Byron

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 13 reply threads
    • #29815

      Byron
      Participant

      Yes…I believe that we’re on the same page.   The logical conclusion to my second point/question is that—given context—any victim be considered “vulnerable” (virtually a prerequisite for victimhood), then it is preying upon the vulnerable that is the ongoing threat to society and that this threat is greater in magnitude than any secondary threat owing to any number of motives (including demographic animus) by definition.

      In other words, if you MUST have some other crime in order to have a hate crime….AND crimes in general target the perceived vulnerable*—then hate crimes must be a subset of crimes targeting the vulnerable.  Therefore the universe of perceived vulnerable (in aggregate–among all criminals and would-be criminals) is larger than the universe of potential hate crime victims.   So someone committing a crime purely based on perceived vulnerability poses a threat to a larger universe of people than does someone targeting a subset of the perceived vulnerable.  That being the case—why does the latter draw a harsher penalty owing to that second derivative of their offense?

      *perceived vulnerable = you rob someone because you think you can get away with it….you batter someone because you believe you can do so without threat of an effective defense….you verbally assault someone because you believe that your words will be harmful….etc.

      Direct democracy is great when you believe that you can/should TELL others what to think!

    • #29782

      Byron
      Participant

      By the way,  to give DNA miners all the help they need, 23&Me kits are FSA-eligible (as of 2019).   So, they government is subsidizing the cost of your voluntary contribution to the DNA databases.

       

       

    • #29756

      Byron
      Participant

      34 of the most dangerous things science has strongly linked to cancer

      Spoiler alert:  “Sugar” is at the top of the list.

    • #29655

      Byron
      Participant

      You know, this general modus operandi of the media is pervasive.  Most examples aren’t quite as obviously egregious as this but we (as the public) have been conditioned to:

      1. Accept that video footage is the end all, be all of evidence
      2. Accept the narrative the media-provided narrative that accompanies the video footage “explaining” to viewers what they are seeing

      Time and time again we see video footage presented in which the commentator explains context that wasn’t apparent in the video (what happened before or, in some cases, the mindset of one of the subjects of the video).

      So whether the footage was recorded in Syria or in Kentucky is a MINOR detail relative to their EXPLAINING the accompanying narrative that they want you to accept.

       

    • #29616

      Byron
      Participant

      Allow me to try and digest this by breaking it up into smaller pieces.   If my understanding of your point of discussion is accurate, then there are 2 possibilities:

      1. Google (and others) are creations and effectively organs of the government.  As such, US citizens utilizing these platforms should be afforded free speech protections as required by the Constitution.  This requirement supersedes the current nature/structure of their capitalization and/or commercial endeavors.

        or

      2. Google (and others) are privately-owned companies and can lawfully “do whatever they want”, despite the governmental nexus to its origins.

       

      Is that accurate, so far?   Both cases take their government origins as fact, so that bridge has been crossed.

      In the case of #1, Google is allowed to present itself and function in a manner virtually (no pun intended) indistinguishable from #2.   In the case of #2, Google (and other corporations) are free to “censor” content for reasons that they deem (by way of speculation) to be “commercial”  (“…content that will cause us to lose customers/business…”).   Therefore, unless explicitly-stated, censorship decisions stemming from #1 (i.e. “…our CIA origins/connections don’t allow us to host that content…”) end up being indistinguishable from #2 (again “…lose business…”), if my understanding is correct.  Then, how does “little ol’ me” make that distinction in terms of attribution for their censorship decisions?

      Have I gone off the rails yet?

    • #29596

      Byron
      Participant

      My own views on this topic are quite conflicted.  Therefore my responses will certainly contain internal contradictions.

      Before delving “deep dive style” into how I frame this topic, I’d like to ask some questions about your position.

      1. When you mention that Google and the internet itself have government origins.  Does that fact (which I agree/concede) provide free speech protection explicitly because of the origin itself or is it the implied original funding that you feel permanently creates a nexus with the government or makes them a de facto organ of the government?  In other words is the position that all entities of government origin remain organs of the government regardless or is it a subset that includes ones that received such a funding advantage that effectively created a government-sponsored unassailable monopoly?
      2. Regarding the “yelling fire” example, I would suspect that the “emotional distress” bar is a low one and that those engaging in censorship (let’s say “Google” as an example) could (and possibly do) hide behind a (stated or real) desire to shield themselves from perceived risk of emotional distress claims as justification for their censorship decisions.   Many private enterprises implement policies with the goal of avoiding litigation.  To the naked eye, might not commercially-motivated decisions/policies be indistinguishable from outright ideologically-motivated censorship if the stated goal is to avoid claims of emotional distress?

       

      An odd, but PURELY anecdotal observation of mine is that censorship mainly becomes an contentious issue when one side of the debate doesn’t believe (or admit to believing) claims made by another but thinks that “others” will/do.   Let’s take the moon landing for example.   There are media outlets who would suppress those who believe that the moon landing was faked.  The bar for the suppression is not explicitly because they believe that the claim is untrue, it’s because they think others might BELIEVE it (which COULD be a function of whether or not there is some truth to the claim—but I won’t go down that path for now).  The same media outlets probably wouldn’t actively suppress claims stating that, say, “the moon is made of Swiss cheese” despite that claim also being untrue since relatively few are likely to believe it.

