The question wasn’t just about the legality of being on a jury again after a hung a jury past but also about whether it would in practice ensure I wouldn’t be selected if I told the truth. If the lawyers approving or disapproving jurors during the selection process would immediately put me in the “no” category. I don’t trust “google AI” to give me the kind of insight I hoped someone here might have.
The feds are monitoring this site and cross referencing it with all potential jurors in the US, and will notify the lawyers not to select me? Gotta be honest, I’m not too worried about that.
and 
They’re all bastards and they always have been. The day I feel compassion for “law enforcement” is the day all capitalist-serving cops are liquidated and a People’s Law Enforcement is put in place.
Sure but let’s be honest both ways here, when liberals claim that “at the end of the day” they “still respect us,” they’re most probably lying and just trying to co-opt whatever we’re doing.
That’s what I said. I guess I didn’t word it well.
It honestly makes me sad to think of the kind of grand achievement of human ingenuity the internet could have been… instead of the writhing, cancerous mass of ads and slop and scams, pure manipulation and greed, all the pathologies of capitalism amplified and beamed into our brains that it is. Like, it really could have been a tool for human flourishing, but instead it’s just another tool for extraction and oppression of most of humanity.
No, they do. Used to be that even with the free version you could choose which LLM model you wanted to converse or work with. Now that’s only if you pay a subscription, and it would be a cold day in hell before I did that.
I think it’s probably even a step further and what they’re actually measuring is new content created in that time span, even though they’re not wording it that way. What I mean is AI content went from 5% of what was being created and put on the internet to 48% of all the content being created and put on the net. As bad as AI content is and as ubiquitous as it now is, considering how much there is on the internet and how long humans have been putting content on it, versus how recently “AI” (LLM’s etc.) actually are, it would be absurd to say that almost half of what exists on the internet right now was made by AI. So not only did it not decrease human content, it hasn’t doubled the content either.
Alright, let’s look at this honestly because I’ve read many of your comments over the years and know you’re better than this. Right now you are grossly misrepresenting the things people (in this case me) are saying. I sincerely don’t know if you’re aware you’re doing this and just want to score points or if you are in an emotional state that is distorting what you think I’m saying. It seems like the latter, and that is what I mean by going off the rails.
I’m growing increasingly annoyed at obtuse parasocial nonsense
What parasocial nonsense have I expressed in this conversation, from your perspective?
for the purposes of trashing the largest leftist voice in the country
In what way am I trashing Hasan? I literally said I am grateful he is out there and that while I don’t like everything he does, I think he is a force for good in the world. I agreed with you that as far as outreach and spreading and popularizing leftism, that he almost certainly has done more than people here have done.
To pretend you (a forum user) has more motion than the largest funder of the Amazon labor union
What is motion? Where did I pretend I had more of it than Hasan?
If you’re gonna talk shit, the least you could do is know something about the person you’re trashing
I haven’t been doing anything that could remotely be called “talking shit” unless saying “Hasan is not radical” by the standards of nearly anyone on this website is “talking shit.” To the contrary, I’ve been saying that Hasan is undeniably a net good. As for what I know about him, everything I’ve said is well within reason to say given what I do know about Hasan. I have said nothing about him that is not perfectly commensurate with my non-expert but more than average person on the street’s knowledge of who he is.
[your link]
I’m glad he is talking to and is friends with someone else who I will take your word is a well-read Marxist Leninist. It doesn’t matter though, I contend that someone who endorses Democrats, especially genocidal presidential candidates, someone who is as concerned and supportive of one half of the uni-party posing as a two-party state kayfabe politics as I’ve personally seen him to be, that person is simply not a radical leftist and that no actual radical leftist would claim him as one.
Of course you would, you want the left to stay motionless
Great. Nice little jab of meaningless nonsense, accusing me of something that doesn’t even parse, let alone related in any way to anything I said. That’s the way to stick it to your opponents! Come on, what is the point of doing that, really?
You’re going off the rails here comrade. I don’t know if it’s because you can’t handle it being pointed out that a word you were using doesn’t mean the thing you were using it to mean or if you really just hate the fact that Hasan on his best days barely crosses the line from liberal to leftist and is simply in no way considered a radical by anyone who is versed in genuinely radical (such as Marxist Leninist) theory, that is making you feel the need to pick nonsensical fights with everyone, but have at it I guess.
But no, we don’t have to conflate two words (use them as if they mean the same thing) that have completely different meanings in order to be effective. A close example: we need to have principles and we need to take action if we want to make positive material change. That doesn’t mean principles and action are the same thing and is sure as hell doesn’t mean we need to pretend they are the same thing in order to be effective leftists.
Confidence, normalization, scalability, inspiration, popularity, cultural buy-in, POWER, are these concepts poisonous to your radicalism?
Well, let’s take one of those: normalization. What is being normalized? If what’s being normalized is the idea that leftists need to vote for Democrat presidential candidates in order to stop those dastardly Republicans at any cost (especially when those Democrats are actively conducting genocide) then yes, that concept is poisonous to my radicalism. I would say similar things about the rest of your word list.
What are you even arguing with me here about? (Or am I misinterpreting your tone and you’re not arguing?)
