here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2026-05-16 00:01:20] - "Playing shenanigans with timing to not approve Garland?" you don't see any hypocrisy here? arguing it's "the other side started it" is just blatantly excusing hypocrisy.  ~a

[2026-05-15 17:28:35] - a: I think all were bad. I don't think any were justified because "the other side started it". Bad all the way down. -Paul

[2026-05-15 17:28:15] - a: Trying to explicitly gerrymander Texas and whatever other states? Too far. Trying to pack the court? Too far. Playing shenanigans with timing to not approve Garland? Too far. -Paul

[2026-05-15 17:27:21] - a: Trying to reduce the retirement age for VASCOTUS in political retaliation for a decision you don't like? Too far. Trying to explicitly gerrymander a purple state to be almost exclusively blue and overturn an independent system that worked? Too far. -Paul

[2026-05-15 17:26:23] - a: "not, ACTUALLY ignoring the constitution?" I think you misunderstand me. I'm asking YOU what would be a step too far. I think both sides have taken many steps too far for years now. -Paul

[2026-05-14 15:44:25] - mig:  "filing articles of impeachment" are you not moving the goal posts? "it rarely rises to the level of  'impeach rhe judges!' or 'we gotta pack the courts!'"  is where you started.  ~a

[2026-05-14 13:20:28] - https://www.c-span.org/clip/us-house-of-representatives/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-introduce-articles-of-impeachment-against-justices-thomas-and-alito/5123416

[2026-05-14 13:19:29] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/free-speech-federal-crime-protesters-are-still-marching-conservative-s-rcna78678

[2026-05-14 13:18:34] - a:  draw a distinction between mean tweets that end up going nowhere to i dunno, angry mobs showing up at scotus justice’s houses and congrespeople actually filing articles of impeachment. - mig

[2026-05-13 18:20:52] - mig:  "it rarely rises to the level of 'impeach rhe judges!'"  literally trump, the head of the gop, just over one year ago "[james boasberg], like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!"  ~a

[2026-05-13 18:15:30] - mig:  did obama erode the independence of the judiciary?  ~a

[2026-05-13 16:08:51] - mig:  did obama attack the judges personally?  ~a

[2026-05-13 16:08:17] - a:  sure he’s attacker judges in the press, but that’s hardly unique among his predecessors, who’ve also thrown fits in public when judges rule in ways they don’t like.  I seem to recall Obama quite famously publicly scolding scotus at the state of the union over Citizen’s United. - mig

[2026-05-13 13:06:15] - mig:  you've implied he only goes after administrative judges?  ~a

[2026-05-13 12:33:43] - a:  immigration judges are not the judiciary.  They are administrative courts and are actually part of the executive branch, so this isn't quite the same thing.  biden also fired immigration judges so this isn't entirely unprecedented</a>, though not at the same scale.  Sure, what Trump did is alarming, but this isn't an equivalency. - mig

[2026-05-12 19:57:02] - mig:  "it rarely rises to the level of 'impeach rhe judges!' or 'we gotta pack the courts!'"  hard disagree.  trump goes after judges in ways that is eroding the independence of the judiciary.  he fires them en mass and attacks them in the press.  he's the head of the executive, what is he even doing?  ~a

[2026-05-12 19:51:52] - mig:  no sorry i didn't mean scova.  scova didn't ignore the constitution.  i was referring to the dozens of times the whitehouse has ignored the constitution.  ~a

[2026-05-12 17:22:45] - a:  do you believe scova ignored the constitution. - mig

[2026-05-12 17:20:53] - paul:  one thing I do think democrats are uniquely horrible is in their general disdain and hostility towards the judiciary.  While there’s plenty of GOP griping about court decisions that don’t go their way it rarely rises to the level of “impeach rhe judges!” or “we gotta pack the courts!” - mig

[2026-05-12 16:15:06] - paul:  i paid a company (paychex) to handle our state taxes.  but even then, i had to struggle constantly with getting state+local governments to accept (and register that they accepted) my money.  i think mainly this is a huge pain because most companies above a certain size can afford an accounting department that handle all this bullshit.  ~a

