose woke up, but no longer. 

Which means he is doing exactly what Mickey has done in every episode previous to this--he is hyperbolising to make Rose realise how dangerous things are with the Doctor/how the Doctor will never love her/how the Doctor doesn’t treat her as well as Mickey does. This is a pattern with Mickey Smith, pre-Cybermen. 

He clings to her legs and calls the Doctor a thing in “Rose”

He tells Rose the Doctor left her in “Aliens of London”

In “Boom Town,” he straight up tells Rose that he resents the Doctor because Rose always chooses him over Mickey

In “Parting of the Ways” he tries to convince Rose to stay behind with him and forget whatever she’s thinking about to get back to the Doctor

In “The Christmas Invasion,” he tells Rose that she can depend on him--Mickey--because he doesn’t go around changing his face

In Feast of the Drowned, he gets angry with the Doctor after they both see Rose waiting for them underwater. I can’t remember the quote, but the implication was that because the Doctor was able to control his reaction to the pull, that he didn’t care as much about Rose as Mickey did. The Doctor counters that fiercely.

In The Stone Rose, he blames the Doctor for Rose getting turned into a statue

In “School Reunion” he purposely pokes at Rose’s doubts after meeting Sarah Jane, telling her this proves the Doctor is just like other blokes (implying the Doctor wouldn’t be faithful, etc.)

And earlier in GITF, he teased Rose again about all the other girls the Doctor has been with. 

With this pattern of behaviour, you can see why I take what Mickey says about the Doctor’s behaviour with a large tablespoon of salt. He has never been fair about the Doctor’s actions or motivations, and he is always ready to jump on any perceived failing on the Doctor’s part to convince Rose that he, Mickey, is the better man. 

In light of that, has it really been hours since Mickey and Rose were taken? Did the Doctor really party it up with the French while Rose was on the verge of being sliced up? I go with no.

5. The Doctor's drunk act when he arrives is just an act

I don’t think many people think he was actually drunk, because we all know that canonically, it’s hard to get a Time Lord drunk. But his demeanour in this scene, coupled with Mickey’s accusation, is often seen together as a sign that he just... didn’t care about Rose. 

But, if we allow for the possibility that it hadn’t actually been hours, and if we consider that 1) he had to go back to the TARDIS and get the anti-oil (possibly even make it) and that 2) he needed some sort of cover that would convince the droids to let him get close enough to use the anti-oil, his behaviour is much more calculated. 

Now. I do think this might have appeared uncaring to Rose, and I have a scene in the fic I’m working on where she rails at him for it and he realises what it looked like. But appearances are not necessarily fact. 

6. The Tenth Doctor was no less protective of Rose than Nine

This is the point at which I really diverge with a lot of Doctor/Rose meta. One thing that’s sprung up as we’ve tried to make sense of GITF is the idea that this is one more instance in a long line of times where Ten allowed Rose to be in dangerous situations that Nine would have stopped. 

But. For a moment, consider a series 2 with no GITF. 

Would you still think that Cassandra manipulating the lift so Rose is trapped with her instead of safe with the Doctor is any more the Doctor’s fault than when Cassandra trapped Rose in a room where she would be incinerated by the sun? I know part of the argument here is that Ten didn’t consider Rose could be put in danger when they were separated, but Nine didn’t know Rose was in danger until he heard her voice on the other side of the door. They were both unaware that she had gotten into danger.

Would you still think Rose noticing that a servant girl was upset in “Tooth and Claw” and getting hit over the head as they talked was the Doctor’s fault, any more than Rose trying to track down the ghost and getting abducted by Mr. Sneed was the Doctor’s fault? I know part of the argument is that Nine chased after Rose immediately, but 1) he saw her be abducted, whereas for all Ten knew, she was getting dressed, and 2) as soon as Ten realised there was danger afoot, his very first thought was, “Where is Rose?”

This life is dangerous, but one of the things I love the most about Rose Tyler is her insistence on being a full partner in it. She hates it when he tries to keep her from dangerous things. She wanders into them herself, and she would honestly be offended by the idea that he’s responsible for her actions. 

7. It was wrong of the Doctor to leave Rose and Mickey on the spaceship without any indication that had an idea of how to get back, especially after telling her he’d never leave her behind.

Okay. I’m not going to argue this point at all. This is the key to my complaint with the episode, outside of the kiss which... ick. I personally believe he had a plan to get back, because I cannot believe he would leave the TARDIS even if he would ever really abandon his companions. I think that whatever the plan was, it was one that would take a long time, which is why he was resigned to the slow path, until Reinette showed him the fireplace. 

But even if he had a plan, the expression on Rose’s face after he went through the mirror makes it clear that he didn’t tell her what it was, and that’s wrong.

8. So, ultimately, what’s my headcanon regarding this episode? Why did the Doctor get so caught up in things that he ignored Rose like that at the end?

First, I think there were a lot of timelines falling apart and he panicked. He needed to make sure Reinette didn’t die, and he got tunnel vision, thinking about that and nothing else. 

Second, I think Reinette was his celebrity crush, and he was flattered by her obvious interest in him. I mean. If you met your celebrity crush, and they treated you like the most fascinating person on the planet, wouldn’t that feel pretty good?

Third, I don’t think his grief over her death was any more profound than his grief when anyone he’s fond of dies. He grieved for Astrid... and cutting this short, there’s a whole montage in Journey’s End when Davros is mocking him that shows he always takes these deaths very personally. Him being upset that she died does not mean he loved her. It means he has a heart... er, two hearts.

Fourth, I think the laughter and teasing between the Doctor and Rose at the beginning of the next episode means they talked this out and came to an understanding--one which Pete’s World very nearly unravelled, but that was solidified in the conversation RTD says definitely took place between that adventure and Idiot’s Lantern.

And that conversation is the fanfic I’m working on for this week. 