      I acknowledge that I’m not explaining myself very well but, it SEEMS that a key component of censorship claims is a belief or expectation that certain information will be BELIEVED rather than being simply based on whether or not the information is believed (real or stated) to be false.   No conclusions/revelations from me on this aspect, just an observation which I haven’t heard discussed.

    • #29458

      Byron
      Participant

      If Jack Dorsey’s account can be “hacked” (in a world in which two-factor authentication exists), then doesn’t that give future cover for ANY ill-advised tweet for which THEY want to claim “hacking”?

      The ability to “un-say” could be pretty useful at times.

       

    • #29457

      Byron
      Participant

      I would be in favor of the “no notoriety” movement if it talked about not covering the stories at all…

      Oh, you mean like the weekly “mass shootings” in Chicago that get (almost) no coverage/attention.   I get it now…. 🙂

    • #29456

      Byron
      Participant

      Among my concerns is that without a named perp, who’s to say that shooters aren’t “hired guns” at the employ of those pushing the anti-gun agenda.   I would suspect that people exist who are willing to “sacrifice” a few dozen innocents if the ultimate result is mass confiscation.

      So without a name/face, “a random, unnamed white loner” did it, he confessed (or blew himself to bits before we could catch him) and we tossed him in solitary for life —-“trust us”.

    • #29455

      Byron
      Participant

      People tend to forget that alchemy is indeed possible, it’s just prohibitively expensive.

      [Sarcasm warning] For the “sake of society” why don’t we just have the government subsidize alchemy and provide the gold to the impoverished?   What’s not to like?

      Here’s an article from a few years ago which details the process:

      Fact or Fiction?: Lead Can Be Turned into Gold

      The punchline, as was the case in the article at the beginning of this thread:  It takes about $5000 to produce a particle of gold so minute that special devices are needed to detect its existence.

       

       

    • #29454

      Byron
      Participant

      To be honest, I have never understood why ACTORS who make “impassioned” pleas or tearful apologies in front of a camera get so much attention and are taken at face value (by many) anyway.   It’s what they are trained to do.

      I mean (to use a made up example), should Meryl Streep crying for the sea turtles REALLY strike a chord with me?

       

       

    • #29372

      Byron
      Participant

      I hadn’t heard of this particular story before your post but I get what these guys were doing.
      Upon reading the story, I actually know one of the guys who was ultimately responsible (he is unnamed in the article but was “reassigned” as a result of this).

      I don’t have experience in the commodities markets, but I definitely get the gist of what they were doing.  At the crux, they were basically fabricating fictitious supply and/or demand in an effort to manipulate market pricing.

      Assuming (based on your past) that you’re familiar with bid/ask.   Let’s say that a commodity is 100.10(1)/100.12(1).   The entire market can see that the highest price someone is willing to pay for that “something is 100.10 for at LEAST 1 unit of it and that the lowest price someone is willing to sell at LEAST 1 unit of it is 100.12.

      Some market participants have access to see live orders and quantities that are at inferior prices.   Those orders can provide information on market “depth” which can influence trading decisions.   So (to be as simplistic/brief as possible), there might be a bid-side order that is 100.09 (1500).   That might tell market participants that the price is unlikely to fall by very much after a sale because there is a “large buyer” waiting in the wings.  It might even lead some to believe that if they buy 1 unit @100.12, the 1500 unit buyer might get nervous and raise his bid price, so as not to let the market “get away from them”.  These orders are supposed to be real and represent supply/demand from REAL buyers/sellers.

      This JP Morgan dude was entering in fictitious orders off the market (meaning no chance of their being executed immediately) in order to trade against those reacting to the existence of those orders.  Once the market moved toward the fictitious order OR he’d generated his desired profits under false pretenses. those fake orders would “disappear” indicating to others in the market that the (false) market participant had lost interest or had satisfied their demand via another commodity/contract.

      They must have been either egregious/sloppy or had a disgruntled former co-worker whistle-blow on them because this stuff can be pretty hard to detect.

      Again, I don’t have intimate, direct knowledge of the inner-workings of commodities markets, but I’d be surprised if this kind of thing wasn’t pretty wide spread.

      This happens in the bond markets quite often in ways that are different in a nuanced way that makes it completely legal.  The bond market is an over-the-counter market rather than an exchange, therefore the distinction of whether brokers are acting as principal or agent is obscured by design—which removes the illusion of end-user supply/demand to a large extent.

       

       

    • #29367

      Byron
      Participant

      Ghislaine Maxwell STAGED In-N-Out photo in Los Angeles

       

      Might this Epstein thing be the largest onion ever that society has attempted to peel?

       

       

    • #29354

      Byron
      Participant

      By the way, not to be a nit-picker but, here is an article about one of the “mass shootings” that was “stopped”:

      Man said he wanted to kill 100 in mass shooting, Florida cops say

      From the article:  “…he doesn’t own any firearms but is “fascinated” with mass shootings.”

      That seems to be a pretty friggin’ low bar for “stopping a mass shooting”, no?

      I mean at some level, a 16yr old who texted his buddy saying “I’d like to blow up the earth and I’ll do it as soon as I get my hands on a nuclear bomb….” could be arrested for the sake of “stopping a plot to destroy the earth”, right?

    • #29617

      Byron
      Participant
Viewing 13 reply threads