Just a smol with big opinions about AFVs and data science. The onlyfans link is a rickroll.
It’s exactly the same - someone is changing the signage without knowing what they’re doing. I don’t think he should be harshly punished in this case, especially if he’s right, but this also isn’t at all different from someone fucking with the speed limit signs because they feel they know best. That person may also be right - that doesn’t mean they should be able to make those changes.
Ah, I understand. Thank you.
That’s a decent example of what I’ve been saying - basing a conclusion like that on the wording of an uncited press statement is pretty spurious. There simply may have been more reasons and this was judged the easiest to explain (which happens frequently), and without more information we simply aren’t equipped to make an informed judgement. Much as he wasn’t when he made the initial decision, but admittedly we’re facing far less severe consequences for being wrong.
even the traffic engineers agreed that a stop sign was an appropriate treatment for this intersection when they rejected it on the basis that the traffic volume wasn’t high enough to warrant installing one
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning here.
Sure! And if improvement is warranted hopefully this will bring enough attention that it gets reevaluated. But that all said, even if he was right, being arrested for it is warranted. Hopefully he was right and as a result he’s not punished, but if the only requirement for infrastructure changes was community complaint there would be no speed limits and the bones of traffic engineers would hang from every street light.
With respect, you have no idea if that’s true.
Traffic engineering is an actual science - what he did was extremely well-meaning, but it’s also the pavement equivalent of alternative medicine. Sometimes you’re right, but even if you nail the diagnosis most of the time you’re so ignorant you don’t even understand the potential harm you’re doing in brewing up your own treatment. It is very possible that his traffic revisions have made the area less safe for pedestrians by shifting traffic congestion onto surrounding roads with worse sightlines and higher non-motor vehicle traffic, or simply increasing baseline congestion at this already busy intersection.
As much as this case might have been justified (which we just don’t know without the traffic study), condoning random people fucking with street signage is a terrible idea. There are very good reasons not to randomly change traffic patterns, especially outside of a popular park; fuckcars, but also vigilante traffic engineering is an insanely dangerous game to play. If this brings attention to it and they reevaluate, well done this traffic martyr. But he absolutely should have been arrested for this, if only to prevent a precedent for people who decide to “fix” other traffic issues.
You also did that, yes. However in the section I quoted, which I responded to with the above example, you criticized her and those like her for her word usage in general within this context.
But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.
No you criticized her for her word usage in general, please do not try and present this like I said you were criticizing her for what she said during the 12 day war. She used the same terms used by trump to emphasize what she was responding to - and then repeatedly clarified in the body of the statement what it actually was. That’s a completely reasonable choice to make.
It’s an example of her using the specific language you’re criticizing her for not using in reference to the US and Israel attacking Iran. How on earth does that “not apply anymore”? It’s literally the exact thing you said she doesn’t do.
That seems like it’s wholly up for interpretation - she calls it unlawful, then after several paragraphs outlining it’s fundemental immorality she points out that it’s illegal under US law. If you choose to interpret that as her saying it’s only illegal under US law I can’t stop you, but I think that’s a very unfair reading since she lays it out clearly as a war of aggression.
Did she say those exact words in this one statement? No. Has she condemned bombing iran as illegal in the past? yes.
She didn’t say the the exact phrase in this release, possibly because what you’re demanding was word-for-word already said by Mamdani in his condemnation. She describes it as illegal and repeatedly calls it a war, both in no uncertain terms, and has almost nailed the same phrase in the past the last time this happened.
She spends the first four paragraphs calling it out as immoral, and at the end includes that it’s also illegal. She isn’t undermining her point by calling on congress to limit executive authority for military action, the war would still be everything she described it as in the first four paragraphs.
She can’t call it an illegal war of aggression without calling it illegal.
Hey lets not forget Ghislaine Maxwell’s contributions to fascism here…
Ah, thank you! But I’m afraid you may have the wrong idea: The Satanic Temple (which I am a part of) is in all but name a secular humanitarian organization - formed in opposition to the various religious authoritarian movements in the US. The trappings of satanism are only there to serve as a way to bait hypocrisy. I’m only interested in this topic from a cultural standpoint, as I’m not personally religious. I do appreciate the thought though!
I was assuming it was based off later depictions of Baal Hammon (the ram) but blending the two for dramatic effect would also make sense.
… You did? I’m sorry, I didn’t see where you mentioned that.
Not an unreasonable explanation, thank you!
Well… yeah, that’s kind of the point. It would be less depressing if any side were taking this seriously, but holy fuck at this point there’s more oil-soaked posturing than the Mr Universe finals and basically no attempt to actually agree to stop killing people. Fuck I hate this.