Another way you could reduce blackmail corruption is make it a law that people in leadership get one third the punishment normal people do if they admit it before they get caught, and if they get caught they get double the punishment any regular citizen would. And if they are discovered by admission they can't be removed from office for their act until an election but if they are caught they are removed from their position immediately.
This gives them the incentive that they second they get blackmailed they'll just immediately admit it to the public to disarm the blackmailer. I do consider it a form of corruption to give them lighter punishments. But here it is a trade off between one kind of corruption and another and I think doing that would result in less total corruption.
The real fun would be if we enacted it right now and saw which of them are going to tattle right away because if someone else spills the beans they aren't getting the deal. If the average molestation sentence is six years then for them it is the difference between 2 years and twelve. They can vote on bills from jail. I really do think letting them keep their position at least till the next election is critical because people will conceal things to retain power as much as to avoid punishment.
They would spill beans immediately and we would get our congress and foreign policy back right away.
Political deepfake porn is already a thing. You can find some Nikki Haley. Deepfaking them into cp wouldn't be hard. I just don't want to be the one to process the video.
Which is all the more reason why congress members aren't going to obey it. Are they going to follow the laws some state senator wrote? They know how flawed the federal senate is. To them its just some law written by some schmuck politician. More schmuck than their own peers they know are schmucks. They are right. But the difference is they have the perspective to know they are right. You and I fail to see them as a schmuck.
Some of those ages of consent are misleading. A lot of the variance comes from how they structure Romeo and Juliet law. Some states say the age of consent is 18 but if you are within 2 or 3 years you get an exception. Some states call this minimum Juliet age the age of consent but say if you are over 3 years difference you need to observe an 18 age of consent. It's basically the same policy but with a change in wording you get different numbers. Personally I think the logic of the second one makes more sense because in the first case you are claiming that anyone under 18 is fundamentally incapable of consent and calling it rape, and then the government is giving license to 19 year olds to rape. Either it's not actually rape or the government imagines it has the capacity to give license to rape, and then actually did it.
IDK. If the government thinks it has that sort of power why don't they just give congress people license to rape and we can be done with this blackmail.
That or you could wind the clock back on law some 60 years.
Here is how they get them. 95% of the male population is attracted to sixteen year olds. People with weak moral psychology think things are wrong if they can get in trouble for them instead of associating it with actual harm. Hence a lot of people conceptualize 18 as a real moral line even though it was just legislated fairly recently in human history. When someone gets to a certain level of power a lot of that disappears and they instead act on what they want, which psychological testing shows for 95% of the male population is sixteen year old girls. So nearly 100% of congressmen want that and will act on that if offered.
Ok. So now they have some teen tapes of the congressman. So then they confront them and say either you can play ball with us and have an even better career or we can tell the world. Playing ball with them means agreeing to something with even more leverage like making a child tape. They assure you pretty much everyone in congress is in the same boat and that its not a career ender when people play ball with them, or every thing can be over right now if you don't.
Now they really have them locked down.
And they are able to do this with 95% of congress. The women are easier. You just tell them what to do. No blackmail needed.
In an earlier era homosexuality was taboo but teenage sex was not. In that case they could only corrupt the closet homos in congress which was a lot smaller, about 5%, than the closet teen interested in congress, which is 95% once someone has enough power to have dissolved away the last 60 years of moral programming. Remember most of these congress people are old enough to remember when nobody thought anything of that and would likely be more upset about the extramarital aspects of that sort of thing. So they are already primed to think that is bullshit.
So basically if you outlaw non-divergent interests and label them divergent you are going to have Israel own congress. People in power aren't going to follow that shit and its going to put them in hot water. And when they are in hot water you pay they don't.
The point isn't about what is speech or what has legal protections. The point is about what drives the difference we see between websites. If you want to understand a phenomenon you want to look at both the margin and the extremes. We can see that the less controlled users are the more that userbase is going to be dominated by what people can't do elsewhere.
Free speech sites lack speech controls, which is something I agree with. While sites like reddit choose to engage in more control. So then you have a migratory pressure of people who want to talk about right wing politics away from those sites, and a migratory pressure from smaller sites to reddit when the small sites end up very focused on that one thing.
