Except not getting vaccinated is telling other people that you're willing to infect them. You don't get to tell other people that they should get sick or even die because you're afraid of jab or worse, you're afraid of science and snort cocaine off of toilet seats and don't wash your hands and swim in sewer rivers while a brain worm starves in your skull.
Actually gun nuts who think owning a gun gives them the right to use force to get what they want are the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists. They literally wrote it so the state could raise a militia of citizens who already had guns in the event things like Shays' Rebellion occurred where conservative libertarian type assholes who didn't like paying taxes stormed government buildings a la January 6th.
The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the people from those who tout their completely misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
So if one of those 40% of vaccinated people don't get the flu and they happen to encounter and breathe on you in the course of your day as an anti-vax nutjob, you'll benefit from them not having gotten it because they won't pass it on to you. That 40% effectiveness only applies to the individual. 100% of people who encounter people who don't carry the flu don't get the flu. You have no fucking concept for how infection works in a population greater than two.
It's the greatest and most hilarious absurdity that the most self-interested assholes are also so stupid that they work against their self-interest despite it being their primary motivation.
Your comments are like talking to a guy who grew up thinking Harry Potter was real.
"No, stupid, this is how magic works!"
Except all the "magic" is just you having no understanding how government, society, or humanity works and you're just spewing bigoted ignorant bullshit.
Your insistence that you are an expert on the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave is not an actual flex.
You misspelled "I'm a xenophobic asshole."
Even your bigoted misnomer "illegal immigrant" doesn't mean "non-human," but that's how you consider them.
Humans have rights, including non-citizens, in the US. Just because you don't want that to be true and your dom daddy Trump doesn't recognize it doesn't make it false.
ICE Officers LITERALLY planned the genocide of immigrants, you xenophobic fuck. They are actual fascists.
It's worse that even you believe you because you can't imagine you're possibly the baddie.
You literally think it's morally okay to murder people for being on the wrong side of an imaginary, arbitrary line.
Rueda asked Sanchez to have her car towed away from its location parked outside the house of the guy with all the guns then go to her house and “whatever you need to do, move whatever you need to move at the house”. You could make a case that it’s telling someone to go hide or destroy evidence. Is that thirty years behind bars bad? NO, but it is, in fact, a crime.
Except the literature wasn't evidence of a crime. The literature wasn't proof that a crime occurred.
Okay, hypothetically, imagine you live in an unjust society (I know, a crazy stretch of imagination, but bear with me...), and you know you're going to be maliciously prosecuted by an authoritarian fascist government whose unconstitutional genocidal acts were the cause of the entire situation to begin with. Sure, it might be a "crime" to subvert your own prosecution by unjust authoritarians who have created or weaponized rules to punish anyone who opposes them, but then you're forced to answer the more important question: Is legality a valid substitute for morality?
To consider other scenarios outside of this immediate situation, do you consider the Nuremberg Race Laws of Nazi Germany to be moral in nature? Is it morally okay to tell Jewish people they can't marry ethnic Germans?
It's one thing to say, "based purely on pattern recognition with no moral judgment, these people were likely to have been prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to some amount of prison time," but it's entirely something else to say they broke some laws and deserve prison time simply because you ignore all the context of the situation and pretend the government is moral and rational and non-partisan and not unconstitutionally vindictive.
They weren't protesting, spray painting, vandalizing near a child care center. It wasn't a national park. It wasn't a hospital. It was a concentration camp (no, I'm not being hyperbolic) for immigrants.
Next you'll be telling us that the Sobibor Uprising painted a very unsympathetic picture of the Jewish survivors.
Political was become just a watered down term akin to controversial, which also doesn't mean "valid concern." Conservatives have turned things that shouldn't be political or controversial into those things just by virtue of making up fake bullshit concerns and pearl-clutching disingenuousness. Everything can now be political and controversial.
"Oh my god, why are you supporting child pornography with your scrambled eggs preference? Only immigrant cannibal terrorists eat scrambled eggs!!!!!11!!!!111!1!"
"This guy wants to give health care and food to the homeless. He' must be an antisemitic transgender communist!"
