!g*mers please sign

its choibu

the pixels from screenshots posted to both accounts line up exactly.

the following pics have NOT BEEN SCALED. it just so happens that choibu and my fake alt have the same exact view scaling and font family options. curious

the last pic is some random user (control). note how it has totally different scaling from everything else

top- screenshot from choibu https://rdrama.net/h/transgender/post/302025/deleted-because-they-told-the-truth/7052455#context

middle- screenshot from @starry_aIt - https://rdrama.net/@starry_aIt/comments

bottom- some random user https://rdrama.net/post/303093/rdrama-bimonthly-census-badge-opportunity-lgbt

here is a version with them overlapping (note how "ago" is the EXACT SAME):

@Grue someone ping metashit pls

Today, we’re proud to announce the launch of the Floridian!

This train combines two iconic routes — the Capitol Limited and Silver Star — and will offer traditional dining throughout the full journey. pic.twitter.com/XZbtfUptJq

— Amtrak (@Amtrak) September 23, 2024

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

What the frick is this argumentMinority communities are specifically targeted by pro-choice campaigns because fetal tissue + organs are ridiculously valuable to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. It's no exaggeration to say that the minority underclass of the United States is being liquidated to prop up US oligarchs. Did you forget that fetuses have rights too?1) Men can't become pregnant, so they can't decide to have an elective abortion. Whatever right to abortion that purportedly exists doesn't apply to them for that reason. Full stop.2) Negative rights are actions that demand non-interference from others in order to function. Abortion, as an action, requires at least two participants. That's why it categorically cannot be classified as a negative right. (1)

An accurate one. Slavery is clearly a violation of bodily autonomy, and we fought a civil war over states who wished to violate that right for a portion of their citizens. I then followed up with an example of a state that is CURRENTLY violating the rights of its citizens by punishing them for actions taken outside of the state. Actions that they are forced to take because of the state's violation of their bodily autonomy.You're missing the forest for the trees here, and it has a whiff a racism as well, but I'm just going to assume that you either haven't fully examined root causes on this topic, or that are just blindly repeating a talking point that you heard but haven't fully thought out.First, the prevalence of clinics in minority communities is primarily due to demand. Minority communities tend to have lower incomes and lower levels of education, both of which are indicators of an increase in unprotected sexual activity. More pregnancies in an area inherently mean more unwanted... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

To answer your questions: YESConservatives would simply never even think to regulate the freedom of men to be sovereign over their own bodies like this. Their base wouldn't have it.Their resistance to gun control is a good parallel. Guns are the number one cause of death of minors, yet Conservatives refuse to act. Curious how that concern with the life of children ends the moment protecting them no longer involves controlling women.There is zero room to call such hypocrisy "pro life" IMO. (1)

See this is the cartoonish vision of those that dont vote like you do that leads to issues. If someone could own a license to kill a child with a gun do you really think "conservative" voters would ignore that because it involves guns and not women? That's the equivalent here, the issue isn't on banning incisors or bio vacuums which are cowtools with more uses thank abortions, but on the license to kill that those with facilities for abortion have. So this is not a parallel, there still seems far more complicated factors than a arbitrary targeting of women. Killing kids with guns is already illegal. Again this seems so obvious to me that this is a whataboutism. There are big differences in the subjects even if on some very surface level you see "dead child" as a connection point. I mean I don't doubt that people truly are exist in this world and have a thrill of enacting power on those not like them. But your imagining of this nuanced and deep argument as a 95% malice is just going to ... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Roe was problematic for several reasons.The first was that it prohibited states from deciding the issue of abortion. Anti-abortion states were forced to accept abortion regardless of the will of the electorate. The second was that it invented a negative right out of whole cloth by asserting that women (and only specifically women) have an inalienable right to abortion based on medical privacy.Ignoring for the moment that all rights are universal and inalienable, SCOTUS asserted that a positive right was essentially a negative right, and that no state could interfere for that reason. (1)

