Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[Uncle]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/video-games-are-so-freaking-cool-man.881715/

I think the last time I was emotionally thrown by a video game was one of the bosses in Small Saga. IYKYK:

A stoat gets low on health, and then decapitates and eats one of her allies to regain not just health but a whole fucking new moveset.

I dropped my jaw when it happened. And when my friend streamed it in Discord with me watching in glee, the entire chat of like 10 people got quiet.

[benji]

I wouldn't even pay $70 for the vastly superior and vastly shorter Gravity Bone. Or the also superior and shorter Thirty Flights of Loving which has it included for free. These lunatics want to do it for the first Portal. 

[Boredfrom]

The hyper anti capitalist forum entertains the idea of paying 70 dollars for a 3 Hour game, with the same graphics of its 2007 release. Just because is that good.  

Also, think of the poor devs crunching and the sorry state of the industry. If games shorter and uglier we would accomplish true socialism.

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/video-games-are-so-freaking-cool-man.881715/

I think the last time I was emotionally thrown by a video game was one of the bosses in Small Saga. IYKYK:

A stoat gets low on health, and then decapitates and eats one of her allies to regain not just health but a whole fucking new moveset.

I dropped my jaw when it happened. And when my friend streamed it in Discord with me watching in glee, the entire chat of like 10 people got quiet.

Not a fetish. 

[benji]

They didn't decapitate the victim. I was wondering about that because I considered that to be like shooting a man before throwing him out of a plane.

[Boredfrom]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/video-games-are-so-freaking-cool-man.881715/

I think the last time I was emotionally thrown by a video game was one of the bosses in Small Saga. IYKYK:

A stoat gets low on health, and then decapitates and eats one of her allies to regain not just health but a whole fucking new moveset.

I dropped my jaw when it happened. And when my friend streamed it in Discord with me watching in glee, the entire chat of like 10 people got quiet.

If you told me this was a fake video game made for a tv show or a film…

[Boredfrom]

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory and, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond a broad level of skepticism to the media in general.

In defense of Thick… you guys defended the right of a rapist to be in a women prison because she transitioned. So I can see why thick is associating (perceived) negligence in your health system being covered up by fear mongering. Is still insane but is nothing out of character for your community.

[benji]

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people

aka the main victims

[benji]

If you told me this was a fake video game made for a tv show or a film…

It looks way too good and clever for that. 91% positive and has a demo:


Nepenthe's just a fucking weirdo.

[Daffy Duck]

I wonder how many have actually sought out a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and are on some treatment or whatever the hell they call it. It's one thing to say you are trans, it's another to actually go through with stuff.

Same with people self diagnosing themselves with illnesses and disabilities. I realize getting a diagnosis is hard (I was diagnosed by an actual doctor in my teens), but fuck me you shouldn't be saying you have something unless you are diagnosed.

Trans armour is easy to put on at ResetEra, just put a trans colour avatar on and say it, then you get the best armour known to themkind and an invitation to the top table (private discord) where Queen Bee and Uzzy have cybersex.

[benji]

I went back to this because something was sticking in my head about it beyond the made up figures and the equation itself is improper, the second set is derived from the probability of the first but the values aren't. The entire outcome therefore hinges on how much you expect someone to write such a note irregardless of anything else.

Also, if you change L to just 0.34 from 0.3 (so slightly more than a one-third expectation) then the probability becomes 51% that she did it using everything else exactly as they put it. She did it, sorry, you can't argue with Bayesian probability.

[benji]

I went back to this because something was sticking in my head about it beyond the made up figures and the equation itself is improper, the second set is derived from the probability of the first but the values aren't. The entire outcome therefore hinges on how much you expect someone to write such a note irregardless of anything else.

Also, if you change L to just 0.34 from 0.3 (so slightly more than a one-third expectation) then the probability becomes 51% that she did it using everything else exactly as they put it. She did it, sorry, you can't argue with Bayesian probability.

