Grrl Power #958 – Succubi party games
See, the colors on the chokers randomize each time the little spinny arrow thing is spun, so you never know who is going to be “it.”
Now all I can think about is the succubus versions of different games, board and otherwise. I mean, their version of “Guess Who” is… well, still a game that favors a good memory. Succubus “Connect 4” is a little different though. “Ticket to Ride” is similar only in name. “Mouse Trap” is… well, not called Mouse Trap, I can tell you that. “Cards Against Succubi” is surprisingly way less racist. Succubi Yahtzee? Exactly the same.
Dabbler is giving everyone a simplified crash course in enchanting. It sounds like what she’s saying is that every sigil is hard coded with software, and that is mostly the case, it’s not the whole story. Most enchanted items are run and done, but some might have a limited number of options. A wand of cold might have a cone of cold option, a wall of ice, ice spear, and slippery floor setting, but all the other stuff in the enchantment is going to be pretty stock stuff. A spell of invisibility might not have any options besides on or off, but it might have a slider that lets you turn parts of you invisible, or let you target others, or do area effect, etc.
All those options make the sigil/spell more complicated which usually increases casting time. On an enchanted item, this can affect the activation time of the device, and more complex sigils/code can produce more complex effects. This can cost more mana, but not always. Sometimes a sigil will be complex because it uses efficient algorithms, or it might be a smarter spell. For instance a chain lightning spell could have some arcane friend or foe lookup tables, which is more mana efficient than making a spell that has a telepathic component to read the caster’s mind to determine targeting, but probably less flexible.
Some spells you can pump a shitload of mana into for a bigger effect, but most will burn out if you try that. The sigil has to be designed to handle a mana dump. It’s as much art as it is science.
July’s vote incentive is up! And it’s a little odd this time.
Okay, so, I didn’t visit my parents for Christmas last year because of the pandemic, instead we went down last month during summer break. It’s about a 4 hour drive each way, plus I had to actually, you know, interact with them and not just ignore them and not work the whole time. Bottom line is I lost about 3 days of work, because try as I might, I just can’t draw while riding in a car. Like, at best I could flat a page with the paint bucket, and even then I miss 1 out of three times and have to undo a ton.
Anyway, I can’t draw in a car, but I can write, and I made some decent progress on Tamer: Enhancer 2. I know I’ve been saying that for a while but I feel like the end is in sight. But, on to the vote incentive.
You guys don’t know who this is yet. (Her name is Xerxa.) I will give you one single guess what she might be from. (And no, it’s not Dabbler’s mother.) It was a piece I had half finished from a little while ago and given my time constraints this month, I threw a little polish and some background on it and here you are. Unfortunately there aren’t nine separate versions because she’s not wearing a ton to begin with. Hopefully you can read about that soon. I hope you like it, personally I think it turned out pretty good.
As always, nude version are up at Patreon.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. Feel free to contribute as much as you like!
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Succubus Monopoly may be sexier than the standard version of Monopoly, but it still ends with everybody pissed off and not speaking to each other.
Google a game named Drunkpoly.
I think it’ll fit the image very well. S
aw that at a board games fair a few years back but it stuck in memory. Basically monopoly with alcohol and doing things with the opposite gender.
OK, Drinkopoly, sorry, been a few years.
There should be a series of games: Drinkopoly, Drankopoly, Drunkopoly
That’s because NOBODY plays the rules as written. Everyone thinks the auction rules slow the game down, but it introduces actual strategy and… Okay, YES it still ends with everyone pissed off, but at least it goes faster.
Nah, I actually like the auction rules. Also they lend more effectiveness to the jail squatter strategy.
What auction rules?
What rules?
in the box there was a booklet that was likely thrown away. those were the rules.
Never heard of auctions in Monopoly…
If someone lands on an unowned property and chooses not to buy it for the list price, it immediately gets auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Never heard of that rule, and been playing for 40+ years
Right, but did you ever read the instructions?
Monopoly is a game everyone loves to hate. Thing is, it’s a contest about a function that’s dominated by a part of the brain that’s not fully formed in most people until sometime between 18 and 22 years old. That’s when we start being able to make rational decisions about stochastic risk and reward with varying costs and benefits.
Children playing the game find it arbitrary, luck-dominated, and nonsensical. Children playing the game against an adult ALWAYS lose (very rare exceptions exist, usually involving the adult deliberately throwing the game).
Children who ALWAYS lose, learn to hate the game and never play it as adults. People who don’t play it until they are adults often like it.
But if you want children to even have a chance, you have to introduce rules that force luck to sometimes dominate skill, like the ‘free parking jackpot’ etc. And those rules teach any adults who want to have a fair game of skill to hate it.
Anyway, if you’re college age or above, look at Monopoly with fresh eyes. Throw out all the kid rules and you’ll find a half-decent strategy game. If you’re high-school age or below, LEAVE THE DAMN THING ON THE SHELF OR YOU WILL LEARN TO HATE IT FOREVER.
Remember that most people don’t play by the rules as written, which makes the game longer.
Also don’t forget that the game is **INTENDED** to have the outcome of pissed off people because it’s a critique of landlords and an example of how landlordism causes problems.
The problem is that everybody loves economic rent when they’re receiving it, hates it when they’re paying it, and yet at no point do they consider that perhaps the system is wrong, rather than just their place in it.
And Succubus Mousetrap is is still stupid because nobody has all the parts.
Shapeshifting succubi come with all the parts, including some that are not in the rules.
*succubus Uno chuckles quietly in the corner, with a Bloodier Mary, checking her latest body count*
thats succubus eukre. friendly games require the impounding of knives. blunt objects only.
Very Dave ro drill down into minutia. A GP feature.
High on my list of favorite Grrl Power things!
Aw…Maxima looks touched that they’re so excited to do this for her. That’s wonderful. :)
Leon on the other hand looks sort of weirded out by a flesh coloured Maxima.
Leon is weirded out by the entire discussion. His pupils constricted at the idea of coding magic, so far out of his wheelhouse, and then just followed every speaker and got smaller, and smaller…
Actually, give him a second to process the paradigm shift and Leon will be kicking into gear. Enchanted gear with sigils = micro-controller with embedded code. You know how many geeks would give their left participle to actually craft some MAGIC just once in their life!
He’d better get used to this if he’s going to be smooching Krona.
I don’t know, personally, coding up magic would be incredibly awesome.
There is a series of books starting with the first book “The Wiz Biz”, by Rick Cook. It was printed in 1997, so the “coding” of magic is based on simple coding from that time. I enjoyed them back in the day, not sure how they would fare today though.
I also noticed that one of the icons in Dabbler’s coding sheet is the symbol for the Deathly Hallows.
Public service announcement:
JKR is a racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemetic (and probably a bunch of other bigotries) bitch.
Not sure why you felt the need to say that.
Sigh…
Let me go get the list:
—
Bank Goblins are literal 3rd Reich German Nazi propaganda about Jews (they even put a Star of David on the floor of the bank in the films to make it extra obvious). She might as well have just written (((Bankers))) and been done with it.
House Elves are black-coded as the “happy slave”. (And both increadably powerful and increadably weak at the same time – which is a standard fascist thing for “the enemy”). They play this up in the films with facial features as well. Also the “House Elf” – “House Slave” name thing.
“Cho Chang” Seriously?
The only Irish character’s “joke” is that they randomly make explosions. Look up “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland for why that’s just nasty.
“Dumbledore is gay, honest. Even though I never even mention it in his own story (or anywhere outside of twitter)”.
The French and German schools are really not good stereotypes.
There’s some stuff about Scotland that would take a lot for me to pin down exactly why it makes me, as a Scottish person, uncomfortable, but there’s that as well. I’d start with “Train from London, all grouse moors” and go from there if I cared enough to spend time on figuring that out.
She wrote a whole book where the plot was that there’s a snake in the girl’s toilets and how that’s a bad thing.
Robert Galbraith, her pen-name for her murder mysteries where the villain always turns out to be a trans woman stand-in, is the name of a well-known gay “conversion therapist” (Read: electroshock torturer).
And then there’s her trans hate manifesto.
Before posting this, I have never read the Harry Potter books, and barely bothered to follow anything about JK Rowling. It’s not my type of book or movie – I only watched the first movie which was… meh. okay? I liked the ride in Orlando though (Wizarding World of Harry Potter). I tend to like rides which have a ‘virtual reality’ element to them (ie, the Shrek ride, the Star Wars ride, the Simpsons ride, the Terminator Experience ride, etc).
So I’m basing most of what I’m writing on what Illy wrote and a very brief research on this subject.
Also please don’t think that I support any of JK Rowling’s views based on this post. I barely know anything about her views because I’m pretty oblivious to her books in general and didn’t really like the movie (it wasn’t bad, it just wasnt my type of movie). Just making a critique of some of your claims.
Literally most of the time when I make arguments it’s for the sake of making a debate, rather than personal opinions. Your post didnt make a lot of sense for most of the post because it seemed to be based a lot more on opinions than facts, which I’ll point out below.
“Bank Goblins are literal 3rd Reich German Nazi propaganda about Jews (they even put a Star of David on the floor of the bank in the films to make it extra obvious). She might as well have just written (((Bankers))) and been done with it.”
I think that says something more about you equating bank goblins with jews than JK Rowling, when there was nothing in the movie or book about it. JK Rowling had no involvement in the movies beyond being a consultant who was asked if certain things could be cut from the movie without ruining the movie. She did not supervise the movies, and only had moderate review over the script as a consultant – mostly for simplifying the books into movie form, not for adding new stuff to it, which would have been the job of the producer. So if there was a Star of David in it, then that more likely means the producer (David Heyman) had antisemitic views, rather than JK Rowling. Which… I doubt was the case, since apparently David Heyman’s grandfather was jewish, although Heyman is not jewish since his jewish relatives are on his father’s side, and judaism passes through a matriarchal lineage. But somehow I don’t think someone for whom half of his family is jewish would be antisemitic. Moot point though since you were making the claim that JK Rowling was antisemitic based on this. If she is, this particular argument doesn’t seem to support your claim.
I think you’re reading into this and bringing your own stereotypes into it, because you dislike JK Rowling for her negative or criticizing views on trans activism – she’s apparently a trans-exclusionary radical feminist according to some stuff I read when doing a quick research on the JK Rowling controversy and has made quite a few tweets criticizing trans-activism or putting it in a negative light, although I haven’t read the tweets because I don’t use twitter. But that’s what I’ve gathered from some reading on it, mostly from this article:
https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
You should just stick to that argument instead (about her anti-trans criticisms), if you have to make an argument. Still not really sure what it has to do with the comic though, but it’s the stronger argument since there are direct claims you can tie to it that don’t rely on your subjective interpretation. Otherwise it seems like you’re trying to add strawmen arguments when you can instead stick to something a little more clear-cut – ie, that she has major problems with trans-activists and was very public about it on twitter apparently.
“House Elves are black-coded as the “happy slave”. (And both incredibly powerful and incredibly weak at the same time – which is a standard fascist thing for “the enemy”). They play this up in the films with facial features as well. Also the “House Elf” – “House Slave” name thing.”
Again, something you’re equating of ‘slave = black’ – not in the book or in the movie from everything I’ve seen when doing a quick review on this. If you automatically equate slave with black people, that says something about the person doing the equating, not about the author. It’s like saying that Anakin Skywalker is problematic because he was a slave. Or Boba Fett’s ship being a problem because it’s called ‘Slave-1’ (people forget that Boba Fett was originally a villain back in the original star wars, working for the Hutts, who were, among other things criminal, slavers, and he would catch bounties which included runaway slaves). If your mind automatically makes ‘slave’ mean ‘black person,’ that doesnt mean George Lucas has a problem, it means you probably shouldnt automatically equate ‘slave’ with ‘black’ as if they’re synonymous.
““Cho Chang” Seriously?”
I actually know several people named Chang – it’s in the top 100 most popular names in China (94 after a quick google search) and Cho is a popular Korean family name (I’m part Korean) – not sure if it’s also popular in China, but almost 2 percent of the entire population of Korea has the last name ‘Cho’ – which would be the family name since the last name is used first traditionally. I have no idea who Cho Chang is since I’ve never read the books, but I’m assuming that JK Rowling probably just made up the name by looking for popular surnames and first names for east asians, if the character was east asian.
“The only Irish character’s “joke” is that they randomly make explosions. Look up “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland for why that’s just nasty.”
I’m surprised that you did not instead mention that he turns water into alcohol as the stereotype. Which… okay that does seem like a stereotype of “Irish people are drunks” but again, I’ve never read the books, so I’m not sure of the backstory behind this. This might have some basis since, from what I’ve read, the British and Irish do not have a history of getting along particularly well. I think you mainly added it to try to bolster that JK Rowling is a bad person, as if you did not think the trans controversy was enough on its own to support your argument.
“Dumbledore is gay, honest. Even though I never even mention it in his own story (or anywhere outside of twitter)”.
I’m not sure how that makes her a homophobe. If anything it makes her ….. not a homophobe. Homophile? I know she’s been pro-gay rights, and pretty public about that. For years. Usually to the point where a lot of more religious types had a problem with her. Which seems odd for someone who’s a homophobe. It seems to be you conflating transphobia (assuming that she is a transphobe because she criticizes trans-activism) with homophobia.
“She wrote a whole book where the plot was that there’s a snake in the girl’s toilets and how that’s a bad thing.”
I’m lost on how that’s sexist. I’m pretty sure no matter what your sex is, a snake in a toilet is a bad thing.
“And then there’s her trans hate manifesto.”
Probably should stick to this argument, since it’s the only one you mentioned where there seems to be a lot of controversy and actual criticism about her. It’s the strongest part of your argument, and it’s the only part of your post which bases things more on things she actually said than your interpretation of things she said, or the ‘coincidence’ (according to her supporters, which does seem like a stretch on their part) of her pen name, although again her history in regard to the LGB part of LGBT seems to have been in support, not against.
So you’re going to ignore all the *actual German Nazi* and slave-owning American South steriotypes that she’s using because she only used the steriotype, and didn’t make it explicit?
Chinese name + Korean name + bad asian steriotypes.
Seriously, Google “The Troubles, Ireland”. She’s saying all Irish people are terrorist bombers.
She only says he’s gay in places where she doesn’t actually have to engage with it. It’s a “I have a gay character in my books” ie. “I have a gay friend” defence. Also, he’s (apparently) gay for her Hitler stand-in.
Have you never heard of the one-eyed trouser snake? And all the “keep trans women out of bathrooms” hate?
You’re seriously going to let her off on the gay torture pen-name?
—
No, I wouldn’t have noticed any of this if she hadn’t decided to die on the trans-hate hill. I’d have kept hating on her because she’s a crap writer with no originality.
But that’s how dogwhistles work. You don’t see them unless you know what they mean.
Illy:
It is funny how the people who respond positively to dog whistles will either never acknowledge their existence, or can’t seem to understand the concept. They accuse their enemies of coded language and conspiracies, and yet claim innocence of any faults they’re accused of, with little defense other than that they haven’t made a public display of them. All the evidence against them is just coincidence, and because they haven’t crossed some arbitrary hard line, it’s rude to accuse them of anything.
Torabi:
Yeah. Mostly when that happens I go through their reddit history and find that they’ve frequented some really nasty places, and then start the performative strength rhetoric.
They normally run away after that.
“So you’re going to ignore all the *actual German Nazi* and slave-owning American South steriotypes that she’s using because she only used the steriotype, and didn’t make it explicit?”
1) What ‘actual German Nazi stereotypes? The only thing I see if you reaching for stuff and making negative connections to different races and ethnicities out of your own inherent biases, not because of something actually done in her books. I’m willing to bet you never even brought any of this up BEFORE her anti-trans-activism stance. Because it didnt exist beforehand in your mind, and after she was shown to be someone you could freely libel without consequence for things OUTSIDE of the transgender issue, you went for it because you just want to strawman arguments instead of actually focus on a legitimate controversy.
2) The very idea that ‘she didnt make it explicit’ because she wasnt making a stereotype never even seems to occur to you.
“Chinese name + Korean name + bad asian steriotypes.”
Oh god, you’re one of these people who are going to be offended ON MY BEHALF. When I’m not offended. One of the most popular chinese names and one of the most popular korean names being used IS NOT AN ASIAN STEREOTYPE. No more than calling someone … I don’t know… Brad Johnson… is a caucasian stereotype. The only person making stereotypes here seems to be you.
Using popular names from different ethnicities and nationalities is not a stereotype, it’s using popular names because text is a descriptive medium.
If you want to be offended, that’s on you and your own biases about people.
“Seriously, Google “The Troubles, Ireland”. She’s saying all Irish people are terrorist bombers.”
I googled it. The Troubles was an ethno-nationalistic period of conflict in Northern Ireland that ACTUALLY HAPPENED from the 1960s to 1990s. It’s not a frigging dogwhistle. And while I have not read any JK Rowling books other than the first one, I don’t see ANYTHING where she has said all irish people are terrorists. Or any irish people in any sort of generalized way are terrorists.
Again, this is you making leaps based on your own biases. If you see someone who’s a banker, you automatically assume ‘it’s a jew’ – what sort of mindset do you have to have to make that automatic comparison? It’s like people who look at Orc in Tolkien and say ‘that’s black people and it’s racist to treat orcs negatively.’ Honestly, I’d say that it’s racist that you’d say orcs are black people instead. Especially when there ARE BLACK PEOPLE WHO ARE HUMANS IN THESE FANTASY NOVELS. It’s you, making some sort of inherently racist comparison based on your own thoughts, not on other people’s thoughts. And because you have these thoughts, you assume everyone else does too, because it might be too inconvenient to realize other people might not share your inherently racist viewpoints, so that they dont even make these connections in the first place.
If there’s a single irish person in a book, and that person is good at making explosives, that does not mean it’s a dogwhistle that all irish people are terrorists. No more then the idea that Lando Calrissian betrayed Han Solo to Darth Vader (and Lando is the only black person in the first Star Wars movie), somehow means that all black people are traitors? It’s a ridiculous comparison to make.
“She only says he’s gay in places where she doesn’t actually have to engage with it.”
Soooo you want her to have Dumbledore start engaging in homosexual sex acts written out specifically in the book? In the book that was primarily geared to children? Why? Why would you want to assume that all gay people are incapable of having any more character development than sex acts?
There’s a video game called The Last of Us. AMAZING GAME. There’s a character in that game called Bill. Bill is gay. Bill is also frigging awesome. It’s almost mentioned in passing about his sexual orientation. It didnt need to be made a focal point because the point of Bill is he’s a survivalist, not that he’s gay. He’s a survivalist that happens to be gay, not a gay person who’s also a survivalist. Because in that story, the survivalist element of his character is the main thing trying to be emphasized.
