hydroxide wrote

If you are so afraid of conflict that you'll risk getting victimized over and over again--which you will, because forgiving bad behavior encourages repetition of said behavior--then to each their own, I guess; but the point of revenge / punishment of bad behavior is to prevent others from being harmed in the future, not to assuage one's own bloodlust. When you forgive the bully, he will be emboldened and will continue his descent into inhumanity. Thus, in order to prevent future harm, the bully should be physically, permanently prevented from continuing his chosen course of action.

You, as the instrument of the Gods, shouldn't take pleasure in doing this (beyond the satisfaction of having removed the threat), because if you start to enjoy destroying monsters, you will inevitably become one yourself; but make no mistake about it, bad people ain't gonna change because you ask them nicely. That's a lie the masters tell us so we don't fight back against abuse.

TL;DR -- If someone smites you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other. Forgiveness is for suckers. Forgiveness gets you walked all over, again and again.


hydroxide wrote (edited )

Hoooooooooo wee.

Between this case and the Janus^[FN1] one (argued yesterday), there are so many potential unintended consequences in play that I hope the enemy's Supreme Court is stupid enough to make their standard CorpGov-friendly ruling.

If the enemy Supreme Court says "Yes, prosecutors, you may lawfully demand that M$ cough up this data", it will have decided that data follows the nationality of its possessor; in other words, the data is subject to the same laws as its corporate holder. But there's a problem. Under that rule, any European company operating in the United States would be subject to EU data-protection laws, because those are the laws that apply in the countries where those companies' corporate phylacteries are stored. So the enemy Supreme Court clearly cannot choose the wine in front of you.

If, on the other hand, the enemy Supreme Court says, "No, prosecutors, you may not lawfully demand that M$ cough up the data", it will have decided that data is subject to the laws of the nation where it is physically stored. Again, a problem quickly emerges. If data is subject to the laws of the nation where it physically resides, then the EU's data protection laws and "right to be forgotten" laws will automatically apply to any data stored in the EU, even by a US company. So the enemy Supreme Court clearly cannot choose the wine in front of them.

WESLEY: Then we are at an impasse.

NOT REMOTELY! The only way for the enemy Supreme Court to resolve the case without creating a paradox of precedent is to rule that the prosecutors/FBI/intelligence apparatchiks could not haven-had lawfully made the demand of M$ in the first place. There is no international treaty allowing them to do so, and there needs to be if they desire that power. The Senate has the power and responsibility of ratifying treaties with other countries, not local prosecutors or the FBI. Unless and until the Senate ratifies such a treaty, the case cannot proceed any further without fundamentally breaking the Constitutional framework.

The prosecutors should write their elected representatives and urge them to begin negotiating a treaty with Ireland. Be sure to enclose a couple $100s.

^[FN1] Janus--that two-faced freeloading jackass--is the plaintiff in this case, which also has the potential to blow up so beautifully in fuckers' faces, as Janus the plaintiff transforms into Janus the two-headed, four-hind-legged, double-bungholed Lovecraftian horror-goat. IÄ! ISHNI-GARRAB!