[2026-05-12 16:13:30] - paul:  TALKING about legally packing scova is "the" step too far?  and . . . not, ACTUALLY ignoring the constitution?  ~a

[2026-05-12 14:31:51] - I've spent multiple hours a day over multiple days just trying to get DC to accept some taxes that I am trying to pay them and I still haven't gotten them to accept it yet. It's ridiculous. -Paul

[2026-05-12 14:30:52] - I swear any politician who wants to place regulations on businesses should be required to actually try to set up and run a small business for at least 18 months first. -Paul

[2026-05-12 14:30:23] - The new minimum wage! Helping smaller businesses pay their employees more! -Paul

[2026-05-12 14:29:56] - https://wtop.com/virginia/2026/05/virginia-governor-signs-paid-leave-law-into-law-first-in-the-south/ Describing this as helping smaller businesses retain employees who encounter difficult times is so disingenuously misleading. Yeah, because it forces businesses to keep employing people who aren't coming in to work. -Paul

[2026-05-12 14:24:40] - a: I do wonder what point (if any) is a step too far where you would admit that, "yeah, that's probably not a good idea". I thought talking about packing the Supreme Court was definitely it. How about what Miguel posted, and blatantly trying to nuke the VA SCOTUS? -Paul

[2026-05-12 14:21:58] - a: Unsurprisingly, I don't see it as one side being 99% evil and the other being 1% evil. It varies over time and by issue but it's really more like 65% evil and 70% evil. Importantly, both are trending worse over the past decade or so. -Paul

[2026-05-11 23:13:53] - atheists back the pope more than catholics do (sorta)  ~a

[2026-05-11 17:48:59] - https://www.virginiascope.com/the-rumors-that-did-not-pan-out/ one thing to definitely NOT do is try to come up with a scheme to purge the scova and the install cronies to rule the way you want.  I understand this was never going to happen but the fact this was out there and at least considered reflects very badly on the Democrats. - mig

[2026-05-08 21:39:58] - mig:  I doubt a more pervasive argument will ever win against gerrymandering?  ~a

[2026-05-08 21:04:40] - https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/21/iowa-democrats-rob-sand-midterms-hunting-00837624 i don’t know if this guy will actually win but he seems to have the right idea. - mig

[2026-05-08 21:02:30] - a:  i mean short term, get the more persuasive argument/message and hammer it? - mig

[2026-05-08 18:17:22] - mig:  ok fair.  what is your suggestion?  assuming preventing the republicans from gerrymander the entire us house of representatives is your goal.  ~a

[2026-05-08 18:15:25] - a:  this debacle here w/ the attempted va redistricting?  this seems like a complete disaster in trying to out-trump trump.  From 10 fucking 1 to get fucking rekt. - mig

[2026-05-08 17:06:21] - mig:  do you have an example?  ~a

[2026-05-08 16:15:40] - just a reminder that trying to follow Trump into the gutter rarely ends well. - mig

[2026-05-08 15:16:05] - https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/08/politics/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting virginia supreme court strikes down redistricting amendment. - mig

[2026-05-08 13:33:26] - paul:  yes, i agree both are just horrible.  but at the end of the day, i have to decide who to vote for.  don't worry, i won't use this logic to always vote for democrats, that's not who i am.  but i do still have to vote for someone, so deciding if they're 99% evil or 1% evil is very relevant to me.  ~a

[2026-05-08 13:05:01] - a: Does it make Trump's tariffs and ownership stakes in Intel and such better because Republicans have been bad at this for less time than Democrats? I don't feel like it does unless you have a vested interest in one side and trying to keep score on which side has been historically worse. I don't care if Democrats are 79 horrible and Republicans are 82 horrible. Both are just horrible. -Paul