JK Rowling decided after the fact to say ‘oh by the way Dumbledore is gay.’ It doesn’t change the story, because Dumbledore doesnt suddenly change who he is simply because the author decided that he’s gay. If there were any future books written, maybe that would come up.
It certainly doesnt make her a homophobe though. If anything, she might be trying to hard to be LIKED by the gay community instead. That’s literally the opposite of being homophobic.
“Also, he’s (apparently) gay for her Hitler stand-in.”
Seriously where are you getting these comparisons from, other than from your own mind? I don’t know what it says about you more than what you want it to say about JK Rowling. Why do you not just stick to the one ACTUAL example of a controversy for her (transgenderism) instead of trying to pile on things which you have to attach words like ‘apparently’ to when making your attacks?
“Have you never heard of the one-eyed trouser snake?”
No, I definitely have not heard of the ‘one eyed trouser snake.’ Although I’m assuming it’s a sexual euphimism for a penis. Also not sure how that would be gay. Straight men also have sex organs.
“And all the “keep trans women out of bathrooms” hate?”
You’re going to strawmanning again, because most of my post was to actually tell you to FOCUS on the trans stuff, because you were instead making up a whole bunch of other stuff instead. It’s a poor debate strategy you’re engaging in.
“You’re seriously going to let her off on the gay torture pen-name?”
More strawmanning by you. Since I did not ‘let her off’ on that. I didnt bother to respond to it because I did not have a disagreement with you on it, except for that you focus on a bunch of OTHER stuff instead of that. If you were a better debater, you would have mainly focused on that, and it would be more difficult to argue against it because her defenses about it were very implausible.
“No, I wouldn’t have noticed any of this if she hadn’t decided to die on the trans-hate hill.”
Then that makes your arguments about everything OTHER than the trans stuff suspect. It makes it seem like you’re just strawmanning or bringing up false additional charges in order to make the one charge you actually have ‘more’ valid, instead of just relying on that charge. Bad prosecutors do that a lot also, when they charge a person for 20 different crimes, most of which have little or no actual substance, in order to make the person plea on the one or two that do have actual evidence against them. It often gets to the point of being prosecutorial misconduct, though, because they go beyond just using actual charges to making up stuff to fit the narrative they want to sell to the jury.
“I’d have kept hating on her because she’s a crap writer with no originality.”
I’m not actually a fan of JK Rowling. Never bought her books, only watched the first movie and found it was a ‘meh’ movie. Liked the Orlando amusement park ride though. But I don’t care about the books or movies. Mainly because it’s not my type of genre. But she’s obviously not a crap writer if she’s made over a billion dollars selling her books. That’s a rather significant success mark to have. And your view is a very curious demarcation of the term ‘crap writer.’ You don’t like her writing style. That’s fine. I don’t either. But I don’t because I find it boring or uninteresting.
But I can’t even assume you’re being honest about you thinking she was a crap writer before the anti-trans activism stuff, because you go so far out of your way to invent other things to attack her on instead of the one thing that would be persuasive.
Take Mel Gibson for example. He’s a pretty crappy human being. He’s antisemitic. Also, Braveheart and The Patriot were really good movies. The fact that I liked Braveheart or The Patriot, then found out he’s an antisemite years later didnt make me suddenly think the movies were retroactively bad. It made me decide to not WATCH his movies anymore in the future because I don’t want to support things that give him more money (a pretty common thing to decide for anyone who believes in the free market system), but my actual opinion of those movies had not changed, because it would be disingenuous.
“But that’s how dogwhistles work. You don’t see them unless you know what they mean.”
That’s also how people who have inherently racist biases try to make it look like other people have the same thoughts as them. You inherently seem to link ‘jews’ with ‘money’ and ‘irish’ with ‘terrorist’ and ‘slave’ with ‘black.’ You’ve made up stuff to support your comparison (especially about the slave and money stuff, which makes me concerned about your own biasses about black people and jewish people), and ignore other things which are inconvenient to your narrative (like the popularity of certain names in different nationalities and ethnicities). A lot of white people are named John. A lot of muslims are named Mohammed. A lot of Korean people are named Cho. This isnt inherently bigoted absent other linking stereotypes. It’s just statically accurate, and useful in writing. And if JK Rowling really is a poor writer as you content (I’m going to strongman your argument instead of strawman it), then maybe she falls into poor writing traps, because it’s easier to name an asian person Cho than write a paragraph describing their ethnicity. In fact, I’d say that’s more likely if she really is a crap writer who happened to get absurdly lucky on sales of her books.
“Yeah. Mostly when that happens I go through their reddit history and find that they’ve frequented some really nasty places,”
1) I’ve never used reddit. Or Tumblr. Or twitter. Or facebook (other than to play app games).
2) I’m probably higher up on the intersectional scale than you are. I just don’t let it define me.
3) It’s disturbing that you investigate people who disagree with you.
” and then start the performative strength rhetoric.”
No idea what ‘performative strength rhetoric’ is.
Torabi:
“It is funny how the people who respond positively to dog whistles”
Not ‘positively’ – just ‘critiquing the validity of an accusation or argument.’
“will either never acknowledge their existence, or can’t seem to understand the concept.”
It’s more the application of the accusation than understanding the concept.
“They accuse their enemies of coded language and conspiracies, and yet claim innocence of any faults they’re accused of, with little defense other than that they haven’t made a public display of them.”
Not sure if you’re referring to me or to Illy now, but it feels like you’re referring to Illy, despite Illy thinking you were referring to me.
“All the evidence against them is just coincidence, and because they haven’t crossed some arbitrary hard line, it’s rude to accuse them of anything.”
I think a person does need to cross an actual line in order to accuse them of being racist or homophobic or antisemitic. That’s because I’m an attorney, and this is how law works. And doing otherwise can be slander or libel.
The one thing that Illy said that had any merit to it was about JK Rowling being anti-trans activism. Because there’s actual evidence of it – ie, a line that was crossed, after which you can say ‘okay, this person has said something that I can argue is bigoted.’ There was nothing like that for antisemitism, homophobia, anti-asian, or any of the other myriad things Illy said, other than possibly… maybe… the irish thing (but not because of the explosive thing, instead because of something he didnt even MENTION – the water to alcohol thing).
And yes, it’s rude to accuse a person of being racist, antisemitic, homophobic, anti-asian, an islamophobe, etc, if you don’t actually have any proof other than your own personal conjecture based on rather large leaps of logic.
Language is meaningless, absent context. Knowing the background of a speaker helps you to understand what they’re saying, what connotations the words they’re saying carry. Dogwhistles are a way of communicating shared culture, by packing a lot of meaning into otherwise innocuous words. Their purpose is steganography, to hide a signal to a particular audience within a public message, in a way that it is difficult for a wider audience to recognize, or at least prove. Commonly, it’s a way for bigots to signal to other bigots that they share the same bigotry, while trying to hide their bigotry from the public.
I’ve determined that I have a hard time having a conversation with you because I operate almost entirely on abstractions, while you seem to operate almost entirely on concrete specifics. No, I wasn’t referring to either of you.
So, how do you think we should deal with people who know where that line is, and insist on standing right next to it? Your, and their, insistence is that as long as they don’t actually cross the line, they’re totally innocent. They use the letter of the law as a shield, behind which they violate the spirit with impunity.
And that’s the problem with specifics, particularly as they relate to behavior. People will make the most minimal modifications possible to their behavior to either receive an award, or avoid a punishment. Rules must be broad to be applicable to real situations, but also narrow to avoid ambiguity in interpretation.
“I’ve determined that I have a hard time having a conversation with you because I operate almost entirely on abstractions, while you seem to operate almost entirely on concrete specifics. ”
Well…. yeah. I operate on concrete specifics because I’m a lawyer and that’s how you make arguments. If you make arguments entirely on abstractions, that’s not a good argument – or at least not a persuasive one. I’ve never been particularly good at making arguments based on emotional manipulation, which is why I was never a defense attorney and why I didnt particularly enjoy when I was working in the DA’s office either (although the DA usually relied on facts more often than the defense attorneys did, at least when a jury was involved).
“So, how do you think we should deal with people who know where that line is, and insist on standing right next to it?”
If they don’t go over the line, then nothing. Yes. If you don’t cross the line, then you’re innocent. Or at the very least, you don’t get punished. Because if you don’t commit a crime, but make sure that what you do is still legal, you shouldnt get punished for NOT committing a crime.
If you don’t like where the line is, then work to change the line legislatively. Don’t just ignore that they didnt overstep the line. We have a first amendment for free speech, not to protect speech that does not offend us, but to protect speech that DOES offend us.
Actually, there is one thing you can do when confronted with someone going right up to the line without crossing it when it comes to speech. USE better arguments to counter theirs instead. Call them out on it, explain to the third parties who are watching both of you why, LOGICALLY, you are right and they are wrong. Do not just shut the other person up though. If for no other reason than that you should WANT to know who has opinions that might eventually make them cross the line.
To quote Inglorious Basterds:
Lt. Aldo Raine: “You see, we like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot ’em just like that. But you take off that uniform, ain’t no one ever gonna know you were a Nazi. And that don’t sit well with us.”
“They use the letter of the law as a shield,”
Moreso than the law being about punishing people, it’s supposed to be about PROTECTING people from an overbearing authoritarian rule, at least in the US. Our laws tend to be based on negative rights (protecting the government from removing our inherent rights), rather than positive rights (relying on the government to grant us rights that we otherwise do not deserve to have).
“behind which they violate the spirit with impunity.”
Except I think you don’t understand the spirit of the law involving freedom of speech either. The spirit of the law IS to allow for offensive speech. Even disgusting speech. The main limitations being stuff like defamation (libel and slander) or inciting immediate physical harm as a result (ie, yelling fire in a crowded theater… when there is NOT actually a fire in that theater). But you definitely have to protect the examples that skirt right up to the lines if you want to HAVE a line at all. That’s how you tell where the line is.
The letter of the law does match that spirit of the law.
To quote The People vs. Larry Flynt (based on the SCOTUS case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell):
Larry Flynt: That’s just the disguise for censorship. This country belongs to me just as much it belongs to you, if you don’t like Hustler Magazine, don’t read it.
Simon Leis: I don’t but what about our innocent children that gaze upon it in our grocery stores?
Larry Flynt: If a kid gets caught drinking beer in a tavern, we don’t ban Budweiser across the nation.”
And:
“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas, freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of an individualliberty but is essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole, in the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are none of the less protected by the first amendment.” – Alan Isaacman
And also, most importantly:
Larry Flynt: “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.”
“And that’s the problem with specifics, particularly as they relate to behavior. People will make the most minimal modifications possible to their behavior to either receive an award, or avoid a punishment.”
The alternative is have no line, and just have loosely flowing rules that change from day to day, person, with no one able to tell what is and is not legal. In other words, chaos and rampant abuse of whoever has the power. Totallitarianism unchecked.
“Rules must be broad to be applicable to real situations, but also narrow to avoid ambiguity in interpretation”
Almost sounds like you want there to be a line.:) Which means people by NECESSITY must be allowed to skirt right up against that line, as long as they don’t go over it.
Oh gods below!
Do you really not think dogwhistles are a real thing?
I can’t tell if you’re a you a useful idiot or a Nazi hiding their power level.
—
For the record, I would have been thrown in the Nazi concentration camps for everything except my skin colour. And the modern Nazi movement literally wants me dead.
—
There’s no point talking about any of this if you refuse to acknowledge dogwhistles.
So, for me to take you seriously at all, I need you to steelman my position by explaining to me what a dogwhistle is, and how people with unpopular opinions use them to signal to each other.
I’ve realized recently that I struggle to distinguish between people playing dumb, and people just being dumb. Though I suppose there wouldn’t be much point in playing dumb if most people could tell the difference, so maybe it’s not just me.
But I also feel like lots of people are always playing shadow games, in which everyone knows what’s going on, but also pretends not to. The first rule of these games seems to be to not admit to the underlying struggle, but to pretend that it’s all about something else.
It also doesn’t help that the modern Nazi movement actively gaslights everyone about their motives, intentions and so on.
The intentional and expected outcome of that is that everyone who knows what they’re doing acts *really* paranoid to everyone who doesn’t know what they’re doing.
Anyone who’s dealt with an abuser knows how this works.
—
I’ve stopped caring if people are useful idiots or playing dumb when it comes to politics. If they consistently cause bad outcomes, then I treat them as though they intended those outcomes.
It’s the only way for me to stay sane.
—
I’m not sure if there’s an Innuendo Studioes: The Alt-Right Playbook specifically about this. But it’s very much there.
“Oh gods below!”
Are you praying to Hades or something?
“Do you really not think dogwhistles are a real thing?”
Again, you’re strawmanning. Since I did not say that. Please try to argue against arguments that I actually make – not against arguments you wish I would make since they would be easier for you to argue against. In short, I don’t think you’re qualified to decide arbitrarily what are and are not dogwhistles. I think your reasoning is illogical and inconsistent, based on dislike of a person rather than anything they specifically did (with the exception of her anti-trans activism stance).
“I can’t tell if you’re a you a useful idiot or a Nazi hiding their power level.”
Do you call anyone who thinks you make poorly formed arguments a nazi? For the record, I’m not a nazi, and if we were speaking face to face, you would never have even made that sort of statement.
“For the record, I would have been thrown in the Nazi concentration camps for everything except my skin colour.”
Not from how you’re being very authoritarian with the accusations against anyone who dares challenge you. Or apparently tacking on crimes that you make up to supplement other existing things that you don’t like about a person’s speech.
“And the modern Nazi movement literally wants me dead.”
The idea that you think any neo-nazis are fans of JK Rowling is sort of amusing. Seriously you demonize people that you have any disagreement with to the point where they can’t just disagree with you, they have to be evil nazis/evil others. That’s sort of insane. Also sort of nazi-esque in attitude, ironically.
“There’s no point talking about any of this if you refuse to acknowledge dogwhistles.”
Again, dogwhistles exist. I think you’re incapable of recognizing what actually are dogwhistles though because of your inherent biases about anyone with whom you don’t like one thing. Hell, you just accused a mixed race person, not white on either side, half of who’s family is not from the US and got out of an authoritarian regime, AND who is jewish (told you I’m pretty high on the intersectional scale if you want to argue something nonsensical like that)… of being a nazi. :) Because I think your arguments are poorly formed. Yeah that’s sooo persuasive as an argument.
You’re about one step away from wanting to be called Dear Leader.
“So, for me to take you seriously at all, I need you to steelman my position by explaining to me what a dogwhistle is, and how people with unpopular opinions use them to signal to each other.”
Do you understand what steelmanning and strawmanning mean? Because… I have been steelmanning your argument in my other posts. Then tearing them down.
Steelmanning means to give your opponent the strongest possible argument based on what they’re saying, then attacking THAT argument to show the flaws in it. Which I did.
Strawmanning is what you’re doing instead – taking someone else’s argument, changing it to make it as weak as possible by adding or changing or leaving out elements of the argument, in order to make it easier to refute.
“and how people with unpopular opinions use them to signal to each other.”
In short, I do not think that you are good at recognizing dogwhistles in the first place, because every example you gave, except for the one about the pseudonym, was extremely poor. And you might notice the only argument you made that I did not bother to refute WAS the trans argument. Or maybe you didnt really read my post. Doesnt seem like you did at least from your response.
Torabi:
“I’ve realized recently that I struggle to distinguish between people playing dumb, and people just being dumb.”
I’m neither playing dumb or being dumb. I gave some very valid criticisms of Illy’s poorly formed arguments and dubious accusations, because he seems to like to strawman people in order to argue against those strawmen instead of against the actual people.
I’m pretty sure you realize from our past debates that I’m not dumb. And that I don’t pretend to be dumb either.
Illy:
“It also doesn’t help that the modern Nazi movement actively gaslights everyone about their motives, intentions and so on.”
Seriously, this thing with you of calling anyone who disagrees with your poorly formed arguments a nazi IS, in itself, VERY nazi-esque. It’s very much like what the actual nazis did to the jews to turn the Germans against them and use them as a scapegoat. You turn people who you don’t like into an evil other, make up lies about them, then attack them based on those lies (ie, you strawman).
“I’ve stopped caring if people are useful idiots or playing dumb when it comes to politics. If they consistently cause bad outcomes, then I treat them as though they intended those outcomes.”
Calling people idiots or assuming they’re playing dumb just because they’ve called out that your arguments don’t make sense, or are not persuasive, or lack any proof is not helping your case. It just makes it seem more like you have no actual logical arguments to make based on provable facts.
Also, JK Rowling isnt doing politics when she wrote her books. She might have been with the anti-trans tweets, but not her books. You are in interpreting her books through a political and biased lens, though.
“It’s the only way for me to stay sane.”
I’m not sure that it’s working. You’re coming off as a bit unhinged, to be honest. Especially with calling everyone nazis who disagree with your badly made arguments.
> If you don’t like where the line is, then work to change the line legislatively.
Sigh. You’re talking about the law? The law is not the final arbiter of what it right and wrong. If it were, then we wouldn’t let politicians change it.
I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about reality.
> Also, JK Rowling isnt doing politics when she wrote her books.
Yes she was. Everything is politics. You are doing politics by defending her right now.
> Hell, you just accused a mixed race person, not white on either side, half of who’s family is not from the US and got out of an authoritarian regime, AND who is jewish (told you I’m pretty high on the intersectional scale if you want to argue something nonsensical like that)… of being a nazi.
IDPol is dumb. There were Jews in Hitlers Nazi party. There are black Nazis today. You’re acting on the same side as the modern Nazis, so *I can’t tell* if you are one, because they lie about it all the fucking time!
> Illy’s […] because he
She, thanks.
> I think you’re incapable of recognizing what actually are dogwhistles though
So using a literal Hitler Germany steriotype about Jews for her race of bankers isn’t a dogwhistle?
See, it’s things like this that make me doubt your sincerity.
“Sigh. You’re talking about the law? The law is not the final arbiter of what it right and wrong. If it were, then we wouldn’t let politicians change it.”
Pretty sure it is. At least in a civilization. Which I’m assuming you live in since you’re on a computer right now. And we let politicians change it with a rather specific process that’s continually evolving because that’s also part of the rule of law.
“I’m not talking about the law. I’m talking about reality.”
So…. in your reality there’s no such thing as the concept of law? Explain please. Are you an anarchist or something? Sincere question actually – ie, like Michael Malice? Because you honestly seem a bit too authoritarian to be an anarchist.
“Yes she was. Everything is politics.”
That would be so depressing if it were true. Fortunately it’s not, and you’re wrong.
“You are doing politics by defending her right now.”
No, I’m critiquing YOU because your argument is poorly made. But I get it – you think you’re above correction by anyone, and anyone who dares to correct you is a nazi. Seems a bit childish as a debate strategy though.
