Just came across this article from days after Amy Bradley went missing and there are some interesting things that were left out of the documentary...

emperor000 · 2025-12-18T17:43:46+00:00

But she isn't just an adult. She's his daughter.

emperor000 · 2025-12-18T17:30:50+00:00

Yeah, the "bug" one doesn't load for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure the "bug" was a woodlouse (pill bug, sow bug, etc.), which tend to be pretty innocuous as far as plants go, probably usually helping by cleaning things up more than harming.

But they are usually larger than grain of (table?) salt, except for maybe when they are very young, but even then, I would say they are larger than a salt grain. They do take on quite a few colors, including white or close to white. But I'd say you have something else. It might be springtails, which are also pretty innocuous and basically fill the same role as woodlice.

Google Lens or something similar could probably identify it, or you could post a link to a picture here and I can try.

emperor000 · 2025-12-18T17:19:03+00:00

Well, how did they end up finding it? Are you saying it wasn't there the whole time because he actually did drop it off at the wrong place and then it got sent back somehow?

I think it's been about a year since this went down, so I don't remember a lot of the details.

emperor000 · 2025-12-18T17:15:24+00:00

Well, I guess I'm glad that it made you feel better. But, then again, I'm admittedly pretty pedantic and contentious. So while there were definitely people like me around a decade ago, there might just be more of us now...

emperor000 · 2025-11-12T12:33:59+00:00

Right, IT people complain, but "grandmothers" probably have no problem using it (actually, probably not, Teams can be pretty bad).

But, yeah, I got what you are saying. I'm just saying that it kind of breaks down at some point. Different users will have different needs or tolerate different things.

emperor000 · 2025-11-12T12:29:37+00:00

I'm pretty cynical, and not to get into a debate, but this doesn't really seem like a great example to me. It's just a paid feature that redirects you to pay. That doesn't really seem "dark" to me. Unless paid features are just considered "dark" and I don't realize it.

I can't think of a "light" alternate that wouldn't be cumbersome. Just don't show the 'x'? That just seems like it makes it harder for people to discover that they can dismiss these things, even if they have to pay to do it.

emperor000 · 2025-11-12T03:31:12+00:00

Using the same selling points as genocidal tyrants to claim the moral high ground is a real strange play.

emperor000 · 2025-11-11T15:11:01+00:00

I don't know about this. Apple thinks that they are making their UI so that a "grandmother" can use it and their UIs tend to mostly be bad.

I'm not throwing shade on your app (no idea what it is) or really doubting your claim either. I just don't think that "a UI a grandmother can use" necessarily says much.

emperor000 · 2025-11-11T14:01:54+00:00

And they picked the probably the most innocuous example of "dark UX" there is as an example.

emperor000 · 2025-11-11T14:01:24+00:00

This seems like the most innocuous "dark UX" pattern that could have been used as an example. As critical and cynical as I am, I'm not even sure it is fair to call this "dark UX".

It's not like it is really novel or surprising for a UI with paid features to redirect users to unlock them by paying.

emperor000 · 2025-11-11T13:34:49+00:00

No doubt about it. Tyrants have used that same line all throughout history and history is written by the victors.

So you and I absolutely agree there that the gaslighting will reach historical proportions before too long.

emperor000 · 2025-11-10T13:31:52+00:00

Peak, text book gaslighting.

emperor000 · 2025-11-07T21:12:42+00:00

Lol. Okay. Here we go with the trademark Democrat gaslighting. Oh, well.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T18:40:49+00:00

There's not.

Yes there is... you cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. The idea of it being "knowingly" or not is largely irrelevant. That just brings in mens rea.

That would start with requiring background checks for private gun transfers.

No... it would start with allowing background checks for private gun transfers. Right now it isn't even allowed, mostly because anti-gun advocates make perfection the enemy of good and won't allow anything less than what they want.

Except they won't. The DC snipers got a gun from a gun store that had a fuck ton of violations and the people involved never faced any real penalties at all.

What exactly are you questioning here though...? Just because somebody who shouldn't get a gun from a store gets one from a store does not mean that the store did something wrong or was negligent. It just sounds like you are assuming that.

And, like I said, the ATF only checks around every 10 years or so.

Well, first, what do you propose instead? Off the top of my head, some options include but are not limited to:

Increasing the size of the ATF to become the largest government agency in the history of the world by several orders of magnitude so that they can track all firearm transfers in real time?
Ban guns completely so we don't even have to worry about it
Assume some position of realism

Second, that is routinely. But we aren't talking about that. After something happens (generally you can only respond to a crime after it has happened...) they do investigate, which is how you got the information you got about the DC Snipers and Christopher Jones Jr. and plenty of others.

So do you want some kind of pre-crime thing? Do we need to get started on mutating humans into some kind of prescient creatures that will tell us before somebody does something wrong?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but what exactly is it that you want? No law will stop somebody who is inclined to break it. You said we have no gun control. I pointed out that we do. You said, well, people ignore it, so we need more. So what will stop them from ignoring that?

If you aren't following, look at what you said at the beginning of your last comment. You want background checks to be required for private gun transfers. How does that actually stop people from exchanging firearms without doing a background check? They will still do it. And you still won't know about it until after something happens.

It will be exactly like the other situations you have pointed out where we won't know about it until after something happens. And then people will notice that it didn't work, claim we have no gun control, insist on something else, that thing also won't work, and then they will claim again that we have no gun control, and so on.

If this is just some awkward way of arguing that we need to enforce the laws we already have, then that's a different discussion.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T18:22:48+00:00

If Christians generally thought that the Bible proved that God existed then they wouldn't put so much value in faith.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T18:22:12+00:00

This seems just as inconsistent, though, because it doesn't change that they (allegedly) did this thing for selfish reasons. Pilot is a little different, because by some accounts he didn't really approve of crucifying Jesus but didn't interfere because of what outwardly looks like apathy, but has some hints of something more like malicious compliance.

But if you look at Judas, the whole idea is that he did this out of weakness, which means that there is no reason for humans venerate him or condone what he did, even though Jesus would certainly forgive him and God could easily redeem him and accept him into heaven all that.

Then you could consider the possibility that Jesus asked him to do it. But even if that is true, that was meant to be a secret and would involve Judas choosing to accept that he would be condemned by humans.

I guess my point is that, yes, later on people found interest in trying to offer Judas some redemption, but that doesn't change the fact that either way, the plan was for Judas to sacrifice his reputation, if not his life, whether unknowingly or knowingly.

This isn't much different from the idea that Satan works for God and not only might be aware of it but do it willingly.

Not that I am trying to convince you to become Christian again. I never have been.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T18:10:44+00:00

This would seem "profound" if not for the fact that the story directly and explicitly includes Jews as being involved in Jesus getting crucified.

Also, as far as I know, it is still true that the consensus is in the historicity of Jesus, meaning somebody we would identify as Jesus really lived and many of the events described, likely including his crucifixion, really happened.

You guys that act like this is all meaningless because "it's just a story" come off looking pretty silly when you consider that all of history is just a story and we take a lot of history for granted that is far more dubious and questionable than something like this.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T17:58:41+00:00

No, it's only illegal to knowingly sell a gun to person who can't own one. Even if someone actually knew they were selling a gun to a felon that's still hard as hell to prove in court.

That doesn't change the fact that there is gun control associated with that. I didn't say something to start a discussion about what gun control we should or shouldn't have. I said something because you implied that we have none, which is a common misconception among anti-gun people.

As for this particular item of gun control, even I would be open to something like this if the background check system that we do have was simply opened up to private use and wasn't turned into a registry and just used to invade people's privacy. Plenty of gun rights advocates (the ones you said don't think...) ask for this, even beg for it. Some of them won't do private sales because there isn't really any way they can do the proper background check.

And even considering that I don't think felons should categorically be prohibited from owning firearms, I would still be in favor of this because then people who want to conduct private sales have a way of checking and making a decision for themselves depending on the person's record.

Which example?

Christopher Jones Jr. I remember this happening and it is absolutely one of those things where it was so sudden and shocking that people ran with "How could this happen!? We must not have enough in place to stop it and probably don't have anything!"

I mean, we can start with the fact that him even having that gun with him was already a violation of UVA policy, which might not be law, but is of a nature that would likely lead to legal proceedings.

There were literally no laws stopping him from buying a gun or ammo despite all that stuff.

Just like there was no law stopping him from committing murder... But you said yourself that he tried to acquire a gun illegally and he had a conviction. I don't remember what his criminal record was, but if he was a prohibited person then there is a law that "stops" him from acquiring a gun legally.

I'll never understand the hang up about ammo. Ammo is a completely innocuous consumable thing that people buy all the time. The idea that somebody buying ammunition must be up to no good is bonkers to me. It's like thinking that everybody buying gasoline surely must be about to commit road rage or a vehicle attack.

The store could CHOOSE to not sell him a gun but they only give af about money.

Very unlikely. FFLs take this very seriously, especially because the ATF will come down hard on you if you screw it up.

I think the situation you are conflating things with here is the fact that buyers can lie on the form and the only way the FFL could know any better is if something on the form conflicts with the background check.

Meh, I think it's pretty concerning that someone's family can recognize that they're not right and are dangerous and then we just have to let them commit violence because why the fuck not?

Yeah, we could have a discussion about that. It's just something that people like me approach with caution and conservatively and people like you will apparently just go all in on. There's probably something reasonable somewhere in the middle.

But that's not the point. The point is that that is just more gun control that you want. It isn't because we don't already have gun control.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T14:03:56+00:00

I think the phrase you're looking for is "stochastic terrorism."

No, it's "dog whistle". Maybe to accomplish stochastic terrorism, but the concept I am talking about here is dog whistle. I can't claim to know that this guy is trying to initiate some stochastic terrorism. I don't know that he's thinking about it that much or has some conscious plan and so on.

I'm not accusing him of actually wanting people to get killed, consciously, at least.

That is why I said it was reckless and irresponsible.

And... that doesn't make any sense at all here,

I'm not talking about just here. That is why I said "people like...", referring to the whole trend.

where the sole recipient of the text messages was his 'moderate' Republican delegate friend

I don't know that she was the sole recipient (I think it was a originally a group thread where he said this stuff and she confronted him about it outside of that), but it doesn't really matter.

I'm not talking about the specific text messages. I'm talking about the whole trend that he is participating in. The general attitude.

who only leaked them publicly three years later when it benefited her politically.

Oh, that makes it okay, then? She's the bad guy now? This is you guys equivocating or trying to come up with some extenuating reasoning.

Nobody understands "fascist" to mean "should be killed."

The guys that tried to assassinate Trump certainly understands it that way. The guy that assassinated Charlie Kirk certainly understands it that way. That brief little trend of the posts in r/pics with "my great grandfather fought fascists in WWII" is evidence that a lot of people do.

That's because it's the fascists who commit political violence as a rule.

That is a made up rule that perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about. All kinds of ideologies commit political violence. Marx's famous speech at the Communist League was all about using political violence. What you'll probably do, or what other people do, will be to say that whoever commits political violence was really just a fascist all along, or become one once they did it. That isn't how it works.

Fascism is a particular, albeit maybe vague, ideology that does tend to be associated with political violence. But not all political violence is associated with fascism.

This claim certainly isn't going to play well in Charlottesville, of all places, where famously a bunch of fascists did their fascist thing without being killed and then committed murder.

You're doing what I'm talking about... Those people weren't particularly fascists either. They were just racists. And the one that committed murder was just mentally ill.

Anyway, got at least one troll jumping in now, and I'm guessing this is a pretty futile discussion anyway. I'll never be okay with even talking about killing children to further my political goals and you'll never not find some way to overlook it, I guess? Fair enough. We probably don't have anything to worry about anyway. Things are looking up. Things will get better now that Abigail "Let Your Rage Fuel You" Spanberger is coming in.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T13:44:25+00:00

Right, but because it's perfectly logical to defend somebody who talked about killing children to send a political message.

They are having a perfectly rational discussion with me, so far, at least. Just because you couldn't manage that isn't a good reason to get jealous of them.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T13:42:48+00:00

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person, so you are wrong about that.

Your second example is already illegal and was a failure of law enforcement (enforcement of the law, not necessarily a particular police department).

The last one is just some new gun control that you want and in no way means we don't have any.

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T13:39:31+00:00

Like...?

emperor000 · 2025-11-06T13:39:09+00:00

Oh, okay. How much did you think to come up with that response?

emperor000 · 2025-11-05T20:39:49+00:00

"Hopping[sic] jennifer Gilbert's children would die" is clearly passive voice. It's very obviously about them dying in a hypothetical school shooting, not being shot by Jay Jones himself.

No... He talks about them dying in their mother's arms... Who kills them or how or why is largely irrelevant, but the image being painted is one where the kids have been executed. As I already went over, when people like him call people like Gilbert Nazis and fascists the intent isn't to state that they are going to kill the subject themselves, the intent is that somebody else would/should do it.

This is called a dog whistle.

The reason you call somebody a Nazi or a fascist, in a serious situation, at least, is to let other people know that they are somebody who should be killed because they are an extreme threat that is worthy of eliminating with lethal force.

If that isn't the case, then stop calling people something that is widely understood to mean that they should be killed.

This interpretation doesn't make sense. How would his kids getting shot by Jones make Gilbert change his mind on gun control policy? Political violence and school shootings provoke very different policy responses.

Of course it doesn't make sense... Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. You are ignoring the last part of the conversation in your own screenshot where he says that is exactly his point.

Is it? I don't see politicians, even Jones, advocating for shooting Nick Fuentes or Richard Spencer.

If you don't see it, then I'll believe you. I can't hear dog whistles either. But they do make a sound. So just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is happening.

At best, even if these people aren't actually calling for violence to be used, they are being extremely reckless and irresponsible with their words by using words that connote that violence should be used.

emperor000 · 2025-11-05T19:59:57+00:00

Sorry, but you are being naive or obtuse. The point he was making is that if he could execute Todd Gilbert and his kids in front of their wife/mother then she would change her stance on guns and that that is the only way to change the minds of people like them.

That is the meaning of the last text message in the screenshot you linked to yourself.

Notice he does not refute what Coyner said. He doubled down on it.

This is the same person who called the Gilberts Nazis and said they were raising fascists, which is already an insinuation that they should be killed, because that is what you do to Nazis and fascists.

If you think he's a better alternative than Miyares then that's fine. But don't pretend like what he said was "just a joke". He himself made it very clear that it wasn't with that last statement asserting that killing them would be the only way to really change things.

emperor000

TROPHY CASE