[2026-05-08 13:03:04] - a: I did not intend for either of those statements to be judgements on the equality of history and degree and I don't really think either implies that. Republicans used to believe in free trade and non government ownership of companies. Good for the Republicans in the past but that doesn't excuse what they're doing now. -Paul

[2026-05-08 13:01:24] - a: So to me, "you are now as terrible as them" was short-hand for "You are doing the exact same bad thing as them. To the exact same degree and for as exactly as long? Probably not, but I'm not interested in having that conversation. To me it's enough that this thing is a bad thing and you are doing the thing that is just as bad even if the degree might not be the same". -Paul

[2026-05-07 16:18:16] - paul:  "i don't really care to try judging who is worse."  oh, i definitely do.  it's pretty reliably how i decide who to vote for.  to be clear, i'll remind you that i do often vote third party, when i think they're being the least-worst, but yeah.  i dunno any better way how to decide who to vote for, sorry.  maybe you have a better way?  where you somehow only vote for people who never do things you don't like?  ~a

[2026-05-07 16:15:22] - paul:  "Have I said anything about equality between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue?"  yes.  yes yes 100 times yes.  that's what i meant by "i looked back down here and checked".  you imply it in almost every message, but here's where you were explicit:  "you are now as terrible as them" and "Democrats do the exact same thing".  there are many other examples where you imply it, but those are explicit.  ~a

[2026-05-07 16:10:42] - a: Have I said anything about equality between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue? I don't think I have. I don't really care to try judging who is worse. What's the point? This feels like any age old conflict between two groups who just can't stop the cycle of violence. "They started it", "That was just a response to what they did before", "They killed X thousands", "Only because they killed Y tens of thousands" -Paul

[2026-05-07 16:07:38] - a: Oh, I see what you're saying now. Yahoo says the EPS for Ebay is closer to $4.41, which meshes more with your P/E. -Paul

[2026-05-07 15:09:43] - paul:  my position was never never "did republicans start it" or "they started it" or anything along those lines.  it's a different argument.  it's that what democrats are doing is 1/10th as bad as what the republicans are doing in this case (and many many many other cases).  ~a

[2026-05-07 15:07:53] - paul:  one wrong and twelve wrongs are not equal.  you just can't keep implying (and sometimes outright stating) that they are equal?  ~a

[2026-05-07 15:04:50] - paul:  shouldn't 100 / 1.66 be the price earnings ratio?  or at least close?  (i understand that one is forward and the other is backward).  ~a

[2026-05-07 15:00:12] - a: "yes, that's exactly what i want you to do" Sorry to disappoint? Republicans are the bad guys here. BUT SO ARE DEMOCRATS. Did Republicans start it? Sure. Is that also the childish playground defense? Yes. Again, do two wrongs make a right? -Paul

[2026-05-07 14:58:37] - a: I haven't been following eBay much. Those numbers don't seem crazy? You think it is overvalued? Maybe people betting on the Gamestop buyout? -Paul

[2026-05-07 13:45:50] - paul:  yes, that's exactly what i want you to do.  i want you to try to defend republicans here.  you aren't allowed to claim both sides are being equally moronic (which you have done, i looked back down here and checked), when it's super clear that both sides are not being equally moronic.  ~a

[2026-05-07 13:44:07] - a: "i noticed you didn't reply to this one" I'm guessing your answer is Republicans? I didn't reply because I didn't see the need to. You want me to try to defend Republicans here? -Paul

[2026-05-06 20:29:22] - in non-political-news, what's up with $ebay?  mostly, i felt the company had fallen into a slump:  who even uses ebay these days.  but the stock prices / market capitalization are crazy high?  why?  i'm also even just confused by the fundamentals.  earnings per share is like $1.66, and the p/e ratio (forward and trailing) is like 18-25.  the price is $100/share.  how does that math out?  ~a

[2026-05-06 02:50:20] - the rubble from the east wing was dumped in a national park (and as a cyclist, one i am fond of).  the rubble has lead, chromium, and other heavy metals.  according to wtop, PCBs were also found.  ~a

