jross

Deplatforming attempts include attempts to disinvite speakers from campus speeches or commencement ceremonies; to cancel performances of concerts, plays, or the screenings of movies; or to have controversial artwork removed from public display. An attempt to disrupt a speech or performance that is in progress is also considered a deplatforming attempt, whether it succeeds or fails. Deplatforming attempts do not include criticisms of some form of expression and protests denouncing them that are not motivated by the goal of deplatforming the controversial expression. These are protected forms of speech that should be welcomed on educational campuses. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database-methodology Analysis of the data FIRE has collected reveals a clear political trend in the likelihood that a speaker will be targeted with a disinvitation effort. Speakers are far more likely to face disinvitation efforts from opponents to their political left than from those to their right. Since 2000, those behind the disinvitation efforts targeted speakers with views more conservative than their own nearly three times more frequently (97 attempts) than they targeted speakers with views more liberal than their own (36 attempts). https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/new-report-push-against-campus-speakers-getting-more-intense Here are hundreds of examples. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database#campus-deplatforming/?view_44_page=21&view_44_sort=field_95|asc Harvard - 6 standard deviations worse than the average school regarding free speech https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings

Not a pope gal, fair, but can you explain the miracle of your crew’s divine, color-switching hair?

Men assaulting women is reason #19 why having men use the women's public restroom is a bad idea!

To the original proverb, Erik Kin does a better job than the copy/paste note above. https://archive.is/20241215155441/https://medium.com/@erickin/scratch-a-liberal-and-a-fascist-bleeds-the-unmasking-of-american-liberalism-in-a-time-of-crisis-36f9fe2c666c#selection-245.0-767.36 To your point, I agree! But while you can say school choice, state rights, limited government conservatives have fascist tendencies, you can't claim the high ground from the left. Here are just a few cases of forcible suppression, propaganda, and so on recently to enforce their rules over individual freedom. Just a small sampling of fascism from the left... Vaccine mandates... The Censorship-Industrial Complex: Biden White House Coercing Big Tech (link) Employees fired for refusing to serve black customer after the store had closed for the day (link) The New Intolerance of Student Activism - https://archive.is/Qk6XF California Nurse Suspended for Vaccine Skepticism Posts (link) Virginia school board to pay $575K to a teacher fired for refusing to use trans student’s pronouns (link) dehumanize Trump supporters as MAGA and deplorable "Fortifying the election"... Hearing fascists treat parents as fascist domestic terrorists? Facepalm! So SICK of hearing fascists refer to others as fascists!!! Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. The words fascism and fascist have long been associated with the Fascisti of Benito Mussolini and the fasces, the bundle of rods with an ax among them, which the Fascisti used as a symbol of the Italian people united and obedient to the single authority of the state. [merriam] Central to fascism is the use of propaganda and disinformation to manipulate public perception and undermine truth. [Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism]

Nice steal from the much older proverb... scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist. Deep down, most people show some fascist tendencies, even if just through passive acceptance...

This is an enjoyable take on how doubt may not negate God’s existence. There is rationality behind one's belief in god.

Yea I'm going to need you to cite your source on this one.

Singapore data indicates it is a successful deterrent, but note they are more timely in execution than the US. Minister for Home Affairs (MHA) found that there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight trafficked for opium, in the four-year window after the mandatory death penalty was introduced in 1990 for trafficking more than 1,200g of opium. Similarly, in the four-year period after the introduction of the mandatory death penalty for trafficking involving more than 500g of cannabis in 1990, there was a 15 to 19 percentage point reduction in the probability that traffickers would choose to traffic above the capital sentence threshold. Prior to 1973, firearms robbery was on the rise, reaching a peak of 174 cases in 1973. A dramatic drop was witnessed over the decades following the introduction of the death penalty for such offences. Firearms offences immediately fell by 39% to 106 cases the next year, and fell further within the next three to four years to an even lower level, and remains at a very low level today. At Annex 1 is a chart showing this. Today, firearms robbery is rare in Singapore, with no cases reported in the last 13 years. The introduction of the death penalty for kidnapping under the Punishment of Kidnapping Ordinance in 1961 likewise resulted in a dramatic drop in such cases. In the three years before 1961, there were on average, 29 kidnapping cases a year in Singapore. But this fell to only one case in 1961. Except for six cases in 1964 and three cases in 2003, kidnapping cases have not exceeded two cases per year since the death penalty was introduced. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-parliamentary-question-on-studies-on-the-deterrent-effect-of-a-life-sentence-relative-to-the-death-penalty-by-mr-k-shanmugam-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-law/

This implies that, with approximately 1,619 executions since 1973, around 66 executions (4.1%) could involve innocent people, or roughly 1–2 per year on average. 1. If the death penalty deters 3 or more killings of innocent people annually, would you prefer to save those 3 over the 1-2 wrongful executions? 2. 100+ inmates are killed each year, predominately by those convicted previously of violent and/or homicides. Is that worth saving 1-2 wrongful executions? https://www.statista.com/statistics/220920/number-of-state-prisoner-homicides-in-the-us/ 3. An estimated 25 murderers are released from prison annually and kill again. Is that worth saving 1-2 wrongful executions? 2K released annually, 1.2% rearrested for another homicide Which is more humane?