[queernuck]

Mao In New York City: Western Maoism And War In Syria

The manner in which a certain discursive war has played out in response to a singularity of a non-event, only made an event by the means in which it represents a specific textuality-of-war that is in fact wished for by the libidinal impulses of the American War Machine, is itself part of what makes the latest turn in imperialist violence against Syria unique. That not only has it garnered such support from liberal ideology, but that it has entered into such a specific moment of critique, a specific event-space in which a largely anarchist (or perhaps ultra-left) and a largely Marxist-Leninist or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist division of thought has arisen. This is not to say that the division was unspoken before, or that it was the first moment at which the Question Of Assad was raised. Rather, it involves a unique questioning of the Imperialist paradigm and New Imperialism (not strictly neoimperialist) as well as New Colonialism (separate from neocolonialism) has been raised. I have no wish to appeal to a false centering of this discourse, as this requires the horizontality created by a specifically liberal concept of politics and neoliberal sublimation of politics into identity as a singular measure of the self, a process of redoubling through the means of speaking that Deleuze describes as irony and humor such that intent is obfuscated, and singularities, heights and depths, are collapsed past the atomic into the phantasmic, such that only horizontality is left. The advantage of this is that it allows for the opposite, for a critique relying upon a horizontal plane of immanence, to take place. This is, in effect, a removal of time from philosophical concepts that are themselves timed, the means by which we may talk about becoming, process, creation in time as past and future at once without requiring an operation of a present.

I have seen a friend of mine say that a vague notion of Western Maoism has lead to the hesitance to support Assad, while I have seen others entering into the relation described as “critical support” with not only groups willing to use US Military Power to their advantage, but in fact relying upon it in itself. The means by which these conclusions are drawn in relation to the previous American wars in the Gulf, as well as the way in which American imperialism has in effect entered a certain neoliberal state such that it in fact contradicts itself, it is reliant upon those processes of contradiction, may require a turn in Maoist thought that uses poststructuralist and post-Marxist thought in order to direct a reading of Marx, of Lenin, and of Mao himself both influenced by the paradigms of Maoism and by the larger means in which neoliberalism has differed from the liberalism that Mao was writing in critique of. This process may violate, in some spirit, the literal text of Mao but this is not by any means a disposal of Maoism; in fact, it intends to critique the revisionist paradigms by which Deng Xiaoping structured the globalizing force of China following Mao’s death and how this has been marked by a drastic differance from Maoist thought. 

First, to evoke the Maoist concepts I require to enter this critique, I must name them and moreover name the act in which one realizes Maoist thought. Badiou’s Metapolitics and The Communist Hypothesis are foundational to the supposed “Western Maoism” insofar as such a name represents Maoist thought that is taken with other influences, rather than an attempt to specifically realize politics in solidarity with other ongoing Maoist struggles. Badiou and the Black Panthers are both clearly influenced by Mao, but to say their thought is different is to enter into a larger critique of politics as well as philosophy as means of apprehension, as named disciplines of epistemic, ontological, hermeneutical investigation. The Black Panthers were largely concerned with a sort of politics realized through what can be called praxis: apart from the means in which their organizing was largely based around specific affinity groups, based around local struggle in a Maoist sense, it was contingent upon a realization of antiblackness within America and moreover a rearticulation of that opposite to the force of antiblackness. Badiou’s writing on the Black Panthers notes that this reversal is itself powerful but due to the means by which it is structured in reversal, it carries with it the original ontic quality of the imposition. In effect, he warns that by reversing, one may be redoubling, reimposing the hegemonic articulations that were reversed. Maoist terms of opposition rely upon an enemy to articulate oneself against, in this manner one can say that Badiou’s worry is misplaced in that so long as one meets the enemy, one will find the right course. However, alternatively, one can propose that merely accepting the enemy’s position  upon oneself is to become that which the enemy wishes for, to make oneself far too open to defeat. This is a series of oppositions that I find inevitably leading toward a deconstructive process, one I will echo when I make distinctions between terms such as “new” and “neo-” as descriptive of politics, but moreover of metapolitical distinctions found in Derrida’s Specters of Marx. With an entry into a surface level critique of the Maoist concept of opposition, coupled with a support of it as a means of maneuver rather than a singularity representing a certain sort of directionality in politics, one can begin to ask of the Ultra-Left, as well as of revisionism, and perhaps even offer a critique of ourselves as revisionist in self-criticism as to reach toward a postmodern Maoism.

Maoist means of opposing “the enemy” can be analyzed as part of a larger Maoist conceptualization of politics: there is no external to the political, rather than being a descriptive term in the sense that Badiou employs it (and that I employ it, as well) it is a state of totality, not so much a universality as it is a meta-universality: not only is everything contained within it, but that which everything can be described or modeled with is contained within it. This is not in itself alien to postmodernist concepts of meaning and construction, and the sort of refusal of metaphysics that Badiou describes is itself akin to a sort of anti-philosophy, a means by which to consciously reject the paradigms of engagement fostered upon a line of thought rather than merely note them as one might in a metaphilosophy. The metapolitics of Maoism, insofar as Badiou’s sense of the term describes, lies in the way that the People are in measure from the state as the Party through a politics of contradiction, of self-criticism: this is the process by which one is faithful to the process of self-criticism as a means of not just structuring the self, but as part of a moving-past process that is in many ways similar to Deleuzean concepts of mixture of bodies regarding univocality. Contradiction is not to be feared, or to be hidden, but in fact is to be driven at, to be exposed and from there resolved.