[2026-05-06 02:28:24] - is it legal to cancel an election after tens of thousands of people have already voted?  ~a

[2026-05-05 14:48:58] - i can't believe they're considering pardoning maxwell.  is there no end?  ~a

[2026-05-05 14:35:36] - mexico will pay for the wall.  ~a

[2026-05-04 21:03:52] - paul:  florida signed a few new maps into law.  they did not have a voter referendum.  ~a

[2026-05-01 15:37:30] - paul:  "who exactly do you think has been fighting against them?"  i noticed you didn't reply to this one.  ~a

[2026-05-01 15:08:04] - paul:  "Welp, we tried, guess it's back to gay marriage being illegal"?  no, in your example, banning gay marriage doesn't combat/offset the banning of gay marriage in another state.  ~a

[2026-05-01 15:06:23] - paul:  doing a horrible thing because another person did a horrible thing is sometimes warranted.  it's the prisoner's dilemma.  it's mutual assured destruction.  it's why congress can declare war.  "you are now as terrible as them."  this is where we agree to disagree:  doing something bad doesn't necessarily make you as bad as another person who has done a different set of bad things.  you have to weigh.  you have to use a damn scale!  ~a

[2026-05-01 15:03:37] - a: Or insert whatever other issue you want to put there. -Paul

[2026-05-01 15:03:26] - a: I mean, what if Virginia made gay marriage legal and then the other states said, "Nah, we're not doing that". Would it make any sense for Virginia to say, "Welp, we tried, guess it's back to gay marriage being illegal"? -Paul

[2026-05-01 15:02:44] - a: "do you think this is a fair assessment of what happened?" I guess? When I read that summary it doesn't seem to support your point at all, though. -Paul

[2026-05-01 15:01:24] - a: You're trying to make the argument that Republicans did this horrible terrible no good thing which is so out of bounds, but when Democrats do the exact same thing (out of fairness) that somehow it's not horrible because they started it? -Paul

[2026-05-01 14:58:39] - a: Yes, the Republicans started this bad gerrymandering thing. Yes, it's terrible. Congratulations, you are now as terrible as them. -Paul

[2026-05-01 14:57:48] - a: I know you are against the both sides argument but that doesn't matter. That's not the point at all. I'm saying just because the other side is terrible it is not a justification to be terrible yourself. -Paul

[2026-05-01 14:56:50] - a: "you're ignoring the sunsetting" Sure, it's not as horrible as it could've been. Yay? In some ways it's a little damning, though, because it shows that they know what they did was wrong. -Paul

[2026-05-01 14:30:41] - us national debt surpasses size of the economy for first time since world war ii  ~a

[2026-04-30 18:41:47] - here's the scenario: virginia is like "ok, we've ended gerrymandering, yay.  it's even in our constitution.  good job, guys".  and then the president is like "hey, texas, make gerrymandering terrible. give the republicans 1000 new seats." and texas is like "ok, will do, boss". and virginia is then like "welp, fuck.  we tried.  back to the old status quo for another election cycle". do you think this is a fair assessment of what happened?  ~a

[2026-04-30 16:46:15] - paul:  democrats have been fighting against gerrymandering in many states for the past twenty plus years.  who exactly do you think has been fighting against them?  why do you think it was so hard to get this far?  ~a

[2026-04-30 16:44:38] - paul:  "I'm sitting here watching two children playing a never-ending game of escalation while yelling that the other side started it."  i'm against your terrible "both sides" argument.  the two sides are not behaving the same: look at the us/iran war, the epstein scandals, the rape allegations, ice, pardons, etc as examples.  or, better yet, show me text of the texas voter-referendum that changed their map.  (i can find no such text).  ~a

[2026-04-30 16:41:32] - paul:  "So what the Democrats did was bad?"  yes:  i wasn't happy voting yes.  i did consider voting no.  "Do two wrongs make a right?"  no.  "blew it all up" this is an oversimplification.  you're ignoring the sunsetting, i think.  ~a