It is not a TikTok conspiracy that there is simply no Bayesian analysis which shows she's guilty.

[benji]

We can't second guess the jury of a ten month trial too much, particularly when all the evidence can't be reported. A several thousand word New Yorker article isn't the same, regardless of the copy editors quality.

Yes we can, your jury pool was irreparably poisoned with years of your right-wing media's coverage.

What are you talking about? People never shut up about the problems the NHS has?

Look at UK politics for more than five minutes and you'll hear some plan about what so-and-so will do to fix things. Even the Tories who hate the thing talk about what they'll do about waitlists and the like.

From the NYer article:

The public conversation about the case seemed to treat details about poor care on the unit as if they were irrelevant. In his closing statement, Johnson had accused the defense of "gaslighting" the jury by suggesting that the problem was the hospital, not Letby. Defending himself against the accusation, Myers told the jury, "It's important I make it plain that in no way is this case about the N.H.S. in general." He assured the jury, "We all feel strongly about the N.H.S. and we are protective of it." It seemed easier to accept the idea of a sadistic "angel of death" than to look squarely at the fact that families who had trusted the N.H.S. had been betrayed, their faith misplaced.

Actually the alternative hypothesis does implicate the NHS in general. In a healthy society, what the defense did would be malpractice.

my view is simple. This case is so badly suited to being evaluated by a jury (child murder! years of media coverage! earlier to blame individuals than structural issues at the NHS!), that the only way I can be convinced of her guilt beyond the reasonable doubt threshold is through direct evidence. There is no direct public evidence.

The conspiracy theorists do raise a good point though. If you disregard all the evidence she does look pretty innocent.

[benji]

This is pure gibberish. Genuinely, I don't understand how you can think this is even approaching rational mathematics.

It is infinitely more rational than disregarding the base rate altogether.

For one thing, you're including the answer you are trying to solve in your assumptions. The numbers you assign to the rest of the notes are ridiculous (40% of nurses write notes like this?!?).

Not 40% of nurses. 40% of nurses who were formerly regarded as highly qualified, have been deeply unlucky, have witnessed a sequence of deaths, and are spiraling out.

I HAVE BEEN THERE. I'VE WRITTEN NOTES THAT ARE SIMILAR.

You have excluded tons of other evidence

BECAUSE I WAS CONSIDERING THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN ISOLATION. Bayes makes you consider one piece of evidence at a time. I was not attempting to put together everything, just consider the one piece of evidence to demonstrate that the idea that "many serial killers write such notes" is NOT ENOUGH to demonstrate this.

and then plucked numbers out of thin air to create a result which doesn't make any sense. You could use this same logic and approach to "prove" that OJ Simpson was innocent, or that no medical practitioner has ever killed a patient deliberately.

Yes it is probably rarer than you think that medical practitioners murder people. (It is a lot rarer than hospital-acquired infections!!! Bayes theorem!) She isn't the first nurse to be wrongfully convicted!

Based on the evidence presented at that trial, it wouldn't have been right to put OJ in prison. The prosecution was incompetent and made a number of mistakes. OJ was liable for wrongful death which is a lower standard.

I can blame a jury to the extent that it influenced their views so strongly. Median voters are profoundly ignorant of how to evaluate evidence in general, and this case is uniquely badly suited for juries.

Christa Peterson on Twitter has been on this for months. She has stood her ground despite being called a baby murderer defender tons of times to her face.

Oh, Christa Peterson is one of Twitter's foremost trans scholars, perpetual grad student that doesn't understand things but tweets all day.  

One point of similarity between you and her doesn't mean you are the same, and whilst I am sure she was going through a horrible time with her mental health, equally the prosecution showed a significant amount of other factors that pointed to her killing children on those wards. Given that the "proof" that was highlighted in the New Yorker article was given to the defence pre-trial and they didn't use it, and neither was it presented as far as we can see in the appeal, either the defence is part of a conspiracy to jail her or they don't actually think it holds up. She may well be innocent, but there's no "mathematical proof" that shows it.

