Eh?
I said that it's "not necessarily the case that" one thing and "it could be that" something else.
Logic and plausibilty are all that's necessary.
Rottcodd
joined 2 years ago
Surely that's God's problem, isn't it?
Does this guy think that poor little unfortunate God needs his protection?
It struck me after I posted that that modern technology and investigative techniques would also contribute to such a decline.
It's undoubtedly more difficult to falsely convict someone (whether deliberately or not) in the era of GPS, cell phone records, video surveillance and DNA tests.
It's not necessarily the case though that fewer crimes are being actually "solved," in the most precise sense of the term.
It could be that the current heightened interest in police oversight and focus on investigation of (and huge lawsuit payouts as a consequence of) wrongdoing by the police has made it less likely that people will be railroaded/framed for crimes they didn't actually commit, so the rate at which crimes are marked as solved has declined, even as the rate at which they actually are solved hasn't.
I guess by that I use fingertip, but I think it'd be more accurate to say that I use palm adapted for big hands.
The few times that I've had a mouse big enough to palm it without my fingers sticking out too far, that's what I've done, and that's definitely my preference. It's just that the vast majority of mouses are too small for that.
Splitters!
What the fuck?
Even setting aside the cultural/religious issues, didn't the US outgrow this ludicrous obsession with boys' hair like 50 years ago?
...launched what he called a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against Media Matters, which accused it of artificially manipulating the social network’s algorithms to achieve the contentious juxtapositions (while admitting that they had in fact occurred).
This is my favorite part of this whole story.
It's like the narcissist's prayer directly translated into a lawsuit.
I was just thinking the other day that it's about time to replay this game. So I guess it is.
I prefer "used-to-be-twitter." I think it captures the context better, and it's clunky, as it should be.
Of course they are - they're psychopaths.
They're each and all people who, in a sane society, would be institutionalized in order to protect others from the harm they inevitably do as a consequence of their complete lack of principles, morals, empathy and remorse. But instead they're allowed to run free, and this is what we get.
What the fuck are you on about?
That's everything I said, right there. What part of it are you not understanding?
Of course it's fucking speculation! What the fuck else did you think it was?!
It would be equivocation if there was a disjunct between the intended meaning of what I said at one point and the intended meaning of the same thing at some other point.
But I've been entirely consistent in what I've said. The disjunct is between what YOU thought I meant and what I actually said, and that's your fucking problem - not mine.