[2026-04-30 14:29:10] - a: I'm sitting here watching two children playing a never-ending game of escalation while yelling that the other side started it. -Paul

[2026-04-30 14:27:58] - a: Virginia had a pretty solid, constitutional, bipartisan process for creating reasonable districts. The Democrats said "fuck that shit" and blew it all up to create a gerrymandered (which it seems like everybody agrees is bad... including the Democrats advocating for this) map using some of the most hilariously biased wording for a referendum I've ever seen outside of a banana republic. -Paul

[2026-04-30 14:25:34] - a: "what you're just mad at is you've been accustomed to a democratic party that rolls over, doesn’t fight and takes everything sitting down" So... the Democrats have been on the right side of an issue for years (according to you and I will accept that framing) and I'm supposed to be happy now that they've switched to the wrong side? -Paul

[2026-04-30 14:22:51] - a: So what the Democrats did was bad? Do two wrongs make a right? Surely, even as somebody likely more invested in one side than I am, you can see the logical problems with this. "When they go low we go high" and "Democracy dies in darkness" very quickly turned into "doing whatever it takes to own MAGA". -Paul

[2026-04-28 21:43:30] - mig:  huh?  ~a

[2026-04-28 04:56:33] - mig:  which?  ~a

[2026-04-28 01:09:07] - a:  point? - mig

[2026-04-27 15:57:17] - "many times when i identified as libertarian, people said to me, 'It's just rich white guys that don't want to be told what to do,' and I had a zillion answers to that — and now that seems 100 percent accurate."  penn jillette on why he renounced libertarianism after he got an email asking him to speak at an antimasker conference:  "The fact they sent me this email is something I need to be very ashamed of, and I need to change".  ~a

[2026-04-24 13:22:19] - mig:  is that what they are doing?  is that what we are doing?  aren't you just taking his word for it?  as i understand it, a "tripled up level" is also a complete lie.  ~a

[2026-04-23 16:20:25] - a:  if we are blowing up ships trying to mine the strait or are who are attacking civilian ships that are trying to cross.  I am 100% comfortable assigning culpability to the Iranians. - mig

[2026-04-23 15:31:06] - mig:  "does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all"  here is the update on that.  literal hours after he extended the ceasefire indefinitely.  ~a

[2026-04-23 14:06:37] - paul/mig:  democrats have been fighting against gerrymandering in many states for the past twenty some years.  i.e. in virginia.  the republicans have been fighting anti-gerrymandering tooth and nail, in fact in texas they even went out of their way to gerrymander even harder?  what you're just mad at is you've been accustomed to a democratic party that rolls over, doesn’t fight and takes everything sitting down (ocasio-cortez).  ~a

[2026-04-22 23:04:14] - paul:  "how can we top that badness the other side did now"?  ~a

[2026-04-22 15:23:05] - I've come to realize that part of why I've stopped following politics so much (besides a lack of time) is that it's just gotten so damned depressing. We got a ton of bad outcomes before but now it's like a constant drumbeat of "how can we top that badness the other side did now?" -Paul

[2026-04-22 15:21:52] - I'm pretty bummed about the outcome last night too. It's just the latest example of voters (from both parties) just prioritizing screwing over the other side at the expense of any sort of political norms or principle or respect for Democratic institutions. -Paul

[2026-04-22 15:20:16] - a: "any thoughts on how this ends?" No idea. Best guess is Republicans get walloped in mid-terms, TACO, and we end up at a place that is about the same (for us) as before (if not worse). -Paul

[2026-04-22 12:17:58] - a:  democratically decided results can absolutely have authoritarian results. - mig

[2026-04-22 04:04:19] - mig:  (texan voters, for instance, did not vote for their new maps)  ~a

[2026-04-22 03:10:48] - mig:  isn't having the whole population vote on what the voter maps should be even less authoritarian and more *literally* democratic than anything we've ever had?  ~a

