If you’re covering for David Brooks, and we assume that Brooks is not himself a pedophile to be charitable, then you’re covering for whatever unknown pedophile Brooks is covering for.

This isn’t a court of law, it’s an international private forum with no binding consequence on anybody’s liberty. We don’t have to presume people doing shady fuck are innocent, since we’re not even accusing anyone of crimes.

Congress passed a law demanding disclosure of all files the government had about an infamous pedophile and child trafficer, with an explicit ban on redactions for embarrassed adults. Today they released a whole bunch of files, with essentially every adult in the pictures reacted.

Anyone who thinks this is a non-story is either a pedophile themselves or intentjonallh covering for child trafficing pediphiles. Especially if they are an old white guy who was definitely associated with the inhuman scum at the center.

We don’t know if David Brooks is a pedophile himself, but he sure as fuck isnt a journalist.

A mere casual endorsement is not an appeal to authority. If you don’t like the guy that’s fine, but it’s not a logical fallacy to, for example, describe a late night comedian as “a kinda funny guy.”. (A logical fallacy would require that someone assume Krugman is RIGHT because of his record, not that he’s merely worth reading )

How is dismissing someone because of where they worked NOT an ad hominem attack?

How is splitting hairs over which awards given by the swedish government are and aren’t “nobel prizes” NOT a distinction without a difference?

You didnt attack any of his actual credentials, though. You just said that he should be dismissed because he wrote for a particular newspaper and the award he was given by the Swiss government was not one of the awards given by the Swiss government funded by the gift of a 19th century arms merchant.

If you want to rebut my statement that Krugman “has a pretty good track record”, please do so! But you didn’t, and haven’t, and instead asserted your own biases as fact.

Which is obviously your right to do but, again, is a really weird response to a “who is this guy” post.

An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to “who is this guy”.

Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a “Krugman sucks and you shouldn’t listen to him” link you’d like to share?)

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

And while I certainly don’t want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it’s worth noting that legally speaking they’re both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It’s not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.

Eww. It’s a LLM travel agent.

So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they’re the problem?

I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

Is this a graph of “report negative opinions about homosexuality”, or “think homosexuality should be illegal.”

The former is just freedom of speech (“freedom to say something dumb and bigoted”), while the latter is a public policy concern.

I got all the way to “as I’ve been writing about for years …” before I clocked this as something I won’t bother to finish.

Humans as a species have never listed as the lead quote implies. We’re a shallow species whose interpersonal communication is far more of a handshake than a learned debate. If you go against someone else’s notions you may, at best, get them to remember a short phrase. (And if you’re really lucky and repeat a phrase a few times, it may even be one that accurately reflects your position!)

If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that.

Please note that, by all accounts I’ve seen, Italy’s femicide law does not cover any similar offense against men. It’s an elevated offense to try and reduce the disproportionate number of Italian women who are killed by intimate partners.

We don’t define in law the assisted suicide of a white cis man as categorically less severe than the assisted suicide of a black genderqueer female.

Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court case Moritz v. Commissioner (which my wife brought to my attention after she saw the movie.)?

An important advance in feminist law was literally about a man who wanted a tax deduction but was denied because the deduction was meant for women.

So, what’s the link to this english-language translation of the law in question?

Here’s an unattributed quote presumably from such from a BBC article:

The Italian law will apply to murders which are “an act of hatred, discrimination, domination, control, or subjugation of a woman as a woman”, or that occur when she breaks off a relationship or to “limit her individual freedoms.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o

As described in the above quote, it seems exactly as sexist as I presumed – special protection in the law for cis women, which categorically excludes cis men, trans men, and trans women from its protection.

Do you have a contradictory summary or, ideally, a link to the actual text and a professional translation?

If you come and burn a cross on my white church-going family’s lawn you should be charged with same list of assault, trespass, and arson charges as if you did so on my jewish, black, or pagan friends’ lawns.

A group of black men who banded together and murdered a white boy for dating one of their daughters should be charged with the same anti-lynching statutes enacted to stop the KKK.

The white christian guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants should be charged under the same terrorism statute as a brown muslim guy who bombs a federal building because the government doesn’t do what he wants.

Oh, you’ve read the law in question. Great! I can’t read Italian, and the linked article didnt have a statement of what the law actually said.

Does the law specify “woman” as a protected class or “gender”?

With the enactment of this law, is a man who murders a woman for the covered motivation treated differently than a woman who murders a man with the equivalent malice? What’s the actual difference?

Does this imply that previously killing women wasn’t criminal in Italy?

I presume that femicide is a subset of “homicide”, but I can’t tell if it means “any killing of a woman”, “any killing of a woman by a man”, “any killing of a woman because she’s a woman”, or “any killing of a woman by a man because she’s a woman”.

And I shudder to imagine how trans-women and trans-men fit into this weirdly sexist label.

(In America we have nice gender-neutral crimes, with enhancers if it was done out of prejudicial hate.)

You mean, instead of an eros potion it’d be a portion of agapa, philia, or xenia?

Most likely because “be nice to strangers” or “don’t defile the dead” can be easily enforced with violence without being rapey.

(And, worth noting, modern anti-depresssnts are kind of a philautía potion already, since they help with “love of self.”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

So Australia, being a country formally ruled by a crown but governed parliment-style via legislative majority with a designated royal proxy, had the people of said “emergency fallback spare government” talk to each other before actually doing one of the only things they’re still allowed to do?

Was the royal governor thrown in jail? Was the claimed non-involvement of the queen with someone whose literal job was to act in her name used to argue against abolishing the crown of Australia and changing to a formal Republic?

I don’t see the scandal here. If my country’s infamous president claimed that, say, the senate-confirned secretary of defense reached a conclusion on his own but they were discreetly in communication it might at worst be embarrassing, but hardly scandalous.

Is this a weird Australian thing or a weird British thing?

We know a bunch of ways to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, we usually want to avoid killing the non-cancerous ones, which is considerably harder to do.

In all honesty, “limit the state dinner to who the white house can seat” sounds like a perfectly reasonable alternative to tents.

The home of the national manager doesn’t need to be a venue big enough to seat every last member of Congress, the cabinet, the supreme Court, every other statewide elected official, AND a foreign dignitary with their entourage.

If we do need a venue that big, it should either be part of the Capitol or a free standing structure.