Portraying "violence" only by stretching the description of "violence" beyond credible congruence the actual, on-the-ground reality, is journalistic dishonesty.
Things like snowballs and chest-bumps really, quite simply, can't legitimately be compared to:
creating ground fog from prodigious amounts of tear gas and CS gas
pumping tear gas/CS gas directly into protester's inflatable costumes,
shooting pepper ball and more dangerous "less-than-lethal" ammunition from unsafe (much too close) range, (even at journalists, facing away and reporting live on camera),
aiming plastic bullets high and at heads, (rather than at the ground ahead, as designed),
body slamming quietly standing protestors to the ground,
"kettling" tactics against crowds doing nothing wrong except being present,
destroying first-aid stations,
not to mention several shootings -- including several fatal and clearly unjustified homicides, of which Pretti and Good were merely the ones caught in full, clear video.
etc.
The "news from nowhere" false equivalence ends up being propaganda, effectively favoring the side that needs to be held to account.
It's worth noting that press coverage from news organizations based outside the USA (Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Scandinavia... take your pick) seem to have no trouble keeping this balance in line with reality.
In Canada, we still use "First Past the Post" for national and provincial elections.
But oddly enough, the political parties don't use FPtP for their own, internal leadership contests -- not even the political party that most sternly opposes replacing FPtP with other voting method that produces more representative results. Quelle surprise! (Not.)
I can't agree with that. I don't even see the logic.
"First Past the Post" is how fascists take over a Big Tent/mainstream party. They don't need a majority, just the biggest cohesive gang.
Ranked Choice voting allows voters to choose the representative with the broadest actual support -- the winning candidate is the one for whom an actual majority agrees is "well, not necessarily my very favorite candidate, but still good enough to deserve my support."
In a field with multiple (more than just two) candidates, so-called "First Past the Post" only leads to a winner with a plurality of support.
Which may be significantly less than a true majority. (But they still get to run the show.)
Trivial, oversimplified, example:
My local chess club holds a FPtP vote on which kind of pizza to order in.
The vote splits like so:
Hawaiian pizza (30%),
Spinach pizza (27%),
Pepperoni pizza (24%),
Vegetarian pizza (19%)
Then Hawaiian pizza "wins" -- even if well over 50% of the club members are firmly against Hawaiian pizza, whether because they simply detest Hawaiian pizza, or are practicing Muslims, and/or are allergic to pineapple.
But with Ranked Choice, (in this example) if approximately half the "losing" voters were satisfied to accept Pepperoni or Spinach pizza as a "good enough/worth supporting" fall-back choice (a "unity" candidate), they can surpass the Hawaiian gang, and readily pass a "true majority" threshold -- as in over two-thirds of the voters prefer what they got, to being stuck with ham and pineapple (rather than 70% being told "Well, we had a vote, and we got what we voted for.")
Of course not. Which isn't the least surprising. Because despite being called an "anti-weaponization fund" to compensate those improperly subjected to government legal persecution, it's nothing of the sort.
I filled out name, email, subject, and a brief description of the issue.
Everything seemed fine, until I tried to submit the form (first under Bug Reports, then under General Feedback), at which point the form displayed a red and white error message that there was some sort of connectivity problem.
Bluesky feed (@techdirt.com) appears to be down since Monday afternoon
(Last post: "DC Court Orders ICE To Stop Engaging In Warrantless Arrests").
"Contact Techdirt" form not submitting messages either.
Unhinged liberals are suing over literally anything... and forum shopping, and activist judges are making crazy rulings ignore the law, jurisdiction, and SCOTUS direction/precedent.
Do you mean like making a Supreme Court case out of someone being forced to create a wedding web-site for a gay couple... when
- they didn't have an actual web-design business,
- were never asked nor approached to make any such website,
- by a gay couple who never asked to have anyone to make such a website
- (in fact one of them was an actual web designer himself)
- in another state
- and the first the gay couple allegedly at the root of this complaint ever knew anything about this alleged imposition on a poor, well-meaning poor, besieged christian web-designer's 1st Amendment rights, or even about this aggrieved web-designer at all... was when they saw the news coverage of the SCOTUS case?
You mean like that?
Yeah, we all agree -- stunts like that are definitely something to be concerned about.
NEWSFLASH! That wasn't any "unhinged liberals" doing that -- that was unhinged "conservatives" pulling that crazy shit.
It's weird, but I can't recall in what part of the Gospels Jesus even mentioned, let alone expressed any concern or prohibitions against, any of those things that this "Jesus-centric" service is promising to block.
I'm not familiar with this series. What network is it on?
If it's really as disjointed, stupid, and incoherent as you make it sound, I don't want to waste my limited viewing time even checking out such trash, when there's much more believable and realistic series out there like Andor, Severance, and Game of Thrones -- all of which I'm already behind on.
It’s not like the facts he cited are just magically made false
It is, actually, for legal purposes.
This is an open admission you don't care about the facts, nor about the truth, but only about your side winning -- even though your side had to cheat to "win".
