• 2 Posts
  • 1.72K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle





  • “Oh, you were misinformed about something worthy of a snopes article, have you considered that you might also be wrong in opposing murder?”

    Yes. That is my question. Is it possible that the same sources and methods by which you came to be misinformed about his mother have also caused you to be misinformed about the actual circumstances of the attack?

    12 jurors all heard the same evidence, and concluded that his use of force was justified against all three of the people he hit, and a fourth that he fired upon and missed. What do you know about the case that leads you to believe differently?

    Were you aware that there was a fourth person to attack Rittenhouse?

    Were you aware that Gaige Grosskreutz (“Byecep”) was live streaming, captured Rittenhouse stating he was going to police, observed him running toward police, and still called for mob violence against Rittenhouse?

    These are all from primary sources: people and video directly involved. They aren’t from reports or commentary. If any of this information is new to you, how confident are you that you now have all the relevant information? How confident should you be?


  • What type of source would you be willing to accept?

    I know that your claims do not arise from primary sources. No audio or video recordings from Kenosha show her to be present. No witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense ever testified to involvement that could be construed as proving your claims. I cite the trial transcripts in supporting mine.

    I will note that you have provided no source for your claims. I know they did not arise from any primary source, but I do not know what secondary source you are relying on. Are you willing to accept major news organizations, such as Associated Press? They reported that false claims of her involvement were widely reported in social media.

    Fact check.org also refuted claims of her involvement.

    Politifact concurred.

    Are you as certain of Rittenhouse’s culpability in the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, as you are about your claims about Wendy Rittenhouse’s involvement?


  • The mother did not drive him to Kenosha, or across state lines, and she was not involved in acquiring the rifle.

    He drove himself to Kenosha. Dominic Black acquired the rifle. It’s unclear whether it was Dominic Black or Rittenhouse who drove him home, but his mother was not in the car. Hours later, his mother drove him to the police station in his home town - not in Kenosha, not in Wisconsin - where he finally surrendered himself.

    Frankly, it’s disgusting that even basic facts of this case are so poorly known. I am still seeing claims that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were black.



  • As it applies to residence, the concept of “renting” is fundamentally broken and damaging. “Renting” is a commercial activity; “housing” is a human necessity. Combining the two is inherently exploitative, so “ALAB” is a reasonable and apt observation.

    Renting is fantastic. You want to build a house or buy a house, or renovate your house, but it takes a few months? You move to a new area, temporary job relocation for a project? You rent. From someone who owns a house. Called a landlord. They are providing the service of making this available for you in an area you want.

    A better option in these scenarios is a “land contract”. This is, basically, a rent-to-own scenario. During the initial period, if the occupant withdraws or defaults on the contract, they forfeit any equity they have built, just like a rental.

    Unlike a rental, however, there is no annual increase in the rent: the purchase price is fully amortized, and (so long as they maintain the agreement past the initial period), the tenant gains equity with every payment and every increase in market value.

    That full amortization / fixed payment is the main reason why landlords don’t currently like land contracts. They want to be able to command a 5-10% price hike every year.

    To make land contracts the better option for landlords, we can establish an owner-occupant credit against property taxes. A landlord is a non-occupant owner, and is not entitled to the credit. Under a land contract, the occupant is considered the owner, and eligible for the credit. With a sufficiently high property tax rate on non-occupant investor-owners, a landlord stands to earn a significantly greater return on land contracts or private mortgages than they can earn on renting a given property.



  • ALAB because “renting” residential property is abhorrent behavior.

    Owner Occupancy Credit against property taxes. If you live in a house you own, you get a credit. If you own the house and don’t live in it, you pay the full rate. Enact an owner-occupancy credit against property taxes, then increase both the tax rate and the credit until these corporate bagmunchers are no longer a problem.

    “But landlords will just raise their rent to cover the increase”. They could try. But, if we raise it high enough, they will be able to make far more money issuing a private mortgage, or offering a land contract, or converting to condominiums, or otherwise getting their tenant’s names on the deed and becoming eligible for the credit.

    “But these landlords will be forced to take a risk on these sub prime borrowers.”. They are already taking that risk by renting to them, and the remedy is basically the same: if they can’t make their payments, evict them, take back the house, and offer it to someone else.

    The only residential property that should be feasible to rent are the additional units in a duplex, triplex, or quadplex, where the owner of the building lives on site in one of the units. Outside of these small, multifamily homes, “rent” should be a practice found only in commercial or industrial real estate.


  • You’ve become conditioned to consider a “nudge” to be lane assist helpfully pushing on the steering wheel, to move you toward the center of the lane. Your muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by accepting it, allowing it.

    30 years of driving has conditioned me to consider a “nudge” to be an indication that something is pushing on the car, moving me away from where I intend to be. My muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by immediately arresting that push and reversing it.


  • Ever drive on a construction zone where they’ve started to rip up pavement and half the lane is an inch higher than the other half? Ever change lanes into that lane, and feel the steering fight you or lurch as you cross that lip?

    The problem isn’t the strength needed to overcome the lane assist. It’s easy to fight it. The problem comes when you know you are well centered in the lane. But, all the sudden, you’re being pushed left or right, and you have to quickly determine whether you’re feeling uneven pavement. Or maybe a tie rod end or a ball joint has some slop in it. Maybe the power steering pump is leaking and running dry. Or, maybe the fucking lane assist thinks a strip of tar in the middle of the lane is a lane marker, and it wants me to cross the centerline.

    The problem isn’t whether or not I can take it in a fair fight. The problem is that it throws a punch.




  • We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.

    The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.

    So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.