User Profile

Forum Activity by NimChimpsky

wirthling
NimChimpskyThe new Patton Oswalt special on Netflix is just amazing.

I watched it last night. I thought some of the material was B-grade (the joke about "pure-race" people was off-putting; the movie-pitch bit at the end was too long and obvious) but all of the stuff about his wife and daughter was heart-wrenching and beautiful and insightful. I cried.


The pure-race thing was terrible, but I forgive the movie pitch bit because of the context he afforded it afterwards.

I loved the David Lee Roth analogy. And the wife stuff is obviously what made this sublime.
Oct 19, 2017 2:10 PM
The new Patton Oswalt special on Netflix is just amazing.
Oct 19, 2017 1:30 PM
wirthlingSo Charlyne Yi says when she first met David Cross he was a...he was--wait, is that a titty in the previous post?--where was I? Oh yeah, when she first met David Cross he was cruel and racist towards her. I have seen enough of Cross over the years to know that he's as un-racist as most of us and so have to conclude that he was being ironic when he (allegedly) said "ching chong ching chong" to her and joked about karate. And for some reason, Charlyne didn't pick up on that and read him literally. And it once again reminds me, I hope if I ever get famous (I won't), I hope RT's history has been wiped away by then, because my out-of-context quotes are going to make me look like a rapey Hitler.

He was obviously trying to be funny, as opposed to, I don't know, refusing to admit her to college, but that doesn't mean it wasn't racist or inappropriate--assuming her description is accurate which, given the shit of the last couple of weeks, I'm inclined to just take her at her word about.
Oct 19, 2017 1:25 PM
Meow
NimChimpsky
MeowNim, if Kagan and Gorsuch had to fight to the death, and the only things they could use was whatever they could fashion out of their robes, would Kagan finish him off via suffocation or snap his neck at the beginning of the fight?

I had the pleasure of meeting Justice Kagan, and I guarantee you, he'd piss his pants if she even faked a lunge.

I saw the news (confession: mark joseph stern post) about Kagan and Gorsuch battling in conference and I thought of you. I'm clearly not following Supreme Court news as closely as you do, but this is the first time I've seen stuff where even the tone and temperament of these meetings reached journalists.

I loathe Stern, let me get that out of the way, and think he generally like to report on gossip more than he has any substantive grasp of the law. I also think liberal journalists have reported stuff about Gorsuch that is essentially the same stuff they defended Sotomayor for (jumping right in aggressively, asking lots of questions, challenging colleagues). I don't know what to make of this particular gossip, but he implies an actual Justice is leaking it, and I think that's probably incredibly false. There's just a lot of supposition and third hand whispering here.
Oct 19, 2017 1:55 AM
MeowNim, if Kagan and Gorsuch had to fight to the death, and the only things they could use was whatever they could fashion out of their robes, would Kagan finish him off via suffocation or snap his neck at the beginning of the fight?

I had the pleasure of meeting Justice Kagan, and I guarantee you, he'd piss his pants if she even faked a lunge.
Oct 19, 2017 1:30 AM
Paquito
NimChimpskyI think there's a lot to respond to, but I'll say this: what the ProPublica article points out is a real problem, but one that's slightly different than you might think, if you aren't versed in federal court law. Yes, the Supreme Court has gotten facts wrong, and they know it, which is why they almost never rely on facts or use facts outside the record. Federal district courts are where fact-finding happens. These are the courts where there is an actual trial, with actual evidence introduce, actual expert testimony, and actual cross-examination. On appeal, court of appeal review matters of law afresh, but do not generally question the facts from the lower court record. The Supreme Court isn't in the business, and shouldn't be, of doing a bunch of independent research, for the very reason that it didn't get properly presented, testified about, and cross-examined. When it comes to the Supreme Court's role in determining law, they almost always assume the facts as presented to them are true.

So the problem isn't that the Court is ignorant or incapable of assessing facts. It's that our criminal justice system widely relies on dubious science. This is a major problem that goes beyond dogs. This includes eye-witness testimony and fingerprinting. These are dubious metrics and the entire basis for most convictions.

But check it out:

If a person is convicted in District Court based on, say, eyewitness testimony, and the testimony isn't challenged as a matter of law, but as a matter of dubious fact, on any appeal, neither the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court is going to even consider that the eyewitness testimony was dubious. This is a base-level criminal justice problem.

When Justices know they're deciding based on false "facts", do they ever mention this in their decisions? Or even hint at it?


