atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#6749: How typically leftist of them

Death threats against the previously unpersoned are perfectly fine. Faceboob changed the policy after there was some outcry over it.

If the individual or group is "covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy" of Faceboob, then anything goes; you can say what you want about them. "Hey, you know that [whoever]? He should be flensed and boiled in oil for saying [any opinion to the right of Leon Trotsky]."

Of course anyone saying, "Antifa should not be allowed to wear masks" gets kickbanned immediately.

...but that policy has been changed.
I don't think there is much question that the SJWs who run converged sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Wikipedia would love to be able to publicly endorse death threats against the individuals they deplatform, but it appears that the lawyers have prevailed. For now.
Yeah. For now.

Never forget that the left wants to control you, right down to what you think.

* * *

Venezuela has its own Ernesto "Che" Guevara, and it's a woman. We will probably never know how many thousands of people were killed by her thugs. But the fact that there is a huge body count cannot be in doubt.

* * *

This post on the Epstein case quotes someone else who makes an excellent point. The people victimized by Epstein are not "underage women"; they are children. The only pass I give in that description is if the female in question is between the ages of 16 and 18, and that only because the law itself makes a distinction under "statutory rape". In most states, if someone over the age of 18 is caught red-handed with a female aged 16-18, they'll only charge him with statutory rape if she wants to press charges.

But the "Lolita Express" was all about kids under the age of 16, so...yeah. The operative words are "children" or "girls" and "rape" or "statutory rape".
Here is the thing, the French monarchy was also untouchable until it wasn't. The Romanovs ruled Russia for 304 years, but there are no more Romanovs left today.
A lot of people are going to get very tired, and fast, of the two-tiered justice system.

* * *

It doesn't matter if you call it "shaming" or "bullying". It wrong, regardless. Some people are fat for reasons other than the fact that they shove all kinds of crap down their pieholes. Still:
For starters, this whole "shaming" thing should be called what it really is: bullying. Shame is what you should feel if you commit a sin or a crime (some overlap); only scolds and control freaks (some overlap) want to ascribe the eating of a hamburger or a chocolate bar as sinful, and therefore worthy of taxing.
But on the other hand, if you want to "shame" people for activities which raise their potential lifetime health care cost, there are a whole bunch of things you need to start proscribing. Not just the obvious "lifestyle choices" ones (riding motorcycles, skydiving) but other, inherent characteristics, like being a homosexual. The statistics on the STD prevalence in homosexuals alone are enough to demonstrate that; over his lifetime an average gay man probably costs National Health Service as much (if not more) than an average straight fat smoker does.

For a very long time, health insurance costs in America reflected the fact that young women sometimes gave birth, where young men did not. Under this "if you cost more you pay more" paradigm, NHS would need to be compensated for this, because a woman's lifetime medical expenses are naturally higher.

The problem with socializing medicine is that it reduces medical care to a "one size fits all, or else" model. It works very well if you're a healthy man in his twenties. The instant you need care for a chronic condition, though--well, it starts to matter to the death panels just how severe that chronic condition is, and whether or not it's a good investment to keep you alive. The older you get and the more sick you get, the less important keeping you healthy gets.

Now, let the death panels start consdering age and "lifestyle choices" and sexual proclivities. Let them start using the statistics on longevity and productivity. It does not lead to a good place.

* * *

I take this with a grain of salt only because dietary science is always wrong about this stuff. But I do agree that sugar is bad for you--not because drinking too much sugared soda or fruit juice will give you cancer, but because of the metabolic disturbance it causes.

* * *

I thought it was a scandinavian country that did this. I was wrong; it's Portugal. Even so: Portugal is much more ethnically and culturally homogenous than is the United States. What works there may not work here.

But we now have two examples demonstrating that a flat ban on the stuff doesn't work: Prohibition for alcohol and the War on (some) drugs for narcotics. The amount of money we've spent trying to "get drugs off the streets" has resulted in the stuff being available just about everywhere.

Maybe time to try something different.

* * *

All uranium is radioactive. By default. If it's not radioactive, it's not uranium, FFS. There is no stable isotope of uranium. The most-stable isotope is U-238--the half-life is on the order of billions of years--but it's still not stable.

That's like saying they were found with a bottle of wet water. far as I know, it is not a crime to possess uranium in the United States.

* * *

We've heard this tune from that man before and he was lying then, too.

* * *

Not all robots are big glamorous things. The cruise control in your car is a robot. The thermostat in your home is a robot. The DVR that records your TV shows is a robot.

...yes, technically, these are not "robots" in the sense that they can be programmed to do multiple tasks. But they are automation even so. The DVR monitors the clock, sets a channel, and switches on the recorder for you. The cruise control monitors several inputs from the car's sensors and keeps them in defined ranges such that the car's speed remains constant. The thermostat watches the temperature of the house and turns the HVAC system on and off to maintain that temperature. They are simple robots, but they do that job.

The "dishwashing robot" you can buy from an appliance store for about $300 is a little more sophisticated than those other things, but the fact that it's commonplace does not change what it is. Very simple robots already do things for us, but we don't think of them as robots simply because they don't look like what we think robots should look like.

* * *

This book on the Battle of Midway sounds like it might be an interesting read.

* * *

Yesterday it was beastly hot. Today--without any storms or anything--it's much cooler. Current temp is somewhere near 80. I'm thinking we might open the place up tonight if it's cool and dry enough.

Forecast is for upper 80s this weekend.