Again, it is on the part of people who think she is guilty to prove it, not me. You are advocating for caging a person for the rest of their life, and I'm not. The burden of proof is (correctly) asymmetric.

They're advocating for a serial child murderer to remain in prison following her trial where the jury felt the prosecution presented a compelling enough case to render a guilty verdict. You may believe she's innocent and have trauma that causes you relate to some of her (non violent) habits but I don't think implying others in the thread are hungry to see people 'caged for the rest of their life' is fair.

Given the number of British people who actually have been going around calling folks names for expressing concerns about the strength of the evidence, it is pretty obvious that many people really are hungry to see her caged.

From this very thread: "so what's the real reason people are trying to get a baby murderer off?" This is an insane amount of question-begging. What the fuck. Why are you not concerned about how conversations are being shut down like this?!?!?!

What has people being British got to do with anything? It's a UK case but anyone can have a view.

It's mostly been Brits, but scratch that word. Given the number of people who actually have been going around calling folks names for expressing concerns about the strength of the evidence, it is pretty obvious that many people really are hungry to see her caged.

There's a great podcast that goes into all the evidence presented each day of the trial called the trial of Lucy Letby - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-trial-of-lucy-letby/id1711621408

Are you actually recommending a Daily Mail podcast? Daily fucking Mail? The same Daily Mail that routinely publishes lies about trans people day in and day out?

Speak of true crime brain. What is wrong with people?!

What an absolute load of cobblers.

I agree that Bayesian reasoning is counterintuitive. It is also the only correct way to evaluate evidence.

Were base rates ever brought up in the trial? Did the jury ever ask for them? You cannot evaluate evidence without some knowledge of base rates! Most people are not trained to do this.

If there were direct evidence then a Bayesian framework would rapidly shift in that direction. Let's say, as purely a hypothesis, that she was caught holding a sodium nitrite syringe in her hand, and an autopsy showed the baby died of sodium nitrite poisoning. P(holding a syringe|she did it) is high (say 0.95) and P(holding a syringe|she didn't do it) is extremely low (say 0.01). If you start from a prior of 0.3, then this would lead to an updated probability of 0.97.

This is the only reason direct evidence is so powerful. It's because the counterfactual — what is the probability of the direct evidence given that the person didn't do it — is very unlikely. Everything presented as evidence has reasonably likely counterfactuals, which is what makes it weak.

These are meant to be numbers that demonstrate how this kind of thinking works, not some kind of absolute truth.

(edit: I've been informed that "direct evidence" is often taken to mean eyewitness testimony. Replace that with "strong evidence" or something similar — basically evidence where the counterfactual is very unlikely.)

How ironic that you complain about people calling others names for questioning evidence and then you yourself resort to name calling. Take a breather mate

Anything to say about the fact that you recommended a podcast by a fraudulent media organization?

With respect, you posted this:

A thread on Twitter of someone describing themselves as a philosophy student who is responding in agreement to an account of someone who self-describes as a 'conspiracy theorist' with the hashtag '#trumpwon'.

I did. Christa is one of the most reasonable voices there is on trans people, she's been calling BS on the UK media, Cass report etc for a long time. I don't know about the person she was responding to, but she has been independently on this for a long time.

Again, the burden of proof on me is much lower than the burden of proof on you. Start by acknowledging this fact.

I mean all the Baysian models in the world don't account for her just being a genuine outlier

Just let it go...

They do! This is a common misconception about Bayesian frameworks. Being an outlier makes it more difficult (as it should!) but the right evidence can swing things quite rapidly. All you have to ask is how likely the counterfactual is.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be proving.

All I have said I don't find it especially outrageous that a handwritten note by a accused killer saying something to the effect of 'I killed them' was used as evidence to help convict her and that the jury likely found that fairly convincing on top of a lot of other evidence that I don't know about.

And I do find it outrageous, and I find the attempts of shutting the conversation down ("Yes, because she's a fucking baby killer!") even more so.