How many of y'all ridiculed government skeptics over the past four years... and yet here you yourself are now a skeptic?

Abrego is not making America better. Minimally he's run with gang members and watchlist people, plus some spousal abuse. Who chances into gang claims and smuggling suspicions? Why did he enter illegally and wait until 2019 to claim asylum? The government has not proven Abrego is MS-13 and they weaseled their compliance with the Supreme Court's order. A positive from the publicity of this case is potentially more self-deportations... I do hate Trump's general stance to never admit mistakes... Realistically, citizens will not face this mess under Trump's admin but due process is for everyone (stop stretching...).

Trump's team was clear on their reasoning. I'm still holding out for stronger MS-13 gang evidence. It feels like Trump's admin / supporters are greasy car salesmen... If the Tenn. article is confirmed that Abrego or a passenger was on the terrorist watch list, and the FBI was called for human smuggling concerns, then I will trust what intelligence originally reported in 2019. And if that's the case... this feels like they 'lucked' into their narrative...

The United States officially designated MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 2025. The United States has intelligence documents that identify Abrego as a member of the MS-13 gang. Minimally the reports consistently identify he was with others confirmed in the MS-13 gang. Abrego was allegedly on a terrorist watch list when pulled over and reported to the FBI for suspicion of human smuggling in 2022. Note: there is a conflicting report that says Abrego was not on the watch list at that time, but one of his passengers was on the watch list. https://tennesseestar.com/justice/bidens-fbi-ordered-tn-highway-patrol-to-release-maryland-man-recently-deported-to-el-salvador-after-he-was-detained-in-2022-traffic-stop-on-suspicion-of-human-trafficking/tpappert/2025/04/16/ The US FTO designation provides a legal basis for his deportation and detention, potentially overriding US court rulings that his March 15, 2025, deportation was unlawful due to a 2019 withholding of removal order and an “administrative error.” In El Salvador, MS-13 has been classified as a terrorist organization since a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, enabling the application of anti-terrorism laws, including keeping Abrego in the the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).

Per the supreme court, the Executive Branch must try to help bring Abrego Garcia back, as the court’s order to "facilitate" his return is still in place. But because foreign affairs are involved, the Executive Branch has some flexibility in how it does this. Exactly what they have to do depends on the District Court clarifying what "effectuate" means later. Trump’s team met with El Salvador’s President Bukele on April 14, 2025, and said it’s El Salvador’s call whether to send Abrego Garcia back. Bukele called it “preposterous” and said Abrego Garcia is a “terrorist,” which matches Trump’s team’s claim that he’s in the MS-13 gang. They’re not pushing hard to bring him back.

I understand that the article is making a few points... Wrestling demands personal accountability and a relentless work ethic, so the article finds it puzzling that wrestlers embrace Trump (claims he has neither) Labeling wrestlers as toxic alienates them, pushing them toward toxic masculinity figures like those in the ‘manosphere,’ Trump wins over wrestlers with his tough-guy image from the 2024 assassination attempt and his vocal support for their sport. His emotional appeal overrides that his policies do not benefit the rural wrestling community. It is sometimes disconnected from reality through selective framing. Sometimes I agree... Trump's 2024 campaign schedule involved 28 events across 25 cities in 18 days! Numerous people talk about him working non stop and have high energy despite limited sleeping hours. He did wrestle in high school, win matches in state golf tournaments, and had multiple HS classmates/instructors talk about his athletic skills. He isn't as good as he said he was, but he was subjectively above average. Just the persistence to continue running for president given the incredible propaganda and persecution over the past 10 years is something to behold. Surprisingly, Trump has apologized before. But he doesn't compare in anyway to Spencer Lee giving credit to Ramos for beating him, and no excuses for being injured. I don't see Trump as being personally accountable in the standard sense of taking blame... he does hold others accountable and he does change tactics/behaviors that show responsibility. Trump was known for being one of the most successful business men... certainly something a wrestler aspires to be one of the best! I do agree that alienating tough-guys can make them value their masculinity even more. I don't know about making them 'extreme' or 'toxic.' The article makes some fair points but isn't very nuanced. Obviously some policies DO benefit the rural wrestling community...

