![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via https://ift.tt/2QreP0o
stanallah:
i feel like i’m losing my mind this is legit the funniest shit i’ve come across
stanallah:
i feel like i’m losing my mind this is legit the funniest shit i’ve come across
via https://ift.tt/35bAIGa
theactualcluegirl:
watchmebitch:
sinlovesmarvel:
royalturkeyz:
kahavave:
izzyb4642:
fempuxk:
What’s happening
They’re referencing civil asset forfeiture, a process by which (essentially) the state can take your stuff if they believe said stuff was involved in a crime and you have to demonstrate that it wasn’t involved in a crime nor was it intended to be involved in a crime (emphasis here; because the item is being charged, not a person, it is guilty until proven innocent). Depending on whether a judge determine the suspicion was reasonable or not, you may have to pay legal fees to get your stuff back.
IE; if a cop pulls you over, searches your car, finds 200$, and thinks you got it by selling drugs he’s allowed to take it and you have a couple months to prove that you didn’t get it by selling drugs otherwise the department gets to keep it. And if the judge agrees that taking the money in the first place was reasonable then to get it back you may have to pay the court.
Long Story short cops can legally mug you.
Civil Forfeiture covered on Last Week Tonight
Hey guys! The above sources are great and informative BUT please note that there was a recent development in this area handed down from the Supreme Court.
NYTimes article explaining the opinion is linked, but tl;dr: the limits on “excessive fines” in the 8th amendment now apply to civil forfeiture. We don’t know exactly where the limit is yet, because (a) this is a recent decision so there isn’t a lot of case law applying it and (b) SCOTUS isn’t well known for handing down extremely explicit guidelines.
The case before the court involved a seizure worth four times as much as the maximum possible fine due, and the court didn’t rule on whether that qualified as “excessive.” They instead sent the case back down to the lower court with instructions to decide, which is pretty typical.
So what you’re saying is, through judicious loophole use, the NYPD could, per se, seize Trump Towers under suspicion of its having been used international money laundering, and then it would be up to Trumperdink to prove, in court, by showing his finance records, that it wasn’t?
theactualcluegirl:
watchmebitch:
sinlovesmarvel:
royalturkeyz:
kahavave:
izzyb4642:
fempuxk:
What’s happening
They’re referencing civil asset forfeiture, a process by which (essentially) the state can take your stuff if they believe said stuff was involved in a crime and you have to demonstrate that it wasn’t involved in a crime nor was it intended to be involved in a crime (emphasis here; because the item is being charged, not a person, it is guilty until proven innocent). Depending on whether a judge determine the suspicion was reasonable or not, you may have to pay legal fees to get your stuff back.
IE; if a cop pulls you over, searches your car, finds 200$, and thinks you got it by selling drugs he’s allowed to take it and you have a couple months to prove that you didn’t get it by selling drugs otherwise the department gets to keep it. And if the judge agrees that taking the money in the first place was reasonable then to get it back you may have to pay the court.
Long Story short cops can legally mug you.
Civil Forfeiture covered on Last Week Tonight
Hey guys! The above sources are great and informative BUT please note that there was a recent development in this area handed down from the Supreme Court.
NYTimes article explaining the opinion is linked, but tl;dr: the limits on “excessive fines” in the 8th amendment now apply to civil forfeiture. We don’t know exactly where the limit is yet, because (a) this is a recent decision so there isn’t a lot of case law applying it and (b) SCOTUS isn’t well known for handing down extremely explicit guidelines.
The case before the court involved a seizure worth four times as much as the maximum possible fine due, and the court didn’t rule on whether that qualified as “excessive.” They instead sent the case back down to the lower court with instructions to decide, which is pretty typical.
So what you’re saying is, through judicious loophole use, the NYPD could, per se, seize Trump Towers under suspicion of its having been used international money laundering, and then it would be up to Trumperdink to prove, in court, by showing his finance records, that it wasn’t?
via https://ift.tt/2P1nJTr
intersex-ionality:
If you unironically think that socialism is a colonialist ploy to further separate indigenous peoples from their lands and the tools/supplies they need to take care of those lands, then I am sorry but you’ve been deeply impacted by some very weird propaganda.
There is nothing inherently racist about giving people the things they worked to create.
Now, like any political movement in the west, the practitioners are often racist shithead. That’s true. But that’s true of basically any movement that doesn’t focus exclusively on race, and several that do.