I truly don't think that's all that unreasonable to think. Especially as so the voices on Musk's site that seem to be rallying against that apparently include people who believe Trump was robbed of the 2020 election.

Christa is emphatically not a Trump supporter. She is just wise to the bullshit the UK MSM feeds its population every day — as am I, and as you should be as well.

The UK mainstream media engages in outrageously bad faith actions every single day, in a way that's utterly shameful to any decent person.

(edit: fixed quotes, sorry!)

And as a trans person I'm especially attuned to seeing even the Guardian publish sensationalized nonsense regularly. So my distrust of UK media is (quite correctly) very high!

Did you know that the Cass review is absolute junk, filled with lies, omissions, and misrepresentations? If you read the UK media you'd get a completely different interpretation of the report! And if there were a criminal case where the Cass report was admitted as evidence, there is no chance in hell that a jury immersed in that media environment can possibly discount it to the extent that it should be discounted — so I would consider any UK trial involving that report to be inherently unfair unless there were some incredibly clear evidence.

That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Have you seen all the evidence? Genuine question, as its possible you were in court.

No! I live in the US. But all I can do is look at the evidence that has been presented, the media circus around the trial, and the credulity with which the public took it, and make up my mind based on all of these factors.

I am quite open to changing my view if new, clearer evidence comes out. I have no personal interest in the case, beyond a general desire for the arc of history to bend towards justice.

The lack of logic is astounding. So if a wife was killed and investigators found a note from the husband saying "I killed her" then that shouldn't be allowed in evidence?

That's not at all like Letby. The counterfactual is that of a rambling stream of consciousness, where a conscientious person was feeling a tremendous amount of guilt over deaths happening on their watch. What is the counterfactual in your example?

It's up to the defence to convince the jury that the note was misleading. And the prosecution to prove that it's pertinent. That's exactly what happened in this case.

Things do not just automatically happen. The evidence I have seen suggests that the defense failed Letby. If that were the case, then justice would not have been served.

You can poke holes in anything. You can question every piece of circumstantial evidence. It's up to the prosecution to build a case on many different foundations to tell an overall compelling narrative of guilt to convince the jury. And the defence need to poke as many holes in that narrative as possible to sway the jury the other way.

Omitting a piece of evidence because it's not 100% objective would lead to nobody ever getting convicted again unless they confess or are recorded doing it.
The defense was just not bold enough to actually make the full case. The full case is, in broad strokes:

1. The NHS has fallen apart, leading to widespread underfunding, and medical neglect and poor incident management at the Countess in particular
2. Letby was one of the most conscientious and highly regarded nurses, taking on extra shifts out of a sense of duty
3. An untrained person came up with the statistical analysis (the chart of Xs) showing Letby at the center, and didn't account for base rates, the probability that it was just coincidence, or alternative hypotheses.
4. Everything from there on was Letby's mental health spiraling down, confirmation bias on the part of investigators, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and taking the easy way out: scapegoating individuals over examining systemic failures.

1 was explicitly discounted by the defense.

By the way, the alternative hypothesis is not unfalsifiable. If there is a metaphorical smoking gun — clear evidence which the narrative I described cannot reasonably explain — then my view will change, I promise. I'm really not an unreasonable person.

And as another reminder, even if the alternative narrative is 10% likely, it would count as reasonable doubt, which would make it a wrongful conviction. I think the alternative narrative is much more than 10% likely. But even if you disagree with me, you have to go much farther than that to actually establish that this was a just conviction.

I think some of you are a bit harsh on thethickofit, everyone deserves a fair trial and questioning if someone may have been convicted wrongfully does not mean that you're cheering on a murderer.

I do however disagree with using Bayes theorem for evaluating the value of evidence, since for it to be valid you must know the actual probabilities for the equation to be correct. If you choose the probabilities yourself the result will only end up reflecting your own bias rather than the actual conditional probability (but then again my experiences with probability comes from maths rather than philosophy which may colour my more matter of fact view of its applications.)

