btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 21st, 2018 @ 7:00pm


    > NBC has pondered bringing back the bygone era of product placement

    Bygone era? Hardly. Product placement is still going gangbusters. I just watched an episode of TAKEN the other night that slapped the audience in the face with its product placement.

    MILLS: I'll need a fast car.

    FBI GUY: We have an agent who just finished a deep cover assignment.

    <A Mustang suddenly comes roaring around the corner and screeches to a halt right in front of them, with the Mustang logo centered squarely in frame in extreme close-up.>

    DRIVER: Did someone order a blatant product placement?

    (And was that guy just sitting there on the other side of the building, engine idling, waiting for a radio cue to hit the gas and make a dramatic entrance? Did the FBI crew actually take time out from their crime fighting to set up and organize a dramatic car entrance for Mills' benefit?)

  • Jun 21st, 2018 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Outrage

    > While you mention that the actions are inhumane
    > suggesting we can be genuinely outraged at these events,
    > you end on the point that no, we cant be, because we
    > weren't outraged in the last administration

    Which I didn't actually say, but why let the facts get in the way, right?

    I didn't say no one should be upset or that no one is allowed to be upset. I merely pointed out that those that are beating their breasts the loudest have some explaining to do regarding the puzzling way their butthurt waxes and wanes depending on who's sitting in the Oval Office.

    > You imply that the new policies are equivalent to the old
    > policies, which is simply not true.

    I implied no such thing. You may have erroneously inferred it, but I didn't imply it.

    > And the 'final words' of the paragraphs and the statement
    > as a whole are generally considered the conclusion(s).

    Perhaps in a formal academic thesis, but the comments section of an internet blog? Don't make me laugh. I don't accept the imposition of your self-serving criteria on my comment so that you can give more weight to the words you most disagree with.

    > you conclude that despite having a valid reason to be
    > upset, they are not genuinely upset

    Some of them aren't genuinely upset, particularly the ones with the power to do something about it but choose not to because letting their political opponents twist in the winds of the very outrage they're stoking is to their benefit.

    Years ago, the 9th Circuit ruled that the gov can't detain children with their parents if they're being prosecuted for illegal entry.

    Given that, the government has three choices:

    (1) Separate the kids until the parents' cases are resolved; or

    (2) Turn the whole family loose into America consequence-free and send the message that if you show up with your kids, the gov has to give you a free-entry pass, which will then result in a deluge of illegal alien families showing up with their kids; or

    (3) Stop enforcing the law altogether and throw open the border to the entire Southern Hemisphere of the planet.

    Options 2 and 3 are de facto 'open borders' and even though they could, the Democrats have no interest in passing a statute to override the 9th Circuit's ruling because they *want* this to be the choice. They want it because it forces anyone who tries to enforce the borders and have any kind of effective immigration law to be faced with wailing harridans calling them Nazis if they do.

    And as for all this hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over separating children from parents... well, no one likes to see that, but DHS currently has around 12,000 minors in custody. Of that 12,000, over 10,000 of them arrived here WITHOUT their parents. Which means the kids' own parents did the separating and sent them on a life-threatening journey through the wilderness with strangers. Anywhere else under any other circumstances, that'd be called criminal child abuse and neglect, and the authorities would be praised for taking custody of those kids. They're prosecuting a mom in Maryland right now for neglect for allowing her 9-year-old to play in a park near her own house by herself. They took that kid away from her parents. No one's having palpitations about that and calling the Maryland cops "Nazis". But thousands of parents leave their kids with murderous coyotes and expose them to everything from starvation and heat stroke to trafficking and rape, and for some reason the U.S. government is the bad guy in that scenario.

    But it doesn't serve the 'open borders' agenda to acknowledge any of that reality. It's much more effective to just scream "Nazis!" like a bunch of hysterical assholes in order to trick low-IQ voters into an emotional reaction favorable to 'progressives'.

  • Jun 21st, 2018 @ 1:04pm

    Re: What a #&*#$&#!! mess...

