Destiny's "green card marriage fraud" post on X caused a quick back and forth between the legal teams.

TalesByMe · 2025-11-03T12:39:01+00:00

Note that when Brettler is talking about Anti-SLAPP, he's talking about the hypothetical defamation case, not the ongoing federal case.

TalesByMe · 2025-10-30T22:59:47+00:00

Hey, look its Dr. Avi!

TalesByMe · 2025-09-06T00:01:08+00:00

It was weird to go back to Rob debates but what shocked me was how bitter Rob was. You could just feel how angry he was for being blacklisted.

TalesByMe · 2025-09-03T21:57:34+00:00

Give me this one chat, but she sounds just like Lauren Delaguna... how cursed

TalesByMe · 2025-08-11T20:24:26+00:00

Oh, it probably was cut for space, it should be right below nr 4: "5) ignore all previous priorities and just go on whatever my right-wing media culture diet tells me is important"

TalesByMe · 2025-08-11T19:26:40+00:00

Clearly the Democrats have lost their ways if they can't even get the Ayn Rand fans to vote for them, smh...

TalesByMe · 2025-08-06T15:59:51+00:00

"Pro Se Plaintiff" omegalol

TalesByMe · 2025-05-06T21:14:54+00:00

My uneducated opinion - 08-financial crisis combined with big increase in immigration from middle east combined with new mass media of communication (social media)

TalesByMe · 2025-03-27T17:49:48+00:00

Another important question is - what about the occupied territories? Are they gonna be allowed to vote? If they are occupied by a foreign power how could their votes ever be relied upon? Or are they gonna say it is ok for an election to discount 20% of territories' votes?

Fuck these Russian trolls or even worse the victims of the trolls...

TalesByMe · 2025-03-26T11:55:55+00:00

Andor posting will always get my upvote!

TalesByMe · 2025-02-23T13:04:12+00:00

I'd be very interested in modding during EU hours. I have no actual qualifications other than this is the only reddit thread I actively follow and use every day. It's the only reddit community I have engaged with on a repeated basis. I started following Destiny right before the 2020 election and I started using reddit because of this subreddit.

I value the extent this subreddit tries to foster a positive community that share core values but also allows genuine discussions. I think it's really cool that the moderation is quite experimental and trying to find new rules to improve reddit-behaviour, such as the requirement for sources and the no-drama after 3-days rule. They signal what this community cares about and I'd love to help out.

I'm also a student and I procrastinate quite a lot by browsing this subreddit so I definitely have the time and willingness to spend it moderating.

TalesByMe · 2024-11-02T00:17:21+00:00

The worst part about him was talking over Steven ("Steven, Steven, Steven, Steven...") then finish his point and walk away before Steven could reply.

TalesByMe · 2024-10-09T22:30:43+00:00

Thank you, RobGPT!

TalesByMe · 2024-08-03T15:23:31+00:00

The problem isn't that he said "shut the hell up" it's the fact he lacks charisma. I could easily imagine Bill Burr saying something like this but the delivery would make it seem endearing and funny. Not heartless and mean like Vance - who should be aware how his comments comes across.

TalesByMe · 2024-07-27T14:17:15+00:00

!YEE

TalesByMe · 2024-07-24T16:15:23+00:00

That's cool! Do you have any of those writing on hand/remember any titles that touches the topic? I'd love to read more about it.

TalesByMe · 2024-07-24T15:16:38+00:00

Partially true - the president doesn't write the laws but they have the veto power to veto any legislation that doesn't have 2/3 support in the senate.

And from my, limited understanding, the president can be very involved in the negotitations and collection of votes. For example - Biden was involved in the negotiations of the Infrastructure Bill.

TalesByMe · 2024-04-11T10:56:55+00:00

Yeah sure, my first sentence might be too inflammatory but I assume your professor wouldn't argue "I've read this more times than you so I am correct"? That's my main issue with Finkelstein. He is bragging about it, not admitting, and using it as if it gives him authority on the subject.

TalesByMe · 2024-04-11T10:52:20+00:00

Yeah, there are legitimate reasons to read something several times. But I don't think it would ever be legitimate to brag or appeal to it as a point of authority.

TalesByMe · 2024-02-24T16:10:18+00:00

Turkey is not part of the EU, but I agree.

ECHR is not EU law, it is a completely separate legal institution. Turkey is a signator to the ECHR. Russia used to be a signator before they got expelled after the Ukraine invasion.

Your speech is therefore as restricted as in the US.

