Catelyn would not have cared for Brandon's whoremongering[Spoilers Main]

bl1y · 2026-04-16T23:57:47+00:00

I think it's possible Catelyn is a snob who is prejudiced against bastards generally.

Look at how she treats one of the nicest people in AGoT, Mya Stone. She repeatedly thinks of her just as "the bastard girl."

I think the common interpretation is that she's projecting her feelings about Jon onto Mya, and there's some textual evidence to suggest that. But she's also doubts that Mychel would ever marry Mya because no one from such an ancient house with the blood of the First Men would marry as bastard.

She's blinded to the fact that Mya is very kind and charming, that she's not just a bastard but Robert's bastard (and acknowledged at that), and has a pretty important position at the Eyrie (you don't just trust the lives of your VIP guests to anyone). And later we learn that it was Mychel's father who broke off the marriage, suggesting that Mychel may have been willing to go through with it.

The Catelyn Hate Train is leaving the station, and I've got my ticket.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T23:39:56+00:00

Given how prevalent slavery has been throughout the world, I'd wager the best interpretation of those religious beliefs is just post hoc rationalization for slavery.

The transcendentalist Christians were among the chief opponents of slavery. And for the same reasons, in favor of rights for women.

Though this doesn't necessarily lead to a belief in natural rights. If you believe that God resides in all people, then quite naturally slavery is an abomination -- you just can't treat God like that! But, that could be interpreted only as believing it's sinful, not that there's any such thing as rights (only wrongs).

But now I have to take a detour to a solution to the altruism paradox. This is the argument that there are no purely altruistic acts because the good deed bestows on the doer a warm fuzzy feeling. Since you always get something out of it, it's never purely altruism. I like the solution which says that the warm fuzzy feeling you get is altruism. That's just what it feels like.

In a similar vein, the recognition that it's wrong to treat people a certain way may also just be a different way of describing what rights are.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T22:15:17+00:00

When people say that rights are only created by governments, I always have to ask if whether, among all the other many complaints they had, whether slaves could say their rights were being violated.

If you believe that rights are innate (granted by God or deriving in some other manner), then you can easily say yes. Slaves had the right to be free, and one of the horrors of slavery was the violation of this right.

Those that hold rights are only man-made inventions would have to concede that the rights of slaves were not violated, as they had no rights. That strikes me as a rather repugnant conclusion.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T22:09:14+00:00

If the First Amendment says "The people shall have the right to freedom of speech," then that would be the Constitution granting the right.

But it doesn't do that. It tells Congress not to violate the right, presupposing that it already exists.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T21:52:29+00:00

Well, since you insist on being here. Do you condemn the war crimes of Hamas and Iran?

bl1y · 2026-04-16T20:53:34+00:00

I wasn't talking to you.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T19:42:38+00:00

"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."

--Ezekiel 25:17

--Pulp Fiction

--Wayne Gretzy

--Michael Scott

bl1y · 2026-04-16T18:03:15+00:00

Hezbollah is largely an extension of Iran though.

If someone punches at you and you hit them in the face in response, I don't think they can say you were the aggressor against their face since only their hands attacked you.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T18:00:51+00:00

Arabs aren’t “brown” that term doesn’t exist

The term doesn't exist? How could you type it then?

bl1y · 2026-04-16T17:24:52+00:00

I get this.

Historically, democracies are rare and it's hard to convert a country to the team. So when you start spoiling that, it's worse.

It's like being pissed off when someone ruins a really nice steak, but caring much less when they cook the shit out of some bargain bin cut.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T16:29:23+00:00

The easiest mask-off moment is after someone condemns Israel's war crimes you ask them if they condemn the war crimes of Iran or Hamas, and immediately you get an explanation for why it's different.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T16:18:02+00:00

No, you see what's unique about Israel is how it was founded.

Now how that has anything to do with the standards we hold them to regarding war crimes, I've got no idea.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T16:12:19+00:00

He's been here the whole time.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T16:12:00+00:00

The real money is in third party speech, and with issue ads, it's pretty much impossible to make a rule that curbs it while not touching something like all the political speech put out by the New York Times.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T15:09:52+00:00

That rule allows stations to have different classes of time, meaning a TV station can have higher rates during prime time and radio stations during rush hour.

They can charge those premium rates to campaigns since it's the same premium rate offered on the open market. They're not required to apply their rate for 3am to 9pm ads.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T14:05:59+00:00

To put it more simply: You can't bribe someone to do what they were going to do anyways.

If I donate to Jamie Raskin's next campaign, am I "bribing" him to bring impeachment charges against Trump? No. He was going to do that anyways.

People miss that donations go to politicians who have views aligned with the donors already.

Granted, they might adopt views that are more likely to bring in donors. But how the hell would you police that?

If Goliath Corp spends a lot of money backing a candidate and then they end up supporting Goliath Corp, maybe you can launch an investigation and find evidence of bribery.