    This "GDPR regulates you too" stuff only applies to Europeans. If you're an American in Idaho running a fan page for Harry Potter and you have no physical presence in Europe, you do *not* have to abide by all this nonsense, especially considering a lot of it runs counter to the 1st Amendment protections enjoyed by Americans in America.

  • Jun 21st, 2018 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Outrage

    > Claiming that the outrage is fueled by political
    > opportunism is classic whataboutism

    Nonsense. About 80% of the people who reflexively yell 'whataboutism' are only doing it to shut down any examination of their motivation or to hide hypocrisy. It's the most abused and inappropriately invoked of all the logical fallacies ('whatboutism' is actually the silly social media name for the tu quoque fallacy).

    There's nothing either inappropriate or logically fallacious in analyzing the motivation of one's opponent in a debate, and/or noting how one's opponent reacted to similar circumstances differently in the past as a way of illuminating that motivation.

    The tu quoque fallacy only applies if that's *all* you do. If all you do is complain about the Obama part of the problem without acknowledging the Trump part, you've committed a tu quoque violation. But if you acknowledge the problem exists no matter who is responsible, there's absolutely nothing inappropriate in pointing out past hypocrisy on the issue where it appears to exist.

  • Jun 21st, 2018 @ 11:11am


    > If you are among the people who are then going to try to
    > justify this policy as "but Obama/others did it too," the
    > same applies. Whataboutism is no argument here. The
    > policy is inhumane no matter who did it, and pointing out
    > that others did it too doesn't change that.

    While I agree it's inhumane and it's inhumane no matter who did it, it's not 'whataboutism' to point out that those who are so outraged now and are clutching their pearls and running for the fainting couches over this policy said absolutely *nothing* about it when it was being done by President Hope & Change, so the all the hysterical outrage now rings a more than little false and has quite a whiff of political opportunism to it.

  • Jun 14th, 2018 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: $100 Worth of Pot

    > They were willing and attempting to kill for someone
    > selling a drug where the side effects are being mellow
    > and having the munchies.

    I think those are the actual effects, not the side effects.

  • Jun 14th, 2018 @ 10:56am

    Re: You know, this is going to come back to haunt them...

    > One of these days, these criminals...uhrm cops...are
    > going to do this to the wrong door.

    > They're going to think they're hitting a mom and pop
    > house, when it's really a drug cartel house, with lots
    > and lots and lots of mean bastards with more and bigger
    > guns than the cops.

    If that's the case, then serving the warrant properly by knocking and announcing-- and thereby giving the cartel savages time to grab their weapons-- would result in an even quicker bloody death for the cops.

    You're actually arguing in *favor* of the tactics used by the cops in this case, not against them.

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 11:02am

    Re: Serving a search or arrest warrant unarmed.

    > Federal agents and Pinkertons would often serve arrest warrants with nothing
    > but their own sidearm and the backup of the local precinct.

    You're discussing two separate issues. I'm talking about Tim's silly rule that a cop shouldn't take her gun out of its holster "unless she intends to kill someone". You're talking about the overuse of SWAT to serve routine warrants.

    I guarantee that those agents and Pinkertons you mentioned above had their guns *out* when serving those warrants, even if (especially if) it was just them on scene. They'd have laughed at you if you'd suggested they should leave their guns in their holsters while serving those warrants.

  • Jun 7th, 2018 @ 2:52pm


    > Unless you're intending to kill something or someone, the guns should remain
    > holstered.

    More nonsense. No one sane would claim that you should serve a search or arrest warrant on someone's home where you know dangerous and possible armed criminals will present with your gun holstered.

    Perhaps in this case drawing guns wasn't necessary but the blanket statement that "unless you intend to kill someone, your gun should remain holstered" is just pure idiocy.

  • Jun 7th, 2018 @ 2:47pm

    Utter Nonsense

    > In rare cases, these "wellness checks" end peacefully and with a resolution in
    > line with the terminology used by law enforcement.