To use the models of Freire, the realization of a dispossessed people is in part possible by shared consciousness, and that it is not a proletarian but a population far more akin to a landless peasantry that would better describe the embattled population of Syria is important to noting Freire’s Maoist genealogy as well as the specific implications of Maoist resistance in Syria as a possibility. The way that Freire talks about a process of community, a process of communication that is modeled off of Maoist concepts of encountering the Other is part of what gives his specific pedagogy such power, and it is in turn part of what allows for it to be adapted so well to situations such as this. To say that Assad has not participated in this dispossession, to say that Assad has not destroyed Syrian infrastructure, has not specifically targeted it, is to deny the means by which Assad has at the very least opposed Daesh, is to deny that there is any conflict between Daesh and the Syrian state. Insofar as Daesh is a force which is reactionary, which is certainly an enemy by Maoist standards, one that rearticulates the violence of neocolonialism, neoliberalism through a reactionary ideology that is certainly formed in relief to the West, that is formed out of a paradigmatic creation of hatred-as-politics, such that a state which is self-same to that of the Western structure when collapsed is articulated against it. This is rather obviously not worthy of support as a means of opposing the actions of American Imperialism specifically because it requires that reactionary ideology to become comprehensible.

To further name the forces at hand, the differance between neocolonialism and neoimperialism and New Colonialism and New Imperialism is such that while neoliberalism structures neoimperial, neocolonial governance, there can be more overt expressions in New Colonialism, or New Imperialism. Derrida makes this distinction in Specters of Marx and it is useful in how it can be used to separate the sort of New Imperialist actions of America, such as the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the neocolonial character of how American democratic paradigms were used in order to establish a certain state of the situation, state of affairs within a state such that it is beneficial to American economic interests that are not the American state in name. The way in which name is evoked or denied as an aspect of neoliberalism is in part what leads to this separation, and being able to discuss the differance of the two is important in that it allows for more nuance when critiquing an individual event or action along with its larger structure. Their roles in globalization are different, in that one can talk about the New Imperialism of staging an invasion, but the neoliberal and neocolonial character of a phantasmic war like the Gulf War, or a lack of war like that in Syria on American terms, effectively taking up Baudrillard’s declaration of non-war as a means by which to speak itself, to name itself out of wars it has entered into. This is the case in Syria, where no war has been declared but the state of affairs is such that the politics of war are clearly in place. The means in which neoliberal ideology has turned to praise Trump in order to save an American concept of the state, of the state of affairs, is not a sudden affinity for Trump outright but rather an affinity for the neoliberal state of affairs he is using to structure his vision of an American state. It is an example of neoliberalism’s tolerance for fascism, and how that can be enacted along more explicit lines of imperialist violence, thus forming a New Imperialism that can in turn structure larger neocolonial reach. American globalization can be opposed but moreover it must be known as it contradicts itself. That it is opposing a Russian nation it helped to form through the neoliberal sublimation of the Soviet Union, a nation that in turn seeks to exert a sort of extranational status through Assad’s Syria, and opposes it through a neocolonial support of Democratic Confederalism, itself an ideology founded out of a certain post-Marxism, any discussion of communism in opposition to this state of the situation is in danger of re articulating a communism of anticommunism, a series of contradictions-in-themselves unremarked upon.

This process of remarking, of supporting, of voicing and naming these acts, these events, regarding what can be a meaningful loss of life, what can be a worthwhile loss of life, what one must understand in order to assess any event within the state of the situation leads one to the issue of whether supporting the Assad government is worthwhile. As a means of aestheticizing the Assad government, many will take it as a government characterized by anti-imperialist action, in a manner that is not fitting given its relationship with Russia. That this is a neocolonial relation, that Russian relations in Syria are engaged in a certain sort of larger state of the situation that involves Syria, Turkey, and the process of globalization that allows this and develops it is vital to understand. Thus, with few exceptions, one finds the notion of “critical support” as a means of distancing oneself, as a politics of the state such that critique is always-already expressed akin to self-criticism, in a manner that sees the reactionary tendencies within the state as part of a larger concept of what Judith Butler has referred to as the “Global Left.” The issue of critical support is vitally about what can be gained and what will be lost by supporting or rejecting a given proposition, including that of the state itself, given that it is largely hegemonic control that is at issue. The conceptual turn required to support reactionaries against hegemony is, effectively, a process whereby self-determination is at once realized or abstracted based upon that which the reactionary can support, deny, or at least realize: how one can form that measure of politics. The way in which one might discuss the sort of metastate actions of a cartel can be articulated as such, in how one can compare the means by which it reaches a certain standard of statehood and thus can be articulated as a state to be supported or opposed. Moreover, specifically non-state actors that define themselves in opposition to a given state (rather than against the State as a metaphysical entity) can be part of a larger movement that is not of their own volition: a Communist fighting in Novorussia is within a state of affairs such that their own politics are only articulated afterwards, by nature relying on largely reactionary and even imperial actions to foster a space for the creation of class consciousness. This makes up the Global Left, and it allows for one to assess claims of leftists in a critical fashion. 

The process of understanding a Global Left involves this avenue for opening alternative structures, of creating externality, and moreover for separating support in one action for a larger regime of support. That the NPA supported Duterte’s proposed promise of weakening ties to the United States, a nation that transitioned from a colonizer of the Philippines to a state wielding neocolonial power over the Philippines (through a process articulated as New Colonialism, leading to neocolonial relations) is one such example. Duterte attempting to court the left by proposing representation in the state, a measure that has since fallen through, is moreover understandable as revisionist in character, as requiring an unconscionable compromise in the course of war against the hegemony of the state. That the reactionary governance of Duterte can be opposed even while a divestment from the United States is supported allows for one to discuss the way that one must wage class war not through the state or simply against the state, but against its very structure, against the way in which the socialist state can recreate the former capitalist state, against the revisionism and bourgeoisie entryism that Mao ascribed to Stalinism, that Derrida ascribed to Stalinism, that the poststructuralist and postmodernist movements ascribed to Stalinism, that Badiou ascribes to Stalinism, and so on. This requires assessing any group within the Global Left, assessing their commitment to opposing hegemonic articulations of power and how groups that are predicated upon supposed-revolution, such as organizations in neocolonial centers of power, are in fact in part based in the state of the situation that allows their support to be meaningful except as an individual concept, as in effect more meaningful than the actual action of the state. 

