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

  1. Yes, it's really the continuation.
    3
  2. Ok, so I am 2:25 in. As soon as Nate said they both cite the same article and noted the phraseology of the headlines I suspected I knew what they were doing (which is par for the misrepresent the meaning of findings in news handbook). Once he described the study a bit, it was pretty much solidified. I hate the binary US news that almost exclusively takes a snippets and then puts them into a context to imply a conclusion it isn't stating. Regardless of politics, people need the full picture and not click-bait confirmation bias. ~90% of protests (even '93% of equality related protests) is a very very broad scope. So much so, it is irrelevant to one protest or even protest topic within that number. That is, if the purpose is to say that if ~90% are fine, nothing bad happened like was said. What can you do with statistics like that? Comparative analysis of violence rates between protests and based on topic. That could suggest if one is statistically more likely to result in violence. You could also look at protest issue frequency based on severity among the various protests. But it doesn't show that no riots were caused by BLM, or that every BLM protest was a riot.
    3
  3. If you want spin... "President of U.S. Invades Mara-Lago In Pursuit of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." 😂
    3
  4. "you 'and Will' decided" Sure... aka "YOU"
    3
  5. While the bulk of what she is saying may be true, I would strongly caution people from believing everything on its face. I am getting a strong sense that I should be skeptical of what Samantha is saying (esp. in regard to her child). Something is off.
    3
  6. I just hope Candice Owens (?) doesn't get harassed, attacked, slandered, and bullied out of her career like Cassie Jay. But if the whole thing is a lie, then there should consequences (not mob justice though).
    3
  7. To be fair, not that balanced, but it is at least comprehensive.
    3
  8.  @cad687  That.comment is amusingly lacking in self awareness of its own contradiction.
    3
  9. It's not just puberty. But it's a big part at least.
    3
  10. Did they, or was it one or two very loud people who were friends? I also heard some children cheering.
    3
  11. Televangelists seem to have emboldened the least selfless among the church.
    3
  12. The immaturity of some teachers, I swear...
    3
  13. Fired for views no. Fired for unprofessional behaviour, yes.
    3
  14. Who is Jonathan Majors? *Ah it's mentioned near the end.
    3
  15. Objectively, the determining factor of becoming an adult is not, having your dreams shattered. But it was funny.
    3
  16. According to his linked in page it's not one but at least TWO companies he had ownership of in the 4 years preceding the bankruptcy. KomCore and Bot Sentinel. *I think you made that comment in the initial complaint filing video now that I think about it.
    3
  17. It is ridiculous. But also, I don't think a word should ever be given such weight. Still, if you are going to have a rule, make it universal.
    3
  18. What a role model...
    3
  19. Equity is "both fair and just" that's what people actually mean when saying equality. That is how the systems were being designed (granted the US always lags in social change). But these days that word is being misused to actually mean equal (or more than) outcome and not equal opportunity. The 'pay gap' has been proven broadly false, another misrepresentation by hyperbolic 'news' (of course with specific exceptions that need to be addressed). In other words they are arguing things like this deal are equity, when in reality they are objectively, equal outcome or better. For example, something we would take as fair and just is if two people are offered half the apples they pick in a day. If one person slacks off they would get less, and that seems both fair and just. Correct? Now imagine, person A picks one apple, and relaxes in the sun, but by the time person B returns at sundown person A is hungry again and sees a massive pile that person B is taking home. They then demand half of those apples as they both spent the day 'picking apples', if they get them that is equal, but it is neither fair nor just. Now if instead of effort the factor was skill. Say person A&B built widgets for the same amount of time every day. Person A has a lot of practice and can make 300 in a day; person B is new and only managed 50. If they were paid the same that is equal outcome again right? But it's not fair and just (unless society ignorantly decides that equal outcome is fair and just arbitrarily, like altering a definition. Then by assignment it would be regarded that way and fiercely upheld as the 'norm', but it would still remain measurably unreasonable.). Because what it does is make a citizen, by law based on a trait at birth, in a position of objectively greater advantage because if that person tries as hard as the others they will always come out on top (unless by illegal act, like theft, or real discrimination. Which should be litigated). That is exactly the opposite of an egalitarian society and NOT what we desire or had been working for. Regardless of what group benefits from that elevated status.
    3
  20. I mean In my opinion the L is redundant in modern usage so SGBA is probably most appropriate if we are categorizing things. Then for clarification you could have a number of sub categories to group various preferences, and there is a very pragmatic reason for having it. But using that one factor alone to try to define your entire self is ridiculous and unhealthy. As is the whole economy of competitive victimhood we have created.
    3
  21. Shouldn't even paid him. There needs to be actual criminal accountability for politicians abusing the system. These systems need to be automatic, not "oh, we're on the take too so no".
    3
  22. They should have never offered shared winnings (the thing the women's team were just using as part of their pay discrimination fallacy). In theory lower leagues/tiers could make a claim of pay discrimination because of this (especially if there is a successful suit, but they don't necessarily have to because the court of public opinion/media has ruled). They play as hard, they practice as hard, they might even win more often. But it shows people aren't just entitled to their winnings now, they are entitled to a share of all the winnings of those in measureably different circumstances. Hell, if they win a suit it might even justify a person (especially a woman) claiming pay discrimination based on the pay of an individual from another company of a completely different scale. Even if that claimant is the highest paid individual at their own company.
