Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "Nate The Lawyer" channel.

  1. This approach time after time is not going to workout for mainstream media. I mean they are also trying to play Roe vs. Wade as the end of all women's rights. So they're stringing it all together for this new fear mongering narrative. It's always something.
    1
  2. Did bad actors propose 'defund the police'? ...Though going along with it is idiocy either way.
    1
  3. It doesn't have to though. If people push hard enough they can kill the momentum early rather than nudging it back harder.
    1
  4. Wow the US is a different place, if what the one guy is complaining about is true. The gym I used to go to had a women's only section with nice new machines, it was about half the size of the main are that was open to everyone, even those dirty males.
    1
  5. Supporting wasteful (and neo-segregationist) DEI expendature while complaining about a lack of funds is absolutely hypocritical and short-sighted.
    1
  6. Fair
    1
  7. Can I just point out those cameras SHOULD NOT be able to see the creditcard machine? They probably know every single person's pin#
    1
  8. This woman is certainly a privileged indivial, but in her case to my knowledge it has little to do with her skin tone and everything to do with her bank account.
    1
  9. Just made a mistake my ass.
    1
  10. I don't mind the concept and have seen it elsewhere, there are strong arguments for it. But a country has foundational laws, and it would have to be changed to be legal. Personally, I think it should be limited to people who are there for over a year (just like transient domestic populations), but if it's just everyone the argument no longer has as many merits. Because it motivates short term benefits at the expense of the long term residents, and you ideally want to capture all current people affected significantly by the governance. If a 3rd of the population in a city are students from elsewhere they are a huge group that can be affected substantially, they should have some representation. But to merely go with anyone in the city resident, brief or not, you would also encourage massive swings in priorities that would not be stable/efficient/productive.
    1
  11. I remember in 2014 Twitter wasn't even worth 5 Billion (it still isn't).
    1
  12. They didn't want to think ahead about the reality or consequences of their new rules. Now they have to live the consequences as it falls apart. If they acknowledge he is different, they lose their standing. If they accept it, the 'women's leagues' will cease to exist and they would be forced to either shuffle it to what is argued for as the practical solutions anyway (but would injure their totalitarian perspective). So it's woman's rights vs trans-priviledges. (Which they try to sweep under the rug to maintain trans support) In practice as we have said, 3 realistic options exist. All people can compete in the male category, and only biological women can compete in the women's Category. We create a new league just for trans people (most pragmatic). Or we conjoin all genders and fragment sports into performance tiers (this is least realistic, because sports is about competing to be the best, lower tiers would be ignored. Practically speaking many sports would end up splitting M/T/F anyway).
    1
  13. Near the end she makes an ok point, if it weren't also self defeating in her own case. Going through the process of making up for past wrongs can make you more considerate of future situations. But, she wasn't being considerate so, she is saying she herself is even less of an authority. The problem with the way society blockades for minority groups is that they do so as an unimpeachable rule. Without consideration of the specific contexts of a situation. Which, like popularity, has a negative effect in general (as a bias), but it also puts those people in a position of perceived indomitability. Which in turn can foster undesirable behaviours (pretentiousness, egocentrism, willful negligence... etc.). And individuals who develop those behaviours end up hurting the perceptions of whatever group they are a part of. (Due to the broader issue of humans being prejudicial).
    1
  14. Well, she put the time, energy and cost into growing a baby. So right there, she is owed the surrogacy fees of the other couple plus a refund. Lost wages... She has no baby as if it no longer exists, what is the price on loss of life? She then has emotional damages that will undoubtedly last a lifetime. Let alone any potential physical damages, over and above what she would have otherwise as a result of being born from people other than herself. I somehow feel like 10 million is not enough, but also given the nature and commonality of pregnancy that 10 million is far too much. I could definitely see punitive damages. For what's fair... I don't know how much she spent but adding the tangible costs in alone it's probably like $500,000 at the very minimum. So anything over $1,000,000 is probably fair.
    1
  15. wtf? isn't it an abuse of power to interfere in a civil lawsuit?
    1
  16. One problem you encounter is everyone on set is apparently allowed to check the gun, meaning both victims also opted out of checking for their own safety. (Especially if the gun passed through her hands). while it doesn't necessarily absolve Alec it would shift some burden to the victim. And all parties probably have arguments that would support or counter that as well. So we will just see how it all shakes out. If Baldwin has persuasive lawyers and the prosecution doesn't, that may be all he needs.
    1
  17. Re-allocating and optimizing is good. But a lot of people were shouting (even not in the US where the relevancy is substantially limited due to context) take away money from the police and in their eyes that's as much as it needs to mean. But in some cases within the police umbrella, more funding would be beneficial to the cause they see themselves supporting. More over, there are many cases where removing funds would be a huge detriment, resulting in more harm in the areas they see as an issue. Where I live it was made clear a long time ago, the Police should never act as a military (at home or abroad). Defunding them would not resolve the objective issues they have. Re-structuring however could. That's really what would have been a more appropriate movement if someone wants to create actual and effective change. However it's not as aggressive to shout en-mass, and therefore less appealing. I just wish people were less hypocritical/self-defeating in their pursuit of change, and that people would in general be more open to and driven to seek objective improvements. Then be capable of re-evaluating those changes to tweak or pursue another change if necessary.
    1
  18. ...There were also a lot of people honestly proposing abolishing the police.
    1
  19. That 'contract' with the state would have been illegal and void. *ah had I waited 20 seconds, you said that.
    1
  20. So is this more of a PR firing if Elaine is staying on? I don't get it.
    1
  21. Commonality unifies; differentiation divides. If you had one for each group, if you had different schools for each group, if you had different communities for each group if you have different laws for each group... Do you think they will know you are all a part of a single entity? Do you think they will stand when your own anthem comes aroud or will they sit through all 27 of the others and stand up for their own? Do you think it's easier or harder to relate to people who have no interaction and no common ground?
