fountainofage

That's a fair interpretation. Admittedly I've known him long enough that I'm familiar with these experiences of his, so I didn't probe too much into this exact event and what he thought everyone else was doing.

He also at one point pursued a diet in which he'd eat vegan as long as it was the best option available. And it was just like ... that's almost what literally everyone else does? He seemed to believe most people just ignored certain menu options by default, versus ordering the item that seemed most appealing to them. He thought people looked at a menu and thought "oh, that eggplant vegetable medley sounds amazing! Drat, it doesn't have chicken, guess I'll just get the cheeseburger."

You've reminded me of a friend of mine who reached the point in his life where he was going to furnish his home with new furniture. He boasted how he was only going to buy American and wasn't going to be like everyone else favoring stuff from elsewhere. After one day of furniture shopping exclusively American, he said he couldn't justify spending so much just to buy American. And I was dumbfounded. Like he honestly believed people weren't buying American-made because they actually favored stuff from China. The thought it was a cost issue never crossed his mind until he had to spend his own money.

"but not guarantee" is almost the entire point of what folks are pointing out and what the OP meant - you could do literally everything perfect and still it's VERY likely you will fail.

> I'm not sure why there is a stigma to deciding to not have kids.

> It's not as if your decision is going to have much impact on anybody except yourself

That's pretty much every stigma, though, so it also makes sense why this one exists, too.

Why is publicly saying "hey, a few companies are selling shorts of gamestop and trying to drive it into the ground, I think that's bullshit. If you think it's bullshit, too, here's how you could do something about it." such a questionable thing to say and do?

Do you also want cancer charities to stop asking for donations? Should start up founders not be allowed to ask for investor money?

I could totally see the market manipulation argument if this was done in backrooms, with multiple accounts to hide the moves, several shell corporations holding the funds, etc. But these folks are publicly declaring their intent. And the first person to uncover the gamestop shorts has been saying it for over a year. Out in the open with frequent updates.

The short sellers have had a year to get out and leave the company alone, but they were so obsessed with watching a company die that people got pissed and wanted some blood.

The chain of events doesn't start with "we buy a lot and blah blah blah" - the chain of events starts with someone declaring over a year ago "fuck these guys for going all in on destroying a quality company for no reason other than the lulz."

That same page also says

"Investors and prospective investors should be cautious of rumors on chat rooms where the intent of nameless and faceless computer users is in doubt."

So it'd be a question of which is it? Is it don't trust internet forums or is it people shit posting memes is a coordinated attack?

Logically and morally you can't have it both ways. But we're seeing how morals don't matter when you go after the money.

Off the top of my head I recall etrade, fidelity, schwab, and TD ameritrade allowed people to buy GME. I understand being able to buy on margin has been restricted almost everywhere, though.

They will likely lose a lot of their users. The users were never the customers - not even the gold ones.

Honestly, I've typed out a few replies, and I've got nothing.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust cops because they kill 1,100 people a year. That's it. That's my whole argument. Just 1,100 lives. Every year.

You're saying that's not relevant to what we're talking about and let's look at how European countries seem fine with their more lax evidentiary protocols, legal systems, and trusting cops. Even though their cops only kill 50 people a year (at equivalent population rates).

I really don't have a "better" warrant system to propose other than an adversarial one because at the end of the day I don't trust cops, and you're advocating for a legal system that intrinsically does. This is me saying "hey, blue is actually yellow" and you saying "no, blue is blue." Our perceived realities are too far apart.

To my knowledge, much of the rest of the developed world doesn't have a problem with cops being able to lie under oath with no punishment. The non-adversarial systems you reference rely on the confidence that when a cop gets caught knowingly lying to get a warrant, that cop is fucked. Here in the US, it's just another Tuesday morning at the coffee shop with the boys.

On the destruction of evidence, this one has always baffled me - so is there evidence or not? Presumably when I go to a judge saying I need the legal authority to kill some babies at 3 AM because otherwise the evidence will be destroyed... I have enough evidence to justify killing those babies, right?

... So this begs the question... Why do I need authorization to kill babies at 3 AM? In case the suspects destroy more evidence? What was my evidence to kill babies to begin with? Just a hunch? Because a judge should absolutely shit on that, and it should be adversarial. A judge should laugh when evidence for a warrant request is "oh, I need the warrant because they'll destroy the evidence for me to request this warrant."

From my rough observation of the news for the past 20 or so years, the evidence of these crimes these babies died to protect has never been worth it. Maybe you know of a few where the death of a few babies were worth it because the crimes were so heinous. Every time I'm aware of - it's just been drugs, which could have been done in daylight hours, with no dead babies.

Now maybe this is your point about unarmed police. I'm not sure. But a warrant tends to be a fuck ton of latitude (as I've said in prior comments - judges just hand them out like candy), so just send in cops who want to kill with their bare hands and you'll get the same result, in my opinion.

I agree I'm being extreme, but that's where we are today. We tried the whole "let's just all get along and try to fight crime together" method, and it turns out cops will just lie to judges and go kill kids. This isn't me doing a slippery slope "what if" scenario. This has already happened. A bunch of times. Too many times in my opinion.

So now it's time for us to take away everyone's toys until they can show us they can all be good.

That's my point - not that a judge should grant a warrant to a crackhead, but that they should act as if they're granting a warrant to a crackhead. So basically the opinions, social standing, and claims of the entity requesting the warrant are irrelevant. Only the actual evidence should be considered by a judge when granting a "right to wantonly kill" because that's exactly what a warrant is at the end of the day. It should be taken very seriously, and unfortunately, it's not.

I'm mainly commenting on the way up parent here:

"They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message."

Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts.

Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up.

Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.

The issue is: the evidence they gathered was that her home was specifically NOT part of any drug rings. The judge went ahead and issued a warrant even though all actual evidence said her house was not involved. Cops lied and said it totally was, and the judge just said "sure thing bros, we're all such buds."

My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.

Yeah, I bet if someone came over and beat the shit out of you for only an hour a day, you'd be correcting people that the person is only sometimes an asshole.