“IDPol is dumb.”
If you mean intersectionalism, then congrats – we agree on something.
“There were Jews in Hitlers Nazi party.”
Pretty sure they didnt stay jews if they were Nazis. Bit of cognitive dissonance there, don’t you think?
“There are black Nazis today.”
Do you mean people who don’t agree with you about who is and is not a bigot? Because that’s really not the same thing. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a nazi is pretty much a 4 year old’s arguing method, and once you invoke Godwin’s Law, you’ve pretty much lost the debate.
“You’re acting on the same side as the modern Nazis,”
Er, no I’m not. You’re acting a little insane right now. Disagreeing with you on JK Rowling being an antisemite, a racist, and a homophobe based on your complete lack of logic in what you think is or is not a dogwhistle is not ‘acting on the same side as the modern Nazis.’ Seriously, do you actually think neo-nazis LIKE JK Rowling?
“So using a literal Hitler Germany steriotype about Jews for her race of bankers isn’t a dogwhistle?”
Seriously what are you talking about. Jews are not goblins, and it’s disturbing that YOU make that sort of connection. You’re reminding me of people who say that Tolkien’s orcs are like black people. If anything, you’re the being a bit racist and antisemitic yourself by making these connections.
“See, it’s things like this that make me doubt your sincerity.”
You really need to read my posts BEFORE responding. Maybe take a little time and think out how to respond to each part of it.
> Pretty sure it is.
So you think the holocaust was right, because it was legal at the time?
Or Slavery? That was legal at the time as well.
—
> Are you an anarchist or something?
Anarcho-Socialist. – ie. I want to make the world better for everyone.
Law is a social construct we made up to make the lives of everyone better. It has no purpose outside of that.
—
Nazi Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
Modern Black Nazi: https://preview.redd.it/06arhthhbunz.png?width=293&auto=webp&s=1f6848ee99beacbf5963d64484b092f7d6ee6291
—
No, IDPol is “I can’t be reacist because I’m Black!”
Intersectionality is an analytical framework for understanding how aspects of a person’s social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
—
> Seriously, do you actually think neo-nazis LIKE JK Rowling?
4chan seems to like her: https://preview.redd.it/nxkupdsbv3861.jpg?width=338&auto=webp&s=bd0fc8c8adcfd17f03bf253885d46854d94e81bb
—
> Seriously what are you talking about.
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Weimar_years,_1919%E2%80%9333
Strange that you’re trying to call me racist for pointing out other people using well-known racist caracatures.
—
You’re getting pretty sus here, since you continue to fail (or refuse) to understand how dogwhistles work.
Also, being a lawyer, you should already know that you *cannot* prove that someome intentionally used a dogwhistle – THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF DOGWHISTLES!
I’m honestly curious: Can you provide an example of a dogwhistle in use?
“> Pretty sure it is. So you think the holocaust was right, because it was legal at the time? Or Slavery? That was legal at the time as well.”
Seriously, what is wrong with you? There’s strawmen, then there’s … whatever you’re doing now.
No. The Holocaust was not right. Neither was slavery. And the law is what cemented that fact. The Holocaust was determined to be Crimes against Humanity. Slavery was abolished around most of the western world by the law as well. I’ve described how it was abolished VERY early on in Great Britain, and in the US, there was a series of amendments written to cement that slavery was not right and ran counter to the precepts of the tenets of the Constitution and the nation’s founding core beliefs.
So again, my point is made, despite your strawmanning attempts, which are becoming more and more disreputable.
“Anarcho-Socialist. – ie. I want to make the world better for everyone.”
Anarcho-socialism is pretty much an oxymoron, and requires quite a bit of cognitive dissonance when used on anything beyond a very small scale society. Why? Because it requires a very authoritarian set of rules and punishments for defying the social order, which goes against the entire concept of anarchy. Socialism is not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination beyond a hippie commune, because the larger a society gets, the more people will disagree and you won’t be able to come to a consensus. Which then requires authoritarian means to be implemented to force them to comply, forcible expulsion of those who don’t want to go along with what the ‘leaders’ have decided, or the society crumbles.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews”
I think you need to read the wikipedia articles you’re citing to see how that turned out.
“Strange that you’re trying to call me racist for pointing out other people using well-known racist caracatures.”
Hey, you’re the one imagining up these links between stuff like goblin bankers and jewish people, not me. It just seems to say something about your inherent mindset about name associations, and not something good.
“You’re getting pretty sus here, since you continue to fail (or refuse) to understand how dogwhistles work”
I literally gave you the definition of what it means, and gave you a rather lengthy series of posts showing why you were making wild leaps of logic and incorrectly calling them dogwhistles. Not my fault that you arent wanting to actually read my posts.
“Also, being a lawyer, you should already know that you *cannot* prove that someome intentionally used a dogwhistle – THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF DOGWHISTLES!”
So instead people should trust your judgment that you know what other people are saying when they’re talking about goblins who are bankers or using names that are very commonly used in asian countries, in order to determine what is or is not a dogwhistle. Based on what, your own inherent superiority of being able to tell what people are thinking? You’re going to have to come up with more convincing arguments if you want to be seen as credible.
Minor note to help you a little – ignoring people’s posts then calling people nazis if they critique you does not make your arguments more convincing. You made an argument. I took your argument apart in everything EXCEPT the anti-trans activism part, because that is actually a lot more substantial evidence-wise. And you kept trying to go off on tangents instead of focusing on my critiques. Then you implied I’m a nazi. You went from zero to Godwin’s law in one post.
So, you’re admitting that you’re wrong about there being Black Nazis today, wrong about there being Jewish Nazis in Hitlers Germany, wrong about modern Nazis not likeing JKR, wrong about IDPol and Intersectionality, and still refusing to acknowledge how the German Nazis portrayed Jews.
Cool Beans.
I also note that you’re also refusing to provide an example of a dogwhistle in use.
Pander:
If the law were the final arbiter of right and wrong, then we would never seek to change the law on the basis that it was wrong. Since we can, and often do, decide that a particular law is wrong, it is obviously not the final arbiter of right and wrong.
Law is a social fiction. It doesn’t really exist in a physical sense. You may be able to point at a piece of paper where words that purportedly represent the law are written down, but you’re still not pointing at the law itself. Law is more than words.
All actions that impinge upon the power relation between people are fundamentally political. That’s not quite everything… but it’s a pretty broad and inclusive set. Public performance of normative behavior reinforces the norm, and further discourages others from exceeding its boundaries.
“So, you’re admitting that you’re wrong about there being Black Nazis today,”
It must be great to claim things that never happened. Like me admitting to being wrong. Could you show where I said that?
“wrong about there being Jewish Nazis in Hitlers Germany,”
Again, you don’t bother reading your own links. And no, I’m not wrong.
“wrong about modern Nazis not likeing JKR,”
Psst, I hear that Hitler liked dogs. So if you like dogs, you’re just like Hitler. That’s basically the type of logic you’re using.
Not to mention modern Nazis are unlikely to like JK Rowling, who does stuff like makes Dumbledore gay retroactively. Because yknow how much nazis love that, right? Wait, no they don’t.
“wrong about IDPol and Intersectionality,”
Do I even need to bother posting? Because you seem to not be responding to anything I actually post.
“and still refusing to acknowledge how the German Nazis portrayed Jews.”
Seriously, do I need to bother posting? It’s not like you actually respond to what I actually write. You just seem to make up stuff. At least Torabi makes coherent arguments in response to things I actually post.
“Cool Beans.”
Your beans are not remotely cool.
“I also note that you’re also refusing to provide an example of a dogwhistle in use.”
1) You don’t bother responding to my post. Then you try to change the subject, while still not responding to my post.
2) You want a dogwhistle example? Sure. “This city is very…. urban, yknow?” That’s a dogwhistle. What you’re posting, on the other hand, is so vague that it requires olympic level contorting and psychic abilities.
Torabi:
“If the law were the final arbiter of right and wrong, then we would never seek to change the law on the basis that it was wrong.”
Since society is not static, neither can the law be static. Yes, the law is the final arbiter of right or wrong. If you don’t like that, then get the law changed. The alternative to the law being the arbiter of right or wrong is for there to either be no arbiter of right or wrong or to have yourself be the arbiter. And why would anyone other than yourself accept that? That’s the point of a republic. We base our society on a system of laws, not on majority rules (because of the problem of the tyranny of the minority), not on whims of popular opinion at the time (because of the threat of ideologues), and not based on a single person’s ‘infallible judgment.’
Since we can, and often do, decide that a particular law is wrong, it is obviously not the final arbiter of right and wrong.
“Law is a social fiction.”
No, law is a social AGREEMENT that survives the initial agreement, and that requires thought and debate to change it. Not a fiction.
“It doesn’t really exist in a physical sense.”
This is confusing to me. What does physicality have to do with the law? Liberty doesnt exist in a physical sense. Good doesnt exist in a physical sense. Evil doesnt exist in a physical sense. Fairness does not exist in a physical sense. Justice does not exist in a physical sense. Betrayal does not exist in a physical sense. But these things do still exist.
“You may be able to point at a piece of paper where words that purportedly represent the law are written down, but you’re still not pointing at the law itself.”
uh… actually yes I would be pointing to the law itself. That’s what the law is. Something that’s written down after discussion and debate, representing the agreement of a society on what is right and wrong.
“Law is more than words.”
If you mean the spirit of the law vs the wording of the law, then yes, that’s true. The Founding Fathers went over this in the Federalist Papers. But that doesnt mean the wording of the law is not an integral part of the law. Otherwise every case would turn out like Marbury vs Madison.
“All actions that impinge upon the power relation between people are fundamentally political.”
Do you think when you make rules for your children, that’s political? Or when the teacher makes rules for the students, that’s political? Or when you and your significant other make plans for a date on Tuesday, that’s political? When people argue about who would win in a fight between the Hulk and Superman, is that political? People who think everything (or almost everything) is political are just too focused on politics – it becomes tunnel vision where everything must be centered around politics. Philosophy is not just politics. In nature, there is no politics. For someone who has argued about how law doesnt actually exist, it’s a bit odd that you would argue that everything (or almost everything) is political.
Given the massive and comprehensive length of your replies, I think it’s reasonable to assume that if you stop contesting something, then you’re admitting that you were wrong about it (I am trying to keep my replys short, so the inverse is not true)
Also, note how I provided citations and examples, and you are just providing assertions.
—
> You want a dogwhistle example? Sure. “This city is very…. urban, yknow?” That’s a dogwhistle.
Explain who says that, and what the hidden meaning is. Because I don’t recognise that one. (Note how I’m not saying it isn’t one, just that I don’t recognise it)
—
> Yes, the law is the final arbiter of right or wrong.
And here is where I realise you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Have you heard of “Jury Nullification”?
You’re presenting as a legalist trying to argue philosophy. Which would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the consequences.
“Given the massive and comprehensive length of your replies, I think it’s reasonable to assume that if you stop contesting something, then you’re admitting that you were wrong about it (I am trying to keep my replys short, so the inverse is not true)”
1) I do massive lengths of my replies because I tend to like to explain my reasoning. If I don’t respond to everything, it’s sometimes because the thread has gotten pretty insanely long and confusing.
2) You keep your responses short by literally ignoring what you’re responding to. It helps you that your responses tend to be almost entirely in response to strawmen instead of the person who you are replying to.
“Also, note how I provided citations and examples, and you are just providing assertions.”
I actually found the website where you got ALL your arguments from. It’s a single website, and you then work your way backwards from that. I know it’s where you got your arguments because many of the statements are taken almost word for word (heyalma.com).
I also decided to do some research about ‘bank goblins.’ It was taken from a 19th century poem called ‘Goblin Market’ and the description of how the goblins looked came from JRR Tolkien’s description of goblins.
Since you decided to copy your arguments on why JK Rowling’s bank goblins is a nazi dogwhistle, I figure I should use I can use a different article to debunk it – a jewish web-based magazine- Moment Magazine (momentmag.com), founded by Elie Wiesel and Leonard Fein, the former of whom is a Holocaust survivor.
https://momentmag.com/debunking-the-harry-potter-anti-semitism-myth/
Unless you’re going to now tell me that a holocaust survivor who was in Auschwitz Concentration Camp AND Buchenwald as a teenager, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner who, for decades, spoke out against atrocities and genocide…. is a ‘jewish Nazi.’
“And here is where I realise you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Have you heard of “Jury Nullification”?”
Yes, I obviously know what jury nullification is, and it’s not an official part of criminal procedure. Instead, it’s the inevitable result of how jurors cannot be punished for not doing their civic duty (ie, acquitting someone despite their guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Because they can’t be punished for this, occasionally jurors will do this as a ‘screw you’ to the jurisprudence system. It’s not part of the law though. It’s done in SPITE of the law, and it happens VERY rarely. Essentially, it’s a violation of the oath that you take as a juror.
Maybe you’ve never been a juror or been part of a voir dire, but during voir dire, jurors take a solemn oath (or to affirm) that they will “well and truly try the matters in issue and a true verdict render according to the evidence and the law.” Jury Nullification violates this oath, but since jurors cannot be punished for violating this oath, on very rare occasions, they do.
This does not invalidate that the law is the arbiter of right and wrong in a society, unless you’re trying to argue that the arbiter of right and wrong is anarchy.
Please learn about the things that you’re going to argue. At least more than a 1 minute google search.
“You’re presenting as a legalist trying to argue philosophy.”
Why do you think law and philosophy are separate things? Law and philosophy are tied together.
Never been to that website in my life.
—
I also note that you’re refusing to explain the dogwhistle you provided.
—
If the law is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong, then the holocuast was right ***at the time*** since it was legal ***at the time***. Changes to the law after the fact are irrelevant, since we cannot see into the future.
—
Jury Nullification is the jurors saying “This law is wrong”. I know that you consider that profane, but we’ve already established that your view of right and wrong is loony.
Oh, and the law is an attempt to codify morals. Morals (what is right and wrong) define the law, not the other way around.
“Never been to that website in my life.”
Yeah, I don’t believe you. :)
“I also note that you’re refusing to explain the dogwhistle you provided.”
Bad enough that you don’t understand what steelmanning means. You also don’t seem to understand how the example I gave was an actual example of a dogwhistle, instead of your examples which are ‘any sort of tenuous connection I can think up.’
But fine, I’ll explain since you want to go off on more tangents.
Using the word ‘urban’ is a dogwhistle for black people – specifically african-americans. The tie-in being the idea that the majority of african americans live in major cities (ie, urban environments) in high crime areas. So urban became a type of ‘code word’ for black. Usually as a negative connotation by people who are trying to imply that black people tend to be involved in illegal activities.
“If the law is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong, then the holocuast was right ***at the time*** since it was legal ***at the time***.”
The Nuremburg Trials were held specifically to be an arbiter of how the Holocaust was wrong. They needed to have a trial to encode Crimes against Humanity, which otherwise would not have existed. Instead of just summarily executing the Nazi leadership that was captured at the end of the war and Germany’s surrender.
“Changes to the law after the fact are irrelevant, since we cannot see into the future.”
It hurts my brain when I see you make arguments like this. Changes to the law are OBVIOUSLY relevant. The entire basis of the law is based on precedents. Precedents necessarily change outcomes.
Look, I know you want to be able to think that YOU are the grand arbiter of all that’s right and wrong, but you are not a particularly intelligent person, and you are definitely not flawless. You are definitely not unbiased. You are definitely not fair-minded. You can’t even focus on one argument without going off on tangents, then tangents of tangents. You can’t seem to argue without creating stramen to argue against -something you have done in almost every single post you’ve made in this thread.
And if you think you are a better arbiter of right and wrong than written, evolving systems of laws are, then you are in fact the least qualified to be an arbiter of right and wrong, in fact. You never think you’re wrong. You never want to strengthen your opponents arguments to fight against those, because it’s too difficult for you. You lie about where you get your ideas. You lie about what other people say their ideas are. You call people nazis if they disagree with you. You engage in defematory language.
“Jury Nullification is the jurors saying “This law is wrong”.”
You’ve never been a member of a jury, I’m guessing. When you get picked for a jury, you take an oath. I even specified the oath. Jury Nullification is more than just saying ‘this law is wrong.’ It’s saying ‘I am a liar who cannot abide by the trust that has been placed in me to come to a conclusion based on facts and evidence.’ Fortunately, jury nullification RARELY happens.
“I know that you consider that profane”
I consider it a violation of the oath that jurors take when put on a jury. Because it IS a violation of the oath that jurors take when put on a jury.
“but we’ve already established that your view of right and wrong is loony.”
No, we’ve simply established that you don’t understand the difference between right and wrong, and you have an overblown belief in your own infallibility to the point where anyone who criticizes your poorly made arguments must be a nazi or nazi-adjacent, and you have an inability to stay on a topic without going off on tangents or trying to attack your critics without ever actually responding to the criticisms.
“Oh, and the law is an attempt to codify morals.”
That’s true to an extent. But not completely. A lot of things can be legal but not moral (ie, cheating on your spouse is no longer a crime but is still an immoral, jerk move), and a lot of things can be at least ARGUED to be moral but are illegal (ie, cheating on taxes for someone who believes that taxation is theft can be argued as moral, but is illegal). And funny enough, jury nullification can be another example of something that is arguably immoral but not illegal (you lied when you took the oath, but you won’t get arrested for it).
“Morals (what is right and wrong) define the law, not the other way around.”
Nope. It goes back and forth. Morals help to define the law, but the law also defines what is and is not moral for the culture.
In any case, this is getting tiresome, since in all this time, you have yet to actually ever respond to my INITIAL POST where I refuted most of your JK Rowling arguments, to the point that it’s now days later.
So it’s the reverse of the “suburban means white” one? ok, I can see that.
Would you agree that modern use of “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle?
—
Geez, you really don’t understand the problem.
Precedents are ***in the past***.
The Nuremburg trials ***hadn’t happened yet***.
Therefore before the Nuremburg trials happened, by your logic, the holocaust was legal, and therefore moral.
—
> law also defines what is and is not moral for the culture.
No, the law might *describe* what a culture thinks of as right and wrong, but it doesn’t define it. You even know this subconciously, otherwise you wouldn’t be objecting to the holocaust argument the way you are. You’d be saying “Yes, in Nazi Germany, pre-Nuremburg Trials, it *was* moral for the holocaust to happen, because that’s what the law in that time and place said”.
Pander:
I think we’re interpreting the phrase “final arbiter” very differently. Regardless, if you can decide on some basis that the law is wrong, and change that law, then I would think it clear that the law was not “final”, nor the last arbiter in the chain. If the law was truly the final arbiter, then nobody would ever be capable of suggesting that it was wrong. There is some other sociological process that determines the laws that are made.
I would say that the law is the first arbiter, rather than the last, but I can also see how you might consider it the “end result”, or in some way a “final product” of various other processes.