I assume you have no reason to spend much time on tor. There is a reason. There is nothing there you want anything to do with. That's how the left feels about free speech sites. And once that movement begins in both directions it accelerates until it is absolute. That's the driving force. Not some definitive correctness.
While I am general on the right the real effect is that sites with less control end up being the opposite of whatever has the most control.
On clearnet Reddit, facebook, twitter (doesn't want to admit it), youtube all have the most control so the remaining clearnet is what isn't allowed on them.
On clearnet things are controlled against pedophilia and drug sales. What happens when you remove those controls and have tor. It's nothing but pedophilia and drug sales.
Then what does your logic suggest. You are suggesting that a position is more correct because it prevails when there are no controls. In reality the space is shaped by the fact that the other half of the internet has controls. On a whole internet with less controls you would actually end up with something in the middle not dominated by bifurcated extremes.
SaneGoat? Amalek? Both of them preached to the choir but pretended they had some sort of unique message others weren't paying attention to. It's actually hard to believe they weren't the same person.
Funny. I've had sleep paralysis. Mine was a witch and seemingly pretty corporeal. I wouldn't assume everyone has the same experience. And I've only had a "demon" present once in the four or five times I've had sleep paralysis. So not only will it be different from person to person. It's going to be different experience to experience. It's a dream. It's not exactly going to play by any rules.
Prayers work by faith. The bible says so. Is he still an Atheist? If so he doesn't have faith and his prayers can do nothing. Maybe instead he thought "This is the last time I talk to this guy about my problems."
I saw a commenter on the Hannity show today ask "Where is the NSA?" Yes, constitutionally protected speech needs a level of spying that would be illegal for our government to do even if a criminal act was present, because our government is 100% captured by Israel
If they aren't real then what did they drop in Georgia in your story. One of what.. a thing that doesn't exist. How can their be one of something for your story if they aren't real?
I mean I know some real stuff that will never be verifiable. Even Dick Cheney tried to cover it up and besides himself maybe 5 people know about it in the entire intel community in the US plus me, plus a small handful in our ally's intel community that actually uncovered it. So like 12 people on the whole planet besides the people who did it.
It's not related to OPs story but Saudi Arabia has coordinated with North Korea on shared missile development. But that's the thing about hushed stories. When the intel community really wants to hush a story they don't even let 99.9% of themselves know about it and zero media. So it will never be verifiable. The juiciest real stuff never will be verifiable.
I visited new york once. There was a kid in central park about twice her age who started to walk onto a mostly flat rock. His mother grabbed him telling him he would get hurt. While this 2 year old is jumping bolders (compared to her, bolders).
That could be true. He might not even be into kids. Of course the cops were running ads or something for that trying to do stings and he was like, welp, that's definitely going to create a police encounter. Even brought a gun too to make sure it went the way he wanted.
soupnazi 1 point 2 days ago
"Yelling bomb in a movie theater is not a valid form of expression."
What about putting a bomb in a movie theater, many of them?
/v/IndiaRaw viewpost?postid=6632f52a8ff02
soupnazi 2 points 2 days ago
But they are actually destroying the one and only Palestinian state.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6633550a76073
soupnazi 0 points 2 days ago
Another way you could reduce blackmail corruption is make it a law that people in leadership get one third the punishment normal people do if they admit it before they get caught, and if they get caught they get double the punishment any regular citizen would. And if they are discovered by admission they can't be removed from office for their act until an election but if they are caught they are removed from their position immediately.
This gives them the incentive that they second they get blackmailed they'll just immediately admit it to the public to disarm the blackmailer. I do consider it a form of corruption to give them lighter punishments. But here it is a trade off between one kind of corruption and another and I think doing that would result in less total corruption.
The real fun would be if we enacted it right now and saw which of them are going to tattle right away because if someone else spills the beans they aren't getting the deal. If the average molestation sentence is six years then for them it is the difference between 2 years and twelve. They can vote on bills from jail. I really do think letting them keep their position at least till the next election is critical because people will conceal things to retain power as much as to avoid punishment.
They would spill beans immediately and we would get our congress and foreign policy back right away.