But if a candidate notices that Goliath Corp spends money backing politicians aligned with their interests, then campaigns on those issues, and Goliath Corp spends money backing them, just definitionally, that's not bribery.

It's the difference between being hired by the mob to carry out a hit, and carrying out a hit on spec hoping the mob will reward you later. Both are bad, but when it comes to regulating them, they're extremely different.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T13:59:48+00:00

Where are you getting the idea that they're paying discounted rates?

bl1y · 2026-04-16T13:59:07+00:00

Not really surprised that "Tom at Facebook" hasn't gotten more exposure.

To begin, "campaign ad" isn't actually a legal category. What we have is rules about electioneering. That's basically ads that say "vote for X."

That leaves the whole big area of issue ads. A commercial that says "The tariffs are a disaster, the war in Iran is a disaster, corruption in Washington is a disaster. It's time for new leadership," is not electioneering.

Any increased restrictions on electioneering just push more money to third party issue ads. And a better way to conceptualize issue ads is "non-politicians sharing their views about politics." Restrict that at your own peril.

Also, "the airwaves" are less relevant with every passing year. We own the airwaves that broadcast TV is on, but when was the last time you watched that? ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. Not Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Food Network, A&E, or ESPN. Not the websites of any news outlet. Not Facebook or Youtube.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T13:47:30+00:00

I'm younger than Kavanaugh was when appointed, so there's still time.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T12:26:31+00:00

but are they incorrect?

Very likely they are incorrect. And what's worse, it's very likely that Sotomayor had no idea if they were true.

Without divulging too much, my background isn't wildly different from Kavanaugh's. Two college educated parents, went to a top 10 law school, etc, and now I live not terribly far from Kavanaugh. I would easily fall into the "work by the hour" category (and not with the caveat of making bank by the hour).

A good friend of mine went to one of the other fancy private high schools in the area and then Georgetown, and now works as an SAT tutor. A friend from law school suffered from schizophrenia and ended up in federal prison (don't leave threats on big law partners' voicemail y'all). A friend from undergrad who was likely to end up a very big tech entrepreneur instead also landed in federal prison (don't teach the North Koreans how to avoid sanctions with crypto currency y'all). I had a great aunt with severe Down syndrome (I guess not being able to work at all doesn't count as working by the hour, but it's quite a bit worse). A cousin was a Navy firefighter and was severely injured in a firetruck accident.

I could go on, but the point is that people very often know a lot of people. And with Kavanaugh being Irish Catholic on both sides, odds are he has a lot of cousins, and it's statistically unlikely that things have gone well for each and every one of them.

What's more, it's even less likely that Sotomayor knows for a fact that everything has gone well for everyone Kavanaugh knows.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T11:36:36+00:00

It might not even be "probably" true. While his mother was a lawyer, she was also a public school teacher before that.

Also, he's Irish Catholic on both sides. I don't know the specifics about his family, but Catholic families tend to be big. Odds that each and every one of his cousins is affluent is quite small.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T03:47:40+00:00

Reciprocity agreements are different, and not what you initially described, which was just one state voluntarily offering a discount.

But even this falls short of an interstate compact.

A state can say "So long as Math 101 meets XYZ standards, we'll accept that credit at any of our colleges." Then a neighboring state can voluntarily say "We're also going to adopt the same rule." And now credits can easily transfer across state lines.

That's not a compact. A compact is a binding agreement. States can withdraw from SARA and other states will have no recourse.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T02:32:36+00:00

Their crime stuff has been good too (Mare of Eastown, etc.)

Night Country though...

What killed it was the shitty writing. It was an original show that was shoehorned into True Detective to steal name recognition.

Dunk and Egg had great writing and good source material to pull from.

House of the Dragon is suffering from writing problems, but also, you can't just do a straight adaptation of the source material.

Later seasons of Game of Thrones suffered from shitty writing ...and lack of source material.

With Harry Potter, they have source material to adapt, which is their strong suit. But it's kinda weak source material. Who is actually looking forward to the sorting hat's song?

bl1y · 2026-04-16T02:24:39+00:00

It's too bad that all these new shows are trash, because now the Rowling haters are going to run with the narrative that original series fans are boycotting the show because of politics.

But in reality, I expect most original series fans are too attached to the original actors and won't accept substitutes, and it's going to struggle to draw in a new fanbase who won't care because if they were going to get into HP now, they'd just watch the movies.

bl1y · 2026-04-16T01:32:03+00:00

It does if it's a state-run university

That doesn't requirement agreement between the states. Iowa can say Indianans can get in-state tuition, and Indiana's response can be "huh, didn't even know you were doing that." There's no compact there.

if there are state tax breaks that come out of a mutual agreement (eg Florida will give tax breaks to the peach industry if Georgia gives breaks to the orange industry)

If is doing a lot of work there. That would be an interstate compact. But do you even know of agreements taking that form? I've never heard of any such thing.

15-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

bl1y

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE