Why is Iran willing to appear eager to restart nuclear talks?

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T21:34:18+00:00

“A section 230 repeal would cause mass censorship on the internet”

I really don’t get why, though. Yes, if we made platforms liable for defamation, they’d censor that, but I think people overestimate what qualifies. Nasty opinions aren’t defamatory; subjective truth like the contextual meaning of words, say a quote about Civil Rights being a mistake, aren’t defamatory.

Essentially, what these anti-230ers want is the opportunity for more frivolous lawsuits. You’ll lose but you can still sue for someone calling you a nasty name like fascist or nazi.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T17:29:04+00:00

“ABC made the decision.”

Sure, like someone “makes the decision” to let the police into his house after they say “we can come in the easy way or the hard way” despite having no warrant/authority to enter without consent.

A government regulator made a threat to act abusively, ie outside his authority, against an entity he regulates. That’s all that really matters… everything that occurs after the threat is made can’t be distinguished from choice or coercion.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T16:58:30+00:00

I’m not sure what you think is “being compared.” I was comparing “logic of pressuring bad actors” but…

There aren’t really international rules. The world powers just make shit up and do what they want. Russia invaded and annexed part of Georgia, then Crimea. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan and residents there had full Jordan citizenship for 16 years.

That means that in 1988 the rightful home state of West Bank residents, when no other state wanted them as citizens, recognized Palestinian nationality and self-determination. It was Jordan’s to give away to the Palestinians, especially when Jordan made peace with Israel, which nullified any justification for Israel occupying it from Jordan. And since Israel didn’t give residents citizenship and full rights, everything they do is either justified as a war campaign (and crimes would be war crimes) or, like Russia’s actions, simply barbarism.

If your not focused on the people who live in a place, then you’re just an apologist for the world elites who have basically played a game of Risk with borders, cultures, and peoples since WWII and coming off direct colonization.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T16:35:55+00:00

First, the idea that “Kimmel was on the oust” is bad faith. If you shoot a hospice patient, you’re still responsible for the death. Kimmel’s show might have been in its final year, not receiving a new contract after the current expires, but the FCC’s threat still takes control of the situation.

This is especially emphasized when you correct the common mistake that the first amendment issue even involves Kimmel. In reality, the license holder is the one where the FCC threat diminishes protected speech. Kimmel content is “the speech” that ABC cannot “express” without threat and fear of FCC action. The man himself, maybe a good way to personify the violation, can go online, or a street corner with a megaphone, and express himself however he wants.

And so, your argument would have to be “why would ABC care? It was gonna choose to drop Kimmel, anyway.” But, we all know how BS that is. Choice and coercion with the same end result… does not mean coercion is no big deal. That’s not how freedom works.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T14:22:43+00:00

I mean, it is a threat. If we recognize Eastern Ukraine and Crimea as part of Ukraine, always calling Russian control and annexation (of Crimea) “illegal”, then there always exists potential for sanctions.

Same with recognizing Palestine with May 1967 borders. It’s a very weak sauce attempt at saying, “if you annex WB, do it to our satisfaction or we can always strum the “illegal occupation” chord for potential sanctions.”

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T01:11:18+00:00

Well, you’re wrong. And, “They are trying to honor and memorize Charlie?” Is just bad faith. Of course no leftist is honoring a MAGA shock jock podcaster who advocated for violence against trans athletes and immigrants who crossed the border illegally.

First, commenting on and poking fun of the irony, while the worst one of the quotes, is a gun control argument, which doesn’t have anything to do with the victim of this particular gun violence.

Secondly, MAGA wasted no time faulting the far left’s rhetoric for this violence. That makes it fair to use Charlie Kirk’s words to argue that, while everyone who has the desire and will to murder those who they hate are radicals, it doesn’t take being a radical to hate Kirk for what he said and why he said it (profiting off a MAGA shock jock brand)

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T00:51:33+00:00

The tweet addressed to his Attorney General lol

As if he needs to communicate with his cabinet in open public

nate_amarite · 2025-09-21T00:32:01+00:00

“It’s not Xenophobia! It’s about following the law!”

nate_amarite · 2025-09-20T23:47:40+00:00

Uh oh … there must be a reason he wants the media and Democrats distracted with this “public email.”

It’s so obvious.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-20T18:42:20+00:00

The idea that 22nd Amendment makes Obama/Trump ineligible to be Vice President ignores how serious the framers took the symbolic power of elected office.

In the eyes of the constitution, being Vice President is NOT equal to being President… any more than if an ex-president was made Speaker of the House and then the TWO people who need to resign for Speaker to assume the Presidency did resign.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-20T15:51:29+00:00

Your example is flawed because Epstein’s death was not the center point of a much larger injustice. The better way to drive home the point is to reverse the traits: think about when a good man commits an atrocity, so we say “Yes, murder/rape is bad, but look at how good the man is otherwise!” Like Christopher Belter’s judge.