[2026-04-22 03:09:28] - mig:  what?  why is it academic?  there's nothing academic about what happens in 2030.  but, otoh, i didn't realize you were talking about getting the people to vote for the new maps.  you realize that they are literally having a democratically decided (50%+) voter maps.  if they did this (had the whole population of virginia agree on the new maps) every four years, wouldn't that be even more open than an independent commission?    ~a

[2026-04-22 01:12:35] - but its academic at this point it looks like.  Virginia is for authoritarians i guess. - mig

[2026-04-22 01:11:56] - a:  and yes the sunset is written into the constitution but nothing prevents the legislature to simply try to pass another amendment extending their power to write maps in another 4 years just as they did now. - mig

[2026-04-21 21:52:22] - a:  i don’t believe you and I’m willing to also bet on it. - mig

[2026-04-21 18:20:04] - mig:  "do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop?"  100% yes.  and i'd be willing to bet on it.  ~a

[2026-04-21 18:19:24] - mig:  oh you didn't read the constitutional amendment?  your question has a big fault:  they won't have that choice.  having control of the legislature isn't enough to stop the willing ceding of control back to the independent commission.  the sunset is written into the constitution, and changing that would require a new constitutional amendment (which would again require, among other things, a new majority vote from the public).  ~a

[2026-04-21 18:14:11] - we already saw how quickly the va state constitution can be amended for partisan aims.  If there were better guard rails for amending the state constitution I would find the sunset provision somewhat palatable.  Given the current climate, its effectively meaningless. - mig

[2026-04-21 18:11:00] - I mean do you really think a democrat controlled va house and senate would basically give back 3-4 us house seats to the gop? - mig

[2026-04-21 18:08:30] - a:  I have no objections to the sunset provision I simply do not believe democrats will willingly cede control back to the independent commission if they still control the va state gov come 2030. - mig

[2026-04-21 17:14:28] - mig:  "non negotiable" so i guess i shouldn't try to negotiate then?  "restoring fairness", i agree it's partisan language, but i'd hardly call it "rich".  if anything democrats had to somehow point out that this was happening in other states.  you didn't appreciate that it sunsets in 2030?  i do.  100% i would have voted no if they didn't sunset it like they did.  if anything, this just temporarily puts things like they were pre-2020.  ~a

[2026-04-21 17:03:55] - I also took great offense to the wording of the proposal.  It’s incredibly rich to call this measure “restoring fairness”.  I also don’t believe for one second that this measure will be temporary if democrats are in power in va come 2030. - mig

[2026-04-21 17:00:11] - a:  i voted no.  partisan gerrymandering is something that is non negotiable. - mig

[2026-04-21 16:53:16] - is raw story a reliable source?  regardless, i'm surprised you guys aren't at all focused on the obvious downside for the economy these decisions have.  (sure democrats love to try really hard to destroy the economy too, but they seem to mostly fail at it if you look at the numbers?)  ~a

[2026-04-21 16:42:54] - mig:  "does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all?"  culpability for a lack of a peace deal falls on both sides.  of course.  but, i mean . . . you have to admit . . . the language we get from the whitehouse has been, inconsistent?  "inconsistent" is as generous as i can get.  you don't want inconsistency if you want a peace deal.  if you want a peace deal that is mutually beneficial.  ~a

[2026-04-21 16:27:52] - mig:  oh, where did you come down on that?  i'm pretty on the fence, but i did end up voting "yes" in the end, and i hope that yes ends up winning.  but i do see both sides of this issue, and had trouble even making up my mind on which way i would vote.  ~a

[2026-04-21 14:26:42] - a:  does no culpability for a lack of a peace deal fall on the Iranians at all? - mig

[2026-04-21 14:25:57] - a:  you’ll be happy to know this redistricting issue has riled me up enough to go actually vote today.  - mig

[2026-04-20 19:45:27] - paul:  yes they're both bad.  agreed.  any thoughts on how this ends?  it seems like every time we get to the possibility of an end, trump seems immediately fuck it all up.  ending the 2015 iran deal also seems the quintessential and expected trump-move.  ~a