Conservatives really love the two minutes hate. They desperately need that adrenaline rush and dopamine hit from focusing on the evils of the vague, paradoxical enemy thing of the week.
Singling out political candidates for special status would violate equal protection under the law. Why would someone who declared they were running for office magically get more rights than anyone else? Well, we know tht answer, but we don't know why any ethical court would allow such obvious bullshit.
Juries don't see everything, only what is presented to them. They can't always render a good verdict because prosecutors will not intentionally tank their own cases by presenting exculpatory evidence. The defense doesn't always have a good angle to play. The jury can randomly include people who are biased against the defendants. Any number of factors beyond "factual evidence was provided and proved the law was violated" can exist to push a jury in a certain direction. There are a number of verdicts that get reversed because of bad jury instructions from the judge or for prosecutor misconduct, etc.
So can the jury system work? Yes. Does it always? Fuck no. Does it have to be a binary "it works or it doesn't?" Also fuck no.
If you can accept that it's possible there's a crime there based on the prosecutor's statement or the older, superseded, inaccurate complaint you keep touting, why wouldn't you also accept the defense's claims with equal weight of possibility?
We should be sharing knowledge and culture because we want everyone to have access to it—not as a “fuck you” to some corporation, but because it’s immoral to perpetuate a system that would withhold it.
Por que no los dos? They're not mutually exclusive. If you don't have the ability to dismantle copyright or capitalism, "piracy" might be the only action you can take, even if it's ineffective for any ideological purpose individually.
For every professor or activist using “pirate” or “steal” ironically or for reappropriation, probably 10 people use it with no such intent. Or no obvious intent, anyway; it’s always hard to tell online.
I wouldn't agree with probably. It's hard to tell, so you don't know. Neither of us are everywhere on the internet. It's all anecdotal experience.
27 years ago, I had professors that just had an assistant photocopy relevant chapters, but it could also depend on the size and the nature of the university or if they outsourced to a bookstore and if the bookstore or copystore was a profit-driven entity or a non-profit. For another degree later, photocopies were scanned and uploaded as PDFs or they required essays as reading material that were available via JSTOR subscriptions that enrollment already covered.
And some colleges have campaigns to offer free or reduced material, including participating in the OER Open Educational Resources movement.
But some colleges and universities have publish or perish cultures or just don't pay professors well enough, so they're incentivized to force their students to pay for their own books, though some institutions have policies against this perverse incentive. Or curriculum committees adopt particular publisher texts for courses in the name of accreditation standards and professors don't have a choice in what texts students have to use for their courses. Some instructors don't get paid for course design, so they just use publisher materials as a shortcut, including charging for student access to online quiz portals and "study aids."
First I was just going to excoriate you for taking an FBI agent's sworn testimony at face value because there is no reason to assume he is telling 100% truth over telling a story that serves to indict the defendants as per his job, but in just googling his name, I found articles pointing out that you're citing a complaint that was not accurate and two superseding indictments were later filed which provide different details and trimmed some of the claims from the original.
The details shift, including the claim that there were two shooters and 20-30 rounds fired by the defendants.
Were the defendants making good decisions? Probably not. Would I expect a normal court and a normal jury in a non-authoritarian government to convict some of the defendants of crimes that would warrant some jail time? Sure. Did the defendants other than Song do anything more than what Proud Boys at a blue city protest have done while being tipped off by cops when to leave so they don't get arrested...? Doesn't seem like it. Hell, many of the charges read like something ICE did to protesters in Portland and Minnesota and elsewhere.
The problem is that the government isn't normal. The prosecution, even if citing some facts, is politically motivated, regardless of the validity of some of the charges and claims. That doesn't mean you have to exonerate every defendant, but you should be smart enough to assume that not every fact claimed by the government is true or, if factual, not every claim is being made for the purpose of transparency but to influence the very judgment you're making without all the facts or greater context. No reasonable person would expect that they're going to include exonerating evidence or context that contradicts their narrative in the indictment if such exists.