It’s insane that I’m seeing, in real time, the evolution from, “farmcore is evil” to “solarpunk is evil” to “socialism is evil” from people who most stand to benefit from anti-capitalist actions and the expansion of social safety nets.
Like, seriously. If you are fighting to end poverty, and poverty is one of the major factors that disempowers indigenous peoples, then you’re fighting to re-empower indigenous peoples.
This is so fucking weird.
intersex-ionality:
If you unironically think that socialism is a colonialist ploy to further separate indigenous peoples from their lands and the tools/supplies they need to take care of those lands, then I am sorry but you’ve been deeply impacted by some very weird propaganda.
There is nothing inherently racist about giving people the things they worked to create.
Now, like any political movement in the west, the practitioners are often racist shithead. That’s true. But that’s true of basically any movement that doesn’t focus exclusively on race, and several that do.
It’s insane that I’m seeing, in real time, the evolution from, “farmcore is evil” to “solarpunk is evil” to “socialism is evil” from people who most stand to benefit from anti-capitalist actions and the expansion of social safety nets.
Like, seriously. If you are fighting to end poverty, and poverty is one of the major factors that disempowers indigenous peoples, then you’re fighting to re-empower indigenous peoples.
This is so fucking weird.
via http://bit.ly/2VZkquL
awboomerangsno:
naryrising:
Pros of being a Fandom Old:
- never have to worry about my mom finding out about my porn fic
- have seen it all before and give few if any fucks
Cons of being a Fandom Old:
- forced to work at actual job instead of writing fic all day
- have seen it all before and get regular “ugh not again” moments
@damnskywalker
awboomerangsno:
naryrising:
Pros of being a Fandom Old:
- never have to worry about my mom finding out about my porn fic
- have seen it all before and give few if any fucks
Cons of being a Fandom Old:
- forced to work at actual job instead of writing fic all day
- have seen it all before and get regular “ugh not again” moments
@damnskywalker
via http://bit.ly/2DjnZoa
awboomerangsno:
naryrising:
Pros of being a Fandom Old:
- never have to worry about my mom finding out about my porn fic
- have seen it all before and give few if any fucks
Cons of being a Fandom Old:
- forced to work at actual job instead of writing fic all day
- have seen it all before and get regular “ugh not again” moments
@damnskywalker
awboomerangsno:
naryrising:
Pros of being a Fandom Old:
- never have to worry about my mom finding out about my porn fic
- have seen it all before and give few if any fucks
Cons of being a Fandom Old:
- forced to work at actual job instead of writing fic all day
- have seen it all before and get regular “ugh not again” moments
@damnskywalker
via https://ift.tt/2UMaioQ
justqueenthoughts:
Bohemian Rhapsody. We Will Rock You. Somebody To Love. All hit singles, and all the direct product of a band that was formed when an astrophysicist and a dentistry major found a new friend in an art college, who then went on to recruit a fourth member from the electronics school. Based on this alliance I propose the rift in society between Arts and STEM students was fabricated to keep us separated so as to dilute our true power - and fabricated by who, you may ask? The business major, the only member of society who reaps no reward from art and science and thus must weaken us so as to stay ahead. In this essay I will
justqueenthoughts:
Bohemian Rhapsody. We Will Rock You. Somebody To Love. All hit singles, and all the direct product of a band that was formed when an astrophysicist and a dentistry major found a new friend in an art college, who then went on to recruit a fourth member from the electronics school. Based on this alliance I propose the rift in society between Arts and STEM students was fabricated to keep us separated so as to dilute our true power - and fabricated by who, you may ask? The business major, the only member of society who reaps no reward from art and science and thus must weaken us so as to stay ahead. In this essay I will
via http://bit.ly/2FP9mMl
tooiconic:
szuddenly:
you think you want me to shut up? i have to listen to myself even when im not talking
wow this is a fucking mood
tooiconic:
szuddenly:
you think you want me to shut up? i have to listen to myself even when im not talking
wow this is a fucking mood
via http://bit.ly/2DBRceY
andhumanslovedstories:
Mom and I were talking about traveling to different planets and colonies on Mars and meeting aliens and stuff like that, and she paused and said, “If life on Earth ends and we need to flee to a different planet, we’ll all need to work together. But also the first time a man pulls some shit, all the women need to murder him so everyone’s clear that we’re restarting society and we’re not bringing that shit with us. We’re not doing this again.”
