Stolen valor tweet.

Christ, could you miss the point any harder?

Cutting people off financially is the gentlest possible rebuke against in-person behavior. It’s a big deal, and a due process nightmare - but it’s as bloodless as state power can be. You wanna buy gas to do this again tomorrow? Ask nicely from the people you’ve been honking at since last month.

This ruling isn’t wrong about some guys in trucks falling short of a national security threat.

This ruling is wrong for ignoring the threat of city and provincial governments allowing a mob to terrorize people, at length.

It’s always fascinating how these models can merge complex concepts in specific and congruent ways, and then reliably misalign the roof and seats in public transit.

Fascist agitation was politely tolerated by residents until the national government had to step in to tell them, nothing’s happening, fuck off.

This wasn’t a sit-in. It was a harassment campaign against an entire city, by ignorant bigots, for weeks. If you endured a fraction of that you’d be ugly-crying on the phone for your local cops to do something about those poor innocent souls and their right to express HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK at four in the god damn morning.

Mixed bag.

Always nice to see some constraint on “emergency” powers… but a mob starting shit over nonsense was ignored by all lower levels of government. Telling people to just go home after an entire week of aimless provocation is not exactly cracking skulls the minute someone in a keffiyah holds up sign in an empty field.

And if bricks started falling through windshields after three days of nonstop noise, well, that would have been a riot justifying any state power… toward the people saying “leave us alone.”

pictures for sad children.

“It must have come from upriver!”

A hacker quote that’s stuck with me is that physical security only exists to slow down intruders so they can be caught.

Generally this means, before they get in… but it does also work when trying to rout some milk-drunk cavalry.

‘We’ll give you money to access your free website.’

‘… Okay.’

Anyone with lingering concerns should ask themselves how long they figure before the bubble pops and this becomes moot.

“Laws meant to protect kids” or “laws attacking queer people, but we’re not calling it that?”

Initial thought is reducing incentives to invade Taiwan - but that’s 4D chess horseshit on my part. That’s yet another sensible person asking ‘but what is he really thinking?’ and coming up with sensible answers, when The Idiot’s thoughts are more like six fireflies blinking in a jar.

(This was five years ago.)

Please don’t do that in headlines. It’s ugly to be distinct, and then that becomes the dominant strategy for attention, and then it’s ugly and also indistinct.

Congratulations on the worst take in a competitive field.

Just… what the fuck? What is it about this distinction that makes people lose all sense? ‘Hey bearing in mind we’re still talking about criminal creeping on children, it’s important to remember that actual touching is worse than doodling over images, so let’s not dilute a term specifically f–’ ‘There is no difference between fiction and reality because what if a crazy person couldn’t tell fiction from reality?!’

Get help.

I feel like professional writers could tease out the lede. They can’t all be “Hitler dead,” but you’re allowed to take a second whack at a garden-path sentence that means “bigots blink, states can flout ICE.”

Why is positive news always some quintuple-negative puzzle?

Ah, the squeedlyspooch.