/v/AskUpgoat viewpost?postid=66321a4eaaa28
soupnazi 1 point 2 days ago
Political deepfake porn is already a thing. You can find some Nikki Haley. Deepfaking them into cp wouldn't be hard. I just don't want to be the one to process the video.
/v/AskUpgoat viewpost?postid=66321a4eaaa28
soupnazi 2 points 2 days ago*
Which is all the more reason why congress members aren't going to obey it. Are they going to follow the laws some state senator wrote? They know how flawed the federal senate is. To them its just some law written by some schmuck politician. More schmuck than their own peers they know are schmucks. They are right. But the difference is they have the perspective to know they are right. You and I fail to see them as a schmuck.
Some of those ages of consent are misleading. A lot of the variance comes from how they structure Romeo and Juliet law. Some states say the age of consent is 18 but if you are within 2 or 3 years you get an exception. Some states call this minimum Juliet age the age of consent but say if you are over 3 years difference you need to observe an 18 age of consent. It's basically the same policy but with a change in wording you get different numbers. Personally I think the logic of the second one makes more sense because in the first case you are claiming that anyone under 18 is fundamentally incapable of consent and calling it rape, and then the government is giving license to 19 year olds to rape. Either it's not actually rape or the government imagines it has the capacity to give license to rape, and then actually did it.
IDK. If the government thinks it has that sort of power why don't they just give congress people license to rape and we can be done with this blackmail.
/v/AskUpgoat viewpost?postid=66321a4eaaa28
soupnazi 3 points 2 days ago*
That or you could wind the clock back on law some 60 years.
Here is how they get them. 95% of the male population is attracted to sixteen year olds. People with weak moral psychology think things are wrong if they can get in trouble for them instead of associating it with actual harm. Hence a lot of people conceptualize 18 as a real moral line even though it was just legislated fairly recently in human history. When someone gets to a certain level of power a lot of that disappears and they instead act on what they want, which psychological testing shows for 95% of the male population is sixteen year old girls. So nearly 100% of congressmen want that and will act on that if offered.
Ok. So now they have some teen tapes of the congressman. So then they confront them and say either you can play ball with us and have an even better career or we can tell the world. Playing ball with them means agreeing to something with even more leverage like making a child tape. They assure you pretty much everyone in congress is in the same boat and that its not a career ender when people play ball with them, or every thing can be over right now if you don't.
Now they really have them locked down.
And they are able to do this with 95% of congress. The women are easier. You just tell them what to do. No blackmail needed.
In an earlier era homosexuality was taboo but teenage sex was not. In that case they could only corrupt the closet homos in congress which was a lot smaller, about 5%, than the closet teen interested in congress, which is 95% once someone has enough power to have dissolved away the last 60 years of moral programming. Remember most of these congress people are old enough to remember when nobody thought anything of that and would likely be more upset about the extramarital aspects of that sort of thing. So they are already primed to think that is bullshit.
So basically if you outlaw non-divergent interests and label them divergent you are going to have Israel own congress. People in power aren't going to follow that shit and its going to put them in hot water. And when they are in hot water you pay they don't.
/v/AskUpgoat viewpost?postid=66321a4eaaa28
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago*
The point isn't about what is speech or what has legal protections. The point is about what drives the difference we see between websites. If you want to understand a phenomenon you want to look at both the margin and the extremes. We can see that the less controlled users are the more that userbase is going to be dominated by what people can't do elsewhere.
Free speech sites lack speech controls, which is something I agree with. While sites like reddit choose to engage in more control. So then you have a migratory pressure of people who want to talk about right wing politics away from those sites, and a migratory pressure from smaller sites to reddit when the small sites end up very focused on that one thing.
I assume you have no reason to spend much time on tor. There is a reason. There is nothing there you want anything to do with. That's how the left feels about free speech sites. And once that movement begins in both directions it accelerates until it is absolute. That's the driving force. Not some definitive correctness.
/v/HitlerWasRight viewpost?postid=662bb254dc731
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago
While I am general on the right the real effect is that sites with less control end up being the opposite of whatever has the most control.
On clearnet Reddit, facebook, twitter (doesn't want to admit it), youtube all have the most control so the remaining clearnet is what isn't allowed on them.
On clearnet things are controlled against pedophilia and drug sales. What happens when you remove those controls and have tor. It's nothing but pedophilia and drug sales.