Thank you. This is absolutely true, and something I'm happy to freely admit. Bayes' theorem makes biases clear (many would argue launders them into something semi-respectable). I don't consider myself a LessWrong rationalist, but this is a common critique of them that I heartily agree with.

That does not make the general framework invalid, though. Just the act of forcing people to put actual numbers down on their beliefs is an important part of the exercise. Bayes' theorem also forces you to ask important questions that are otherwise unintuitive.

What percentage of serial killers write stream of consciousness notes admitting guilt, and aren't smart enough to, say, immediately shred them? What percentage of distraught people struggling with mental illness who are not serial killers write such notes and then don't immediately shred them? It is Bayes' theorem that makes it clear that these are important, central questions.

The case seemingly doesn't have significant trauma and relevance to them though. They've just chosen this hill to die on.

They're not English. They're not a midwife. They're not a parent.

They're anti-British. Anti-media. Anti-power. And are taking it out in a weird way?

They think people going bankrupt and being unable to afford medical care is better than universally accessible universal healthcare.

Lies. Retract immediately.

Lucy Letsby was convicted of seven separate murders of babies. Seven attempted murders on further infants. And the court even deemed her not guilty on a further two infants.

They're in a thread online defending a child murderer ranting about main stream media and applying nonsense statistical mathematics to it. It's for our benefit and their benefit we ignore them and don't engage.

Do you or do you not believe your mainstream media has systematically lied about trans people for many years? Yes or no.

Drawing a connection between the UK media's portrayal of trans people, particularly trans women, and that of a serial child murderer is iffy to start with. You can levy a strong skepticism of how they treat minority groups against them and a broader disdain for sensationalism without forging a direct connection to Lucy Letby.

Is it?

I believe these propositions very strongly, with certainty very close to 1:

A: The UK MSM has systematically, maliciously lied about trans people for many years
B: The UK political class is in bed with the media, spreading malicious lies about trans people
C: The malicious lies have directly caused public opinion to swing against trans rights

Now let's look at these propositions:

A': The UK MSM has systematically, maliciously lied about Lucy Letby for many years
B'. The UK political class is in bed with the media, spreading malicious lies about Lucy Letby
C': The malicious lies have directly caused public opinion to swing against Lucy Letby

Do you believe P(A), P(B) and P© have no bearing on P(A'), P(B') and P(C')? If not maliciously lying, at least spreading sensational falsehoods to scapegoat an innocent person?

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory or, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond that of any other news story by virtue of being published by a large British media outlet.

(I'm transfeminine and TMA.)

Yes, the UK MSM's systematic campaign of malice against trans people, and trans women specifically, calls generally all British MSM reporting into question. Especially when it comes to sensational stories like Letby's. Not drawing that line is falling victim to Gell-Mann amnesia.

I suppose the argument is that the Tories are the ones actually at fault due to their constant underfunding of the NHS, so the right-wing media that's in league with them would want to push the narrative that it was actually just this one evil baby-killer?

Yes, the alternative theory has large-scale systemic implications for the NHS. It is so incredibly convenient that they found one person to blame. This happens all the time without the active malice that characterizes British media, people get canned for "performance issues" even though 90% of the time there's a systemic issue not an individual one.

[benji]

P(W) = 1

Where W = all British media is controlled by a far-right fascist plot to destroy everything and then pin the systemic destruction and consequences on marginalized individuals.

Next time don't bring your shit into the Bayesian neighborhood chuds.

[Besticus Maximus]

How can you do a bayesian analysis that accounts for Letby's headmates? 

[benji]

For someone really trying to promote Bayesian probability analysis they sure haven't done any for us on why NHS underfunding would manifest in this specific series of events or why systemic media coverage bias would only undermine this one specific trial in one clear way. Or why Cass Report coverage bias would manifest in murder trial coverage bias or true crime podcast bias. Just think of all the probabilities they could be sharing with us for these things.