This is not a deference to say that supporting or not supporting a state is entirely unimportant, but rather that it must be understood within a larger measuring of politics such that one does not confuse one’s own analysis with critique of a larger structure of the Party, an act of self-criticism, or a way in which to further create Maoist opportunities for struggle. Rather the importance must be understood as one describes the expanse of politics in a manner that mirrors the expanse of capitalism, as one uses a language of metapolitics in order to maneuver through the assemblages of Maoist thought in a manner that allows for a new paradigm of analysis, the exploration of depth and singularity within Maoism that cannot be presented for-itself, in-itself, and moreover how this relates to the specific action of lending support. That opposition to American Imperialism is necessary, is part of the basis of Maoist thought, is obvious but to articulate that without moreover understanding the state of the situation as contrived by neoliberal globalization, contrived such that acts of affinity and support are restructured as merely condoning a different structure of the imperial, that even socialism in name can be sublimated to the global reach of capital. Even after the defeat of American imperialism in Vietnam, the nominal defeat of an American war machine was simply restructured in a manner that allowed for New Imperial means of colonization; the state of the situation was one where the nomadic movement of the war machine, the continual reapprehension of the war machine by the state was allowed to continue and thus reshape the territory even after the war itself had ended. This hyperreality is the one that the missiles were launched in, that they touched down in, that this airfield was brought into if it was not within it already. Creating a new means of colonial encounter through the remove required by a notion such as “critical support” is more than possible for capitalism, and to voice support in a manner that effectively acts only to oppose a specificity of American imperialism rather than the means by which American Imperialism becomes the enemy it is, becomes the neocolonial, neoliberal arbiter of power, is to not engage in a deep enough act of criticism.

To give an answer is to give too much of an answer in this context: rather, as a means of attempting to offer a critique of the supposed Maoist reasoning for supporting Assad, and questioning its worth as a means of opposing imperialism I wish to offer a line of criticism to follow when discussing an opposition to the globalizing force of American imperialist violences. 

[dunkcarlton]

Environmental Lawyer in Salt Lake City

Research is indicating more and more everyday that the harmful effects of putrid and toxic air can extend further into our health than thoughts in years prior. As these discoveries have been made our nation has implemented several laws to ensure that the effects that may occur from hazardous products does not affect the innocent air breathed by many, especially children. Josh Freeman, an attorney in Salt Lake City says that environmental laws are some of the most revamped laws in recent years, as further study reveals more about how our bodies react to bad air.

Due to the mountains and dry air, many assume that Salt Lake City is an ideal place for health, but that isn’t true. Salt Lake City has for some time now, been on the top ten lists of the most polluted cities in American, due to many factors, but mainly the inversion that is created within and throughout the Happy Valley. The U.S. Environment Protection Agency has geared up in light of recent research to penalize and further punish companies that do not adhere to the certain codes and restrictions put into place for cleaner air. Once, again, Salt Lake City is no exception. Chevron, is one of the largest refineries in Salt Lake City and vastly lucrative, however recent findings indicate that they violated several parts of the Clean Air Act. They recently settled the matter with close to $400,000. On the one hand, this may indicate a rougher year for Chevron, but a better one for local residents. According to studies, women are far more likely to have autistic children if they are exposed to polluted air while pregnant. Men and women alike have been known to develop lung problems, crippling asthma and possibly cancer, depending on the carcinogens in the air. Any lawyer in Utah can tell you that environmental law and business development law are coinciding now more than ever.

Salt Lake City is working tirelessly towards a cleaner environment with the help of local officials and many are welcoming the slight bump on the city’s economy as a necessary evil. Now that these new rules are set into place, new business owners and builders have a unique opportunity to make Salt Lake City a new and improved part of Utah and the country.

As marijuana business industry grows, Utah business attorneys warn would-be entreprenuers

Recently Reporter Jonathan Fahey gained attention from newspapers and online news sources around the country for his in-depth piece about marijuana business where he analyzed multiple perspectives – including that of entrepreneurs, consumers, and investors – and discussed the wacky world of making a profit of weed. Fahey drew attention to the fact that the dubious legal status of weed in some states, and its varying legal status in others, makes a successful business model somewhat difficult to implement. Utah business attorneys watching the climate of their own state agree, but will they be ready to handle the task at hand? Or will it fall to opportunistic consultants with little legal background who happen to be in the right place at the right time?

Part of the problem is that “it’s a gray market industry,” and the nation “hasn’t decided whether marijuana is a dangerous illegal drug or not much worse than tobacco or alcohol.” Federal law still classifies it as an illegal narcotic on par with heroin, while 23 states have legalized it for medical use, and two regulate and tax it for the general adult public. Even Utah, one of the most meticulously conservative states, allows that some studies have shown enough benefit of forms of cannabis for the substance to be legally used as an ointment for patients with seizure disorders—as long as they procure it from outside the state, a Utah business attorney would be wise to remind us.

But for individuals taking individual risks, some of the legal implications are less complicated than those of the entrepreneurs and investors getting their hands dirty with weedy opportunities. For starters, the majority of banks won’t loan prospective business owners any money. It’s not legal, federally, and banks aren’t keen on violating anti-trafficking laws by sullying themselves by association with legal pot sellers. Entrepreneurs have to be not only crafty and tenacious, but wealthy too. Enough so to deal in cash or form partnerships with those who have it—which has made some unlikely alliances for pot startups, a Utah business attorney would know.

Investor money is just “sloshing around” right now, Fahey says. People are eager to get in on the weed business early, but a major issue is that because of the cash-based system and lack of transparency and clear regulation, opportunistic companies often surface and take the cash of investors without “a long-term business plan that coldly assess the market and the risks.” Most are in it for a quick buck, and few companies offer “legitimate opportunities” for investors.