Nor does law address “right” and “wrong”, merely “legal” or “illegal”. The law is, as you say, a social agreement, not a moral judgment.
It’s… interesting how much you struggle with abstractions, how you try to narrow conversation down to a particular set of facts, a particular event or situation, rather than discuss concepts in the abstract, and yet here you are, recognizing a whole list of abstract concepts as “real”, or “existing”. I don’t know where to go from there, other than to recognize it out loud.
But I would say that while the wording of a law may be integral to it, it’s not the whole of the law. Law isn’t just a semantic game, and I’m not sure a law can ever really be fully known, as it changes as it passes through the courts and cases get decided. If you know all the facts of a case, but cannot predict the outcome, then can you truly say that you know the law? Ultimately, judges and juries make the law, even if legislatures are the ones who first put words to paper. If they don’t like the resulting law, then they write new ones, or alter the composition of the courts.
I would challenge you to provide a narrower definition of politics that excludes all these other actions that you claim aren’t political. Consider particularly other, narrower uses of the word, such as “office politics”. What does “politics” mean, in such a situation, other than actions taken to manipulate the power dynamic within a particular context? I suppose it depends on whether you interpret bare “politics” as relating to formal government or society. Government is that which governs, regardless of the names we give it. Society is informal government, which shapes and is shaped into formal government. They’re inseparable, and to ignore the informal aspect is to leave the formal aspect without explanation.
Warning, this gets very tangential, but this whole thread has been a non-stop tangent anyway.
“I think we’re interpreting the phrase “final arbiter” very differently.”
Yes, you think I’m talking in moral absolutes, but I’m talking about how systems of rules work. Even when the law is wrong and overruled, it tends to be overruled….by more law or different law as the society changes. ie, Law is still the final arbiter of right and wrong in the society.
“Regardless, if you can decide on some basis that the law is wrong, and change that law, then I would think it clear that the law was not “final”, nor the last arbiter in the chain.”
And how would you decide that some basis in the law is wrong? By using more law to overrule that former law. Ie, law is still the final arbiter in a society. The only real exception being anarchy.
”
If the law was truly the final arbiter, then nobody would ever be capable of suggesting that it was wrong.”
I don’t understand why you’d assume that. Laws can be overruled by other laws, or supplanted by other laws. It still makes law a final arbiter.
“There is some other sociological process that determines the laws that are made.”
Such as? Really, I’m curious on what other societal process you’re talking about. There are others, but even if they go into the concept of law, they don’t supplant the concept of law.
“I would say that the law is the first arbiter, rather than the last,”
I’d think law can’t be the first arbiter, because usually things start in a chaotic mess, at least in society, and then laws get built to build up the society, rather than the society being fully formed from the get-go. Usually people stumble on the need FOR a law first, and then make a law to fix that problem. There’s this really humorous video by Screen Rant’s Ryan George on it. It’s obviously silly, but has a smart underlying message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCHeb3wzDRo
“but I can also see how you might consider it the “end result”, or in some way a “final product” of various other processes.”
I probably should add something that might fix some confusion you’re having with my stance. Law is the final arbiter, but law is not static – it evolves…. with different law based on changing circumstances and an evolving society. In other words, the end point is always moving into the future, but as long as there’s a stable civilization, there will be law in some form as the arbiter of what is right and wrong for the society. Otherwise you will have anarchy, which is the absence of law. You SHOULD try to keep changing the law, because law can become authoritarian by its very nature, but it doesn’t change that law is a final arbiter.
‘It’s… interesting how much you struggle with abstractions, how you try to narrow conversation down to a particular set of facts, a particular event or situation, rather than discuss concepts in the abstract, and yet here you are, recognizing a whole list of abstract concepts as “real”, or “existing”. I don’t know where to go from there, other than to recognize it out loud.”
I really don’t think I struggle with abstractions at all.
” Law isn’t just a semantic game, and I’m not sure a law can ever really be fully known, as it changes as it passes through the courts and cases get decided.”
I agree there. That’s sort of my point. Every time the law changes, it doesnt change that the law is the final arbiter.
“Ultimately, judges and juries make the law, even if legislatures are the ones who first put words to paper.”
I completely and utterly disagree with you here. Judges and juries do not make the law. Judges and juries interpret the law as written. In modern times, people are becoming very ignorant of this fact though, which is NOT good for the American experiment, because it’s regressing the law to a middle ages mentality, out of the hands of the masses entirely. This is just basic constitutional structure in the US – the legislature makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law, the judicial branch interprets the law. If the judicial branch starts MAKING the law, which they’ve done a few times, I consider what they’re doing to be inherently unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of government powers.
“I would challenge you to provide a narrower definition of politics that excludes all these other actions that you claim aren’t political. ”
I don’t believe that all things ARE political. The inidividual is not political. The family is not political. The larger and more complex things are, the more likely politics will encroach on things though, which tends to stifle liberty of the individual. That’s why the whole deal with the Founding Fathers was so ingenious. They based the idea of government on negative rights instead of positive rights.
Negative rights = You have certain rights, just be virtue of existing. No government or political situation GIVES you these rights. They can only try to take them away from you, so long as you have these rights NOT at the expense of someone else’s inalienable rights as well.
Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. Freedom to speak you mind. Freedom to assemble. Freedom to learn. Freedom to travel. Etc. Government doesnt GRANT you these rights. They only can try to take them away from you by force.
Positive rights = You have no rights naturally. The only rights you have are whatever rights the government allows you to have. The government is essentially a deity in this respect.
I do not consider the government a deity. I consider the government to be a necessary evil in order to protect our inalienable rights from being taken by others. And I consider politics to just be a check on how to maintain that government. Putting politics into everything means you believe that the country should be based on positive rights, not negative rights.
Btw, that’s also how I feel about law. Laws are put in place to protect your rights, not in order to allow you to do things that you’re not NATURALLY allowed to do (with a basis of the non-aggression principle – not hurting other people to help yourself – ie, I can swing my fists around as much as I want, as long as my fists don’t hit your face). It’s the final arbiter AGAINST government and politics, and the more government and politics tries to expand into every facet of society, where it does not belong, the less free we are.
> Yes, you think I’m talking in moral absolutes, but I’m talking about how systems of rules work.
So you’re saying your whole thing about the law was a completely irrelevant tangent?
Pander:
I’m thinking we’ve probably reached a point of meaningless semantic debate, where we disagree more on the meaning of words than anything else. But here goes.
But it is the society that overrules the law, even if they use the law as the mechanism to do so. The society is the higher authority, the later, if not final, arbiter. Law makes no decisions, and thus cannot arbitrate. It is a mechanism by which a society agrees on and enforces a set of rules.
You may use the law to declare that the law is wrong, but that is probably not the mechanism you would use to decide that the law was wrong. People would use some other moral framework to determine that the law needed to be changed, and that framework would be the arbiter, not the law.
A “final arbiter” would be an entity that could not be overruled, that had the highest authority. That we can question and overrule the law means that it is not the final arbiter. If it were the final arbiter, all moral questions would end in “if it is legal, then it is moral, and if it is illegal, then it is immoral”, and law would be self-validating and there would be no moral basis for challenging it. That we can say that a particular law is immoral means we do not consider it the final arbiter of moral questions.
What would you call common law, case law, or legal precedent? I suppose the greater question is “What is law?” Is it words on a page, or is it consequences? Does it matter what the words are, if a particular action results in legal punishment? Is the law that which happens, or that which should happen, according to words on a page? Is the law the actions of the executive or the courts? If there are laws that are not enforced, are they really laws?
Illy:
No offense Illy, but I’m not going to respond to you much. Your methods of arguing are childish and disingenuous, and if I’m going to spend 15 minutes typing up a response, I’d rather it be to someone like Torabi who actually reads my posts even if they don’t agree with them before responding. And also doesnt make up stuff. I consider most of what I wrote to you to have been a waste of time because you don’t even bother reading it or are unwilling to read it before you post responses which ignore almost everything I write.
PS – the whole thread is tangential mostly because of you being incapable of responding to my first response directly.
Torabi:
“I’m thinking we’ve probably reached a point of meaningless semantic debate, where we disagree more on the meaning of words than anything else. But here goes.”
Oh Torabi, we got to that point a LONG time ago. :)
“But it is the society that overrules the law, even if they use the law as the mechanism to do so.”
Just to be clear, you have mentioned that you don’t think I get ‘abstractions.’ But why are you not looking at the law itself in the abstract? Then I think you’d have to agree that the law is a final arbiter, if you stop thinking that it’s some sort of static and unchanging thing. Which it clearly is not – especially in the minds of the Founding Fathers.
“The society is the higher authority, the later, if not final, arbiter.”
Society is subject to the law. Think of it like the old quote by Mark Twain (originally by Voltaire): “God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.”
Society NEEDED to create law in order to BE a society instead of just a conglomeration of individuals. The larger the society, the more necessary laws were in order to preserve those individual rights which people did not need to protect from others taking them away when there was no society.
“But it is the society that overrules the law, even if they use the law as the mechanism to do so.”
Without law, there won’t be society for very long. Anarchy is not something that can ever be permanent if you want civilization. It’s always a transitory period between civilizations instead, historically.
“Law makes no decisions, and thus cannot arbitrate.”
Clearly you’ve never been before a judge or a magistrate. Or been in binding arbitration. :)
“It is a mechanism by which a society agrees on and enforces a set of rules.”
And if you don’t have that mechanism, society can’t do much of anything and tends to fall apart or succumb to a ‘might makes right’ mentality instead. Which even then, if I wanted to be cynical, I’d describe as ‘the law of the jungle.’
“Law makes no decisions, and thus cannot arbitrate.”
I think you’re the one being overly semantic now, and not understanding abstractions. Which is odd since you felt I was being that way before. :)
“It is a mechanism by which a society agrees on and enforces a set of rules.”
Sooo… not sure why you arent agreeing that law is the final arbiter of rules. Society literally sets up the law as the final arbiter of rules. You’re supporting what I’ve been saying.
“You may use the law to declare that the law is wrong, but that is probably not the mechanism you would use to decide that the law was wrong.”
I’m reading this and not sure why you’re not agreeing with me now, since you’re supporting exactly what I said. Law is the final arbiter, even when it comes to correcting prior law. Even if I steelman your argument and agree that law is a mechanism, it just means that mechanism is the final arbiter of right and wrong in a society.
“People would use some other moral framework to determine that the law needed to be changed, and that framework would be the arbiter, not the law.”
Law isnt always about or in sync with morality. A lot of things that are immoral is still legal, and a lot of things that one might argue are moral,especially when argued in a more abstract way, are nevertheless illegal. Vigilanteism is illegal, although some vigilantes might say what they’re doing is morally good. Same for stuff like euthanasia, cheating on taxes, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, etc. At the same time, cheating on your spouse is very immoral, but no longer illegal. And morality also depends on the dogma that you use – for a fundamental muslim or christian, being homosexual would be considered immoral. However, if they’re going to live in this country, they will NEED to accept that it’s legal, even if they want to be stubborn about the morality, just because someone else’s freedom to love who they want may conflict with their moral framework.
“A “final arbiter” would be an entity that could not be overruled,”
That’s incorrect. Let’s say you were religious, and believed in God. And you’d say God was the final arbiter. Because… yknow… GOD. Then you read the story of Abraham in Genesis 18.22-23. Where God is going to destroy EVERYONE in Zoar, and Abraham basically gets God to spare the city. He basically ARGUES God down from ‘I’m going to destroy the entire city’ to ‘I’m going to destroy the city unless there’s 50 righteous men in it’ then ‘I’m going to destroy the city if there’s 45 righteous men in it’. Then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10. Then I’m going to destroy the city unless you can find ONE righteous man in it. And Abraham manages to argue this….. GODS LAW… because he brings up that God’s law is also to not to ‘put the righteous to death from the wicked’ because that would be in defiance of God’s law. And Abraham found Lot, who was ‘righteous’ so God spared the entire city of Zoar. Even after Lot LEFT Zoar anyway. Sooooo God’s law itself was stopped by God’s law. Law is the arbiter of law, as well as of everything else.
Sorry to get all biblical but someone argued that to me last year and the story stuck in my head. :)
“That we can say that a particular law is immoral means we do not consider it the final arbiter of moral questions.”
Then I dare you to not pay your taxes, under the morality-based argument that taxation is theft, and therefore immoral. :) it doesnt matter if it’s immoral as much as we think it’s illegal. And even if we think something is illegal, it doesn’t mean we won’t get punished for it. It mean we’re willing to get punished in order to point out that the law is unjust, and the law needs to FIX that problem and overrule itself with another law or at least another interpretation OF that law to say ‘what we interpreted last time was wrong, but this time is the correct interpretation.’
“What would you call common law, case law, or legal precedent?”
Commonlaw is different than case law and legal precedent (the latter two of which are pretty much the same thing).
“I suppose the greater question is “What is law?” Is it words on a page, or is it consequences?”
It’s both. For a law to have any meaning, there have to be consequences for violating that law IF THAT LAW IS BEING ENFORCED.
“Does it matter what the words are, if a particular action results in legal punishment?”
Yes, it very much matters what the words are. Because otherwise you’re going to be interpreting it different every single time. It should instead require logic and deep thought before you change an interpretation of the law. That’s why lawyers argue before judges – to change their mind to side with their argument of how the law should be interpreted in respect to… whatever they happen to be arguing over.
“Is the law that which happens, or that which should happen, according to words on a page?”
This sentence sounds very deep but I have no idea what you’re meaning.
“Is the law the actions of the executive or the courts?”
It’s both. At least in the US. The executive enforces the law, and the courts interpret the wording of the law. You need both. Also you need the legisltature to make the law in the first place.
“If there are laws that are not enforced, are they really laws?”
Pretty much no. If they are not enforced, they’re not really laws yet.. That’s why there are so many silly laws on the books which never get removed. Because no one bothers to enforce them. Because if they were to try to enforce them, they’d be interpreted as unconstitutional or meaningless and be overruled.
So…. if you really want to get pedantic, the final arbiter of the law can sometimes be laziness. :D
> And also doesnt make up stuff.
Haven’t made up a single thing. You dust don’t like that I’m bringing up things you don’t like.
> Law isnt always about or in sync with morality.
Then how is “The law the final arbiter of what is right and wrong”? Judgments of right and wrong are entirely about morality.
You’ve just contradicted everything else you’ve said about law in this one statement.
Pander:
The problem with imprecise definitions is that it leads to… psychological bridging. I stumbled upon an actual term for this once, but I can’t remember it. But when you perform logical manipulation on semantic constructs, you can arrive at contradictions, because language and concepts have different pathways. Homophones aren’t interchangeable. “Abstract” is not the same as “vague” or “ambiguous”.
If you define the law as simultaneously just the words on the page, but also as the actions of the state, and also as the organizations that implement it, you’re going to arrive at contradictions when they don’t correlate. Yes, we call all those things “The Law” in casual speech, but if you really want to get into the technicalities, you need to be able to distinguish between them.
I’m defining “law” as a passive mechanism, a set of agreements, a means of predicting the actions of both other people and the state. Words are written attempting to describe it, but the law is not the words. In a democracy, the law is an imprecise implementation of the will of the people. The law is the actions of the state, regardless of whether it contradicts the words on the page. I’m saying that the law is the interpretation, not the words. A law written but unenforced is not a law, while a law enforced but unwritten is still law. The state arbitrates, and may use the law in the process, but that does not make the law itself an arbiter.
I’ve attempted to define a concept of “final arbiter” by way of example, but can only guess at your definition. As far as I can determine, it’s almost the complete opposite of my understanding. You seem to be thinking of the process by which abstract concepts make their way into real action, with the law being the final step in that process. I think of an arbiter as being in a hierarchy, with people appealing to a higher or later tier if they disagree with the conclusion of one arbiter. In my understanding, for example, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the law, whereas any other court would be a lower or earlier arbiter of the law. Eventually, people may appeal to the legislature to change the law, making the legislature a higher arbiter than the courts. But it is the society that ultimately decides what should and should not be law.
In the process of building a society, law is the final step. In the process of adjudicating social disputes, law is one of the first and lowest steps.
Right, but what are those things? I was asking you to define or categorize them. I’m saying that they’re the actual law, and that they’re created by society and the courts. The legislature writes prescriptive, statutory law, that says what the law should be, but it’s not actual law until it’s interpreted and enforced.
In general, what I’m saying is this: If you were to examine human history twice, once by reading the written laws, and again, by observing the actions of the state, I think you’d get two different ideas of what the law was at any given time. And for the people living through it, what’s written is small consolation for what they actually go through. It doesn’t matter what high ideals a society pretends to follow, it matters what they actually do.
“I’m defining “law” as a passive mechanism, a set of agreements, a means of predicting the actions of both other people and the state. Words are written attempting to describe it, but the law is not the words.”
I define law the way I learned it in both my philosophy classes as well as in law school.
A system of rules which a particular society recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
“I’ve attempted to define a concept of “final arbiter” by way of example, but can only guess at your definition.”
I define final arbiter as the person or system which settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter. Since…. that’s the definition of arbiter.
“In the process of building a society, law is the final step. In the process of adjudicating social disputes, law is one of the first and lowest steps.”
Correct. Law is both the first and last step in creating a civilization.
“If you were to examine human history twice, once by reading the written laws, and again, by observing the actions of the state, I think you’d get two different ideas of what the law was at any given time.”
You’re… sort of proving my point that law is the final arbiter of right or wrong. Whether people follow the law doesnt change what the final arbiter is. Not to mention it’s a lot harder to defy laws than it is to defy individual and subjective morality, since that can change from day to day and person to person rather quickly. People are fickle and easily swayed. The law is slower to change, but does change. It just requires more introspection because there are systems in place most of the time to slow down people’s fickleness. Which is, btw, why a republic is better than a straight democracy or a monarchy for long term stability of a civilization . :)
“Commonlaw is different than case law and legal precedent (the latter two of which are pretty much the same thing).
Right, but what are those things? I was asking you to define or categorize them.”
Commonlaw = law that is derived from custom
Case law = law that is published judicial opinions.
Both common law and case law can have precedents, but case law is of primary importance because it’s less malleable based on interpretation. When something is written down, it’s somewhat more difficult to change than when it’s just law based on custom.
Hope that helps with the definitions.
“If you were to examine human history twice, once by reading the written laws, and again, by observing the actions of the state, I think you’d get two different ideas of what the law was at any given time.”
The actions of the state are not always law. The state can trample the law just as an individual can.
Never assume that the state is the law. Especially when a society doesnt fight back against it. It’s why the US Constitution is written in such a way to imply what the majority of the Founding Fathers felt about a new government- which is ‘we do not trust government, it’s a necessary evil to even have it, but we have to have one.’