[benji]

Oof:

[Polident]

Thread is “what things do we do now that you think will be illegal in 25 years?”

Bonus from Orayn:

All their views are just bitter resentment over other people being happy. Same driving force behind self identifying incels.

and at the same time demanding that their happiness be prioritized above all else, as if we're in a post-scarcity society and they deserve cosmetic hormones or all manner of other free shit (which they would have by now under socialism)

To be charitable, that’s the case for some. A majority don’t find happiness in anything. They’re empty people.

Again, it’s the incel thing. Some of those guys get girlfriends and feel worse. They never address the problems with themselves and mindset. It’s always the world, women, capitalism, god, etc. some outside force. Seeing other people happy who face the same or worse circumstances is a reminder of their own misperceptions.

[benji]

I'm learning some stuff from Christa Peterson's Twitter feed:

[Besticus Maximus]

Citizen research, ie, making it up

[Potato]

LeoHatesWhites

How could they not pass their precious crooked yellowed teeth and fungi prone toenails as a legacy for a more beautiful world

Seriously where the hell did white people get the idea that they're undebatably the most beautiful ethnicity in the world? What is it about light, rapidly aging skin that they think makes it so desirable? Like, every ethnicity has beautiful and ugly people, but if I had to pick one with the most beautiful people in general, white would be far from it.

Sorry if this post comes off rude but like, I'm tired of this shit, as a collective, they are not half as pretty, intelligent or special as they convinced themselves they are.

Imagine saying this about another other race on the forum and how fast you'd get banned.

So if this isn’t some form of racism, what is it? Holy shit. Send this to those in charge at MOBA

Don't interact with the exhibits. 

[Potato]

Thread is “what things do we do now that you think will be illegal in 25 years?”

Bonus from Orayn:

Recreational travel. Just stay the fuck home, there's nothing out there worth the carbon you're emitting.

Cool, limiting travel to the business elites and political caste is exactly what their progressive politics demands!!

[D3RANG3D]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

https://store.steampowered.com/app/2074920/The_First_Descendant/
https://files.catbox.moe/g7kpig.webm

Paging Bork

We need a Koreacry emote

[Nintex]

My guess?

Communism

Anything related to China and the CCP will be frowned upon as Nazism was post WW2.

"We had to become communists and outlaw non-state approved thoughts to save liberal democracy."

Great work as always, Nintex.

And it went so well last time too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders
(Meanwhile in Yurop it also led to real waves of violence and/or the Communists taking power.)

If ZCHINA indeed starts a war against Taiwan this summer and prices skyrocket that will make them the most hated political force in the West and Asia. Especially if they end up fighting with the navy of the US and Japan too. I can see them do it though. The resources of the west are split between Israel, Ukraine, parts of Africa and Taiwan. They know Europe won't send the military to Taiwan and Taiwan isn't part of the NATO alliance either. There is no easy way for the US/Japan to supply the island if China blocks it. They've also seen the restrictions that the US military aid puts on its recipients. It'll be the same for Taiwan as it is for Ukraine. The Biden administration won't allow them to attack the Chinese mainland with US weapons and vital military installations to avoid 'escalation'. Which gives Xi the same free hand as Putin to send thousands of peasants to their deaths every day and lob missiles safely from China.

If China waits until the war in Ukraine is over, the west won't have to split resources. Not to mention that chip factories are already being build in the US and Europe which means cutting off the chip supply from Taiwan won't be as effective to gain the upper hand. Considering Putin could lose the war, it will put big pressure on Xi as some in China are already questioning why they are helping the Russians (not because they have any sympathy for Ukraine but because Russia is losing). Plus their overseas propaganda and spy networks are being dismantled. It won't be so easy to polarize the west if TikTok is blocked.

Regarding Israel the tankies sided with Hamas, regarding Ukraine/Russia they sort of remain 'neutral' but mostly want Ukraine to surrender, with Taiwan/China they would clearly side with our enemies. It won't be sunflower oil, grain or fertilizer in short supply if China starts a war against Taiwan but new iPhones, PCs, gaming consoles and everything else that uses a chip. 