Unlicensed, unexperienced consultants pose another hazard to the marijuana industry, a Utah business attorney should warn potential entrepreneurs in the Beehive State waiting for the substance to be legalized at home. “Some act as matchmakers, promising to connect investors with entrepreneurs… others sell help navigating the licensing process, tips on how best to grow marijuana, or advice about how to manage a startup that must operate outside the banking system,” Fahey says in the AP article. Which means having someone one your side who knows the law and is experienced in the intricacies of business legalities. Because it’s probably coming to Utah, though it may be coming slowly.

Free Initial Consultation with a Utah Lawyer

It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. Legal problems come to everyone. Whether it’s your son who gets in a car wreck, your uncle who loses his job and needs to file for bankruptcy, your sister’s brother who’s getting divorced, or a grandparent that passes away without a will -all of us have legal issues and questions that arise. So when you have a law question, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Estates and Trust Services

Divorce News

Which Visitation Schedule is Right?

Utah Visitation and Domestic Violence

Estate Planning

Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

Source: http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/environmental-lawyer-in-salt-lake-city/

[oldguardaudio]

NRA NEWS -> Arizona Supreme Court Rebuffs Tucson’s Illegal Destruction of Firearms

Concealed Carry – HoaxAndChange.com

Help me with site cost, join today

Donald Trump NRA @ Hoax and Change

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2017

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that the state was within its authority to prohibit cities and counties from routinely destroying firearms obtained through forfeiture or as unclaimed property. State law holds that political subdivisions must instead (subject to certain exceptions) recirculate the firearms through legitimate channels of commerce, just as they do with other types of valuable property. The case represents the latest battle in an effort dating back nearly two decades to prevent anti-gun localities from undermining the pro-gun policies of the state legislature.

While the case – State v. City of Tucson – rests on complicated issues of Arizona constitutional, statutory, and common law, it illustrates challenges facing gun owners nationwide and the importance of sustained advocacy in ensuring Second Amendment rights. Infringements of the right to keep and bear arms are rarely resolved simply by pointing to the Second Amendment or similar provisions of state constitutions. Rather, it often takes remedial legislation, backed by months or years of painstaking litigation, to vindicate the rights of gun owners.

The case also illustrates how even in the most pro-gun of states, there are always anti-gun enclaves and/or political opportunists who will openly defy clear legal authority for as long as possible to further their oppressive agenda of suppressing our firearms freedom.

The leading opinion of four justices validated the NRA’s argument that protecting the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the state and federal constitutions is a matter of statewide concern and that the enactments of the legislature on this subject, therefore, take precedence over the acts of charter cities. 

Help me with site cost, join today

As explained in the case’s leading opinion, the Arizona legislature passed a statute in 2000 to assert exclusive authority over the regulation of firearms and ammunition. Nevertheless, the City of Tucson five years later enacted an ordinance calling for the destruction of certain unclaimed or forfeited firearms.

The legislature, in turn, responded by enacting two additional statutes in 2013 that prohibited agencies, political subdivisions, and law enforcement entities from “facilitating the destruction of a firearm” and that instructed them instead to sell the firearms to businesses which lawfully participate in gun sales.

Despite the legislature’s explicit directives, Tucson destroyed nearly 5,000 additional firearms after the enactment of the 2013 laws. The legislature again responded in 2016, this time by establishing a framework by which one or more members of the legislature could seek remedial action through the state attorney general’s office against alleged violations of Arizona’s laws or its constitution by political subdivisions.

Pursuant to that framework, Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem asked the attorney general to review Tucson’s firearm destruction program. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich concluded that Tucson’s ordinance was contrary to state law, but the city rejected the findings and refused to take corrective action. Pursuant to the 2016 law, Attorney General Brnovich then filed a petition with the Arizona Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

Although the justices were divided on their reasoning, all agreed the state legislature had acted within its authority by enacting the statute preventing localities from destroying firearms that were otherwise lawful to sell under state and federal law.  The leading opinion of four justices validated the NRA’s argument that protecting the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the state and federal constitutions is a matter of statewide concern and that the enactments of the legislature on this subject, therefore, take precedence over the acts of charter cities.

Tucson’s behavior to date leaves little doubt that anti-gun officials will continue looking for ways to undermine the rights of gun owners within the city, notwithstanding the state legislature’s pronouncements. This is, unfortunately, an all-too-common phenomenon across the country in otherwise pro-gun states. That is exactly why the NRA’s work to vindicate the rights of gun owners never stops, even when it does not grab national headlines.

NRA NEWS -> Arizona Supreme Court Rebuffs Tucson’s Illegal Destruction of Firearms NRA NEWS -> Arizona Supreme Court Rebuffs Tucson’s Illegal Destruction of Firearms THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2017…

[ajstein]

“It’s morally wrong to patent food:” Inconsistent reasoning at its finest - TLOS (2017) 

See on Scoop.it - Ag Biotech News

This is one of the most common arguments against GMOs... and it is frequently accompanied by claims like, “I am not anti-GMO, but…” In reality, however, this argument is usually nothing more than an excuse designed to protect people’s ideology, misplaced fears, and, yes, denial of science. This argument is so riddled with problems and so completely inconsistent with how people behave on any other topic that it is difficult to accept that it is truly the reason that people oppose GMOs, and... it usually turns out that it is just a symptom of an underlying ideology (generally rooted in appeal to nature/emotion fallacies). 