Side note and a bit of a tangent, but still related – The Patriot was a pretty good movie, but one line was particularly good. When Benjamin Martin said ‘Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?’ It’s very representative of the inherent distrust the American colonists had about government in general, and the only reason some even preferred the monarchy was the king was so far away. The compromise was to make government limited in power and scope, and to make sure the population was well-armed if the government was going to be right among them, so they would think twice before becoming an authoritarian regime. That’s why in any dictatorship formation, the FIRST thing the dictator does is remove weaponry from the population.
“It doesn’t matter what high ideals a society pretends to follow, it matters what they actually do.”
I agree with this. However that, again, is the point of why the law is a good thing compared to mere ideals. Law is more concrete and, while changeable over time, are slower to change and require arguments and struggle, whereas ideals are easily changed.
You’re going to get cofused again about which thread you’re responding to…
> A system of rules which a particular society recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
So *nothing at all* to do with morals then?
And completely dependent upon the society you’re talking about?
I’m so glad your teachers disagree with your insistence on assigning morals to the law.
—
Two questions you haven’t answered yet:
Is “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle?
Is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo right according to your “final arbiter of right and wrong”?
Who?
What?
Why?
And even if you were able to show evidence for all of those potentially libellous claims, what does that have to do with whether or not DaveB used the same symbol?
It’s not libel if its true.
You stating it does not make it true.
Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, but you need to be able to show it’s true. If you have to claim it’s a dogwhistle and use arguable, inconsistent leaps of logic, then that does not satisfy the affirmative defense of ‘truth.’
In short, your opinion is not automatically ‘truth.’
Is it truth, or proof, that is required? Something can be true, and widely believed to be true, while also being difficult to prove.
Something can also be widely believed to be true, while being false.
For me to take you (Pander) seriously at all, I need you to steelman my position by explaining to me what a dogwhistle is, and how people with unpopular opinions use them to signal to each other while maintaining plausible deniability.
Torabi:
“Is it truth, or proof, that is required?”
There is not an ASSUMPTION of something being true. You have to be able to prove it’s true. Which requires more than your mere say-so.
“Something can be true, and widely believed to be true, while also being difficult to prove.”
If you can’t prove it’s true, good luck on using it as an affirmative defense because it won’t work then as a defense.
Illy:
“For me to take you (Pander) seriously at all, I need you to steelman my position by explaining to me what a dogwhistle is,”
1) I don’t think you understand what Steelmanning means.
2) Dogwhistle, at least the urban dictionary slang definition of it, means “Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is “in the know” will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.” My steelmanned argument, which I’ve literally already written in a VERY longform manner, is that your ability to detect ‘code words’ is weak, and inherently biased based on your dislike for a person, instead of anything she actually said. I went POINT BY POINT through way in my above post, which I guess you havent bothered to read?
“and how people with unpopular opinions use them to signal to each other while maintaining plausible deniability.”
You really don’t understand what steelmanning means at all :/ I can literally accept your definition of what dogwhistling is defined as…. then tell you that your application of is poorly formed. I ACTUALLY DID THAT IN MY INITIAL POST. And you seem to be contintuously ignoring it because you, on the other hand, create strawman arguments instead.
> I can literally accept your definition of what dogwhistling is defined as
Interesting.
Because I never provided a definition of dogwhistling.
In the real world, we often have to deal with things that we suspect are true or false, but cannot prove. We often have to rely on a bias of evidence that suggests one state is more likely than another, while allowing that we could be wrong.
Some problems demand to be addressed in a timely fashion, because there are real consequences for the people involved if they’re not. We can’t always wait for perfection, for proof. We have to move forwards, with the knowledge we have available, and hope we’re making the right choices.
“Interesting. Because I never provided a definition of dogwhistling.”
*rubs temples* You just asked ME to steelman the definition of dogwhistling. So I did, using the commonly accepted slang term for it, which you WERE using.
What is wrong with you? :)
“In the real world, we often have to deal with things that we suspect are true or false, but cannot prove.”
If you can’t prove it, then it’s a bit hubristic to do what Illy is doing with the accusations.
“We often have to rely on a bias of evidence that suggests one state is more likely than another, while allowing that we could be wrong.”
Or, like Illy is doing, one can just call your opponent a nazi, or say ‘they can’t take them seriously’ while ignoring any posts countering them, and think they won the argument.
“Some problems demand to be addressed in a timely fashion, because there are real consequences for the people involved if they’re not.”
Pretty sure Harry Potter has been in book form since 1997. How timely are we talking? Also who is involved?
“We can’t always wait for perfection, for proof.”
Um… before one starts throwing out defamatory accusations, yeah you sort of should have more proof than ‘I think she means this evil thing because I don’t like her after she said something else I don’t like on twitter that has nothing to do with this.’
“We have to move forwards, with the knowledge we have available, and hope we’re making the right choices.”
No, not really. It’s not a very acceptable thing to do when you (not you specifically, I’m more referring to Illy) start throwing out accusations of bigotry and being a nazi to anyone who you counters poorly made strawman arguments based on no actual proof. This is NOT a good method of arguing. Plus it’s kinda a d*@k move in general.
> What is wrong with you?
Nothing. Just pointing out that you either don’t have a clue what I’ve said, or are deliberately misrepresenting me.
—
> Or, like Illy is doing, one can just call your opponent a nazi
I never called you a Nazi.
I said you’re either being a useful idiot for Modern Nazis, *OR* that you’re a Nazi trying to be subtle. (Notice the OR statement there)
You’re the one denying how the German Nazi Party depicted the Jews in their propaganda, after all.
—
> If you can’t prove it, then it’s a bit hubristic to do what Illy is doing with the accusations.
Can you prove that statement?
“Nothing. Just pointing out that you either don’t have a clue what I’ve said, or are deliberately misrepresenting me.”
I’ve literally quoted what you said, sentence by sentence, and critiqued or took apart the arguments which were based on your random leaps of logic rather than evidence when you’re calling someone antisemitic, racist, homophobic, etc. That’s why I keep quoting you before responding – so it isnt ‘misrepresenting’ you.
“I never called you a Nazi.
I said you’re either being a useful idiot for Modern Nazis, *OR* that you’re a Nazi trying to be subtle. (Notice the OR statement there)”
Illy: I never called you a nazi.
Also Illy, very next sentence: You’re either a stupid tool of the nazis, or you’re a nazi.
“You’re the one denying how the German Nazi Party depicted the Jews in their propaganda, after all.”
Where the hell did you get that from?
“> If you can’t prove it, then it’s a bit hubristic to do what Illy is doing with the accusations.
Can you prove that statement?”
Prove that you’re being hubristic? Pretty sure this entire thread of posts shows that you have this insanely high opinion of yourself where you’re above critique, even when your arguments and logic-links are poorly thought out. :)
> You’re either a stupid tool of the nazis, or you’re a nazi.
See how that leaves you an option to not be a Nazi?
—
> Where the hell did you get that from?
Stop pretending to be ignorant.
—
> Prove that you’re being hubristic?
No, prove that your statement is true.
> your arguments and logic-links are poorly thought out.
There’s a difference between “poorly thought out” and “I didn’t think I needed to explain the absolute basics because a pedantic legalist would write multiple book-length posts because they don’t like what I’m pointing out and then refuse to understand what I’m saying”.
“See how that leaves you an option to not be a Nazi?”
According to you, the only way to ‘not be a nazi or a tool of the nazis’ is to agree with your poorly thought out arguments.
And then you wonder why I think you’re hubristic.
“Stop pretending to be ignorant.”
Could you actually answer my question? Where did you get that from?
“No, prove that your statement is true.”
Perhaps you can tell me which statement of mine you’re wanting me to prove is true. Since my posts have been about disproving and refuging YOUR statements.
“There’s a difference between “poorly thought out” and “I didn’t think I needed to explain the absolute basics because a pedantic legalist would write multiple book-length posts because they don’t like what I’m pointing out and then refuse to understand what I’m saying”.”
You know a good way to avoid that? Actually make coherent arguments that don’t involve massive leaps of logic, followed by strawmen arguments, followed by changing the topic 12 times without ever answering a post directly. :)
I think I’ve stayed on topic pretty well. Feel free to provide quoted examples otherwise.
I don’t think it’s a massive leap to say “JKR uses all these dogwhistles, and is explicitly known to be hateful in one way. Hate is intersectional, so it’s highly likely that she’s hateful in the other ways that she’s dogwhistling”.
Everything else has been you playing dumb about the specific dogwhistles she’s using, or claiming that the law is always correct on moral issues.
“I think I’ve stayed on topic pretty well. Feel free to provide quoted examples otherwise.”
In almost every post I’ve made, you tend to ignore about 95% of my post, especially when it’s refuted something you’ve said. For example, you went totally silent on how I showed a Jewish online magazine with articles debunking what you said about JK Rowling and ‘banking goblins.’ The magazine having been made by a nobel prize-winning holocaust survivor. Then you doubled down by claiming the insulting and stupid statement that you think I’m saying the Holocaust was somehow right. After I’ve said not once, not twice, but 4 times, that it was obviously NOT right, and the law shows that it’s not right. You ignore the Nuremburg trials. You try to cut off law as an arbiter at any point most convenient to you, even when it isnt the FINAL arbiter point.
Your posts are disingenuous and libelous, and it feels like this is the only way you’re capable of arguing anything.
“I don’t think it’s a massive leap to say “JKR uses all these dogwhistles, and is explicitly known to be hateful in one way. ”
Well that’s where you’re wrong. Almost every leap you made WAS a massive leap, with the exception of the anti-trans activism.
“Hate is intersectional, so it’s highly likely that she’s hateful in the other ways that she’s dogwhistling”.”
Frankly I think you’ve been pretty hateful in order to ignore every instance that your posts have been debunked.
“Everything else has been you playing dumb about the specific dogwhistles ”
I havent played dumb – I’ve just stated that what you consider dogwhistles are not dogwhistles, and your arguments about them being dogwhistles are full of holes and poorly thought out.
“claiming that the law is always correct on moral issues.”
And you also seem to keep strawmanning because you’re incapable of having a rational argument. Because I never said ‘the law is always correct on moral issues.’ I said in most elements of culture, the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong. I think you have poor reading comprehension, and you ignore when given opposing arguments. I’m not sure if it’s disingenuousness or intelligence, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on intelligence. So I think you’re being disingenuous and lying, especially after I found the article where you’ve gotten ALL your information, most of which has been debunked.
> In almost every post I’ve made, you tend to ignore about 95% of my post,
Because most of what you post is not actually engaging in what I’m saying.
> The magazine having been made by a nobel prize-winning holocaust survivor.
This is just more IDPol. Also, Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize, and was one of the more warmongery American Presidents. It doesn’t mean much.
> Then you doubled down by claiming the insulting and stupid statement that you think I’m saying the Holocaust was somehow right.
> the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong.
That statement, plus the true fact that the holocaust was legal at the time, logically leads to the conclusion that the holocuast was the right thing to do at the time.
Why do you keep running away from the logical conclusion of your beliefs?
> Well that’s where you’re wrong. Almost every leap you made WAS a massive leap, with the exception of the anti-trans activism.
You really can’t accept that there are dogwhistles that you don’t instantly understand, can you?
Do you acknowledge that “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle?
What about “1488” as a Nazi dogwhistle?
Or that the “OK” hand sign can be used as a Nazi dogwhistle?
“Because most of what you post is not actually engaging in what I’m saying.”
Yes it is, and you’d know that if you bothered to read it.
” Also, Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize, and was one of the more warmongery American Presidents.”
I notice you ignored the ‘jewish holocaust survivor who has spent decades fighting antisemitism’ part, which is the reason for his Nobel peace prize. A bit more than IDPol.
“That statement, plus the true fact that the holocaust was legal at the time, logically leads to the conclusion that the holocuast was the right thing to do at the time.”
The Nuremberg trials happened you realize, right? Why bother having legal trials to show that the Holocaust was wrong if the law was not the only thing that could really cement that fact? Again, you’re ignorant and your entire argument is about ignoring stuff.
“You really can’t accept that there are dogwhistles that you don’t instantly understand, can you?”
I don’t accept that YOU are the one to tell people what other people are thinking, because you seem unhinged based on you not liking one aspect of a person, so you want EVERY aspect of that person to be evil in order to strawman. You want to make up evidence that doesnt exist based on your imagination because you’re incapable of just arguing based on existing real evidence instead.
“What about “1488” as a Nazi dogwhistle?”
Where does JK Rowling use 1488?
“Or that the “OK” hand sign can be used as a Nazi dogwhistle?”
I literally answered this last post. The OK hand sign has never been a dogwhistle. It was a 4chan joke made by trolls to intentionally try to get stupid people to see something innocuous as white supremacy. And it works because of people like you being very gullible. Nazis do not use the OK Symbol as a dogwhistle. They also do not use milk as a dogwhistle. 4Chan uses it to laugh at you being gullible.
Also stop making tangents. You’ve already lost this argument and it’s now gone on a week past this strip being over.
You’re mostly either going “lalala I can’t hear the dogwhistle” or going of on a tangent about how the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong, except when you dfon’t like the law.
> The Nuremberg trials happened you realize, right?
So you’re ok with me quoting law from 2255 to show that you’re wrong then?
—
You’re refusing to admit that 1488 is a Nazi dogwhistle again?
And refusing to acknowledge how Nazis using something *makes* it a dogwhistle, regardless of it’s origins. (See hindu use of the Swastika for details)
—
I’m starting to think that you really are a Nizi, since you seem incapable of acknowledging the terrible things they’re doing.
Also, I will note that you are responding to me across three different threads, which makes this conversation much harder to follow.
Nice tactic for stopping anyone else from understanding how stupid you’re being.
Also, on searching for the actual author of that article, this is the only person I could find: https://ballotpedia.org/Stephen_Richer
Just going to point out that they’re a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, who is part of the party organisation.
So them saying Nazi dogwhistles aren’t can be filed under “water is wet”
I will also note that you are refusing to accept that “The Happy Merchant” is a Nazi dogwhistle.
Illy:
“You’re mostly either going “lalala I can’t hear the dogwhistle” or going of on a tangent about how the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong, except when you don’t like the law.”
No, I’m just explaining how the basic philosophy of ‘law’ works, since you don’t seem to understand it, or at best have a very childlike understanding of it.
“So you’re ok with me quoting law from 2255 to show that you’re wrong then?”
I’m using an actual legal proceeding that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Fact. You’re trying to talk fiction. When your argument relies on having to have time travel in order to make your arguments true, it means you have a terrible argument. Since you can’t show me something that you think will happen in 2255. It has even less to do with reality than most of your claims of dogwhistles of JK Rowling’s books.
“You’re refusing to admit that 1488 is a Nazi dogwhistle again?”
I… literally said it is a dogwhistle. You seriously don’t read. And then I said it has nothing to do with this thread since JK Rowling has never used 1488 in her books. The entire thing of you saying anything about 1488 is itself a tangent of a tangent.
“And refusing to acknowledge how Nazis using something *makes* it a dogwhistle, regardless of it’s origins. (See hindu use of the Swastika for details)”
Except the nazis actually intended to use the symbol. White Supremacists are not using the OK symbol or milk as white supremacy dogwhistles. It’s only people like you who claim they are, because you fell for a 4chan trolling joke, which they even stated outright the intent of when they were making the joke…. and you are too ignorant to realize it because you would rather double down on the dumb than admit you’re wrong.
“Also, I will note that you are responding to me across three different threads, which makes this conversation much harder to follow.”
Not my fault you can’t be succinct and not go off on tangents because your initial arguments are lacking any sort of fact.
“I’m starting to think that you really are a Nizi, since you seem incapable of acknowledging the terrible things they’re doing.”
I think you’re an evil person for even saying that. You’re mentality is disgusting and pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but probably are not because I don’t think you have any actual sense of morality or professionalism, except to use it as a tool to try to attack other people to make yourself feel morally superior when actually you’re morally void.
Normally, I don’t have hard feelings to people I argue with because a person can be wrong and not be a bad person. Even when calling me names because they can’t argue coherently and just fall into ad hominem attacks instead. I don’t get mad at Oberon when he kept claiming I wasn’t an attorney until I actually showed my office degrees. I don’t get mad at Torabi, who has common courtesy in his/her arguments, even if they’re wrong about their conclusions. I don’t think they’re bad people – I think they’re good people who are on the other side of an argument or debate.
You, however, are a bad person.
That being said, have a nice day in your delusional worldscape because I won’t be responding to any more of your inane ramblings against someone who just stated that your claims of a writer are mostly very uncovincing because your arguments, for lack of a better word, suck.
> I’m using an actual legal proceeding that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
They hadn’t happened when the holocaust was happening. When the holocaust happened, the nurenberg trials were fiction.
> White Supremacists are not using the OK symbol or milk as white supremacy dogwhistles.
Points at all the examples of them doing just that.
> I… literally said it is a dogwhistle
In a different thread. Now you’re getting confused by your own tactic.
How about we stick to the bottom thread from now on. Then it won’t be as confusing for you.
[i] So if it is true, you’ll be able to cite evidence, then? Admissible evidence, I mean, not a chain of conjecture designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.
[ii] Still no attempt to show how it’s relevant to DaveB using a particular symbol. Which I don’t agree that he actually did, as noted below, but that’s irrelevant to this particular question.
As I said elsewhere, you can never prove a dogwhistle was used intentionally.
That’s one of the key reasons people use them.
Clearly we must all rely on Illy to tell us what is and is not a ‘dogwhistle’ rather than in her imagination. She is obviously far smarter and can make those distinctions that we lowly peons cannot. It definitely can’t be all in her mind, because she wants to strawman someone to pile on attacks instead of just focusing on the attack where there’s actual evidence.
This is sarcasm btw. :) Just wanted to make that clear because I’m not sure you’d pick that up. ;)
Sigh.
Go watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBJIkp7qIg
The directly relevent bit is about halfway.
And you should go watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJyN41f93QQ
The directly relevant bit is about minute 3:00 onward.
While you’re at it, probably give this one a gander too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4TEtalsISY
Particularly around 4:30 onward. And especially after minute 6:00.
> The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a right-wing libertarian economic think-tank
> They were revealed in 1950 by the Congressional Buchanan Commission on illegal lobbying as nothing but a front group for business
So an pack of AnCaps is your best reference?
No wonder you’re failing so hard here.
“> The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a right-wing libertarian economic think-tank”
Oh god, they’re libertarians. Definitely summarily dismiss them without listening to the video!
My what a paragon of learning you are.
Btw, Out of Frame, which is hosted by F.E.E. Is 2 years old, not from the 1950s.
“So an pack of AnCaps is your best reference?”
The fact that you think Libertarians and AnCaps are the same thing says something pretty bad about you.