History has shown that there are certain topics to which states can not be trusted to decide for themselves. Slavery, for instance, is an apt comparison because slavery is another violation of bodily autonomy. States are already overreaching in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Texas is trying to violate interstate travel laws by prohibiting people from seeking abortions in other states, all in the name "protecting the sanctity of life." Heck, they even offered bounties for turning in people who even ASSIST in getting someone to another state for an abortion.A couple of points here. First, women wouldn't be the only ones to have a right to an abortion. They would simply be the only ones to exercise that particular right. Second, abortion access isn't exactly one-sided when trying to determine the type of right it is (positive vs. negative). It is a negative right in the sense that the government wouldn't be able to pass laws prohibiting access, and it is a positive right in the sense ... (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/OfTheAtom

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🐮🔘

Number of comments: 9

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion

giga-basement dwelling incel shit, i don't have a fricking clue what any of this means

The bestselling author of a book about "white fragility" has been accused of plagiarising sections of the work of two Asian-Americans in her doctoral thesis.

!asians

Robin DiAngelo, an anti-racism consultant who argues that racial divisions have been entrenched by "defensive" white people, committed 20 cases of plagiarism, according to a complaint filed with her alma mater, the University of Washington.

!chuds The well educated at it again I see

Someone ping nonchuds

Is…is that allowed?

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

25 P.S. § 3539

If he's just giving them a hundred bucks and saying here you go that's totally fine

Asking a vote for him is what makes it illegal

Nah. That's true of the federal law but the PA law merely requires the intent to influence.

He's a New York billionaire in (what appears to be) a Dollar Tree in Pennsylvania while campaigning for president. What the heck else would he be doing there other than trying to garner votes?

Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

A man like himself probably has countless examples of donations over the decades

Oof. Be careful moving the goalposts so quickly. It can be a real strain on your back.

Proof is not my responsibility, nor is it even possible for some random person on the internet to acquire. An actual investigation would require access to the videos clearly being recorded, interviews with those who were present, and other things which I, a layperson, could not reasonably possess.

However, given his history of mental instability, his penchant for committing felonies, and his absolute disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of acquisition or retention of power... I think we can comfortably say that (while we cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt) it is reasonable, if not likely, that his intention was to exchange money for votes.

that's not moving the goalpost you r-slur

It literally is. The burden of proof is on the person accusing somebody of a crime. It's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

No goal posts are being moved

This is America mother fricker

I can guarantee you it's not his own money.

>politician not using his own money

That's the only way his voters will ever get their donation money back

>i am once again asking for your financial support

sorry i meant

Is buying votes legal?

it's not. but this isn't buying votes.

Holy heck his tiny hands make that dollar bill look big

Redditors when you bodyshame: >:(

Redditors when you bodyshame Trump: :)

Which, I believe, is against the law. Then again, once a felon always a felon.

God forbid a dude gives a dollar out yall are wacko

150 karma after 4 years.

is that supposed to be an insult?

I'd say thax sill voting for Harris

I'd crumple it up and very carefully toss it back to him while holding eye contact. Seeing his response would easily be worth the money for me

If you can perform a virtual appendectomy in 1988 then why can't you perform a virtual s*x reassignment surgery celebration of castration?

!humans !alligatorfrickhouse !r-slurs

!nonchuds I think this needs to be normalized

https://www.reddit.com/r/CommunalShowers/controversial/

I have been at my mid-size corporate defense firm for 10 months. This is my first position in litigation, new, but I feel like I've been making "reasonable" mistakes and improving. I won two small bench trials that I did solo and have been trying to incorporate the feedback I've received from the partners.

A few background issues - (1) I am newly diagnosed ADHD; got on meds and have been trying to be more detailed-oriented but I still make silly typos or miss things; (2) I have a baby in daycare (my first child) and since I've been at the firm, we've battled numerous daycare illnesses and a hospital stay. We don't have any family support so when my daughter is sick, it messes up my ability to work. The firm has always been super understanding, though; (3) my husband and I are recovering alcoholics but he recently relapsed. Yesterday, I left work a bit early to find my husband passed out in his vomit. I called EMTs and tried to keep my daughter away from the situation. While paramedics were here, I realized I completely spaced a following up on a previous request for extension for a deadline and in my effort to try and rectify the situation, I sent an email asking for an extension, while not realizing the partner and paralegal had already handled the deadline. (EDIT: I had already drafted the document - written discovery resonates- and gave it to the partner the week prior for her changes, we were waiting to hear back from opposing counsel on an extension because our client hadn't produced the responsive documents).