As I will explain, if you are truly motivated out of ethics and a concern for feeding the hungry, then you should be embracing GMOs, not opposing them (or, at the very least, you should be very selective about which GMOs you oppose). So, if you are someone who frequently uses this argument, then, as always, all that I ask is that you hear me out and rationally consider whether or not you are being logically consistent...  First, it is vitally important to realize that the ability to patent crops is not unique to GMOs, nor is it a result of them. In the US, the first piece of legislation that made it legal to patent crops was the Plant Patent Act that was passed in 1930, over half a century before the first GMO crop... For example, seedless grapes were patented in 1934, yet I don’t hear anyone complaining about them. The organic industry (and yes, it is a multi-billion dollar industry) also patents plants. For example, Vermont Organics owns patents on five different plants. So, if you are outraged over Monsanto patenting plants, then you had better be equally outraged over Vermont Organics doing so... 

Further,... patents expire. For example, Round-up read soybeans are no longer protected by patent laws because those patents expired in 2015. Does that mean that anti-GMO activists are going to stop protesting them? I somehow doubt it. Finally, it is worth making it explicitly clear that GE companies, organic companies, etc. are not “patenting Mother Nature.” They are patenting unique crops that do not occur in nature and that they invested in developing... 

Additionally, it is worth talking about why crops can be patented in the first place. Producing a new crop is very expensive, especially for a GMO. It takes millions or even billions of dollars to research and develop a new product, and that is money that company has to invest up front with the expectation that they will be able to turn a profit later. Thus, patents are a way of allowing companies to get a return on their investment. This is true for all patents, and in most areas, people have no problems with that. No one says that Apple is evil because the patent the technology for each new iPhone rather than giving its technology away freely... So why should GMOs be any different? ... 

Additionally, it is important to realize that a lack of patents would stifle innovation. There are non-profits and independent scientists involved in the development of GMOs but a lot of the breakthroughs come from big companies, and there is a very good reason for that. Namely, research costs money, and big companies are the ones who have money to invest. However, companies are, admittedly, after profit. So they aren’t going to invest millions of dollars into something unless they think that they can turn a profit... If you want agricultural developments (as you should if your goal is really to feed the hungry), then you should allow companies to make a profit, because that is the only way that they are going to invest heavily in researching agricultural advances. Next it is important to realize that although large companies dominate the development of GMOs, not all GMOs are about money. Golden rice, for example, is being developed entirely for humanitarian purposes. You see, many countries suffer from extreme vitamin A deficiencies, and many of those countries grow primarily rice. Thus, scientists and humanitarians developed golden rice, which is simply rice that produces vitamin A. That way, these countries can grow the same crop that they always have (thus they don’t need to change their agricultural practices) but they will get the vitamin that they so desperately need... 

This is related to the previous point, but it is worth making saying it explicitly: GMOs help to feed the poor. Studies have repeatedly shown that using GMOs increases crop yields and reduces the amount of resources need to grow crops. Consider, for example, this 2014 meta-analysis that found “On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.” Again, this should be great news if your concern is really feeding the poor. These crops will let impoverished countries greatly increase the amount of food that they can grow, so they are a huge win for fighting world hunger. Really think about this, by opposing GMOs you are trying to force poor countries to grow fewer crops than they could with GMOs. You are literally trying to deny people food. How is that moral? It is also worth mentioning that GMOs are good for farmers (that is why they have adopted them). Anti-GMO activists often try to paint farmers as the victims of evil “Monsatan,” but the reality is that famers love GMOs, because GMOs allow them to increase their yield and/or decrease the amount of effort/resources that they have to invest. This should be obvious if you just think about it for a second. Why on earth would so many farmers switch to GMOs if they weren’t beneficial? No one is putting a gun to their heads and forcing them to use GMOs. Farmers choose their seeds from catalogues where numerous companies compete for their patronage, and Monsanto doesn’t have a monopoly on the food supply... Further, farmers aren’t stupid. They wouldn’t use GMOs if better, cheaper methods were actually available. Farmers have widely adopted GMOs precisely because they are beneficial...   In the remainder of this post, I want to deal with some truly awful counter arguments. The most common of which is that Monsanto sues farmers for accidentally using their seeds/cross-pollination. The rebuttal for this one is easy: no they don’t. Monsanto has never sued a farmer for accidentally using their product/cross-pollination.   Having said that, there have been a few cases where Monsanto sued someone for deliberately violating the patent agreement (e.g. selling seeds). That is, however, an entirely different issue from suing a farmer over accidental contamination. A deliberate violation of the patent agreement is a theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. It is a crime. It is no different from selling bootlegged DVDs or CDs... 

Do you know what group of people I almost never hear make this complaint? Farmers. The reality is that in the modern era, most farmers don’t save the seeds regardless of whether or not their crop is a GMO. One of the key reasons for this is simply that doing so results in a lower quality harvest than you would get from buying new seeds. So, as with so many anti-GMO arguments, this argument is based on a complete lack of understanding about modern agriculture...   “The real problem is food waste. If first world countries weren’t so wasteful, there would be plenty of food to feed the world.” This is what is known as a “nirvana fallacy.” It proposes an extremely unrealistic ideal situation, then claims that any plans that fall short of that standard shouldn’t be used because they aren’t perfect or don’t address the “real” issue. To be clear, food waste is a problem, and I agree with you 100% that we should be limiting it, but limiting it to the point that we could feed the world is an incredibly difficult (probably impossible) thing that is not going to happen in the near future. Meanwhile, there are people suffering from vitamin A deficiencies who could easily be saved by implementing GMOs. People are literally dying while you sit there demanding that we wait for an unrealistic solution...   The final argument that I want to discuss is this general aversion to the notion of big, money-loving companies being involved in food production. This is important, because I think it is actually a key motivating factor driving everything that I have talked about. As I have shown, the opposition to patents and Monsanto more generally isn’t actually about facts or logic. In some cases it stems from science denial, but in many, I think it stems from this emotional connection to our food, but that is irrational for several reasons. First, as I explained previously, GMOs benefit the poor, farmers, etc. so this argument is clearly wrong right from the start. Second, this is, once again, inconsistent with how we treat every other company on the planet. If, for example, a family that owns a farm tries to make a profit off that farm, no one villainizes them. No one says that they are evil for profiting from the production of food. Indeed, we would applaud their industry and hard work. So if it is fine for them to make a profit off of food, when is it wrong for GMO companies to do that? Now, you might object to that on the basis that Monsanto is a multi-billion dollar company, but that doesn’t help your inconsistencies one bit for two reasons. First, the initial argument was, “it is wrong to profit from food,” but now you are trying to implement some arbitrary threshold of profit at which it becomes immoral.  Second, organic farming is also a massive, multi-billion dollar industry. Indeed, Whole Foods (a large organic store chain) makes nearly as much money as Monsanto, and is profitable enough that Amazon just paid 13.7 billion dollars  for it. So, if making billions of dollars off food makes Monsanto evil, then it must also make Whole Foods evil, but no one thinks that Whole Foods is evil, and many GMO opponents shop there! ... 