“No wonder you’re failing so hard here.”
And yet I’m able to listen to opinions other tham my own, while you bury your head in the sand.
I guess there’s no further point in responding to you since you’re too close-minded to even listen to anything other than stuff in your echo chamber.
“> They were revealed in 1950 by the Congressional Buchanan Commission on illegal lobbying as nothing but a front group for business”
> The fact that you think Libertarians and AnCaps are the same thing says something pretty bad about you.
Libertarianism (as it is used today, and certainly how it is used to describe FEE) is a political and social philosophy that advocates laissez-faire capitalism as a panacea for virtually everything.
That reads like AnCap to me. Unless you want to make the distinction that AnCaps remove the “virtually” from that?
Both of them lead us inexorably back to Feudalism.
—
Fun fact: Right-wing media is really repetative with its arguments. So I don’t need to engage in mental self-harm by watching it. Looking at who made it, and reading the title is almost always going to be enough to let me know what they’re going to say.
If The Lord of the Rings Is Racist, So Are Its Critics: This is just going to be using the “Anti-racism is racist” argument.
The Anti-Authoritarian Politics of Harry Potter: Thay’re Libertarians. They don’t understand authoritarianism. That would be like expecting the Republican Party to understand consent (I’m referenceing their preference for allowing spousal rape here, but it does apply generally).
—
And before you go off on how watching a right-wing video is mental self-harm:
The Right uses many of the arguments of the alt-right (Read: Nazis) in their messaging. They just water it down and make it more palatteable to normies.
The alt-right (Read: Nazis) use all the same techniques as abusive partners do to keep people in their circles.
I am currently recovering from an abusive relationship, so I ***REALLY*** don’t want to watch videos with a high chance of using those same tactics.
—
Pretty sure I have you pegged here, but I’m curious: What political party did you vote for in the last major election?
I’m just reading your post and seeing how ignorant you are from a lifetime of sticking to echo chambers and not challenging your own opinions in order to strengthen them. Every single thing you wrote there was incorrect, and there’s no point in having a conversation with you since you’re extremely disingenuous with your assumptions, rather than spend a few minutes even listening to what is actually said in the videos, after you post links to other videos that you wanted people to watch.
I don’t believe your excuses, just that you are very gung ho on never listening to both sides of a debate. I don’t see how watching the two videos I posted has anything to do with an abusive relationship, except that you seem to be transferring being abusive by being abusive to other people.
Have a great day though, if you can. I doubt it though, unfortunately.
> Every single thing you wrote there was incorrect
You seem to have switched from winding diatribe to thought terminating cliche. Are you starting to feel that the winding diatribes aren’t working on me as well as you hoped?
> both sides of a debate.
Fun fact: Left vs Right isn’t a “Is teal blue or green” debate. It’s an “Is the earth flat” debate. Just because there are two sides doesn’t mean that they are both worthy of respect.
It’s kinda ironic that “The Right” has been wrong on pretty much every social issue ever, by definition. I will never understand why people choose a political ideology that forces them to support causes that were lost 50 years before they were born, but it does explain why they’re so angry all the time.
> rather than spend a few minutes even listening to what is actually said in the videos
Like I said, I don’t need to watch them to know they’re garbage propaganda. Right-wing media tends to be really repetative. And also tends to be easily shown to be lying.
It’s also generally using abuse tactics to create a disorganised attachement to them.
—
I think you just don’t like having your politics shown to be trash.
“You seem to have switched from winding diatribe to thought terminating cliche. Are you starting to feel that the winding diatribes aren’t working on me as well as you hoped?”
No, I just think you’re living in an echo chamber and enjoy being ignorant, and there’s no real point in trying to discuss something with you since you’re unwilling to read anyway.
“Fun fact: Left vs Right isn’t a “Is teal blue or green” debate. It’s an “Is the earth flat” debate. Just because there are two sides doesn’t mean that they are both worthy of respect.”
What you just said here was meaningless.
“It’s kinda ironic that “The Right” has been wrong on pretty much every social issue ever, by definition.”
What you just said here was meaningless and your unsubstantiated opinion. Most likely because you live in an echo chamber and never listen to other people’s arguments anyway. It’s probably why your own arguments are so poorly done – because you never challenge them.
“Like I said, I don’t need to watch them to know they’re garbage propaganda.”
Like I said, you argue based on ignorance. So there’s no point in arguing with you.
“It’s also generally using abuse tactics to create a disorganised attachement to them.”
Another meaningless sentence.
“I think you just don’t like having your politics shown to be trash.”
Ended with an ad hominem attack since you don’t know how to debate properly. I just don’t see the point in posting any more in response to you after this post. It would be like arguing to a wall. The wall doesn’t care what’s being said because the wall can’t hear what’s being said. Bye.;)
> meaningless
I think I’ve figured out part of your problem. You think this discussion has to adhere to the rules of a court – It doesn’t. Or you’re trying to make it adhere to those rules because you think it helps your arguments.
> and your unsubstantiated opinion.
If that’s the case then you’d have included a counterexample to prove it.
> you live in an echo chamber and never listen to other people’s arguments
That’s hilarious coming from a “libertarian”. Do you think Trump won the election as well?
—
At least you’ve finally admitted that you’ve been talking bullshit with your “The law is the final arbiter of right and wrong” thing all this time though.
Maybe we can finally get back to the original point, which is that JKR has used a lot of bigoted dogwhistles in her books.
“I think I’ve figured out part of your problem.”
That you’re still continuing the thread.
“Or you’re trying to make it adhere to those rules because you think it helps your arguments.”
Your debating style is a little more like the Jerry Springer show
“That’s hilarious coming from a “libertarian”. Do you think Trump won the election as well?”
And now she’s going off on yet another tangent.
“At least you’ve finally admitted that you’ve been talking bullshit with your “The law is the final arbiter of right and wrong” thing all this time though.”
And now she’s making up stuff again.
“Maybe we can finally get back to the original point, which is that JKR has used a lot of bigoted dogwhistles in her books.”
See my first post where I go step by step on why your arguments on this are weak or nonsensical.
> Law isnt always about or in sync with morality.
> The law is the final arbiter of right and wrong
These two statements (both from you) are directly contradictory.
—
> See my first post
Your first post is you taking a lot of text to stick your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala I can’t hear you”.
Which given your politics, isn’t really a surprise.
—
Do you acknowledge that “The Happy Merchant” is an antisemetic dogwhistle?
What about “1488” as a Nazi dogwhistle?
Or that the “OK” hand sign can be used as a Nazi dogwhistle?
—
What about the old lie that slaves were happy being slaves? (“Singing from dawn til dusk”)
Or the whole “both weak and powerful” thing that gets emphasised with racist’s obsession with cuck porn?
—
Or that the only representation of Irish she uses is a terrorist reference?
Or that she apparently thinks all asian cultures are the same?
Or that she uses really bad steriotypes for the German and French schools?
Or that her only representation of Scotland is grouse moors accessed from London?
—
Or her massive tendency towards tokenism? (Key example: “Dumbledor is gay”)
—
And here’s a new one I realised last night:
The house of clever people allies with the house of evil people.
—
And then we get onto the anti-trans stuff:
Penis stand-in in girls bathroom bad.
Pen-name is the father of modern “conversion therapy” (Read: torturing gay people).
Crime series with trans stand-in villians.
Trans-hate manifesto where she flip-flops between being a TERF and a trans-medicalist.
“> Law isnt always about or in sync with morality.
> The law is the final arbiter of right and wrong
These two statements (both from you) are directly contradictory.”
They are not contradictory. Law is not static, and yet it is still the final arbiter of right and wrong for civilization. You would not understand this, since you have a very amateurish understanding of how law works, and you’re too stubborn to learn anything outside of your extremely limited knowledge base of conspiracies and echo chambers.
“Your first post is you taking a lot of text to stick your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala I can’t hear you”.”
No it’s because I answered this in my first post and there’s no point in writing it again since you don’t read them.
“Which given your politics, isn’t really a surprise.”
Ad hominem attack, plus you don’t know my politics. I argue based on how law works, not politics.
“What about “1488” as a Nazi dogwhistle?”
JK Rowling never used 1488 in Harry Potter.
“Or that the “OK” hand sign can be used as a Nazi dogwhistle?”
The OK hand sign was a joke created by 4chan trolls to try to get gullible people like you to think it was about white supremacy, because they wanted to see how dumb people could be with the slightest push.
Congratulations, you’ve exceeded their wildest hopes.
“Or the whole “both weak and powerful” thing that gets emphasised with racist’s obsession with cuck porn?”
I’d really prefer to not learn anything about your sex life. I’m here to discuss law on a comic forum about superheroes.
“Or that she apparently thinks all asian cultures are the same?”
It’s a name. A combination of two exceedingly popular names among two major east asian nations. But I already explained this in my first post. Read it.
“(Key example: “Dumbledor is gay”)”
Doesnt sound like a homophobe then.
“The house of clever people allies with the house of evil people.”
You really like stretching things. People in Gryffindor and Ravenclaw have clever people in them as well. And if I recall, Snape was from Slytherin and wasnt evil.
“And then we get onto the anti-trans stuff:”
Literally the one thing I did not critique in your post. Everything else you said was based on terribly thought out attempts at arguments.
Now go read my first post.
> I argue based on how law works
Like I said, this isn’t a courtroom. You trying to make it one shows how limited you are.
> Law is not static, and yet it is still the final arbiter of right and wrong for civilization.
So the holocaust was right at the time then. Otherwise I can use examples of the law from 2250 to show how you’re evil and wrong?
You can’t have it both ways.
> in my first post
Like I said, your first post is you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to hear the dogwhistles.
> you don’t know my politics
You’ve made it pretty clear. And it’s not like you have good politics.
> JK Rowling never used 1488 in Harry Potter.
Never said she did. Stop strawmanning me. Will you admit that it’s a Nazi dogwhistle?
> The OK hand sign was a joke created by 4chan trolls
“It’s just a joke” is an abuser’s defence. And doesn’t matter anyway.
If a sign is used by Nazis to signal each other, it doesn’t matter about its origins.
Or is the Swastika not a Nazi symbol because it was created as a Hindu symbol of peace?
> I’d really prefer to not learn anything about your sex life.
I never brought up my sex life.
You seem to be unable to differentiate between me pointing out behaviour used by other people, and talking about my own behaviour.
Do you have any understanding of theory of mind at all?
> A combination of two exceedingly popular names among two [VERY DIFFERENT] major east asian nations.
Fixed that for you. Seems like she thinks they’re the same to me.
> Doesnt sound like a homophobe then.
Ahh yes, because people never do tokenism with things they hate.
You really aren’t engaging in good faith here, are you?
> Snape was from Slytherin and wasnt evil.
Thought you said you hadn’t read past the first book? Snape is most certainly evil in the first book.
Looks like I’ve caught you in another lie.
—
Just admit that you’re wrong, it won’t hurt that much.
“So the holocaust was right at the time then. Otherwise I can use examples of the law from 2250 to show how you’re evil and wrong?”
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
And yes, if in 2250 they decide the Holocaust was right, then wow, you sure got me.
That’s not going to happen btw. You’re nuts.
“ike I said, your first post is you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to hear the dogwhistles.”
No, my first post step by step dismantled your really poorly made arguments.
“You’ve made it pretty clear. And it’s not like you have good politics.”
No wonder you jump to conclusions. You think you’re a mindreader. :)
“Never said she did. Stop strawmanning me. Will you admit that it’s a Nazi dogwhistle?”
Not only do you not know what steelmanning is, you don’t understand what strawmanning is either.
And yes, 1488 is a white supremacist dogwhistle. Which JK Rowling never used. So you’re making a tangent because your main argument is flawed.
““It’s just a joke” is an abuser’s defence.”
When I say ‘it’s a joke’ I literally mean they made it in order to see if they can trick dumb people… like you… into thinking white supremacists used it. White supremacists do not use it. You think it, because 4Chan put it out there as a joke to see how gullible a fool people like you are. They underestimated how ignorant you are, or how willing you would be to pretend something that doesnt exist in order to have another thing to fight against because your life is actually so soft and easy. :)
“If a sign is used by Nazis to signal each other, it doesn’t matter about its origins.”
Except it’s not used by nazis. It’s never been used by nazis. It’s only used by people who claim that nazis use it, because 4Chan thought it would be funny to put the rumor out there in case people like you would be dumb enough to fall for it. And you did.
“I never brought up my sex life.”
Yeah… that was a joke. Which you seem to not have realized.
“Ahh yes, because people never do tokenism with things they hate.”
You would have been great during the Salem Witch Trials. If she leaves it as is, you can complain that she did not have any gay people in her story. If she claims that Dumbledore was gay, but the story was not about his sexual preferences, you claim tokenism, and that somehow that makes her a homophobe. Your logic makes NO sense.
“Thought you said you hadn’t read past the first book? Snape is most certainly evil in the first book.”
Oh god you are really bad at debating. I said I read some of the first book and saw the movie, which was based on the book In the movie, Snape was clearly not evil. Not to mention I can know stuff ABOUT books without actually reading them, especially when those books are part of popular culture because it makes it into the cultural zeitgheist. I havent seen My Hero Academia but I know the general gist. I havent watched the last jedi but I know exactly what happens in it.
“Looks like I’ve caught you in another lie.”
You really love arguing with yourself since you can’t seem to argue with anyone else halfway competently.
“Just admit that you’re wrong, it won’t hurt that much.”
Unfortunately, you’d have to actually show that I am wrong. My entire argument is that your arguments are poorly made and not convincing at all. That your entire reasoning for adding things beyond anti-trans is because you’re trying to strawman JK Rowling, because for some reason, you don’t think anti-trans is enough – you have to also try to make her a homophobe, antisemite, and a bigot against multiple ethnicities to falsely bolster your claim. Showing I’m wrong would mean you having to make competent arguments that are more than just your personal wild leaps of logic, which you seem to be incapable of doing.
> Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Cool, so the law in 2250 makes it very clear that you’re talking bullshit.
See how relying on laws that haven’t been passed yet is dumb? Nuremburg hadn’t happened yet.
I’ll try a different example of the same problem:
Is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo right according to your “final arbiter of right and wrong”?
> You think you’re a mindreader.
Don’t have to be, given everything you’ve said so far. You’ve made your views pretty clear.
> And yes, 1488 is a white supremacist dogwhistle. Which JK Rowling never used.
Do you understand how the question (and how long you took to answer it) informs everyone about your worldview?
> So you’re making a tangent
Two things here:
1) You started with the tangents by bringing up “the law”. Other than responding to that I’ve stayed on topic.
2) You can’t seem to tell the difference between a tangent and a dig.
> [Crap about ok sign]
Nazis using the ok hand sign:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/24.ProudBoys.USSC.WDC.6January2021_%2850810570546%29.jpg/800px-24.ProudBoys.USSC.WDC.6January2021_%2850810570546%29.jpg
https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2019/09/OKay-hand-sign-e1569500082126.jpg
https://i.insider.com/5a4580e1b0bcd51c198b73f2?width=700
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/NINTCHDBPICT000476317797.jpg?w=620
Plus a whole heap of Trump, but that feels a bit obvious.
> Yeah… that was a joke. Which you seem to not have realized.
Are you aware of the term “Schrodinger’s Douchebag”?
And this is the second time you’ve made this “joke” about two different subjects now. I don’t think you were intending it to be a joke.
> You would have been great during the Salem Witch Trials.
No, the preponderance of evidence shows that she’s a homophobe.
> I said I read some of the first book and saw the movie
Yeah, Snape is evil until at least book two.
So I either caught you in a lie, or you think Snape’s behaviour in the first book is accptable.
Can you *try* to stay consistant please?
> Showing I’m wrong would mean you having to make competent arguments
You still seem to be operating under the misconception that this is a courtroom.
I have provided examples of everything I’ve said. (And there’s actually even more that people have pointed out to me since then, like her playing off reminding a woman of being raped as a lighthearted joke)
—
So far we’ve established that you don’t understand basic logical reasoning, theory of mind, or hypothetical situations.
I really hope someone you care about pulls you out of this hole before you go shoot up a mosque or something.
“And yes, if in 2250 they decide the Holocaust was right, then wow, you sure got me.”
Probably should elaborate here. when I say ‘they’ I mean ‘they who make, interpret, and enforce the law.’ It won’t happen though. Want to know why? Because it’s settled, it’s entrenched in global law and pretty much a universally accepted constant that SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE IS WRONG (duh). The reason for the Nuremburg Trials was to cement this fact, because at the time, there were no laws which actually covered something like that for an outside nation to say about a sovereign nation. So they created Crimes against Humanity in order to affirm that, yes, genocide was wrong. They needed to make it a globally accepted law because the Allies wanted the execution of the nazi high command to have legitimacy among the nations of the world. In order to have legitimacy, they needed to show what rules were broken. In order to show what rules were broken, they came up with those rules via the trial, to show that the nazis violated the most basic of human natural rights in such an egregious way that it needed to be stated and written out. So that everyone could agree that what the Nazis did was legally wrong, not just morally wrong. It’s one of those rare cases in history that they had to make a trial and write out something so explicit, because otherwise people at the time literally did argue that it would fall under sovereign rules of a nation, like what you’re doing.
I’ve got a big post awaiting moderation because I included a few links to Nazis making ok signs for you.
> sovereign rules of a nation, like what you’re doing.
You keep making this mistake.
*You* are the one arguing that the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong, not me.
I’m just pointing out the logical consequences of that, to show why it’s dumb.
Pander:
So… What you’re saying is that at the time of the Holocaust, it wasn’t legally wrong? And it was declared legally wrong after the fact, by a court?
> pretty much a universally accepted constant that SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE IS WRONG
Tell that to the Uigurs and Palistinians today.
Torabi:
Just to be clear you realize that Illy has turned this into a tangent of a tangent of a tangent argument because her initial argument was really poorly done and she isnt able to give better reasoning, right?
“So… What you’re saying is that at the time of the Holocaust, it wasn’t legally wrong? And it was declared legally wrong after the fact, by a court?”
I’m saying it was always morally wrong. Because genocide is morally wrong. But even according to Churchill, if we had acted based on the existing LEGAL rules of war at the time, they would not have been able to do anything legally to the Nazis after the war had ended and peace had been declared. That was the purpose of the Nuremberg Trials. To cement a new type of law for behavior which was universally reviled, which became known as Crimes against Humanity, which established that all humanity would be guarded by an international legal shield, and that even a head of state could be held criminally responsible and punished for aggression and crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace.
I’m not making this up. Just google Nuremberg trials to see how it created the very concept of war crimes. Before WW2, there was no such thing as ‘war crimes’ in any legal sense. Once you declared peace, that was that, based on whatever the peace treaties stated as the responsibilities of both parties.