Now let's put on our critical analysis caps and question if we're confident this account is accurate. It's a sworn testimony from an FBI agent. It must be true, right?!?
"An original complaint initially stated there were two shooters that night and 20-30 shots fired. But a recent complaint obtained by KERA News states “new evidence” shows there was just one shooter, and 11 shell casings were recovered from the scene."
https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2025-09-30/prairieland-detention-center-alvarado-ice-facility-shooting-court-hearing-fort-worth
It's almost like making judgments based on limited information and blindly trusting sources without further research is detrimental to your ability to make a sound determination of facts...
I love this comment because it's a microcosm example of how conservative "news" operates. Provide limited, false, or suggestive information that serves an agenda and then feed it wholesale to an audience that will never follow up to find out if you're lying because they want to believe it and they want their two minutes hate at their perceived enemies. Nuance be damned!
I heard it was aliens. The reflection pool was a special landing site for algae-based alien lifeforms and Trump was genociding them with his bigliest most effective ever treatment, so they used invisible space lasers to cut the lining.
It's true because there's video of it everywhere on the internet. I'll cite a video if you cite a video.
Except you're actually making the opposite point you think you're making. The law will be enforced based on the interpretation of the attorney general/prosecutors, so you can get sued if they decide you "primarily serve" that purpose.
It's clear some people, like our resident MAGA troll, don't read the articles and fire off comments from headlines. They clearly see the site as primarily serving as a user interaction medium.
And they don't have to be right in that determination in a court of law for the lawsuit to get filed and cost the site lawyer fees at best.
I'd rather they don't get that weapon, regardless of which silly animal is on their coat pin.
Except not getting vaccinated is telling other people that you're willing to infect them. You don't get to tell other people that they should get sick or even die because you're afraid of jab or worse, you're afraid of science and snort cocaine off of toilet seats and don't wash your hands and swim in sewer rivers while a brain worm starves in your skull.
Actually gun nuts who think owning a gun gives them the right to use force to get what they want are the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists. They literally wrote it so the state could raise a militia of citizens who already had guns in the event things like Shays' Rebellion occurred where conservative libertarian type assholes who didn't like paying taxes stormed government buildings a la January 6th. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the people from those who tout their completely misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
So if one of those 40% of vaccinated people don't get the flu and they happen to encounter and breathe on you in the course of your day as an anti-vax nutjob, you'll benefit from them not having gotten it because they won't pass it on to you. That 40% effectiveness only applies to the individual. 100% of people who encounter people who don't carry the flu don't get the flu. You have no fucking concept for how infection works in a population greater than two. It's the greatest and most hilarious absurdity that the most self-interested assholes are also so stupid that they work against their self-interest despite it being their primary motivation.
Is this imaginary version of Biden Administration in the room with us now?
Your comments are like talking to a guy who grew up thinking Harry Potter was real. "No, stupid, this is how magic works!" Except all the "magic" is just you having no understanding how government, society, or humanity works and you're just spewing bigoted ignorant bullshit. Your insistence that you are an expert on the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave is not an actual flex.
ICE Officers LITERALLY planned the genocide of immigrants, you xenophobic fuck. They are actual fascists. It's worse that even you believe you because you can't imagine you're possibly the baddie. You literally think it's morally okay to murder people for being on the wrong side of an imaginary, arbitrary line.
Sure, buddy, so was Josef K...
Political was become just a watered down term akin to controversial, which also doesn't mean "valid concern." Conservatives have turned things that shouldn't be political or controversial into those things just by virtue of making up fake bullshit concerns and pearl-clutching disingenuousness. Everything can now be political and controversial. "Oh my god, why are you supporting child pornography with your scrambled eggs preference? Only immigrant cannibal terrorists eat scrambled eggs!!!!!11!!!!111!1!" "This guy wants to give health care and food to the homeless. He' must be an antisemitic transgender communist!" Conservatives really love the two minutes hate. They desperately need that adrenaline rush and dopamine hit from focusing on the evils of the vague, paradoxical enemy thing of the week.
