"...Groups of people not considered for targeting until this moment..."
What, they're going to start bombing adults?
07.03.2026 19:43
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
"...Groups of people not considered for targeting until this moment..."
What, they're going to start bombing adults?
Not survive? But that's what insurance is for! If they sink a few dozen oil tankers, just collect your insurance money and go pick up some new ones at the local oil tanker store. How bad could the lead time be?
Maybe, but be careful! It’s cruel to get people’s hopes up unless you’re confident. Many can’t afford to stockpile confetti they have no immediate use for.
“It raises questions of what the Trump administration would say if a country like Iran attacked an American ship it knew was unarmed.”
No, it doesn’t; we know: “Rules for thee but not for me”, Wilhoit’s Law, &c. When they do it, it makes them tough and strong; done to them, it would be a crime.
I doubt the mass J6 pardons involved >1,500 individualised bribes (I’m guessing none at all; an act to embolden future thugs, goons, and useful idiots). Still a lot of cases, but I think you’d want to look at the 166 individual pardons.
I would like to see a clear, sharp distinction other than the fact that one is morally neutral, the other monstrous, given that some people disagree with that assessment; I just don't know what it would be.
But the reason my own line of thinking makes me so uncomfortable is what comes next. Is pædophilia in some/any sense just an 'orientation'? What does that mean? Do I wish there were working conversion therapy, as long as it was only used on pædophilea? Of course it wouldn't be.
I know some authorities hold it's for cooling the blood...
(I could say the same about some traits I possess, were I inclined to name them. I'm not classifying myself with the entirely statistically normal, either, that is.)
Of course I don’t know what the factors are for other phenotypes either, but it’s not a priori apparent to me that they must be qualitatively different in nature, leaving us to reason backwards from moral conclusions.
But I can’t help suspect that the reason I classify them differently is the post hoc question of which one leads to attractions that can never be ethically acted on.
When that makes someone gay/bi/whatever, I’d call that healthy variation, and I might call pædophilia a psychopathology.
That’s super interesting, and the ‘frozen gaze’ stuff sounds very compelling to this layman. But I can’t help reflect that there must be some reason for ANY deviation from statistical norms (e.g. cis/straight).
Reuters Exclusive
"U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school."
"The strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of U.S. conflicts in the Middle East."
Trump on terrorist attacks in America: “Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die."
I don’t think I’m clear on the distinction between whatever this is and a healthy innate sexuality, other than the white-hot dividing line of whether attraction is to people who can meaningfully consent. But TBH that kind of feels…enough, at least to me, though I imagine it complicates discourse.
Well now I'm curious.
I feel like the solution, obvious for the past 35 years, is "someone needs to solve UX for PGP to the point normal people want to use it". Presumably this is challenging.
I feel so bad for those people—the ones who recognise the urge as monstrous and never act on it, but can’t help feeling it. I can’t imagine the horror of feeling a desire to harm children with full self-awareness.
I don't know how anyone would conduct a good study in an ethical manner but I wish someone did and would. It feels kind of crazy to have no real idea.
Does that artwork actually conduce to harm in the first place? Genuine question: It’s gross and awful to think about, but if some non-offending pædophiles can get their jollies from drawings, maybe it (is disgusting but) could reduce harm. Or increase demand and be horrible! Honestly wondering.
At least that’s how I feel: I see a comment in my social space, I feel like I should participate, I must remind myself they’re strangers and keeping silence is an option (usually the best one).
And I assume the worst out of weary habit with bad-faith actors, making me needlessly hostile and snippy.
I suspect:
1. Social media creates a false impression of immediacy and closeness s.t. you feel like you're in a space where you should be commenting on whatever comes up as part of conversation, even though you're not.
2. Trolls condition you to reverse the rhetorical Principle of Charity.
They are professionals; it's just that they're specifically professional sycophants.
So apparently the Iranian frigate was unarmed per requirements of the Milan 2026 naval exercises, and we knew the ship was unarmed and defenseless.
I really cannot understand the decision to fire on her accept as performative sadism.
www.middleeasteye.net/news/iranian...
“No front-page stories in NYT, WSJ, WaPo. No mention on NBC and CBS Sunday Shows. No stand alone segments on Evening News shows. A death count on par with the OKC bombing is relegated to the back page.” www.columnblog.com/p/corporate-...
Everyone involved with the creation of his, from military personnel carrying out the strike to the tween dweebs making the videos, should be dumped on an island for life and permitted no technology more advanced than flint knapping.
Polymarket has created a market that would monetize a nuclear attack amid increasing concerns that bets are happening among government insiders who can make military decisions.
What stage of the apocalypse is this?
polymarket.com/event/nuclea...
Maybe they can trade another Ayatollah Khamenei for another couple of THAADs.
In my world “CI” usually means “Continuous Integration” and when I read about the distinct, weird mindset of CI designers I found myself nodding along more or less until “sus”.