The fact that the Allies had the Nuremberg Trials in the first place was because they wanted a final, international arbiter to show that what the Nazis did – in particular the Holocaust, was wrong and punishable even after the war had ended.
“And it was declared legally wrong after the fact, by a court?”
Yes. It was called the Nuremberg Trials, and the court was the International Military Tribunal of 1945. Harry Truman appointed Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson as the chief prosecutor representing the United States on behalf of the Allies, based on an agreement called the London Charter, which set the procedures to be used in creating the Nuremberg Trials. The presiding judge was Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence of Great Britain, and it was the first court and trial of its kind in history, which made documents like the 1943 Declaration of Atrocities legally viable. The court convened in the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany, in which 24 Nazi government officials and organizations were indicted.
It also defined what Crimes against Humanity SPECIFICALLY WAS – “The murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.”
In addition to the individual defendants, the organizations that were tried were the Gestapo, the S.S., the Reich Cabinet, the leadership corps of the Nazi Party, the Stormtroopers (S.A.), the Security Service (S.D), and the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces.
Illy:
You’ll really do anything to not defend your original post’s poor arguments huh.
What I’m going to say next is based purely on legal definitions btw.
“Tell that to the Uigurs and Palestinians today.”
What’s happening to the Uighurs actually does fall under Crimes against Humanity – in fact it’s the direct legal definition of Crimes against Humanity.
The Palestineans are a different story, legally speaking,since it’s an ongoing war where Israel is in a defensive status instead of offensive (the Palestinean orgnaizations and governments have it in their constitutional charters as being formed to put every jewish man, woman, and child in the sea). Israel’s ability to defend itself against outside aggression does not meet the definition of Crimes against Humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Trials. Although Hamas, Fatah, the PFLP, the PLO, and Islamic Jihad could be argued to be guilty when they bomb or had bombed and specifically targeted civilian targets, or carried out strikes from civilian territories to use civilians as human shields, as Crimes against Peace and general war crimes.
Also, even if the Chinese are engaging in an attempted genocide (the Israelis are not engaging in systematic extermination), it does not mean that genocide is not universally accepted as being wrong. Not sure why you’re trying to argue that genocide isnt universally accepted as wrong. Plus this has been accepted by international standards as LEGALLY wrong (as well as morally wrong).
“*You* are the one arguing that the law is the final arbiter of right and wrong, not me.”
Uh… yes. Because it is.
“I’m just pointing out the logical consequences of that, to show why it’s dumb.”
The logical consequence is that when something is declared legally wrong, it’s easier to define than morally wrong, because it’s able to be more consistently applied. Not perfect, as we can see with the Chinese getting away with what they’re doing to the Uighurs, but it’s still a final arbiter that what they are doing is internally recognized as being wrong. There’s just very little political courage to say anything by a lot of people who prefer finances to following international standards of accepted law. You don’t seem to understand that you can’t just use a single cut-off where it suits you. You have to use the entire timeline up to the present instead.
Now Illy, everything I’ve said here is factually correct. You keep trying to conflate what right and wrong means though, because you’re trying to argue from emotional arguments instead of logical ones. Which is why your initial post about JK Rowling is so poorly made with the ONE exception being her anti-trans activism stance, which has actual evidence of existing, instead of supposed dogwhistles that are primarily in your mind when you’re making these pseudo-connections.
You’ve went on tangent after tangent to get away from this – that your arguments are badly made. Because you’re trying to trip me up and strawman me as something disgusting, as if youd ever get me to say the Holocaust was not morally reprehensible and one of the greatest evils in history. You’re trying to conflate morality and legality when talking about right and wrong, because that allows you to just make up stuff based on tenuous threads and go off on more tangents.
But I’m explaining the law and history – two things I seem to know a lot more about than you. And until you can argue based on facts instead of trying to just defame and be emotional and assume that you can mindread people’s intentions, you will never have a good or convincing argument.
I’m going to note that you didn’t engage with my alternate example of you being full of bullshit, because it will be harder for you to argue against.
Is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo wrong, according to your final arbiter of right and wrong?
Also, you’re the one who brought up “The law being the final arbiter of right and wrong”, I’ve just been dunking on you for dying on that hill because you haven’t brought up any arguments about my original points about JKR (just sticking your fingers in your ears about dogwhistles you don’t want to admit you hear).
This tangent is your fault.
> Because you’re trying to trip me up and strawman me as something disgusting
No, I’m just pointing out the inevitable, logical consequenses of your stated position.
—
I will also note that you are still refusing to acknowledge that “The Happy Merchant” is a Nazi dogwhistle, and have been shown factually wrong on a whole bunch of assertions you made, from Jews supporting Hitler’s Germany, to Black Nazis today, to Nazis liking JKR, to Nazis using the OK sign to signal each other, etc…
Pander:
I’ll admit that I haven’t been following your argument with Illy very closely. I’m just jumping in at the parts that are interesting to me.
It’s hard to square your insistence that “the law is the final arbiter of right or wrong” with “I’m saying it was always morally wrong. Because genocide is morally wrong.” and “at the time, there were no laws which actually covered something like that”.
If the Holocaust was legal at the time, and the law were the final arbiter of right and wrong, then how was genocide morally wrong? Does law precede morality, or is it morality that precedes law? Is it just to punish someone for something that was legal at the time, but declared illegal afterwards?
Was it this International Military Tribunal of 1945 who wrote these laws about “Crimes against Humanity”, or was it a legislative body? How do you square that with your claim that ” Judges and juries do not make the law.”?
“at the time, there were no laws which actually covered something like that”.
Think of it like this Torabi…. if there is no law on the subject, all that remains is a person or culture’s subjective morality. Once there is law in that society on the subject, that is, by its very nature of being law, the arbiter, even if it does not mesh completely with one’s personal morality.
For example, income tax was not always a thing in the US. It initially started to fund the civil war with the Revenue Act of 1861. It was meant to be a very temporary thing because the concept of income tax is that tax is, essentially theft. Especially in the US. Remember, the straw that broke the camel’s back with us in regards to England were two taxes after years of onerous taxation without representation (the Stamp Tax and the tax on tea).
Then income tax was rescinded after the war was over. Then was reinstated again with the 16th Amendment in 1913 because the government needed more revenue. Ironically, this not only did not help to prevent a Great depression 15 years later, it may have actually exacerbated it. By the 1940s and 1950s, income tax and paying income tax had morphed morally into being ‘a citizen’s duty to their nation.’ And today it’s about ‘paying your fair share.’ But when it started, it was hated and was a necessary evil because of the Civil War, and when it was brought back in 1913 permanently, it was considered morally suspect. But it was still the law.
My point is the law became the arbiter of whether the very notion of income tax was right or wrong. It started as wrong and unamerican, and today you’re considered a bad person (or a criminal sometimes)by a large portion of the non-Libertarian population if you try to not pay income taxes. Law was the final arbiter. And if it ever changes, law would need to be put in place to make anything stick permanently
“If the Holocaust was legal at the time,”
Minor fact – the Holocaust was never actually ‘legal’ in Germany. The Nazis basically took over all systems of government after they were voted in and no one cared because of how badly the economy was doing in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, because many people just wanted a scapegoat, and the german psyche was used to accepting authoritarian rule unfortunately, such as socialism, which then degraded into totalitarianism based on Mussolini’s new system of government (Fascism), which was incorporated into much of the German governent.
And where international law was concerned, no one had ever bothered putting any laws on it, one way or the other. Which is why the Nuremburg trials and the IMT were necessary to create the very concept of war crimes. Before that, there were awful things done (including genocide, rape, slavery, torture, etc) during war, but were not considered war crimes because that was simply not a thing legally. But these things were still considered morally wrong. Just not legally wrong. Which meant there was not as much impetus to prevent it from happening.
After the Nuremberg trials, war crimes, crimes against peace, and crime against humanity were made actual laws with actual definitions, instead of just ‘whatever one thinks at the time is moral or not.’
“, and the law were the final arbiter of right and wrong,”
And it is. You should focus on the word ‘arbiter’ more than ‘right and wrong’ because that’s more important in this question. Morality along is not a good arbiter because morality differs from person to person, often very quickly. Written law is a lot slower to change – it does change over time, but it require thought, debate, argumentation, etc.
“Does law precede morality, or is it morality that precedes law?”
They operate off of each other, but without law, you don’t can’t have a civilization over a miniscule size over a very short period of time. If you want a civilization of any significant size, for any significant period of time, you’re going to need laws. And that will often affect the society’s morality, even if individual interaction of morality questions argued between people is what forms the basis of laws. It’s sort of a chicken and egg argument, but a loose tribal alliance can have morality without having more than the most basic laws in place, even if that law is something as simple as the law of survival of the fittest, which is usually not very moral at all.
” Is it just to punish someone for something that was legal at the time, but declared illegal afterwards?”
Not exactly, because it was never ‘legal’ beforehand. There was no law on it beforehand. So if you’re arguing it from the stance of ‘if there’s no law on it at all, then it’s legal, then yes, you’re correct. But if you’re arguing that ‘in the absence of law, there is only loose morality,’ then no, you’d be incorrect. Because in the absence of law, there’s usually a basic gut feeling in people, if they’re not sociopaths, that certain actions are evil and deleterious to the group and to ones psyche and do more harm than good (a utilitarian concept).
But other than that, yes – laws are usually necessary in order to punish people with ANY consistency. Otherwise the punishments change from person to person, even for the same wrongdoing, and the society will collapse once enough people get fed up with the inherent unfairness.
“Was it this International Military Tribunal of 1945 who wrote these laws about “Crimes against Humanity”, or was it a legislative body?”
Yes, it was the IMT of 1945, but it was ALSO an ad hoc legislative body. Each of the nations of the Allies had one representative involved as the head of the trials, and the reason for the trial WAS to create a single piece of legislation that would be accepted internationally. It was literally the first time ever that international tribunals were used as a POST-WAR medium for bringing national leaders to justice.
Little factoid – at the time, they used genocide in the indictment, but not as a legal term – they had to use it just as a descriptive term, because there was not yet a legal crime during wartime that could be called genocide.
To quote Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson, one of the leaders of the tribunal and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials:
“Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events.”
“How do you square that with your claim that ” Judges and juries do not make the law.”?”
It was a sort of unique event in history because it was both a military tribunal which was ALSO then incorporated by making international laws by legislative action. Also, Robert H Jackson was not JUST a former US Justice – was also the special prosecutor for the IMT, which is part of the executive branch, and was the US Attorney General and Solicitor General. Military is significantly different than civilian courts when dealing with the creation of laws, but the decisions made by the Nuremberg Trials were then signed into international law by the nations involved, which was a legislative action by all the nations which signed onto it.
So yes, normally judges and juries do not make law. They interpret the law. Then the legislature can decide to make their interpretation into the law by writing a law encapsulating that interpretation. It happens a lot, where a judge says ‘this law is unconstitutional, but instead of just trashing it, I’m sending it back to the legislature, and they can rewrite it to be constitutional or repeal it outright.’ Like the recent decision on DACA being unconstitutional. The judge just told the legislature to fix it to make it constitutional by going through normal channels (instead of what Obama did by executive fiat) or repeal it.
That was a lot of words to refuse to engage with the point.
And to hide that you’re dodging my harder-to-dodge version.
—
Is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo wrong, according to your final arbiter of right and wrong?
Pander:
Have you ever read The Paradox of Self-Amendment? I normally only recommend it for the game of Nomic, buried in the third appendix, because that’s the most important idea in the work, and the rest of it is pretty dry and a bit too wrapped up in the author’s own delusions… But maybe you could get something of value from it.
Torabi:
“Have you ever read The Paradox of Self-Amendment? ”
Never even heard of it. I’ve also never heard of the game of Nomic. From what I see in your link it’s about ‘ Law, Logic, Omnipotence, and Change’ – which seems a bit nebulous as a description, but I can check it out. :) What’s it about?
Is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo wrong, according to your final arbiter of right and wrong?
Pander:
It’s… about whether a system that contains provisions that allow for the system to be changed can be logically consistent, and an exploration of the provenance of the authority to change the system.
We presume law to be logical, and assign it validity on that presumption, but it’s possible to form law that contains contradictions and ambiguities, in part because law straddles the boundaries between what is and what ought to be, because it resides in natural language, which can describe things that cannot logically exist.
A lot of the book is nonsense attacking even worse nonsense, but it’s interesting nonsense regardless, because it asks questions that most people would never even consider, and struggle to comprehend. It gets at those very basic questions of what law is and where it derives its presumed authority from. The basic conceptual struggle of the book is, in short: If law A authorizes its own replacement by law B, and law A is invalidated in the process of being replaced by law B, doesn’t that break the chain of authority validating law B? It’s only a paradox if you’re invested in a certain mental model of how law functions, but most people aren’t aware of their mental models, or even cognizant that there could be alternative models that explain reality equally well, or better, than their own.
Nomic addresses the topology of systems. According to its author, “Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game.”, the key takeaway is that because it can become any other game, it is all of them at once, and certain statements about any such variation are equally applicable to every other variation. This is a powerful way of looking at complex systems, because it provides a means of reducing them to simpler systems in which it is possible to make coherent proofs. Some people also play it.
“t’s… about whether a system that contains provisions that allow for the system to be changed can be logically consistent, and an exploration of the provenance of the authority to change the system.”
Sounds interesting, whether nonsense or not. I’ll check out the e-book version, thanks. :)
“We presume law to be logical, and assign it validity on that presumption,”
I consider law to be more logical than not having law if you want to have a cohesive, long-term society. There are degrees of logic though. :)
“but it’s possible to form law that contains contradictions and ambiguities,”
This is actually covered, at least in the US, as ‘vagueness’ and ‘mootness’ and ‘ripeness’ and, for contractual law, an entire huge thing called the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). :) Which different states or the federal government can apply in whole or in piecemeal to their constitutions or statutes in regards to contractual law. Most of the time it’s to try to make deals work despite the existence of ambiguity, contradictions, and poor definitions. :)
“in part because law straddles the boundaries between what is and what ought to be, because it resides in natural language, which can describe things that cannot logically exist.”
In general, if a law is ambiguous or contradictory in a case, the general view is that law should not be applied, be sent back to the legislature, and have it re-written (or repealed), while the law on the books is not applied to that current case. When the legislature fixes the error in the statute/law, it can be re-applied to the society. Alternatively, the judge might narrowly apply the statute by removing the clause that makes it ambiguous to the situation, and see if that meets the spirit of the law. If something can’t logically exist period, then the statute would be overruled – but they still need to explain why the statute is not able to logically exist. That’s what a Judicial Opinion tends to do.
“A lot of the book is nonsense attacking even worse nonsense, but it’s interesting nonsense regardless, because it asks questions that most people would never even consider, and struggle to comprehend.”
Sounds like the first year of law school to me. :)
“If law A authorizes its own replacement by law B, and law A is invalidated in the process of being replaced by law B, doesn’t that break the chain of authority validating law B?”
I don’t understand that sentence at all. :) Mainly beacuse laws don’t authorize their own replacements. A law can repeal a previous law (ie, the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment – Prohibition), but it can’t also make it’s replacement. That’s where making a new law comes in instead.
“Nomic addresses the topology of systems.”
More than the book, I now really want to learn about Nomic.
Law tends towards the practical, rather than the absolute, due to the necessity of adjudicating actual disputes that demand resolution, rather than just sitting on them for decades until we find the perfect solution. So there are many things that occur in law that both an average person and a legal professional will find palatable that would grossly offend a pure logician. The book is basically the meanderings of a pure logician attempting to come to grips with how law works in the real world, and attempting to rationalize those mechanisms than most people wouldn’t give a second thought about.
To be more specific, the author is concerned with whether Article V of the US Constitution could be used to amend itself, in addition to the rest of the document, and how the transfer of authority from one version to another would occur.
As I said, Nomic is the primary reason I generally recommend the book to people. It’s a fascinating and eye-opening idea, even if most people aren’t capable of fully comprehending the consequences of it.
“Law tends towards the practical, rather than the absolute,”
This is true. Law needs to be constantly evolving, because societies are constantly evolving. And I’d think practicality is a better thing than using some sort of moral absolute. It’s the whole ‘no black and white, but shades of grey’ sort of deal.
“due to the necessity of adjudicating actual disputes that demand resolution, rather than just sitting on them for decades until we find the perfect solution.”
This is partially true, although law in a republic is, by DESIGN, meant to move slowly. If something is going to be an arbiter of what is right and wrong in a society, you should probably prefer that it comes to those conclusions based on thorough thought, analysis, and argumentation.
“So there are many things that occur in law that both an average person and a legal professional will find palatable that would grossly offend a pure logician.”
Not that I would disagree, but what sort of examples? Because I find the idea of a ‘pure logician’ to not always be as logical as they would claim to be. :) I can usually give reasons for what might be considered inconsistencies in the law. Including why certain really ‘dumb laws’ are still on the books.
“To be more specific, the author is concerned with whether Article V of the US Constitution could be used to amend itself,”
First just so anyone who for some reason is still reading this thread weeks after the page was done, Article V of the Constitution says taht “on the application of two thirds of the legislatures of the severl states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” In short, Article V is how the government (namely Congress) is able to propose new Amendments to the Constitution, and how ratification works.
But no, it cannot amend itself. You’d have to basically abolish the Constitution to do that. I’m not sure why the author would have been concerned about that, but I guess I’ll need to read the book to find out his reasoning. I’m assuming he’s trying to argue that there could be an Amendment that abolishes Article V maybe? I’m pretty sure that attempting to abolish the foundational articles of a contract (which the Constitution effectively is) would pretty much involve abolishing the Constitution itself, as opposed to abolishing an amendment TO the Constitution. To be clear we’ve only ever abolished one thing from the Constitution ever – when the 21st Amendment abolished the 18th Amendment. Which is a good thing because the 18th Amendment never made any sense constitutionally – it was the main time we based anything on positive rights instead of negative rights in U.S. law, instead of how our laws are supposed to work consitutionally.
“how the transfer of authority from one version to another would occur.”
I’m pretty sure the transfer of authority would be from a revolution. What’s being described – abolishing the Constitution and creating a new one – is a literal revolution against the foundational structures of U.S. government (or any government that uses a Constitution).
“As I said, Nomic is the primary reason I generally recommend the book to people. It’s a fascinating and eye-opening idea, even if most people aren’t capable of fully comprehending the consequences of it.”
Thank you very much for letting me know about Nomic. It actually sounds REALLY interesting and mind-breaky. :)
Ok, I know you’re just ignoring me now, but I can’t let some of that stand.
> I can usually give reasons for what might be considered inconsistencies in the law.
So, is a 17yo having a one-night-stand with a 25yo wrong?
> I’m pretty sure the transfer of authority would be from a revolution.
Yes, because every time a law is changed its a revolution.