    3
  23. hahaha Nate makes this very entertaining.🤣 The rope and bleach was what made me doubt it, initially. Because it seems like something that would be like what someone would imagine the 'kay kay kay' (YouTube tripwires everywhere) might do 100 years ago. Plus the hats... Although, an assault or hate speech seems probable, this just adds too many steps for impromptu hate fueled harm. It's too much of a trope of what CNN paints as 'the alt right/far right'.
    3
  24. To be fair, we don't know what his expenses are like. That said, a court order is a court order, and his financial literacy is not the court's responsibility.
    3
  25. Us: We know The Media: Sure you did, equal is whatever you say it is.
    3
  26. It's more the set up, his sermon, his reaction, the fact it was on camera in the middle of a service, his attitude afterwards, etc. Those all make me very suspicious.
    3
  27. Is this an April fools joke? The fact that people brought back accepting 'blackface' as if any time someone has something on their face is the same context as the initial definition, makes it pretty clear people are hypersensitive.
    3
  28. Laying off an employee or contractor is not the same as cancellation outright. Now if he was targeted in a harassment campaign and fired only because of external pressure and not a blatant violation of contracts, then I would say that is 'cancellation'. (Except in the more literal use of the term, where his contract was cancelled).
    3
  29. Required technically no, but it is certainly a useful tool to maintain society.
    3
  30. Though your opinion should matter without having to preface it.
    3
  31. "If they want it it's a human" is a very terrible and concerning ethical position.
    3
  32. I am quite positive all the time, though not always on this scale.
    3
  33. So because person b works 2 or three jobs they deserve less for the same work?
    3
  34. Twitter is garbage. It was dumb when it was just posting about what people ate, and it is now just an vehicle for misinterpretation, misrepresentation, overreaction, and hating people. I am happy I left.
    2
  35. I bet that doesn't stop crimes. But if it does, that deserves more consideration.
    2
  36. While this rich fellow seems to be getting off easy compared to an average person. It is at least nice he is being held to some account.
    2
  37. Until we get into substantial genetic alterations. which has... many concerns.
    2
  38.  @bigstar75  Was he only laid off because of mob pressure? Or because he violated terms of the contract? If latter, not 'cancellation', regular termination.
    2
  39. I still feel like this was deliberate sabotage.
    2
  40. Calling the cops because of rat poison makes sense. Calling cops because of a soda machine... doesn't. An irate customer who is being verbally abusive and refuses to leave, sure. just verbally abusive? maybe. But if they leave they leave. It wouldn't surprise me if he was poisoned by an immature employee. But hearing he waited that long and his threats to sue... Seems like something he might do. I also suspect he may have planted the rat traps himself. But... they should have video of that.
    2
  41. Without knowing more details, I have to give him credit that at least on camera (here) he sounds like a reasonable and professional individual. That doesn't mean he also does not abuse his authority, or think himself better than others.
    2
  42. Not really on this specific issue, but some crimes definitely have politics. Look at Russia Arresting dissidents... and I guess all laws are inherently political. But I agree that political beliefs don't exempt you from being a criminal. Wealth or status... may in practice prevent you from being charged or convicted (Though not in every case).
    2
  43. If athletes are often found cheating, doping, taking drugs, they would they not do this. Too often people push kids to care about winning more than winning with integrity.
    2
  44. While I do not support her beliefs, I don't really like the idea of people being fired for a joke. A pattern of malicious behavior, of course. Ignoring feedback or discipline from the employer, sure. But I don't really know the back ground. I mean someone openly 'supremacist' should not have been hired in the first place in a position with an 'at risk' group. *Yeah her Twitter has a bit more than just a single joke.
    2
  45. I think it's more a problem of enforcement rather than penalty. If most people are let off the hook, the penalty is irrelevant. Conversely, people who commit crimes tend to be ones who ignore consequences.
    2
  46. The US doesn't dictate who participates in the international organization, that is The Olympics.
    2
  47. She was upset the media didn't care about them? Also when there are paparazzi, they will have taken photos...
    2
  48. This should never be regarded as a big deal, at most it's someone being an @$$ and intentionally trying to bother someone. But just like when people call people by the wrong names all the time. Have your parents never accidentally called you the name of a sibling or the family pet? Even before this was a thing people sometimes called eachother the wrong pronoun, sometimes to be rude sometimes by accident. But getting upset about it shows the bothered individual in a poor light, and making it against the law is ridiculous. I don't even think it's worth a 'correction', unless maybe the individual called and complained.
    2
  49. Saying "B.L.M." created a situation where alienating and antagonizing everyone else could not do anything but create push back like "WLM", or "ALM", and I bet that's what they counted on. Because it's pretty easy to look at it and say "race war, look at them trying to stomp you back down". Trouble is most people don't think like the stereotypical '20s, '30s mindset. And so BLM pushed conflating "WLM" with the initial level headed response/agreement that, "All lives matter, and therefore anyone being murdered on the street is completely unacceptable, and any racism that may have lead to this is intolerable and should be prevented". But, either way if anyone (considered a minority) tried to support a caucasian friend during the scapegoating, and anti-caucasian hate/fearmongering. They were traitors worse than 'the oppressors' and they got called some racist pre-civil war sh!t. (Complete hypocrisy for a movement allegedly trying to promote rights and respect of those same groups) I don't know if he just stopped, caring, there was a mental health issue, or he just liked causing a fuss. But he just went all over the map. I can see why people get upset by his views (both mild an extreme) and in that line of work, your rep is what a lot of it is about.
    2
  50. He had a medical bag and looked like a kid followed by a guy with a camera, this is why the police likely didn't think he was a threat. Also, context of the protests...
    2