The combination of radicalism and reach is the metric we need to judge by, without either one the commentary and presentation is meaningless
Ok, then don’t conflate those two very different things. I likewise do not care for Hasan as a person. I don’t enjoy watching him and find myself getting more annoyed with the stuff he gets wrong than cheering the stuff he gets right, like a case of “so close yet so far away” that it rubs me the wrong way. Still, unlike some here, I think he is ultimately a positive (that is to say a leftist) force in the world and one I’m grateful is out there, despite not caring for him and despite the other ways I think he can hold some people back from genuine leftism. The good he does materially I would say outweighs the bad. And the good that he does do, which you have pointed out, is a direct result of the resources he has to be able to do that good. But that does not make him radical. Which is the only part of what you’ve been saying above that I took issue with.
As for the so-called idealism of having radical positions without the material action to back it up… There are people working in volunteer soup kitchens and spending their free time organizing their community as best they can and supporting the vulnerable within it, and they do this because of the radical ML or even anarchist convictions that they hold. Their material conditions don’t allow them to sit in their million dollar homes commenting on the news and media all day to x-thousands of people paying them to do so like Hasan which is what allows him the ability to do the good that he does. These actually radical people lack his resources and his reach, but they are still devoting as much or more of their time and labor to materially benefit others and spread class consciousness. People who struggle daily, hourly, and risk their livelihood and sometimes their lives to do so. Many of these people are minorities of all kinds too. (There are even people like that who have commented on hexbear). They are inarguably more radical both in terms of their actions and their beliefs than Hasan is.
Hasan is not radical and no matter how many kudos he deserves for the very real good he has done for leftist causes changes that.
I get what you’re saying, but I can’t help it, I have to be pedantic here because words matter. How radical a person is is not dependent on how big their platform or loud their voice is, how many people they’ve exposed to leftist thought, or even how much material change they can affect or may have brought about. How radical a person is really is dependent on their positions and convictions, that’s simply what the word means. The “leftists” of the acceptable US political spectrum (aka liberals) may consider Hasan as the most radical extremist they can imagine, but he is absolutely not anywhere near as radical as the majority of people posting on this site.
If you want to say that Hasan has furthered the cause of leftism more than anyone here because of his reach, that he has done more to bring awareness and ultimately some form of material support for Palestine, then I’m inclined to agree, that’s very likely true. But no one who advocates for voting for Democratic presidential candidates is genuinely a radical leftist.
President Donald Trump is proposing using American cities as training grounds for the armed forces. He’s suggesting U.S. military might be deployed against what he describes as the “invasion from within.”
Sounds pretty fuckin’ ominous to me.
More discussion about it in this thread if anyone is curious.
Well it aligns with what the “people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity” said in the article itself. I think it’s safe to say it’s unprecedented.
Top commanders in conflict zones and senior military leaders stationed throughout Europe, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region are among those expected to attend Hegseth’s meeting, said people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue. The order does not apply to top military officers who hold staff positions.
None of the people who spoke with The Post could recall a defense secretary ever ordering so many of the military’s generals and admirals to assemble like this. Several said it raised security concerns.
“People are very concerned. They have no idea what it means,” one person said.
Two others expressed frustration that even many commanders stationed overseas will be required to attend. One said, this is “not how this is done.”
“You don’t call GOFOs leading their people and the global force into an auditorium outside D.C. and not tell them why/what the topic or agenda is,” this person said, using an abbreviation for general officer or flag officer.
“Are we taking every general and flag officer out of the Pacific right now?” one U.S. official said. “All of it is weird.”
80% of americans have no ideology
*80% of Americans have no coherent ideology. And 80% is low-balling it. But they all of them absolutely have ideology, they are fucking saturated in ideology, they just aren’t aware of it and will deny it, thinking that ideology is only something the evil other has, but not they themselves who are above such things and only see the world “as it really is” untainted by any “lens.” They are the ones with the most ideology. They have white supremacist ideology, they have settler-colonial ideology, they have American exceptionalism ideology, they have a mishmash of wacky Marvel slop and courtroom/cop drama TV series ideology. They have CNN/MSNBC’s ideology or Fox New’s ideology. In other words, their brains have been pickled by the ideology of their ruling class.
That is a good one, yeah. To anyone checking that one out, I’d recommend reading the short FAQ. Excerpt:
CARI defines a consumer aesthetic as a visual movement unified by overarching attitudes and themes that survived long enough or became popular enough to be appropriated by capital (a bar that is being lowered constantly as our cycles of cultural propagation accelerate).
Thank you, this is good information to know. They never asked me or anyone else being selected if there was intent to do nullification, not even in lawyer-speak, so I wasn’t expecting they would this time either. I figured if they’re at the point of asking you that, then they’ve already decided they’re not going to choose you to be on the jury.
As far as not treating it as a hard rule to always prevent conviction in all cases, I completely agree with everything you said. My question about that was not so much to ask what the “right” answer was, as I already firmly believe that there are cases where going by the rulebook and convicting someone is undeniably the right thing to do. The question was more a curiosity about the opinions of commenters here. I would hope most would be in agreement, but consensus around here on that sort of thing has surprised me before.