    1
  22. Lol, Nate's commentary was fantastic.
    1
  23. 7:33 clealy a microphone.
    1
  24. That was probably where she got the ear injury right there, as her head caught on the door frame.
    1
  25. If skill doesn't matter and if audience and venue revenue doesn't matter, but everyone needs to be paid equally. Should all individuals playing sports be paid exactly the same? Most people, even the uswnt, would say no. So... wtf.
    1
  26. She isn't exactly a role model lol
    1
  27. If we are being objective. Not necessarily, they hypothetically may have done it in protest, believing the rather unsubstantiated narrative that it was done as a hate crime. People are dumb sometimes, especially in heated matters, there is no underestimating stupidity. And there may even be other reasons as well. But, the occurrence certainly does support that presumption, at least until testimony otherwise.
    1
  28. It doesn't make sense to put a trans person on a pedestal, merely for existing. Same for anyone else. If any person's accomplishment is existing, they are not a saint. Have they ever put the oldest person in the world on a can? That may be a world record, but they were merely born before the next oldest person. These pandering moves companies make, those are rarely well recieved. If you look at it another way, they're saying, "look at this trans-person, we care, but buy our products". *woah woah woah woah, It's way worse knowing it was just... (what is the appropriate word for nepotism but for a classification) Cronyism? Sexism?
    1
  29. I left the live stream for this. (Priorities)
    1
  30. If they had gone through it thoroughly, there wouldn't have been any reall issue (that we are aware of so far). But that's not what happened. He wanted to raise some quick cash, here's how he does it.
    1
  31. Why a YouTuber thought Pay-per-view would be the best approach to generate revenue for this, I do not understand. It may be common for boxing but these are YouTubers. Crowdfunding, free streaming, merch sales, patreon, and superchat, are what their established market is familiar and comfortable with. I don't trust the guy who set it up, I don't trust liveXlive, and I hope the people involved all get money, except the guy who over promised.
    1
  32. I mean, in some cases that's fair. But in this case they are being unreasonable.
    1
  33. Also, the rooney rule/affirmative action need to be revisited. They still can be positive, but these days they are also working against equality in some cases. We should start transitioning practices and putting timelines/thresholds on policies so that we can keep moving in a positive direction without tripping on old red tape.
    1
  34. @Daniel Pusateri There are many holes in that philosophy in practice, but in some cases that would be fair.
    1
  35. If they don't have a fair punishment for this, it would probably increase the likelihood of more people following suit. Conversely on a widely discussed trial, I think a punishment would make it more likely to dissuade people from similar conduct. (I am not going to go to the extreme and say "they have to give him the harshest punishment possible, or EVERYONE is going to do it", reality isn't typically that extreme).
    1
  36. I love lamp ♥️
    1
  37. I am not especially happy they lost, I am happy that a better team (likely with more integrity) won.
    1
  38. People who don't want vengeance, don't generally demand a reckoning. More Justice is needed to keep more people from harm in the first place. No matter who the victim is or who the perpetrator.
    1
  39. But I agree with him, paid advantages on twitter will be the death of the platform if it isn't already too late. It's not a good place to be let alone invest.
    1
  40. My response would have just been an angry glare and a "What the hell is your problem?" Or at least that is what it had been in the past.
    1
  41. You know, fake kidnappings probably happen a lot. I have a feeling the fact that certain politics being what they are drew attention to her, over all the other missing persons cases, are also the only reason we even know about the misdeeds.
    1
  42. Should probably go give TYT a like for this unusual objectivity. If we don't support them when they do well there's no motivation to do anything but garbage.
    1
  43. No, by definition 'Equity' is both just and equal (or at least it was...). However the 'equity' they started pushing on facebook was neither just not equal. Merely preference. I failed at convincing people then. But hopefully, more will come to understand so humanity stops before it goes too far towards a very grim future.
    1
  44. I always assumed it fell under Pansexual. Because if they had the surgery, there would be another factor. Because the things that appeal to homosexuals would be no longer present, or would now be present, depending on the transition. But really this is just an extension of an already failed argument. "Do you have to be willing to date a trans-person?" To which the answer, (by natural selection, freedom of choice, preference, 'respecting sexuality') is resoundingly No.
    1
  45. We had a high-school teacher who used to pinch our butts. She was just, "quirky" and "trouble".
    1
  46. Woah Nate! StarWars Spoilers! lol
    1
  47. I thought the rule was that if they fail that's that.
    1
  48. "Waterburger" 🤦‍♀️
    1
  49. He didn't throw his drink he splashed her. That's it. No assault. Like spraying a cat with water. The optimal is doing nothing, but he didn't file charges so this is a much lighter response that is arguably better for everyone. From the video (which may not tell the whole story) the woman who's hand he smacked though was more arguable. In general while it may seem satisfying for a woman to hit a man groping her, and I can't blame them, as far as the law goes it isn't a response we should encourage for their own sakes.
    1
  50. Here's how this should be handled if they want special protections. Canada was dumb and is largely to blame. It should not be illegal as that is absurd to make a mistake that is already regularly occurring trans or otherwise. plus that isn't just a rule of noy making speech but forcibly compelling speech. Then on top of it all, you have the issue of unregulated and limitless genders and pronouns. However, it is reasonable to make a notation under harassment law that regularly and deliberately 'misgendering' someone is considered a form of harassment and/or bullying. Calling a woman or man or a man a woman would have been seen this way by previous conventions and isn't any real stretch. Essentially you are deliberately doing something to bother someone, and that is a problem nearly regardless of what that thing is.
    1