Those details are not necessarily his firsthand account of things. I mean, in your own comment you quote something where Williams is posing as something else in order to take someone else down, why should it be any different in the case of providing these details?
Because the journalist is claiming to have validated the elements of the story. If the journalist is also lying about that or intentionally helping their source in lying that’s a huge breach of public trust and should be immediately blacklisted from working as such in the future. There are other ways the source could be protected without actually lying about things they’re claiming are true.
I don't think that source can really be protected, nor does he expect to be. He's pretty clear on 'I want the militias to know what I did and to live in fear that anybody they trust could be another me, ready to betray them'.
To some extent, the FBI has at least sometimes done just this. It's possible that some new leader like Kash Patel can remove the threat of the FBI infiltrating and betraying militias, but then what about moles infiltrating the FBI once they become effectively the same thing as the militias?
There's a fundamental difference between acting as a law enforcement agency, and acting as a militia seeking to wage secret war on a class of citizens, where if your intent is to STOP various humans from planting bombs etc. you're acting like law enforcement, and if your intent is to plant the bombs you are the militia even if you're wearing a law enforcement name.
This is shown in the struggles of the mole: would've been morally easier for him if he was just looking to rack up a body count. He wanted to protect what he saw as innocents, and so he had to calculate to what extent his infiltration was causing collateral damage, and when he acted on that he fled, cover blown as far as he knew. If he was more interested in just body count he might have been more blase about how things were going.
I've lived in high crime areas, and SF doesn't have the kind of high crime that would actually deter me. The monotony of a homogeneous population is enough to keep me away from the Bay for as long as I can; and I know plenty of other talented people that feel the same
I've lived all along the West Coast from Tijuana to Seattle. There is no place along this coast which I would call homogeneous except the Bay. I would challenge your locals statement, but at this point, I've wasted too much time on No True Scotsman fallacies for this lifetime.
Either way, my community was one of the last diverse communities to get priced out of the Bay (around the early 2010s). Yet, you can find my community in any other populated place along the west coast. The bay definitely has a diversity issue when it comes to interesting people.
The thing about being priced out is that it can only happen if you aren't a homeowner. If you are a homeowner (or in such a household), the same effect is making you more than $100k a year richer. So you just have to like living with your parents.
California is massive though, and I would argue there is nothing in the rest of California that resembles the Bay even a little bit. Redding is nothing like the Bay; Joshua Tree is nothing like the Bay; Orange County is nothing like the Bay; Big Bear is nothing like the Bay. None of those regions are anything like the other, too. Hell, the difference inside 10 miles of Los Angeles is enormous. Compare Venice Beach to East LA for example.
Absolutely. There is variety in CA. Unfortunately, there aren't many safe and economical places to live and too many rich people gentrifying everything that was good. LA is a s-hole requires driving in absurd and crazy traffic because it's purposely spread out and its public transportation is terrible.
My high school had majors and one of them was effectively EE; the 14/15 year olds in my major had those formulas down inside of 3 weeks... what EEs did you know that couldn't outperform teenagers?
...I mean, I didn't even go to that great of a college and no one would have made it past the second year of EE without memorizing 10x more formulas than that.
I'm just completely lost on how it's even possible to have an EE degree and needing a card. Signal processing classes required math 100x more difficult than that. I had to know quaternions by my second dsp class.
I'm pretty skeptical that cheating to that level is plausible. Ohm's law is so fundamental that finishing an EE degree without knowing it would be akin to writing a paper on Gravity's Rainbow without knowing the basic rules of grammar.
> Some saw the book as especially dangerous because it claimed to be based on rigorous science, was published by an imprint of the National Academy of Sciences, and argued that MTF sex changes are motivated primarily by erotic interests and not by the problem of having the gender identity common to one sex in the body of the other.
Yeah, because at the age of 6 when I wanted to be more like mom, it was motivated by erotic interest /s. When my family refers to me as she/her, and I feel an immense amount of joy (as many trans women feel in similar circumstances) it's because of erotic interest /s. When I lose every advantage I have from looking like a good looking cis passing, white passing, straight passing "man" to something society thinks is a freakish abomination, I'm doing so for erotic interests /s.
There are no uncomfortable truths here, just a transphobic agenda being pushed by someone who seems to have never really tried to understand a trans woman in their life. I love the lengths people will go to to listen to anyone except the people that are actually going through it.
> The trans activists don't want that. Equal treatment and tolerance isn't enough for them, they demand dominance above all else.
Equal treatment and tolerance.. Ever since I started transitioning, people have treated me much worse, and I live in a so called liberal city. My pharmacist looks at me like I'm a freak. I've had slurs thrown at me several times while I'm just out minding my business. Half my family wont even... I don't know what parallel universe you live in where people are treated like this equally..
Where do you find all this time to hate on a group you don't even remotely understand? I'm happier than I've ever been and it seems like all of yall are making it your business to make that as miserable as possible.
Outside of calling it hate, why do you think people even in the most "allied" places respond to you in that way? Do you think perhaps they're afraid they may be helping an activist who may deem their services unacceptable? The track record has it that in these situations, service providers are at a major disadvantage, if anything remotely goes wrong during their interactions.
If activists belonging to protected classes are creating such enormous fear, do you feel misrepresented by them? What are you willing to do to help remove that fear? Do you think it creates an unfair imbalance?
This writing has a lot of parallels with the writings of men who are scared of women after the metoo movement.
Anyway, you're conflating fear with disgust. I haven't seen much fear, if at all; what I have seen a lot of is, hate that looks the exact same as before trans activists had any platform.
This has little to do with human society. Western society, maybe. Plenty of other societies don't assert a distinct binary for gender (which doesn't even exist in sex; intersex people exist at the same rates as people that are red-headed, and you wouldnt call red heads unnatural).
Even if it was "natural" you're making the choice to treat someone like shit. You can backpedal onto what all your peers are doing all you want, but that doesn't change how you as an individual are making another human being, who has done nothing to you, feel
Why do service providers who provide inadequate service need protection? They choose to be shitty service providers and they suffer the consequences. Basic free-market right there bud - either the market wants the same thing as the activists and money, prestige, etc flow to those who agree with the activists, or the market doesn't want it and those service providers who the activists are happy with fails.
Alcohol is usually far better at all of that for me. For grief particularly (and I've tried this a few times), alcohol has made me feel far better than my initial state, whereas Marijuana amplified the pain from grief by a couple orders of magnitude.
It's wild how different experiences can be. Even as an intern I appreciated not being told what to do far more often than the opposite (and other managers definitely appreciated that within the organization; they tried to poach me a few times).
The "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" thing is ironically an example of black-or-white thinking which psychologically works to prevent people from dealing with the complexity and nuance of emotion.
The best counterexample is freezing damage. Each time makes you weaker.
I believe both e.g. participating in war or being a victim of a crime makes you mentally weaker.
Many veterans seems to be the brink of collapse and those people were probably better suited mentally than the average man for ensuring war since they self selected for it? Or maybe less naive people would fare better?
'positive dismissal' seems intuitively useful and i do appreciate the nuance of weakening emotions that can be converted into productive assets with this kind of thinking.
It isn't useful, it is used to avoid going through a healthy emotional arc.
It is reflective of a society that sees emotions that don't feel productive as "bad" and to make excuses or falsely positive reasons to dismiss them.
The classic example is the British attitude of the "stiff upper lip".
These narratives result in lower happiness, compassion and generally poorer mental health.
Don't let a society that encoded outdated views on emotional health dictate that you shouldn't freely allow emotions to complete their cycle and be expressed.
I truly cant express how bad perpetuating this kind of thinking is on an individual and societal level.