I got a meeting invite from the partner today. She was not happy, saying that my email embarrassed her and the firm because it made it look like I didn't know what was going on (which is true, I was out of the loop because I was dealing with my husband's issue). She asked me if I was mentally unwell because I seemed distracted the past few months. She pointed to a recent draft I sent her recently which had typos in it, and said she's concerned about the "trajectory of my career at the firm." My last review (in June) was great and this was the first time she mentioned that I seemed "distracted". I was so shocked and ashamed at having "embarrassed the firm" that I cried during our meeting. I explained that yesterday my husband had a health emergency and apologized for failing to communicate that. I took full responsibility for my mistakes and I didn't want to get into personal details but I would be making changes to improve my mental clarity at work. She asked me if there was anything that she could do to improve my performance and I said that I would like to take a day to think seriously about how to improve.

Lawyers, am I on a one-way track to getting fired? Is being a lawyer just not for me because of my ADHD and lack of attention to detail? How should I approach the partner tomorrow?

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/ConservativeMemes/comments/1fn6d7t/white_dudes_for_harris

Hello, the office I work with shares a parking lot with a planned parenthood office and for the 12 years I've worked here they have protested directly in front of our small, professional, super boring office as the planned parenthood doesn't get any cars or foot traffic passing by 🙄🙄🙄I've recently moved to a new office near the front of the building and now if I open the window I can hear them chanting and praying THROUGH MY HEADPHONES. I asked them nicely to quiet down, got ignored, threatened to call the police, screamed obscenities out the window, then actually called the police, all to no avail. I just found out my boss has even called city hall over the years and as long as they are on the public sidewalk nothing can be done. This is so annoying on any level but I'm furious as I'm working and trying to provide for my two actual alive not hypothetical children and they're fricking it up, making life worse for people not better, and I'm so opposed to everything they stand for. Any suggestions, any help?

Do they not realize that this will only aid people who dont really need it and only drive prices up for everything particularly housing/rental costs?

Telegram will now provide users' IP addresses, phone numbers, and other details to relevant authorities in response to legal requests, per Bloomberg

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 23, 2024

In Canto 20 of Inferno, Dante confronts a pit where the sinners have had their heads twisted around backwards; they trudge, naked and weeping, through puddles of cooling tears. Virgil informs him that these are the fortunetellers, who tried to look forwards in life and now must look backwards forever.

In a completely unrelated subject, how about those election pollsters, huh?

Writing for The American Prospect, historian Rick Perlstein takes a hard look at characteristic failure modes of election polling and ponders their meaning:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/

Apart from the pre-election polling chaos we're living through today, Perlstein's main inspiration is W Joseph Campbell 2024 University of California Press book, Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in US Presidential Elections:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/lost-in-a-gallup/paper

In Campbell's telling, US election polling follows a century-old pattern: pollsters discover a new technique that works spookily well..for a while. While the new polling technique works, the pollster is hailed a supernaturally insightful fortune-teller.

In 1932, the Raleigh News and Observer was so impressed with polling by The Literary Digest that they proposed replacing elections with Digest's poll. The Digest's innovation was sending out 20,000,000 postcards advertising subscriptions and asking about presidential preferences. This worked perfectly for three elections - 1924, 1928, and 1932. But in 1936, the Digest blew it, calling the election for Alf Landon over FDR.

The Digest was dethroned, and new soothsayers was appointed: George Gallup, Elmo Roper and Archibald Crossler, who replaced the Digest's high-volume polling with a new kind of poll, one that sought out a representative slice of the population (as Perlstein says, this seems "so obvious in retrospect, you wonder how nobody thought of it before").

Representative polling worked so well that, three elections later, the pollsters declared that they could predict the election so well from early on that there was no reason to keep polling voters. They'd just declare the winner after the early polls were in and take the rest of the election off.