For purposes of adjudication, the record as presented - the facts found to be true by the District Court - are assumed to be true. This is for a good reason; the Supreme Court doesnt receive evidence or hear testimony. But the Court can theoretically do whatever it wants, and has reversed things on a clear error basis. If something was obviously wrong and the fulcrum of a decision, the Court could reverse. But this is rare for obvious reasons. Facts are, for better or worse, what the adversarial trial court determines. There are some cases where the Court weighs into facts as a matter of law - cases alleging Brady violations, for example. But again, this is a niche area with a different standard of review.
Oct 18, 2017 11:22 PM
I think there's a lot to respond to, but I'll say this: what the ProPublica article points out is a real problem, but one that's slightly different than you might think, if you aren't versed in federal court law. Yes, the Supreme Court has gotten facts wrong, and they know it, which is why they almost never rely on facts or use facts outside the record. Federal district courts are where fact-finding happens. These are the courts where there is an actual trial, with actual evidence introduce, actual expert testimony, and actual cross-examination. On appeal, court of appeal review matters of law afresh, but do not generally question the facts from the lower court record. The Supreme Court isn't in the business, and shouldn't be, of doing a bunch of independent research, for the very reason that it didn't get properly presented, testified about, and cross-examined. When it comes to the Supreme Court's role in determining law, they almost always assume the facts as presented to them are true.

So the problem isn't that the Court is ignorant or incapable of assessing facts. It's that our criminal justice system widely relies on dubious science. This is a major problem that goes beyond dogs. This includes eye-witness testimony and fingerprinting. These are dubious metrics and the entire basis for most convictions.

But check it out:

If a person is convicted in District Court based on, say, eyewitness testimony, and the testimony isn't challenged as a matter of law, but as a matter of dubious fact, on any appeal, neither the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court is going to even consider that the eyewitness testimony was dubious. This is a base-level criminal justice problem.
Oct 18, 2017 4:06 PM
The first two episodes of Nathan For You this season were good, if normal, but the most recent episode was bonkers. The Chinese restaurant scene had me howling.
Oct 17, 2017 3:36 AM
Exhibit M for how liberals disregard everything Trump says as uninformed, hyperbolic lies until what he says confirms their preexisting biases.
Oct 16, 2017 2:45 PM
DetrimentalI watched the first episode of "The Good Place" and i'm afraid it's not going to have any bite to it like Parks and Recreation did. Because the show is literally about heaven.

If you keep watching the show, and then reread this, you're going to feel really stupid.
Oct 13, 2017 1:26 AM
Man, rehab turned Looka into Gigantopithecus.
Oct 12, 2017 11:22 PM
Jean
DetrimentalI bet if those cartoon animals started fighting each other you would have to bump it up to an 85. Amirite jean?

What the hell.


Hes saying you are a bad person. That was my takeaway, in any case.
Oct 11, 2017 4:36 AM
Infinitus Corsair
NimChimpskySide note, been meaning to read Annihilation forever now, but just saw the movie trailer, and it was...not what I thought. In an interesting way.

Hey, that's next up for me. You guyssssss--book club!


Im maybe 20% in. Its great. Really weird and super engrossing.
Oct 11, 2017 4:35 AM
Infinitus Corsair
NimChimpskyAlso, the further I get from seeing it, the worse Blade Runner 2049 seems and the better Blade Runner seems.

This guy gets it.

I like this one.
Oct 11, 2017 1:12 AM
Also, the further I get from seeing it, the worse Blade Runner 2049 seems and the better Blade Runner seems.
Oct 11, 2017 1:00 AM
Agreed; Wonder Woman was really good and the new Star Wars trailer is meh at best.
Oct 11, 2017 1:00 AM
Detrimental
NimChimpskyIt probably helps that the reviews set such a low bar, but I kinda like The Orville.

I used to like the first few seasons of Family Guy before it got cancelled a lot. If the humor in The Orville is anything like that, then I might check it out.

No. It's like the more low-key, observational, PG-13 parts of Ted, but mostly as light seasoning to an actual by-the-numbers sci-fi Star Trek: The Next Generation clone. When I type it out like that, I can't say why I found it likeable, but somehow it just manages. I've only watched one episode. We'll see how far I get.
Oct 11, 2017 12:58 AM
It probably helps that the reviews set such a low bar, but I kinda like The Orville.
Oct 11, 2017 12:50 AM
Detrimental
NimChimpskyI finally saw Wonder Woman, and really liked it. Much, much more than 90% of the Marvel films, and certainly better than anything Zach Snyder has done on the DC front. I liked it because it was fun, and well made, and had real emotional heft, but also because thematically everything was of a piece. Diana's arc, Steve's arc, the ultimate message of the film, and the entire of idea of why a superhero might do what they do was all sort of bound up together in a coherent way. It captured thematically what should have really been part of Man of Steel. It was a bit long and sagged in parts, but I thought this was really good.

Thank you, Nim.


I got your back. And while I like the first Captain America, to the degree they are similar, this is better. Winter Soldier still rules, though.
Oct 10, 2017 3:28 AM