Singling out political candidates for special status would violate equal protection under the law. Why would someone who declared they were running for office magically get more rights than anyone else? Well, we know tht answer, but we don't know why any ethical court would allow such obvious bullshit.
Juries don't see everything, only what is presented to them. They can't always render a good verdict because prosecutors will not intentionally tank their own cases by presenting exculpatory evidence. The defense doesn't always have a good angle to play. The jury can randomly include people who are biased against the defendants. Any number of factors beyond "factual evidence was provided and proved the law was violated" can exist to push a jury in a certain direction. There are a number of verdicts that get reversed because of bad jury instructions from the judge or for prosecutor misconduct, etc. So can the jury system work? Yes. Does it always? Fuck no. Does it have to be a binary "it works or it doesn't?" Also fuck no. If you can accept that it's possible there's a crime there based on the prosecutor's statement or the older, superseded, inaccurate complaint you keep touting, why wouldn't you also accept the defense's claims with equal weight of possibility?
First I was just going to excoriate you for taking an FBI agent's sworn testimony at face value because there is no reason to assume he is telling 100% truth over telling a story that serves to indict the defendants as per his job, but in just googling his name, I found articles pointing out that you're citing a complaint that was not accurate and two superseding indictments were later filed which provide different details and trimmed some of the claims from the original. The details shift, including the claim that there were two shooters and 20-30 rounds fired by the defendants. Were the defendants making good decisions? Probably not. Would I expect a normal court and a normal jury in a non-authoritarian government to convict some of the defendants of crimes that would warrant some jail time? Sure. Did the defendants other than Song do anything more than what Proud Boys at a blue city protest have done while being tipped off by cops when to leave so they don't get arrested...? Doesn't seem like it. Hell, many of the charges read like something ICE did to protesters in Portland and Minnesota and elsewhere. The problem is that the government isn't normal. The prosecution, even if citing some facts, is politically motivated, regardless of the validity of some of the charges and claims. That doesn't mean you have to exonerate every defendant, but you should be smart enough to assume that not every fact claimed by the government is true or, if factual, not every claim is being made for the purpose of transparency but to influence the very judgment you're making without all the facts or greater context. No reasonable person would expect that they're going to include exonerating evidence or context that contradicts their narrative in the indictment if such exists.
Now let's put on our critical analysis caps and question if we're confident this account is accurate. It's a sworn testimony from an FBI agent. It must be true, right?!? "An original complaint initially stated there were two shooters that night and 20-30 shots fired. But a recent complaint obtained by KERA News states “new evidence” shows there was just one shooter, and 11 shell casings were recovered from the scene." https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2025-09-30/prairieland-detention-center-alvarado-ice-facility-shooting-court-hearing-fort-worth It's almost like making judgments based on limited information and blindly trusting sources without further research is detrimental to your ability to make a sound determination of facts... I love this comment because it's a microcosm example of how conservative "news" operates. Provide limited, false, or suggestive information that serves an agenda and then feed it wholesale to an audience that will never follow up to find out if you're lying because they want to believe it and they want their two minutes hate at their perceived enemies. Nuance be damned!
I heard it was aliens. The reflection pool was a special landing site for algae-based alien lifeforms and Trump was genociding them with his bigliest most effective ever treatment, so they used invisible space lasers to cut the lining. It's true because there's video of it everywhere on the internet. I'll cite a video if you cite a video.
Everyone else has said so much, but I'd just like to express some disappointment here.
What kind of a proud super patriot uses commie measuring units like this? How many raw American inches thick is the coating, you pinko?!?Except you're actually making the opposite point you think you're making. The law will be enforced based on the interpretation of the attorney general/prosecutors, so you can get sued if they decide you "primarily serve" that purpose. It's clear some people, like our resident MAGA troll, don't read the articles and fire off comments from headlines. They clearly see the site as primarily serving as a user interaction medium. And they don't have to be right in that determination in a court of law for the lawsuit to get filed and cost the site lawyer fees at best. I'd rather they don't get that weapon, regardless of which silly animal is on their coat pin.
Complete with MAGA cap, cheap aviator sunglasses, and sixth grade vocabulary.