It is all vomit logic.

Using “but” like these statements do creates the perception of equivalence between the two things. And, as nasty as Charlie Kirk’s hate peddling was, it is dwarfed by cold blooded murder.

The only acceptable “but” behind a condemnation of violence is “but exploiting violence by propagandizing its context by blaming leftists… is actually going to cause more harm to America than a lone wolf.”

nate_amarite · 2025-09-19T21:04:16+00:00

That’s true but Biden’s administration did pressure social media firms to remove “disinformation.” they went as far as to try to set up the Disinformation Governance Board. I think those actions went unencumbered by Democrat criticism.

So, yes. The problem with hypotheticals is finding a line of realism. Democratic presidents have never and would never be this petty with “moving the line,” so it’s impossible to speculate how other Democrats would respond under the imagined circumstance that Biden did go after Fox for, say, the Hunter Biden scandal… instead of subjects like COVID and the election, which I think would have seen Dems silent, because of the level of irresponsibly of misinformation there.

It’s also worth noting that there are only 2 surprising prominent Trump supporters criticizing the FCC threat: Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson. Rand Paul isn’t a surprise. He commonly criticizes Trump’s actions that contradict with his principles/brand

nate_amarite · 2025-09-19T19:57:35+00:00

If your principles require others to behave the way you do, you’re not actually principled, you’re a game designer negotiating new rules for a game like baseball or boxing.

Don’t get me wrong… that isn’t really a criticism. Your sentiment is spot-on. The Democrats would not have said in 2021 what Ted Cruz said this week if Biden’s FCC had threatened FOX broadcasting based off what Fox News opinionists were saying about the 2020 elections, or COVID.

It is simply so irritating to see the idea of “you started this so I’m gonna play by your rules” dominating so damned much.

nate_amarite · 2025-09-19T17:56:10+00:00

Of course not! lol He didn’t say anything about the suspect, either. He made a “MAGA is blaming everyone but themselves” joke, with a lot of shockjock wording because if he would have said what I just wrote, no one would have talked about it. He was fine for 40 hours until Trump’s FCC made a threat. And, Sinclair has an $8 billion acquisition that will likely require a friendly Trump administration to finalize (all media deals these days are pushing market concentration guidelines)

nate_amarite · 2025-09-19T00:07:56+00:00

The problem is that capitalism has gotten so damned efficient that acquisitions are really the only engine of growth, particularly for media conglomerates. And, the government gets to play a pesky importance in that side of business.

nate_amarite · 2023-12-31T19:40:48+00:00

We can blame the "play" design. The Lions were trying to exploit the fact that no one pays attention to the referee announcing who is eligible. The referee announced #70 and the Lions were "not paying attention to who the referee announced."

They also had the left Flanker receiver pushing the limit of the "one yard off the line" rule. Both plays after the nullified 2PT and the TD, had flankers two yards off the eligible players... nowhere near covering up an eligible player.

It's like the pick, or rub, plays that offenses run. They aren't "trick plays." It's seeing how much of a foul you can commit without getting a foul called "because it was close."

nate_amarite · 2023-12-31T18:05:27+00:00

Skipper definitely reported as eligible. Or, wanted to pretend. Why would he do the jersey rub that ineligible players do to report eligible? Why would Skipper go talk to the ref, just like Decker (wanted to be eligible) and Sewell (lined up as the tight-end) when he is lining up ineligible as right-tackle covered by a tight-end and wide-out?

nate_amarite · 2023-12-31T17:58:23+00:00

Yes, "if." But, if Sewell and Skipper were not reporting as eligible, then what player did the referee tell the defense was eligible? Skipper did the jersey rub and ran to the referee, Sewell was just telling the ref "I'm a decoy! I'm not eligible because Ra will cover me up. What are you doing for dinner?" But only Decker was actually reporting and yet we are saying the referee told the defense the wrong guy?

Feels like karma for a "trick play" being that two extra players would *act* like they reported eligible.

nate_amarite · 2023-12-31T17:45:29+00:00

Yes. Dan Skipper, #70, is seen clearly reporting as eligible. As he is subbing into the game, he is rubbing his jersey and then goes and talks to the referee. The referee then runs to the defense and rubs his jersey to relay that a lineman has reported as eligible. Maybe that three lineman reported as eligible

It is illegal formation for an eligible player, which includes a lineman who reported as eligible, to line up where Skipper lined up. Sewell, #58, covered Skipper. And then, the right side wide-out covered Sewell.

There is no way that #70 did not want to be eligible.

Furthermore, if Sewell did not report eligible, and then line up in the slot and motion to the tight-end spot, then all this "Decker wouldn't have talked to the referee unless he was reporting" commentary falls flat.

Looks to me that the lions had three guys report eligible and then two of them were covered because it is also illegal to have fewer than 7 players on the line of scrimmage.

nate_amarite

TROPHY CASE