That was in 1948 - you know, 1948, the "Dewey Defeats Truman" election?

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

If this sounds familiar, perhaps you - like Perlstein - are reminded of the 2016 election, where Fivethirtyeight and Nate Silver called the election for Hillary Clinton, and we took them at their word because they'd developed a new, incredibly accurate polling technique that had aced the previous two elections.

Silver's innovation? Aggregating state polls, weighting them by accuracy, and then producing a kind of meta-poll that combined their conclusions.

When Silver's prophecy failed in 2016, he offered the same excuse that Gallup gave in 1948: when voters are truly undecided, you can't predict how they'll vote, because they don't know how they'll vote.

Which, you know, okay, sure, that's right. But if you know that the election can't be called, if you know that undecided voters are feeding noise into the system whenever you poll them, then why report the polls at all? If all the polling fluctuation is undecided voters flopping around, not making up their mind, then the fact that candidate X is up 5 points with undecided means nothing.

As the finance industry disclaimer has it, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But, as Perlstein says, "past performance is all a pollster has to go on." When Nate Silver weights his model in favor of a given poll, it's based on that poll's historical accuracy, not its future accuracy, because its future accuracy can't be determined until it's in the past. Like Dante's fortune-tellers, pollsters have to look backwards even as they march forwards.

Of course, it doesn't help that in some cases, Silver was just bad at assessing polls for accuracy, like when he put polls from the far-right "shock pollster" Trafalgar Group into the highly reliable bucket. Since 2016, Trafalgar has specialized in releasing garbage polls that announce that MAGA weirdos are way ahead, and because they always say that, they were far more accurate than the Clinton-predicting competition in 2016 when they proclaimed that Trump had it in the bag. For Silver, this warranted an "A-" on reliability, and that is partially to blame for how bad Silver's 2020 predictions were, when Republicans got pasted, but Trafalgar continued to predict a Democratic wipeout. Silver's methodology has a huge flaw: because Trafalgar's prediction history began in 2016, that single data-point made them look pretty darned reliable, even though their method was to just keep saying the same thing, over and over:

https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight

Pollsters who get lucky with a temporarily reliable methodology inevitably get cocky and start cutting corners. After all, polling is expensive, so discontinuing the polls once you think you have an answer is a way to increase the enterprise's profitability. But, of course, pollsters can only make money so long as they're somewhat reliable, which leads to a whole subindustry of excuse-making when this cost-cutting bites them in the butt. In 1948, George Gallup blamed his failures on the audience, who failed to grasp the "difference between forecasting an election and picking the winner of a horse race." In 2016, Silver declared that he'd been right because he'd given Trump at 28.6% chance of winning.

This isn't an entirely worthless excuse. If you predict that Clinton's victory is 71.4% in the bag, you are saying that Trump might win. But pollsters want to eat their cake and have it, too: when they're right, they trumpet their predictive accuracy, without any of the caveats they are so insistent upon when they blow it:

There's always some excuse when it comes to the polls: in 1952, George Gallup called the election a tossup, but it went for Eisenhower in a landslide. He took out a full-page NYT ad, trumpeting that he was right, actually, because he wasn't accounting for undecided voters.

Polling is ultimately a form of empiricism-washing. The pollster may be counting up poll responses, but that doesn't make the prediction any less qualitative. Sure, the pollster counts responses, but who they ask, and what they do with those responses, is purely subjective. They're making guesses (or wishes) about which people are likely to vote, and what it means when someone tells you they're undecided. This is at least as much an ideological project as it is a scientific one:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-09-23-polling-whiplash/

But for all that polling is ideological, it's a very thin ideology. When it comes to serious political deliberation, questions like "who is likely to vote" and "what does 'undecided' mean" are a lot less important than, "what are the candidates promising to do?" and "what are the candidates likely to do?"

But - as Perlstein writes - the only kind of election journ*lism that is consistently, adequately funded is poll coverage. As a 1949 critic put it, this isn't the "pulse of democracy," it's "its baby talk."

This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.