Except the factual basis for a ruling is actually important. It’s not like the facts he cited are just magically made false by a partisan ruling from conservatives on SCOTUS. It’s important that they’re ignoring the facts in the ruling, the same way it’s important that you ignore facts when you comment here. You just don’t have the power to overrule anything with your hallucinations like they do.
'Authoritarian followers' care far, far less about mere facts and reasoning, than about the hierarchical position and power of the contesting disputants.
For those who suffer from this unfortunate malady, the ability of their chosen authority figure to over-rule rational argument and impose a predetermined conclusion through the raw exercise of power, rather than by exercise of reason, is more than sufficient validation of their position, regardless of any inconsistencies, contrary facts, or outright irrationality.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”
~ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Aug 21, 2025
False equivilence is not "showing both sides
Portraying "violence" only by stretching the description of "violence" beyond credible congruence the actual, on-the-ground reality, is journalistic dishonesty. Things like snowballs and chest-bumps really, quite simply, can't legitimately be compared to:
- creating ground fog from prodigious amounts of tear gas and CS gas
- pumping tear gas/CS gas directly into protester's inflatable costumes,
- shooting pepper ball and more dangerous "less-than-lethal" ammunition from unsafe (much too close) range, (even at journalists, facing away and reporting live on camera),
- aiming plastic bullets high and at heads, (rather than at the ground ahead, as designed),
- body slamming quietly standing protestors to the ground,
- "kettling" tactics against crowds doing nothing wrong except being present,
- destroying first-aid stations,
- not to mention several shootings -- including several fatal and clearly unjustified homicides, of which Pretti and Good were merely the ones caught in full, clear video.
- etc.
The "news from nowhere" false equivalence ends up being propaganda, effectively favoring the side that needs to be held to account. It's worth noting that press coverage from news organizations based outside the USA (Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Spain, Scandinavia... take your pick) seem to have no trouble keeping this balance in line with reality.In Canada, we still use "First Past the Post" for national and provincial elections. But oddly enough, the political parties don't use FPtP for their own, internal leadership contests -- not even the political party that most sternly opposes replacing FPtP with other voting method that produces more representative results. Quelle surprise! (Not.)
I can't agree with that. I don't even see the logic. "First Past the Post" is how fascists take over a Big Tent/mainstream party. They don't need a majority, just the biggest cohesive gang. Ranked Choice voting allows voters to choose the representative with the broadest actual support -- the winning candidate is the one for whom an actual majority agrees is "well, not necessarily my very favorite candidate, but still good enough to deserve my support." In a field with multiple (more than just two) candidates, so-called "First Past the Post" only leads to a winner with a plurality of support. Which may be significantly less than a true majority. (But they still get to run the show.) Trivial, oversimplified, example: My local chess club holds a FPtP vote on which kind of pizza to order in. The vote splits like so:
- Hawaiian pizza (30%),
- Spinach pizza (27%),
- Pepperoni pizza (24%),
- Vegetarian pizza (19%)
Then Hawaiian pizza "wins" -- even if well over 50% of the club members are firmly against Hawaiian pizza, whether because they simply detest Hawaiian pizza, or are practicing Muslims, and/or are allergic to pineapple. But with Ranked Choice, (in this example) if approximately half the "losing" voters were satisfied to accept Pepperoni or Spinach pizza as a "good enough/worth supporting" fall-back choice (a "unity" candidate), they can surpass the Hawaiian gang, and readily pass a "true majority" threshold -- as in over two-thirds of the voters prefer what they got, to being stuck with ham and pineapple (rather than 70% being told "Well, we had a vote, and we got what we voted for.")This is (in my opinion) a fair and constructive criticism.
Of course not. Which isn't the least surprising. Because despite being called an "anti-weaponization fund" to compensate those improperly subjected to government legal persecution, it's nothing of the sort.
And...?
Just submitted a test message
Form does appear to be working again. Received a confirmation message "Thank you for your response. ✨ Thank you for your submission!"
I filled out name, email, subject, and a brief description of the issue. Everything seemed fine, until I tried to submit the form (first under Bug Reports, then under General Feedback), at which point the form displayed a red and white error message that there was some sort of connectivity problem.
Bluesky feed (@techdirt.com) appears to be down since Monday afternoon (Last post: "DC Court Orders ICE To Stop Engaging In Warrantless Arrests"). "Contact Techdirt" form not submitting messages either.
"suing over literally anything"
Ironically (but not surprisingly) true.
It's weird, but I can't recall in what part of the Gospels Jesus even mentioned, let alone expressed any concern or prohibitions against, any of those things that this "Jesus-centric" service is promising to block.
"I'll take delusional bullshit for $200, Alex."
I'm not familiar with this series. What network is it on? If it's really as disjointed, stupid, and incoherent as you make it sound, I don't want to waste my limited viewing time even checking out such trash, when there's much more believable and realistic series out there like Andor, Severance, and Game of Thrones -- all of which I'm already behind on.
Authoritarian followers:
Here -- you clearly need a new one
Everyone needs at least one. Try not to break it this time. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Mirror
Insert Steven crowder meme here:
"Intellectual Property" has gotten way out of hand. Change my mind.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.” ~ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Aug 21, 2025