China is competing hard for the future of AI, and the leaders in AI will dominate the world. A CIA cyber security agent told me this morning that China is spending 2T+ on AI for 2030. This is a force multiplier for the GDP and military... but the USA will still be tops in 2030 regardless of the noise here.

Have Purler and Henson wrestled each other formally? I see they were both national champs, both on senior world teams, and Henson had the better international career. What interesting stories are there on those two? Throw Eric Akin in the mix... I'd imagine these three had some battles.

How good were Purler and Henson? They run a lot of camps…

Nah, I'm just the way I am. Thanks mom. The comment was addressing some things you and others said. When people talk about nuances, rule enforcement, education, and such... I completely agree! But it doesn't work well enough... As more nuances are brought up, the more important it often is to simplify the solution. There was a study that demonstrated movie goers eat 50% more popcorn when given a large bucket versus a small bucket, each with endless refills, even when the popcorn is grossly stale. There is no nuance, exception, education, rule compliance, etc. involved. Nobody should eat the gross popcorn... just the environment of a larger bucket results in more consumption. This science is why the first thing a fat person should do to trim down, is to throw out their large dinner plates in favor of smaller ones. This is why parents should not bring sugary snacks and microwavable into their home... to where their tech addicted children can access. Tech addiction?... hell throw that device out if you want your kids to be active. Do you want to manage screen time? A mat side type weigh in, on a vetted scale, with everything you would wrestle in, is an imperfect means that greatly simplifies the path to desired outcomes. (healthy weight management, etc.) Also, treating the weigh-in as a temporary checkpoint violates the spirt of weight classes... to have someone wrestle at 140lbs, while the opponent is 148lbs or even 140.2lbs, when the weight limit is 140.0 lbs. There was a study that found a 5% weight advantage in wrestling increases win probability by 10–15% in like-skilled matches.

Scout stated that climate data is rigged and provided an article as evidence. RV reads this and reframes (invents) that Scout stated man-made global warming is not existent. Scout might believe in man's contribution to global warming but question data integrity. We should ask for clarity. Sure, RV is correct about the article with respect to refuting the existence of man-made global warming. But this may not be Scout's point. This is the behavior worth criticism. What behavior? Inventing views that someone didn't clearly state, based on one's own bias, and then criticizing it. If you want someone's views, directly ask for it and get clarity. And then argue against the idea rather than attack the person. Scout didn't say anything inflammatory to warrant this hostility. For good measure, RV labels the article’s claims of data manipulation ‘internal disagreements,’ ignoring allegations of political bias and subpoena non-compliance. The claims of which I see as rigging...

Being against the death penalty because the wrongful execution of a single innocent person is deeply understandable... However, can the death penalty be justified through utilitarian concerns about outcomes? Some questions: Would you reconsider its use if limited to cases with overwhelming evidence, like DNA and video? What if it deters even a few more murders than wrongful deaths? What if executing the worst offenders restores trust in justice for the victim's family and society? How do you balance the harm of homicides within prison itself? How concerning is the risk that released murderers commit new violent crimes and homicides? Why is there a higher standard for the wrongful executions than there is for deaths by medical errors? It is morally acceptable to prioritize prevention over the rare risk of wrongful executions? Prison reform is very expensive and when balancing quality of life freedoms, there will continue to be violent crime. There are more annual homicides within prison itself than wrongful executions stacked over multiple decades. This is not an argument against concerns, rather thoughts for consideration

The death penalty debate always gets me thinking about ethics. Utilitarianism says we should focus on the best outcomes, like saving more lives, even if it means tough trade-offs (e.g., risking one innocent execution to save many). Deontology, though, argues some things, like never killing an innocent, are non-negotiable no matter the result. How do you weigh these two approaches when thinking about issues like the death penalty? Is one more practical or moral than the other, or is there a middle ground?

Life has taught me that changing the environment is the simplest solution to effectuate change. If you want to lose weight, use a smaller dinner plate. Then you don’t need to monitor portions, educate, or lecture. If you want safer weight management, ensure the wrestler is under 140lbs at match time, not “formally 140.”

A simple solution is to have the wrestler step on the scale with whatever they are wrestling in. Facemask, brace, tape, shoes, singlet, whatever. Maybe Johnnie will check his weight on all the verified scales before the meet starts. Johnnie will adapt. "But I'm a tweener." "This is wrestling. No one cares."