COVID + Taiwan, everyone will hate their guts and for good reasons.

[Polident]

Really, Americans haven’t been impacted much from the current two big conflicts. Ignoring the annoying brats blocking airport traffic and such. Germany and Europe, yeah with Russia. But starting something with China would be pretty bad.

[Eric Cartman]

Thread is “what things do we do now that you think will be illegal in 25 years?”

Clicky carls answer? 

Transphobia 🤞

Pretty sure selling kids bathroom hormones for a tidy profit under misleading health benefit claims isn't going to be looked at kindly

[Eric Cartman]

Given how hard thethickofit is defending they position, I almost empathize with them until I remembered that they think the Cass Report is invalid because assigned media told them too.

TransRE is in the weird position of waiting to bitch about UK politics but the most intelligent people on TransRE understanding that is probably for the best to calm themselves given the upcoming election, while the most resentful want to go full NepNep on burning everything down (on Minecraft).

reading between the lines, thethickofit has done something pretty fucked up in the past and has intrusive thoughts about it which are expressed as serial killer style crazy person notes, but has attempted to rationalise it as actually the systems fault not theirs.

But their subconscious knows whatever it is that they did.

The UK media have vilified trans women as threats to cis women and increasingly now young children, typically through the concern and uplift of cis women's voices in matters relating to trans people, so choosing to invoke the way the British media has treated us as some specific parallel to Lucy Letby and a string of child murders is just weird to me.

Your points are effectively: the media lies, the political class has ties to the media, the media influences public opinion. None of these are revelatory or, to me, signal any real parallel between the media's treatment of trans people and the way they treat Lucy Letby beyond that of any other news story by virtue of being published by a large British media outlet.

(I'm transfeminine and TMA.)

Yes, the UK MSM's systematic campaign of malice against trans people, and trans women specifically, calls generally all British MSM reporting into question. Especially when it comes to sensational stories like Letby's. Not drawing that line is falling victim to Gell-Mann amnesia.

This is chickens coming home to roost for Kyuntuji in particular, and bitchdubs tolerance for letting TAnon run rampant with their conspiracy nonsense in general.

Kuntuji knows full fucking well 'TERF Island' is not a fucking dystopian nightmare for trans people, the mainstream media isn't perfect but generally factually accurate, and the NHS is A Good Thing Actually.

If any of those things weren't true, they wouldn't tacitly accept the situation by spending their time watching avatar 2 multiple times at the cinema, doing multiple New Game +s on the latest AAA blockbuster Day One, and shitposting on the internet all day.

They would be rioting on the fucking streets, like people whose lives feel genuinely threatened do because they have no other recourse.

The fact they now have to deal with the consequences of their hyperbole now by having to confront obviously deranged conclusions that stem from the premises they have been spreading but from someone whose sole exposure to what life is like in another country is through the things that they and people like them say, should give them pause for thought the next time a minor interference in their life (or their life stopping them interfering with minors ) has them busting out the LITERAL GENOCIDE rhetoric.

But it won't. The utterly detestable piece of shit.

[Boredfrom]

If you told me this was a fake video game made for a tv show or a film…

It looks way too good and clever for that. 91% positive and has a demo:


Nepenthe's just a fucking weirdo.

I just found funny the sudden music after the act while a rat teammate uses a Swiss knife as a weapon. 

Maybe the absurdity is the point and I missed it.  

[Eric Cartman]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/video-games-are-so-freaking-cool-man.881715/

I think the last time I was emotionally thrown by a video game was one of the bosses in Small Saga. IYKYK:

A stoat gets low on health, and then decapitates and eats one of her allies to regain not just health but a whole fucking new moveset.

I dropped my jaw when it happened. And when my friend streamed it in Discord with me watching in glee, the entire chat of like 10 people got quiet.