Do you even understand your own position?
—
And while we’re here:
Is “the happy merchant” an antisemetic dogwhistle? You still haven’t answered this.
I don’t think it is, unless there’s one that I’m not seeing. Doesn’t that one have the circle inscribed within the bisected triangle, rather than the triangle within the circle?
That’s just his face.
Yeah – that smile in the last panel nails it down: Max IS a nerd! Maybe deep down and she doesn’t let it show (normally) because rank & protocol (<- what do I know?) but yes, I bet she would like to help with that if she had any clue about it, just for the fun of solving a problem :-)
I think it might also be because she’s realizing that she may be able to go out and about somewhere and not be the center of attention for at least a few minutes. Notice that out of all the possible hues of skin and hair she could have chosen, she chose basically the hair and skin tones she had before she was transformed?
That is what she’d need for the ‘as advertised’ application of being able to pass in public without attracting much attention, so it makes sense that it’s what she’d choose as a default. No longer getting all the attention for being the shiny-gold one isn’t much use if instead you start getting the attention for being the flame-orange one.
I think that’s the first wholesome smile that we’ve seen from her in quite some time.
Literally the exact thing that came to my mind.
And I’ll bet she never expected being touched by Dabbles would ever be “okay.” <_<
It is a nice moment. Max may finally be able to let her hair down without it being blue.
“Succibi Party Games” implies there may be such a thing as “Succibi Party Favours” :D
Depending on how you define “favors”, they may be one and the same.
That’s a colloquialism for surprise children.
Succubus “Pin the Tail on the Donkey” is still technically a tail, and still technically an ass, but it’s less “on” than “in”
And the Latin word for “tail” is “penis”, so depending on how old the succubi that are playing are, they might have a bilingual bonus going on.
cauda from causdus also, penis / tail comes from the obvious jokes.
I have a feeling that the game wasn’t quite so innocent when it was first invented.
Very good new vote incentive picture. One of Dave’s best. He sure loves creating new exotic babes that Dave. And he does it so well.
Obviously Xerxa is based on Hindu culture….I would guess Kali based on her skin color alone, but she usually only has 4-arms, so I dunno.
There is a computer game based on making gods of polytheistic religions battle, is there not
My first thought was “Kali!” as well and I thought I had seen her with more arms… *checking*… yes, she’s depicted with at least four arms and up to ten.
But then I thought, why Kali?
…
Unless this “Kali” is an alien. Hm. Cora can have any skin color she wants… But she seems to prefer blue… Maybe this “Kali” is related to Cora? <- that's my guess.
Kali alien? More like Kalien am I right?
*on phone* Yes I need another hit squad sent out…. Yes I know its the third one this week but he really really deserves it… yes I have the loyalty card, 5 hit squads and I get a free hat. Okay thanks bye.
If it’s an ass hat just send it to Ro Jaws.
More like ass ass in hat am I right?
You’re gonna blow Pander’s hit squad budget, even WITH the loyalty program, unless he decides to pun’t.
I will get a second job if need be, for a good cause like this.
Only if you wear it will it become an ass ass in hat.
Just fyi on Hindi deities…. they all have only 2 arms. Their depiction with multiple arms is showing that they can do multiple things at once cause, ya know, Diety. It’s like how drawing lines makes it look like movement, but there are no lines when I actually move
Succubus Catan: ‘Wood for Sheep’ jokes. Nothing BUT ‘Wood for Sheep’ jokes.
This being a succubus party favor, I’m assuming the little space ship icons aren’t, strictly speaking, space ships?
I wonder in what direction Sydney this will take when it’s used outside of “fun hours”.
It could be a personal cloacking device or camouflage generator.
Enter unseen Maxima for even more badguy kneetrembling effects.
That profile of Cora… We need a pinup of Peggy using the choker for blue skin :)
Yeah, thought that that was Peggy at first as well
Hmm, wonder if they are actually twins, separated at birth?
It happened with Sky and Luna in “Too Much Information”: Luna staid on Earth and has ‘normal’ flesh-coloured skin, her twin Sky went with her birth mother into space and now has green Orion skin
Though in Luna’s case, I believe she is actually allergic to “greenies” which is why she appears caucasian.
Luna never tried, she’s only just gone into space, it was Magenta ah believe who is allergic to ‘greenies’ (wait, no, not Magenta, she’s, well, purple, there is another Orion who is not green or purple)
Luna appears ‘caucasian’ because she is Caucasian, just like how Ace’s daughter appears dark skinned (because her mother is dark skinned under the green)
I lovee that smile of Maxima in the last panel…saying:”oh look at them, nerding out/doing such an effort for me, they are precious.”
And here I am programming boring industry simulations. Can’t wait for the magical alien invasion.
To be fair not much less would change. Just a lot more work on shades, lighting, model textures… Also the costumers being more vocal in their complaints.
Most work would be outsourced to zombie slaves anyway.
Isn’t it already?
I kind of want to play Succubus Mafia. The game where no one cares about being “eliminated”, and no one wants the Fun-Police detectives to win.
@DaveB, You make Dabbler’s Sigil sound like a Virtual Machine, possibly even an Application Virtual Machine, that Emulates a computer system in order to run its program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine
I’ve had similar ideas, mainly as I’m a computer guy who’s read Rick Cook.
Magical enchantments are written in the magical equivalent of Java.
Which is why they go wrong so often.
They need to switch to the magical equivilent of Python.
And traditionalists insist to writte entierely in COBOL and FORTAN…
One for acounting the other for science…
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
Blind mand buff is … pretty much the same
Ditto for Poker and Hold ’em.
For snakes and ladders, you go down on the snakes and climb the ladders….
Corporate Snakes and Ladders is really risqué.
Didnt it used to be called Chutes and Ladders?
According to the wikipedia page, Snakes and ladders is the older name of the two. The version released in the US in 1943 by Milton Bradley replaced the snakes with chutes because children didn’t like the snakes, which was kind of the point.
Ah okay, that does seem to make sense then. I might have also outed being of a younger generation I guess.
Well, now you have ;)
But no, cultural myopia is common in the young and the old both. People tend to assume that their personal experiences reflect universal truth. In this case, the assumption that the term you heard first, and were more familiar with, was the older term.
Unfortunately, most people never learn that just because something has been true their entire life doesn’t mean it’s always been true, or always will be. Or ever really was.
“Well, now you have ;)”
Dangit.
Hey btw just want to mention even though I disagree with you a lot, I don’t actually have any personal animosity against you.
Heck I don’t even have personal animosity against Illy, who just accused me of being a nazi, or Oberon, who once accused me of not being an attorney until I showed a picture of the certifications and degrees on my office wall. I just think their arguments tend to be wrong or poorly thought out when I’m debating them.
You might be surprised to find that I don’t have any personal animosity against you either. I just find your view of the world to be very limited and childish, despite your apparent intelligence. Which is no worse than my view of most people. It’s just frustrating to be unable to communicate with others, easy to blame them as inadequately enlightened, and distressing to suspect that my own inadequacies are equally to blame.
“You might be surprised to find that I don’t have any personal animosity against you either.”
Good to know.
“I just find your view of the world to be very limited and childish, despite your apparent intelligence.”
I don’t think it’s childish. I just rely on legally valid and consistent arguments instead of emotional manipulation usually. It works better in a text setting, just like it works better with a judge vs a jury. I also tend to point out when people make strawman arguments because it’s probably the most frequent thing people do on internet forums when arguing. That probably gets annoying to the person making the strawman argument, but I’m still being honest about pointing it out.
“It’s just frustrating to be unable to communicate with others, easy to blame them as inadequately enlightened,”
I generally don’t assume the other person that I’m arguing with is stupid. Just wrong. You communicate just fine, trust me. We just often come to opposing conclusions.
“and distressing to suspect that my own inadequacies are equally to blame.”
Meh, you’re probably overthinking it. In the end it’s just an internet argument anyway. Which is why I don’t really care about Illy calling me a nazi. Anyone who knows anything about me would know how dumb that sort of assertion is. Even people who don’t know me and just actually read my posts would know that.
Btw I’m going to pick out from your post that you find me intelligent, so thanks there too :)
That last panel, seeing Maxima soften her usual stone faced visage. It is rather comforting.
Wondering how zero point TK and hard light holographic wearable constructs interact…
I guess i still dont get , if its just an illusionary overlay of someones appearance only, why would it not already have color/shading adjustments built in? Since it seems to be a popular item in wide use, thats a feature the customers would demand out of the product right?
I’d guess because succubi don’t typically sparkle like a million diamonds, so their specularity doesn’t need any adjusting. And if you don’t need it, why complicate the enchantment?
It’s presumably more of a filter than an illusory overlay. It alters wavelength, but not intensity.
Why would the succubi wear bikinis?
>>The author is an American.
Oh right… Sorry I asked.
Plus the comic is meant to be on the mostly SFW side, I guess.
But – out of curiosity – what was it that you thought they should wear?
(Thinking about it, there are dressing styles that could be assigned to certain countries or regions … e.g. long white robes (maybe thin, maybe not 100% opaque) = old Greek. There are some more I can think of …)
I suspect that G. Janssen though they shouldn’t be wearing ANYTHING.
Why would they not wear bikinis? Succubi are into all forms of sexuality, sensuality and tantalisation. Often, not seeing what you desire, being able to *almost* see it, is a lot mroe arrousing than a full display.
Perhaps this is the kind of succubi that specializes in more conservative prey.
All of the points above are reasonable but the removal of said bikinis may be a part of the game. Also they are pool side.
The modern bikini is a french invention…
Designed by Louis Réard and fisrt worn by Micheline Bernardini on 5 July 1946 at the Piscine Molitor in Paris…
“Et le désir s’accroît quand l’effet se recule.”
Pierre Corneille
The game ‘Thud’ wouldn’t change much but would be a lot more popular.
Depends on if you are using standard pieces or ‘magical action figures’.
And that is when Max realised, she doesn’t subordinates, she has friends.
SHortly after, she realised, it really was a present for the local code/spell geeks, not her…
Also… this really is a birthday party. It’s a party. And a birthday. And there is a real life-changing present.
This is Eeyore putting the popped balloon in and out of the empty honey jar.
Only hella sexier.
Since Krona can hack reality, couldn’t she hack the size of the mana battery, as well as the storage?
As I re-read it It seems like storage may refer to the battery and not memory. It looks like they are adding a function that will deplete the mana store more quickly. From Earlier episodes, Krona is strongly encouraged not to screw around with causality but in this case it looks more like she is going more for swapping out components. That is, putting better quality components into a cheap party favor. I’m betting that it will be something that runs for X number of hours before needing a recharge.
I think I was unclear, as I appreciate that the storage and the mana battery are likely separate and was not trying to imply they’re the same. Rather, Dabbler mentions that Krona could hack the storage, but then mentions the constraint of the mana battery. But Krona’s hacking lets her change the parameters of things – if she could increase the memory via hacking, could she not also increase the size of the mana battery via hacking? Both would seem to be parameters.
if Krona had more time investigating Halo’s skill tree, she might be able to figure out a little source-code and use that to tweak the collar.
It may be the difference between a static and a dynamic attribute, if the analogy to modern computers holds.
The memory is probably programmable-read-only: it doesn’t need to really do anything in normal operation besides translate a request for certain effects into the details of how to achieve them, and any changes to the contents of that lookup need to be performed as a special operation. If Krona performs that operation she can fit more details into the same capacity than if Dabbler does it, and once they’ve been jammed in they’re readable to any user.
The battery needs to be able to take in and release charge for any user. Krona may well be able to fit more charge into it if she’s the one who charges it up, but everybody else would be limited to normal ‘pressure’ if they’re the ones recharging it.
Of course, given that the Hue Bender is created by a Succubus and based on a design created by them, the nature of such charging is perhaps better left to the imagination… I’ll be in my bunk.
Sure, within the limits of hero points Max has available to spend.
I think that’s what Dabbler meant when she said “I’m betting Krona can hack the storage”. She means the storage of mana. ie, the Mana battery storage. ie, Krona can give the choker the ability to store more mana.
The succubi version of Jenga, hmm … pull out … and insert … *blush* uh oh.
*sigh* Insertion is Tetris, people! Pulling out is Jenga!
Great explanation of how the magic works! I didn’t understand a word of it, so I’m going with “A wizard’s doing it” (or in this case, a succubus).
“Human” Max looks cute.
And out of all of this….few have noticed that Maxima is starting to -SMILE-!
Because she finally realised that, somehow without her noticing, she made a lot of what most people would call “friends”
Friends who accept her for who she is, but still understands the pain she goes through just being herself and want to help her through no other reason than “because she’s a friend”
And what happened, then? Well, S. Scoville did say – that the colonel’s heart grew three sizes that day.
I sure hope not. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy can lead to a sudden cardiac arrest!
…
What? I can be funny too, I’m not only about the law, hatred of puns and worship of Deus. Thats only 99.275% of what I’m about.
> “Ticket to Ride” is similar only in name.
More like the version The Beatles wrote a song about I guess.
I hope you don’t take this as an attack, it’s your art and if that’s the style you’re going for, good for you I guess – but…
Lately(ish, it’s been building for a while) the comic hasn’t been giving me a “oh cool” or “that looks nice” reaction, more a “that looks weird” to “that’s… off” one. It started as what I guess was you trying to make the characters look more realistic and drifting into uncanny valley territory, but now it’s drifting further and further into… just *bad* territory? It feels like a guest artist using similar tools, but with none of the skill.
That thing there is supposed to be Leon? What was going on with anvil on the page before this one, her face’s proportions shift around – is it a shapeshifter poorly impersonating her? Is that blue skin, pink hair girl supposed to be dabbler’s alien friend? Why does she look like an extra from the original X-Men cartoon? And dabbler looks (on the previous page where we see more of her) like some sort of demonic pixie from a budget anime.
I still like the characters and the story, but the direction the art is developing into is becoming more and more offputting for me. The cartoony style of the first few pages was – in my opinion, which is obviously subjective – better than what we’re seeing on the most recent pages. There was some serious improvement in between, but right now the quality curve is on a strong downward trend and it makes me sad to see.
Dave uses a lot of reference photos, particularly for unusual angles. And it’s not usually the same person in the reference for a particular character, which has the unfortunate effect of making the characters visually inconsistent, because they tend to look more like the person in the reference than their own past appearances. The other problem of using references is that it tends to short-circuit the artist’s own understanding of shape, and their ability to apply it to their work.
I too think that the earlier pages had a lot more character, and that the characters were more easily identifiable, even when they had very inconsistent expressions. They art captured the essence of the character and their emotions, even if it wasn’t as objectively good art. It is a balancing act for producing art on a deadline, and trying to meet some level of quality. Using references improves certain qualities, particularly for difficult objects or angles, but the artist’s skill can suffer as a result, and the authenticity of the art as well.
I do think Dave’s skill has certainly improved from the earlier pages, but that it’s an endless process, and that’s reflected in the art. He hasn’t plateaued yet, hasn’t reached his peak, but his art is going to keep changing along the way.
…I can not figure out how “Twister” and “Musical Chairs” go together and only vaguely can figure out “Tag” with “Musical Chairs” but not “Twister”. Maybe if it was “duck-duck-goose” since that is “Tag” combined with “Musical Chairs”. But unless “Twister” is a euphemism I don’t know how that one is included… Tell them how to stand and/or what color to be after getting goosed?
Although I assume succubus jenga is like that one English game where everyone forms a tower out of their bodies and the opposing team tries to tip the tower only instead of it being in an attempt to scale said tower for a goal of some kind it’s to jenga topple the tower. Which brings to mind the nun-mech from a really old cartoon (“Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy”).
Twister involves challenging players to place a randomly chosen body part at a randomly chosen location.
Now extrapolate to an X-Rated version.
As for Musical Chairs: the game as illustrated has nothing to sit on but each other.
This is not a problem ;-)
DaveB, I am absolutely in love with Max’s expression. You utterly nailed the look of a woman who is warmed to the core by her friends’ enthusiastic readiness to help her.
Agreed. Amazing arts.
Now, if Hiro could just get a promotion so they could date.
Literally everyone knows they like each other.
The musical chairs reference escaped me. Too damn tired. sigh.
They don’t use ‘normal’ chairs, they use naked males (not limited to actual males, transgender and tentacle-creatures can also be used) as chairs
I’m looking forward to seeing the ‘failed settings’ montage.
Other art styles?
One of which is a live action model? (Oops…too much!)
Bottom left panel…”rockets spewing smileys”
(at least that’s what it looks lie to me)
The only party game I’ve played as an adult that’s based on Twister involves white flannel pajamas with large colored spots. One of our crew saw the fabric at a local craft store, said ‘that looks like a twister board’ and was inspired. And heck, we’ll try anything once. Or twice.
Aaand, it was a bit weird. Even with a set of people who like each other and enjoy rather a lot of activities that would definitely upset prudes … it was more ‘trust exercise’ than ‘sexytimes fun.’ Possibly it might count as therapy to the extent that some were confronting fears and learning that others were willing to allow them to … and people were getting aroused but nobody was laughing.
Strange experience. I can definitely imagine that different groups of people would experience it differently.
Just because i like to think of magic as a force you can effect with science (and vise versa) I would think tapping into Maxima’s super power to both power the choker, and reduce the shiny effect would work. Using maxima’s super power instead of a normal enchantment as the energy source would also mean it could be active at anytime as long as Maxima isn’t using her powers, as powers.
(Kinda of like a matrix movie person-battery or soloar power battery – unless maximas using her super abilities, the choker is using them instead)
Except none of the characters know how Maxima’s powers work, including Dabbler. That may make it difficult to tap into.
Plus, if Maxi ever lost her choker (or it gets stolen by SmugD… again), bad things could happen
Last panel is somehow very sweet.
A subtle “Awww…. my friends DO love me!” except that saying anything that sappy out loud would be way out of character for Maxima.
Total agreement. Yes, she’s the boss and, yes, she’s a total badass, but also she’s a person who needs friends same as anyone else, and right here right now her friends are showing it, each in their own peculiar way.
This is so much more entertaining than yet another superhero punchout!
On the Party Games,
Purple Buttock – Green Shoulder ;)
Need another Spinner or Several
Someone Needs to Keep an Eye on Dabbler,
To Make Sure the Recharge Method isn’t Offensive to Max…
Max will not want to have to have Dabbler Recharge it Either…
Silly question: is Max not as tall as she used to be?
For some reason the part that hits me the most about this page, is Cora’s fourth-wall smirk in panel 4. Looking RIGHT at us as if to say, “Yeah now you’re thinking about it. Gooooood.” Well played.
Succubus Tetris
Just sayin’
Heheh, all the Succubus Tetris shapes are shaped like sex toys!
*looks at normal Tetris*
Wait…
I love reality intrudes moments…..