andhumanslovedstories:
Mom and I were talking about traveling to different planets and colonies on Mars and meeting aliens and stuff like that, and she paused and said, “If life on Earth ends and we need to flee to a different planet, we’ll all need to work together. But also the first time a man pulls some shit, all the women need to murder him so everyone’s clear that we’re restarting society and we’re not bringing that shit with us. We’re not doing this again.”
via https://ift.tt/2RGx2oC
jetpackexhaust:
The Malcom Fallacy
Dr Malcolm perfectly captured the problem with too much moralizing sci-fi when he whined “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”Because of course they should! “Should we recreate awesome dinosaurs*?” The answer is obviously yes, utterly yes, that’s the positive control case to test absolute YESness. You don’t ask people that question to find the answer, you already know the answer, you ask people that question to find out if they’re worth talking to.
*a scaled pseudospecies distinct from feathered “actual dinosaurs”.
The real problem is the wrong people asking the wrong questions, then blaming science for delivering overwhelming experimental evidence of their mistakes. Jurassic Park’s key question wasn’t “Should we recreate awesome dinosaurs?”, it was “Should we unleash those awesome dinosaurs on a safari with worse security and fewer staff than the average Apple store?” No, you shouldn’t have done that. The science spectacularly succeeded in delivering a dinosaur miracle, and then specifically didn’t knock them out of the Park because that tourism screw-up’s entirely on capitalism. No scientist was collecting data for “Quantifying how much money we can make from tourism” or “Material testing the flimsiest fences imaginable with a goddamn Tyrannosaurus Rex”.
That’s the Malcolm Fallacy: blaming science for everyone else’s mistakes. You’ll see it in almost every techno-horror.
Should we invent AI? Yes! Should we connect it to military mainframes with nuclear launch authority? No!
Should we research viruses? Yes! Should we override the security computer and physically crack open sealed airtight doors when viral labs go into lockdown? No!
Should we research teleportation? Yes! Should we experiment on ourselves, alone, without even the most elementary laboratory (or even pizza parlor) standards of cleanliness? No!
Almost every sci-fi horror plot is driven by money-grubbing corporations but it’s the researchers who can’t even afford a change of clothes from their “I’m a scientist!” lab coats who take the blame. And now we have hordes of idiots destroying cropfields and resurrecting defeated diseases while CEOs gold-plate profit reports on basic medicine.
This and more at ZERO POINT COMEDY
jetpackexhaust:
The Malcom Fallacy
Dr Malcolm perfectly captured the problem with too much moralizing sci-fi when he whined “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”Because of course they should! “Should we recreate awesome dinosaurs*?” The answer is obviously yes, utterly yes, that’s the positive control case to test absolute YESness. You don’t ask people that question to find the answer, you already know the answer, you ask people that question to find out if they’re worth talking to.
*a scaled pseudospecies distinct from feathered “actual dinosaurs”.
The real problem is the wrong people asking the wrong questions, then blaming science for delivering overwhelming experimental evidence of their mistakes. Jurassic Park’s key question wasn’t “Should we recreate awesome dinosaurs?”, it was “Should we unleash those awesome dinosaurs on a safari with worse security and fewer staff than the average Apple store?” No, you shouldn’t have done that. The science spectacularly succeeded in delivering a dinosaur miracle, and then specifically didn’t knock them out of the Park because that tourism screw-up’s entirely on capitalism. No scientist was collecting data for “Quantifying how much money we can make from tourism” or “Material testing the flimsiest fences imaginable with a goddamn Tyrannosaurus Rex”.
That’s the Malcolm Fallacy: blaming science for everyone else’s mistakes. You’ll see it in almost every techno-horror.
Should we invent AI? Yes! Should we connect it to military mainframes with nuclear launch authority? No!
Should we research viruses? Yes! Should we override the security computer and physically crack open sealed airtight doors when viral labs go into lockdown? No!
Should we research teleportation? Yes! Should we experiment on ourselves, alone, without even the most elementary laboratory (or even pizza parlor) standards of cleanliness? No!
Almost every sci-fi horror plot is driven by money-grubbing corporations but it’s the researchers who can’t even afford a change of clothes from their “I’m a scientist!” lab coats who take the blame. And now we have hordes of idiots destroying cropfields and resurrecting defeated diseases while CEOs gold-plate profit reports on basic medicine.
This and more at ZERO POINT COMEDY