[2026-04-20 16:16:01] - a: Does that make sense? Like civilian targeting is worse, but starting the war is bigger? Either way, they're both bad. Can we agree on that? -Paul

[2026-04-20 16:15:19] - a: But just bombing a sovereign nation unprovoked? That's also really bad. I guess per Capita the civilian hitting is worse but overall the unjustified nature of the war is the bigger issue. -Paul

[2026-04-20 16:13:51] - a: Hmmm.... I'm honestly not sure if I agree or not. Obviously intentionally targeting civilian targets (not just accepting some civilian casualties while hitting military targets) is bad. -Paul

[2026-04-15 03:36:12] - federal reserve: without tariffs, inflation would have dropped to pre-pandemic levels during 2025 (reason)  ~a

[2026-04-13 21:23:42] - paul:  if you agree, it doesn't matter that this war is unjustified?  iow, it's actually not the bigger issue?  ~a

[2026-04-13 21:23:18] - paul:  if you agree, AND there are intentional hits of a civilian targets in this war, then it actually matters not whether the war is justified or not?  i don't think the minab school was intentional, but i do think the karaj b1 bridge (civilian target + double tap strike) was intentional (8 dead 95 injured, all civilian).  ~a

[2026-04-13 21:22:19] - paul:  i'm pretty sure this is how i see it:  intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war (i dunno ww2?) is worse than accidentally hitting a civilian during an unjustified war (iran).  ~a

[2026-04-13 21:21:42] - paul:  ok, cool thanks for replying!  i'd like to get into a bit more nuance on this part:  you said "accidentally or intentionally".  what if we separated them out into two concepts?  would intentionally hitting civilian targets during a justified war be better or worse than accidentally hitting a civilian target during an unjustified war?  ~a

[2026-04-13 13:35:28] - a: Does it make it worse that we are (accidentally or intentionally) hitting civilian targets? Sure. But I think the bigger issue and initial issue is starting the war in the first place. -Paul

[2026-04-13 13:34:00] - a: Nah, you got it. That's the one I was thinking of. I don't think we disagree much on the generalities, just a different focus on specifics. This war is a damned tragedy. I blame the fact that it's completely unjustified with no clear goals. -Paul

[2026-04-08 17:18:38] - paul:  if you don't know how ethnic cleansing is relevant, maybe we should discuss what israel is doing in gaza.  and what israeal is doing in lebanon?  ~a

[2026-04-08 17:12:32] - paul:  it's officially called distinction (which is really fucking confusing because now we're really just talking about the "distinction distinction").  proportionality will also probably come up.  (i mention it because they are both considered war crimes.  and the US and isreal are both probably breaking both distinction and proportionality)  ~a

[2026-04-08 17:12:01] - paul:  it is not xkcd.  although, i understand there might be an xkcd i'm forgetting about.  more importantly though:  this is * not * the distinction i was trying to make.  you're making the distinction between enemy soldiers vs soldiers we support.  i'm making the distinction between soldiers and civilians.  gauld mentions nothing about civilians, soldiers, or war crimes.  ~a

[2026-04-08 11:25:13] - a: Although I'm not sure I get the ethnic cleansing implication. Yeah, most of the victims are Iranian but that's kind of because the country is largely made up of Iranians. -Paul

[2026-04-08 11:24:12] - a: One could make the pretty strong argument that given that basically no justification was provided for this war at all the entire operation is one giant war crime. We're basically bombing a country relentlessly until they fully surrender for... reasons? -Paul

[2026-04-08 11:22:53] - a: It wasn't intended to be a blow off, just a slightly cynical take on an answer. Isn't there an XKCD showing two kingdoms on opposite sides of a river where one's army is labeled "our brave defenders" and the other is "their evil barbarians" or something? -Paul

[2026-04-07 18:31:25] - of all the times to get the blow off, i feel like this isn't one of them.  ~a

prev <-> next