Finally, this argument is inconsistent not just with organic food chains, but also with how we view companies more generally. Let me break it down this way, at its core, this argument claims that Monsanto and GMOs are evil because they aren’t feeding the hungry, but we could make that same claim about essentially every massive, for profit company. Apple could spend its vast wealth feeding the hungry, yet no one says that they evil for hoarding their wealth. Why should Monsanto be any different? ... Again, to be clear, I’m not a huge fan of massive companies, and I do think that they should do more to help the poor, but that reasoning has to be applied consistently... 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/06/19/its-morally-wrong-to-patent-food-inconsistent-reasoning-at-its-finest/

[billgsoto]

Life cycle analysis shows multiple environmental benefits of organic

Photo credit: Local Food Initiative

A new study shows multiple environmental benefits of organic production, even when that production takes place in a greenhouse. The researchers, who published their findings in the Journal of Cleaner Production, conducted a life cycle assessment of greenhouse vegetable production in Northern China, looking at the environmental impacts of organic versus conventional systems. They found that organic showed significant environmental advantages, including a 54.87 percent lower environmental impact index, which measured the negative effects of production. Additionally, the organic system showed 56.39 percent eutrophication rates and 37.87 percent lower soil eco-toxicity levels than conventional systems. Conventional systems were most impacted by aquatic eco-toxicity, with a level of 59.45 percent. Researchers concluded that “the results of the LCA analysis suggest a positive environmental evaluation of current trends towards organic production and consumption in urban China.”

from Blog – The Organic Center http://ift.tt/2qyX2V7

from Grow your own http://ift.tt/2qx7FMs

[volubrjotr]

  Iran sends massive food shipment to Syrians suffering from three years of war.

Iran has sent 30,000 tons of food supplies to the impoverished Syrians who have been suffering from a [CIA] extremist-marked insurgency for three years, Syrian state media has reported.

State TV said Tuesday that the massive shipment has arrived at a port on the Mediterranean Sea. The aid comes as the United Nations warned of a major food drought in Syria that could leave millions of people struggle with hunger.

Egypt Court Sentences 529 Of Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood Gangsters To Death!

U.S. Warns Americans From Travelling To Iraq: Obama Annexes Anbar Region In Iraq To Infiltrate Syria.

Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood Massacre 80 Syrian Christians In Horrific Massacre, And Desecrate Churches!

U.S. Corporate CIA Is The Biggest Threat To U.S. Citizens Safety: Fomenting Nation State Takeover Through Misinformation Campaigns, Murders, Assassinations, & Greed In Syria

The drought could cut wheat production in the country’s northwest breadbasket to a record low of 1.7 million to 2 million metric tons, the World Food Program said.

“WFP is concerned about the impact of a looming drought hitting the northwest of the country – mainly Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama, with rainfall less than half of the long term average (since September) and potentially major impacts on the next cereal harvest,” WFP spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs told a news briefing in Geneva on Tuesday.

Syria sank into war in 2011 when pro-reform [CIA] protests turned into a massive insurgency following the intervention of Western [Rothschild NWO] and regional states. The unrest, which took in [CIA] terrorist groups from across Europe [E.U.], the Middle East [Muslim Brotherhood] and North Africa [Muslim Brotherhood], has transpired as one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history.

ALALAM

Russia & The Catholic Church Bring Humanitarian Aid To  Syria!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

3 Things That Don’t Make Sense For Obama & McCain To Keep Doing!

A Russian airplane carrying 32 tons of assorted types of aid, including food, milk for infants, canned goods, sugar and assorted supplies, arrived on Monday in al-Bassel Airport in Lattakia.

Director of operations at the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, Valeri Chekov, told journalists that this aid is timed to arrive before the New Year holidays, which unfortunately coincide this year the terrorist attacks which claimed the lives of innocent Russian civilians in the city of Volgograd.

President Vladimir Putin Ends Media Abuses: Opens ‘Russia Today’ International News Agency ~ Vatican Catholic Radio Maria Opens Eleven New Offices In Four Continents.

Pope Francis Meets With Russian President Putin: While Barry Soetoro Invokes Massive Austerity Removing U.S. Embassy From The Vatican!

NWO LOST IN EGYPT ~ THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S MOHAMMED MORSI IS NOW IN PRISON FOR MURDER.  Since the Muslim Brotherhood has now been kicked out of Egypt ~ Iraq is now pumping oil into Muslim Brotherhood strongholds of Turkey & Jordan. Now we see why over 3,000 U.S. Military have been expended in Iraq ~ to supply the NWO Middle East Political faction [Muslim Brotherhood] with Iraq’s oil wealth to continue their over throwing of governments in the middle east for Rothschild’s banking cabal’s NWO efforts.

John Kerry After 10 Years Of Searching ~ Finds George’s Iraq WMDs In Syria!

John Kerry’s Syrian Amityville Horror: Violates The United State’s Constitution War Powers Act & International Law!

EGYPT Imprisons Obama Muslim Brotherhood: Takes Action Against Terrorist Conspirators Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton!