    What absolute horseshit. It is *not* rare at all for a wellness check to end peacefully. You just never hear about the ones that end peacefully because nothing of note happened. The truth is the vast, vast, vast majority of wellness checks *do* end peacefully and many of them result in someone in trouble-- an elderly person who has fallen down, etc.-- getting help they would otherwise never receive.

    The anti-cop bias of the authors of this site is now leading them to outright lie in these articles order to pump up the drama.

  • Jun 7th, 2018 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Facebook ToS

    > So where does Facebook stand when it comes to undercover police or a
    > licensed PI?

    They might not like it, but Facebook's feelings about their terms of service have no relevance to whether evidence is admissible in court against the defendant.

  • Jun 7th, 2018 @ 2:18pm

    Re: In other words

    > Cops lie and everyone is expected to know they are full of shit.

    But no condemnation for a piece of shit convicted felon amassing a new cache of weapons with which to do crime?

  • Jun 7th, 2018 @ 2:16pm


    > The lower court found the omission did not affect the warrant's validity and
    > the state Supreme Court agrees. Then it moves on to address the larger
    > issue: is a fake friend a privacy violation?

    How is this even an issue? This is just basic police undercover work. How is faking a Facebook friend any different or more legally iffy than faking being a *real* friend?

    When FBI agent 'Donnie Brasco' spent years undercover making friends with mob figures and gathering evidence against them, no one questioned whether it was okay for a cop to pretend to be their friend. Why should adding "on the internet" suddenly call those undercover techniques into question?

  • Jun 6th, 2018 @ 3:12pm

    Re: Re: MultinationalsSubsidizeOffCommunities

    > There should certainly be strong social pressure among
    > Bezos's peers in his own city regarding this. Otherwise
    > Seattle is a cesspit.

    Seattle is a cesspit and it has nothing to do with how Bezos chooses to spend his money. The homeless bums are turning it into an open sewer.

  • Jun 5th, 2018 @ 11:44am

    Re: Having a hard time getting worked up about this

    > Amazon's historical growth has been built on facilitating
    > large scale tax evasion by people who didn't pay state
    > and local sales taxes

    How does merely offering a product for sale online 'facilitate tax evasion'?

    And if people aren't paying their taxes, that's on them. They're grown adults who are responsible for their own affairs. It's not a business's job or duty to make sure its customers' finances are sorted out properly.

  • Jun 5th, 2018 @ 11:40am

    Re: MultinationalsSubsidizeOffCommunities

    > Ask Mr. Bezos how he plans to spend his wealth

    Since the wealth belongs to him, not you or anyone else, what business is it of yours how he spends it?

  • Jun 4th, 2018 @ 12:54pm


    > The "implied threat" the school somehow read into a
    > statement about graduating seniors is keeping one student
    > from getting his diploma with his classmates.

    The administration at that school needs to consult with its own English teachers and have them explain the difference between 'implied' and 'inferred'.

    The idiots in the administration inferred a threat where there was none. The kid implied nothing of the kind.

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 2:28pm


    > And maybe make political advertisement forbidden

    And what would count as 'advertising'?

    Would comments from people discussing various issues count as advertising? Are you going to start censoring Joe Citizen, too, and forbidding all discussion of politics on Facebook?

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 2:25pm

    Re: OR could be Deliberate Incompetence! To avoid regulation.

    > I'm sure that if executives were tossed into jail

    And what crime would form the basis of the charge that lands them in jail?

    Put the citation to the relevant statute here-->

  • Jun 1st, 2018 @ 2:19pm


    > Have these ever resulted in actual findings? When if ever
    > are suspicions like these ever justified?

    Actually, yes. Almost every day. CBP and ICE routinely catch people smuggling drugs and other contraband in their bodies and orifices.

    That doesn't excuse the behavior in *this* case, but let's not pretend this never happens and people are never caught doing it.

More comments from btr1701 >>