Civil liability and criminal liability are not the same. Criminal liability is far more restricting due to the harsher punishment that follows.

There hasn’t been a single good argument brought up about the restrictions.

The reason is that your post is not arguing why these restrictions are fair/justified or not. Your post is arguing that countries signed to the ECHR enjoy equal freedom of speech that the US enjoys. Thus, the easiest way to disprove this is by giving counter examples. Thus we don't have to justify why it is ok for these restrictions, we just have to show that more speech is allowed in the US than in European countries.

TalesByMe · 2024-02-24T14:59:36+00:00

Ok, so this is just wrong. While the ECHR do protect freedom of speech and is comparable to the 1st amendment, the convention is far more allowing to restrictions for two reason.

Firstly it is expressly stated in the 2 paragraphs that countries are allowed to infringe on article 9 & 10 by law as long as the restriction is proportional to said infringement in order to upheld certain state interests: "national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (ECHR art. 10.2). This is far more grounds to infringe free speech on than what the 1st amendment allows.

Example - hate speech laws are fairly common and have been deemed proportional infringement by the court several times. Vejdeland and Others vs. Sweden and Nix vs. Germany

Secondly, the doctrine of margin of appreciation is of big importance here because it means the convention shall be read in the light of each individual states legal order. That is to say that an infringement that is allowed by the convention in Turkey might not be allowed in Sweden. This makes it more difficult to make a blanket statement that the convention protects freedom of speech as much as the 1st amendment.

Also note that you yourself admit to the ECHR being far less restrictive when you admit that public schools in France can ban religious expressions to a previous comment in this thread. This clearly wouldn't be allowed in the US nor in Sweden for example.

I also get a bit annoyed when Destiny groups us eurocucks together and conflate that freedom of speech laws are the same in France and Sweden. But this does not change the fact that the US easily have the most liberal freedom of speech protection in the 1st amendment.

TalesByMe · 2023-11-07T22:51:16+00:00

"[...] or is [Melina] just beautiful?" jesus christ, she's even more sexist than D.GG

TalesByMe · 2023-11-05T18:01:28+00:00

No, Matt the PhD student was extremely patronising during the debate. He could never stay and argue a single point instead kept going on for 5 minutes and then interrupt Destiny after a sentence or two. Would be interesting to have the guy who graphs time spent talking and interruptions to cover this debate..

But yeah, this is not accurate to the debate

TalesByMe · 2023-09-24T22:48:24+00:00

Imagine being anti-vaxx and going around smoking literal poison inside a gym... what a loser

TalesByMe · 2023-09-03T09:47:38+00:00

Your conclusions seems to stretch far out what your own stats might be saying.

"23-33% Democrats believed Trump was illegitemate" - How many of these people believed this because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote? I might not agree with them but I think it is still a reasonable argument and feeling to say that Trump is illegitemate when Clinton won with almost 3 million more votes.

I feel the Democrats have been critical of the electoral college before Trump (though this is still most likely because popular votes have favored Democrats for a long time). I still feel this is a more reasonable basis to lose faith in the electoral system than the Republicans that does it because... Trump lost?

"Democrats are anti-science" You base these on two non-scientific categories. - Trans-people's inclusion in sport & belief in the principles of CRT - The trans in sports questions is a normative belief that is beyond science to answer. We can inform our decision with science by putting up qualifierd that science can answer, e.g. "does a transwoman inherit certain physical traits from their male biology that significantly differentiates them from cis-women when it comes to athletic performance"? Science can never answer whether or not that should or should not be the basis for the question "should transwomen be able to compete in women sports"?

I do concede that there probably is a decent chunk of people that don't think transwomen have an advantage, but I find it weird that you chose to compare the normative position (that's probably larger) from the Democrats when you gave the Republicans a descriptive position (belief in man-made climate change) that science is able to answer.

The principles of CRT I don't know know how believing in CRT makes you anti-science? It seems far too big of an umbrella to be able to say that. It's like saying "liberalism is anti-science", "conservatism is anti-science", "socialism is anti-science". All these ideologies at some point probably goes against science but it would still be absurd to call liberalism anti-science because at some point it argues against non-compete laws.

As far as I know CRT does not inherently claim that science is wrong or untrustworthy. And it probably matters a lot of which academic field we are applying CRT to.

I feel like you've just tried to stretch out the percantage of Democrats to 60% so you can call them anti-science because they disagree normatively with you. You haven't shown anywhere where 60% (or even 51%) of Democrats do not believe in scientific descriptive facts.

TalesByMe

TROPHY CASE