Last night and the night before, though, were the platonic ideal of summer nights.

* * *

Mrs. Fungus and I were discussing what we'd have for dinner one night--I think it was Monday--and she asked if we could have hot dogs. I told her, "No buns, and we're out of bread."

She said, "We have crackers."

Me: "Hot dogs and crackers? What do you call that?" ...which is my well-worn riff on Gordon Ramsay and by now I only need to say "what do you call that?" to get the point across.

Her: "Crogs"

She ended up getting Taco Bell for us, but at some point I'm gonna have to serve crogs.

Putting that one up there next to "cinnamon butts" (what she called my failed attempt at cinnamon rolls made with crescent roll dough).

* * *

Finished True Tears last night and liked the ending more than I remembered liking it the first time. The funny thing is that I didn't remember how it ended, so this was pretty much as if I were seeing it the first time--yet I had the memory of being dissatisfied with how it ended. I'm not sure why; maybe because the relationship between Shinichiro and Hiromi was not really shown to be a thing, and in fact when he asked her out she says "no," twice--but they are a couple at the end; that much is obvious from the denouement. There isn't any good sense as to why Hiromi said "no" to him, anyway, after going to all the trouble she went to in order to be his girlfriend. Maybe she was just playing "hard to get" or something.

Quite good. Quite good.

Going to try a more compact, lower-resolution version of Flying Witch, and I also ganked a few other things. The entire run of Maison Ikkoku with the final movie, Seiren, and Seitokai Yakuindono BLEEP which may or may not be something I've already seen.

* * *

Meanwhile, last night I started thinking seriously about what happened next in AV. There was a significant problem that I needed to get a handle on, plot-wise, before I could really start writing the first big battle scene. Now that I have the fix in mind, I should be able to get going.

It comes down to the "Captain Kirk" problem that Star Trek had, and that ST:TNG tried to fix by having the "away team". To wit: flag officers do not leave the ship to go handle things personally. The captain's job is to command the ship.

This is a bigger problem when you're planning to have the admiral of the fleet go jump into a fighter and chase down a missile that's otherwise going to blow up a space colony and kill a few million civilians. Admirals don't do that.

Ah. But he could, you see, if his fighter squadrons have suffered so much attrition that there are more colony-destroying missles in flight than there are pilots to go shoot them down. we'll file that for consideration, because the Battle of Earth took like 30-40 pages to resolve and this one's a bigger fight. *sigh* Plus side, because I am only covering this one from the viewpoint of the defenders, that will save me some time and space.

* * *

Addendum: Saw a YouTube video in which a moron in a Toyota Camry tries to beat a train, and loses. The video title reports that both occupants of the car died in the collision, which is not terribly surprising. I'd embed it, but it's not in my watch history, which usually indicates that the video has been taken down.

Train is coming to a crossing with no gates, just crossbucks and lights. The train moving pretty fast and it's not that far from the crossing, and its horn is sounding, yet the dickhead driving the Camry doesn't even slow down. And as you'd expect, BLAT, the car gets mangled by the train--so badly that in one frame the front wheels are still flat on the ground even though the rear wheels are off the ground and no longer parallel to it, all the glass is shattered, and there isn't one body panel that's not distorted, even the ones on the opposite side of the car.

Figure that the passenger died at the moment of collision as the locomotive's front coupler would have punched right through the door and then crushed his torso. The "safety beam" in the door is meant to prevent the intrusion of other road vehicles, and is not going to be able to resist the impact of a piece of solid steel 10" on a side, backed up by a hundred thousand pounds of locomotive four-hundred-odd-thousand pounds of locomotive, moving at 40 MPH. Even if that didn't happen, the way the car is crumpling under the impact, the side of the car would be rammed into the guy's head hard enough to kill him from that alone. Even with "side impact air bags".

The driver would go next, because the passenger would have been flung into him, and as the entire safety cage of the car buckled and collapsed he'd probably receive other fatal injuries.

The thing about cars is, they're built to a certain safety standard that's mandated by the federal government. The side impact air bag works wonders if you're being t-boned by a pickup truck or a car or something. But a train masses so much that hitting an automobile will literally not even slow it down. The decline in speed is negligible; a loaded train weighs hundreds thousands of tons and a typical modern passenger vehicle weighs maybe 1.5 tons. So that air bag that's supposed to protect your noggin from hitting the door frame? It's designed with the expectation that by the time your head hits it, the speed of the impacting vehicle has already been lessened by the impact itself, and that the impacting vehicle has crumple zones and empty spaces which are deforming even as that air bag is inflating. Having a locomotive (just a locomotive!) hitting your car at 40 MPH is the approximate equivalent of sliding that car sideways into a concrete block at 40 MPH. There's no give to it; there's no crumple zone, no empty space--just solid steel. So, even the airbag wouldn't save you from a (probably) fatal head injury.

The moral of the story is fairly simple:



It's insanely dangerous to do it, because if you guess wrong you will die.

End addendum.

* * *

I'm not sure how much is advancing age and how much is advancing light pollution, but I just cannot see as many stars in the sky over the bunker as I used to. I remember the sky being darker at night; there were times, decades ago, when I could see the Milky Way from my front yard, at least sometimes. Now if I see it I'm confident that I'm imagining it, or seeing some kind of atmospheric effect rather than the Milky Way, because it's just too bright for the thing to be visible.

* * *

At least tomorrow is Friday. I have a bunch of chores this weekend, of course.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.