Egyptian Legal Authorities Charge Obama And Hillary Clinton: Criminal Conspiracy With Muslim Brotherhood.

President Putin: Obama Kerry Claims About Syrian Chemical Attack ‘Unimaginable Nonsense’

Chekov said this aid is a gesture expressing the support of the Russian people and government for the Syrian people, voicing hope that the crisis in Syria will end soon.

In turn, Lattakia Governor Ahmad Sheikh Abdelkader lauded the positions of the Russian people and government in support of Syria and its people in the face of terrorism.

Syrian Free Press

The Catholic Church

The Pontifical Council Cor Unum, which coordinates Catholic relief operations around the world, released data on aid given so far to Catholic organizations assisting in relief efforts in Syria.

The Pontifical Council stated that $72 million has so far been allocated to Catholic humanitarian organizations in Syria and in neighboring regions. Aid has also been provided to assist refugees present in Lebanon, Jordan Turkey, Iraq, Cyprus and Egypt.

North American Orthodox-Catholic Statement on Christian Suffering in Mideast

President Putin: World Leaders Should Unite To End Anti-Christian Persecution ~ Specifically U.S. Strongholds Of Iraq & Northern Africa.

Pope to Mafia: “Change, You still have time to not end up in hell. That is what awaits you, if you continue down this path.”

Russia’s Vladimir Putin Vows To Defend Christianity From NWO Genocide: World Leaders Should Unite To End Anti-Christian Persecution!

“The Catholic Church, and the local Churches present on the territory have been committed, since the beginning of the crisis in 2011, in the constant endeavor of furnishing humanitarian aid to the population hit by the tragedy of the internal war in Syria,” a communique by the Pontifical Council stated.

“Pope Francis has followed with particular closeness and attention the evolution of the crisis and the work of assistance carried out by the charitable agencies, which were received in audience in the course of the meeting organized by the Pontifical Council Cor Unum.”

The Pontifical Council has made known that efforts have been made to assure that aid is provided to those in need. Information related to the needs of the population have been difficult to obtain, prompting “a sporadic nature of aid” sent to those on the ground.

The difficulties prompted a meeting held in June to organize humanitarian efforts which are now headed by Caritas Middle East-North Africa, whose headquarters are located in Beirut, Lebanon.

The Beirut office “will have the task of understanding and monitoring the entity of aid gathered and of sharing the necessary information among all the institutions involved, including those not present at the Cor Unum meeting.”

In organizing relief efforts with a central office in the Middle East, the Pontifical Council Cor Unum stated that a more precise understanding of the humanitarian needs of the population will benefit those suffering in Syria.

Zenit

 The Treasonist McCain!

Out Of Chaos: Comes Dead Conspirators!

McCain’s Syrian Rebels Kidnapped 12 Catholic Nuns For Hostage Swap!

McCain’s U.S. Armed & Created Al-Nusra Rebels In Syria : Turn To Murdering Roman Catholic Priest Fr. François.

McCain’s Syrian Rebels Responsible For ‘Biggest Massacre’ Of Christians In Syria As Population Continues To Be Targeted.

McCain/Obama’s CIA Responsible For 600 Acts Of Terrorism In Syria: Rothschild Czar Benjamin Netanyahu Prepares To Attack Syria.

Russia Prepares Syria For War Against Obama & McCain: Usurped U.S. Carrier Strike Force Enters Syrian Waters! Russia’s Carrier Strike Force Enters Syrian Waters!

Leader Of E.U. Orchestrated Ukrainian Coup Shot Dead: Axis Sally Of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko; “Russians In Ukraine & Russia Should Be Annihilated With Nuclear Weapons”.

  Related articles

Roman Catholic

Vatican vs Illuminati

Breaking -> Rothschild’s Israel Attacks Syria!

Catholic Church Coordinates Humanitarian Aid In Syria (eurasiareview.com)

President Putin Dispatches “Carrier Killer” Missile Cruiser With Supporting Ships To Syria

Nigel Farage Lambasts The Rothschild’s Extreme Militarist Czars Of The European Union Over Syria

U.S. Warns Americans From Travelling To Iraq: Obama Annexes Anbar Region In Iraq To Infiltrate Syria.

Resident Barry Soetoro aka; Obama Violates [U.S. Munitions Export Laws] To Export Assault Weapons To CIA’s Syrian “Rebels”.

Americans Want McCain To Stop Fomenting Riots In Syria For NWO Rothschild: Russia Sends Mig-29s For Syria’s President Assad.

Newsweek Covers Up McCain’s Rothschild Mob Ties: Federal Reserve Charter Up For Renewal 2013 ~ McCain Wants Another War For His Boss!

Pope Benedict The XVI’s Historic Christmas Message To The ‘City Of London’s’ Financial Times.

Pope Benedict XVI Condemns Banking Cabal’s World Government, New World Order, & World Central Bank!

Russia, Iran, & Vatican On The Ground In Syria: World Unites In Massive Humanitarian Aid To Syria! Iran has sent 30,000 tons of food supplies to the impoverished Syrians who have been suffering from a extremist-marked insurgency for three years, Syrian state media has reported.

[gaddaboutgriffon]

What all could be on the bingo board? Well I guess friends tried to kill you would be one Danny would get. A rogue trick or blackmail you into dating. Lost and had to get his powers back.

What other things did Danny get on the bingo board that Flash and Dinah are looking at?!

Dc x dp idea 133

Danny is really confused. Like sure he made a fake account in order “use” his parents completely valid and not in biased research on ghosts.

Cause obviously. Their completely legit research disproves multiple peer reviewed and factual papers.

Tucker made the fake account. No real names or numbers. So. They couldn’t know it was him right?!??

He just wanted people to see how wack the papers were and bring to light the very not accurate papers. He figured using botched research to counter claim others would do something.

But??? Why was the flash in his living room arguing with his parents about scientific articles. And proper research??