Then what does your logic suggest. You are suggesting that a position is more correct because it prevails when there are no controls. In reality the space is shaped by the fact that the other half of the internet has controls. On a whole internet with less controls you would actually end up with something in the middle not dominated by bifurcated extremes.
/v/HitlerWasRight viewpost?postid=662bb254dc731
soupnazi 2 points 1 week ago
This was my prior one, and my background: https://i.imgflip.com/6l5486.jpg
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6629d42574c74
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago
SaneGoat? Amalek? Both of them preached to the choir but pretended they had some sort of unique message others weren't paying attention to. It's actually hard to believe they weren't the same person.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6629058749779
soupnazi 0 points 1 week ago
Fuck catbox
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=66295292108c1
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago
Funny. I've had sleep paralysis. Mine was a witch and seemingly pretty corporeal. I wouldn't assume everyone has the same experience. And I've only had a "demon" present once in the four or five times I've had sleep paralysis. So not only will it be different from person to person. It's going to be different experience to experience. It's a dream. It's not exactly going to play by any rules.
/v/news viewpost?postid=662986330e03f
soupnazi 2 points 1 week ago
Prayers work by faith. The bible says so. Is he still an Atheist? If so he doesn't have faith and his prayers can do nothing. Maybe instead he thought "This is the last time I talk to this guy about my problems."
/v/news viewpost?postid=662986330e03f
soupnazi 3 points 1 week ago
Why does catbox have so much momentum when it clearly sucks. What's so special about it anyway?
/v/news viewpost?postid=662986330e03f
soupnazi 2 points 1 week ago
I saw a commenter on the Hannity show today ask "Where is the NSA?" Yes, constitutionally protected speech needs a level of spying that would be illegal for our government to do even if a criminal act was present, because our government is 100% captured by Israel
/v/news viewpost?postid=6629a68083377
soupnazi 0 points 1 week ago
Well, I can't get catbox to work today so I guess I'll never see this.
What if we just stopped using catbox. Surely the video had to be somewhere before it was on catbox. Why not just link to that?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662960fe71a8b
soupnazi 0 points 1 week ago
^ This is true.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6626fe66a48c6
soupnazi 0 points 1 week ago
Remember when the creator of Sound of Freedom got in trouble for child trafficking himself?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6626fe66a48c6
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago
You don't think the nuclear binding energy curve exists? That's in a lot of books.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6623dd2a7a471
soupnazi 0 points 1 week ago
If they aren't real then what did they drop in Georgia in your story. One of what.. a thing that doesn't exist. How can their be one of something for your story if they aren't real?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6623dd2a7a471
soupnazi 5 points 1 week ago
Exactly. Not even a regular bomb goes off if you shoot it down. People have cartoon understand of bombs.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6623dd2a7a471
soupnazi 4 points 1 week ago
I mean I know some real stuff that will never be verifiable. Even Dick Cheney tried to cover it up and besides himself maybe 5 people know about it in the entire intel community in the US plus me, plus a small handful in our ally's intel community that actually uncovered it. So like 12 people on the whole planet besides the people who did it.
It's not related to OPs story but Saudi Arabia has coordinated with North Korea on shared missile development. But that's the thing about hushed stories. When the intel community really wants to hush a story they don't even let 99.9% of themselves know about it and zero media. So it will never be verifiable. The juiciest real stuff never will be verifiable.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6623dd2a7a471
soupnazi 1 point 1 week ago
I visited new york once. There was a kid in central park about twice her age who started to walk onto a mostly flat rock. His mother grabbed him telling him he would get hurt. While this 2 year old is jumping bolders (compared to her, bolders).
/v/videos viewpost?postid=6623c238a0d33
soupnazi 2 points 1 week ago
That could be true. He might not even be into kids. Of course the cops were running ads or something for that trying to do stings and he was like, welp, that's definitely going to create a police encounter. Even brought a gun too to make sure it went the way he wanted.
/v/killallpedophiles viewpost?postid=6623fd2ea04ad
soupnazi 0 points 3 weeks ago
So basically he just beat a whore for doing her job.
/v/Jews viewpost?postid=6616eaa0458e5