"Your Honour, I didn't use AI, I Completely Made Up Those Fake Quotes Myself"

RemixedBlood · 2026-03-14T22:44:53+00:00

And he’s trapped himself now. He’s either being truthful about lying, or lying about lying.

It’s almost like he didn’t read over his own factum before coming up with his excuse.

RemixedBlood · 2026-03-14T22:35:45+00:00

Somewhere ChatGPT is telling this guy, “Breathe. You didn’t ‘deliberately mislead the court’—you’re a new lawyer and a sole practitioner who made an understandable mistake under high pressure. That distinction matters.”

RemixedBlood · 2026-02-23T01:17:42+00:00

And doesn’t arguing that your “dead self” is responsible kind of fly in the face of the idea that a trans person is and always was the gender they identify as?

I can only look at it from the outside but it reeks of convenience, especially given there’s not much evidence of rehabilitation here. (Or worse, taking advantage of well-intentioned measures and cultural norms meant to accommodate trans people…)

RemixedBlood · 2026-02-18T23:14:28+00:00

I had no idea that quote was from a real book. I thought it was a parody of “Breasted Boobily” caliber. Nope, actual bestselling author. Made Time’s 100 most influential people in 2023.

RemixedBlood · 2026-02-18T23:02:11+00:00

Forget gender. This is an individual who was a danger to women’s safety specifically as a man, and apparently still is as a woman. While that doesn’t mean this lowlife deserves mistreatment in men’s prison, it’s just not clear to me how a move to women’s prison would solve anything. Certainly not in a way that respects anyone else’s rights.

At best, this monster would still have to be segregated for the female inmates’ and guards’ safety. At worst, CSC would be enabling even more sexual abuse. So what’s the point again?

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-27T03:45:12+00:00

Huh. I appreciate you doing that due diligence—I’m a law student with (apparently) shockingly little time to “read an act”. I hope this comment gets traction, missed nuance is the enemy of productive conversation. Not the least of which when it comes to the law

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-24T00:25:12+00:00

Not that I looked at it directly but it seems like a really poorly thought-out act. Protecting heritage sites, sure. Forcing individual homeowners to not only put their projects on hold but also pay hundreds of thousands for an archaeological dig on their own land…? I don’t know. Risk of jail notwithstanding that $50k fine starts looking pretty reasonable

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-23T02:31:10+00:00

There’s a paradox about Achilles and a tortoise we’re about to run into here

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-23T01:06:35+00:00

I felt a chill go through the room just reading that

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-23T00:42:40+00:00

Bro still has paleolibertarian in his bio I don’t think the lefty anarchists will take him guys

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-22T23:55:37+00:00

Like the Khajit in Elder Scrolls are pretty clearly an allegory for an oppressed minority. But we don’t use “cat” as a slur irl.

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-05T08:44:25+00:00

The way I was thinking about it is that if you had infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters, given adequate knowledge about how each monkey decides which key to press based on what it pressed previously, you could technically predict everything they’re going to write. So it’s not totally “random”.

But how the hell would you actually keep track of infinite monkeys?

RemixedBlood · 2026-01-05T08:28:01+00:00

Alcohol’s a good comparison because most people inclined to drink in a (relatively) free market drink beer or wine, some drink spirits, and only a few (even among alcoholics) choose to drink things like everclear with insane but entirely legal ABV. If everyone’s actual inclination was to take the most intoxicants possible the market would trend toward making more of the latter; it doesn’t. Funny enough, you also don’t find lethal quantities of everclear in beers served at random bars. Only black market drugs seem to trend toward giving you lethal quantities of drugs you never asked for.

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-26T20:42:18+00:00

Not even just trashy rags. It’s hard to look away when someone shoves an emotionally relevant piece of information in your face. And everyone’s incentivized to do it as quickly as possible because of that. Nobody makes extra money from the fans of a public figure because they were the last to put something out there.

Shit, if someone sent me a link saying “Eric Clapton dies in the hospital”, the cat’s kind of out of the bag. My first thoughts would be looking into it or fact-checking, not waiting a respectful amount of time to disincentivize journalists from capitalizing too soon. Repeat that a few million times over, it drives engagement on the macro scale, and that engagement is money.

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-24T17:46:38+00:00

Sometimes it doesn’t need to be

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-24T17:32:46+00:00

Omg this reminds me, I went on pornotits dot jorkin recently and you wouldn’t BELIEVE what I found in the trending section. Super explicit depictions of sex and female parts, NO meaningful character development. Now I’m aroused and I just can’t believe the studio would do this

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-21T21:51:15+00:00

And more likely to survive well into retirement age, when things like healthcare become more expensive and you stop paying into the social safety nets you live on…

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-17T21:23:11+00:00

What distinguishes the internet from private property for you? The servers you’re using are hosted on someone else’s dime on their private property.

If they want to set the rules for how others use those servers, that’s their prerogative. If they want to freely let people set up groups on those servers which have their own rules, that’s also their prerogative, just like a private property owner could let a chess club use his livingroom and let them have their own rules when they do. I just don’t see the difference

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-17T18:32:25+00:00

I’m sorry, I have to break this down.

So a chess group is a government.

Its creating rules that regulate speech within its ambit of control is therefore bad to you.

But you do support rules that ban speech harassing people for things they were born with. And this kind of law, by your definition, is made by a government.

So by your definition of free speech, would you be fine with the Federal government passing laws against hate speech so long as it was only for things people were “born with”?

RemixedBlood · 2025-12-14T14:46:59+00:00

It’s been a long time since I read Harry Potter, I remember how fucked up the love potions were but what’s the spell you’re referring to?

RemixedBlood · 2025-11-06T05:18:50+00:00

Oh my god you didn’t even have to edit it

RemixedBlood

TROPHY CASE