TB
@timothyz.bsky.social
…because it would have been understood as an opinion based on the speaker’s interpretation of the facts disclosed at trial.
January 9, 2026 at 2:30 AM
…because it would have been understood as an opinion based on the speaker’s interpretation of the facts disclosed at trial.
Unless there’s some weird context involved, it would probably still be protected opinion. After OJ Simpson was acquitted, it wasn’t defamatory for members of the public to claim that he was nevertheless a murderer regardless of the verdict.
January 9, 2026 at 2:28 AM
Unless there’s some weird context involved, it would probably still be protected opinion. After OJ Simpson was acquitted, it wasn’t defamatory for members of the public to claim that he was nevertheless a murderer regardless of the verdict.
It’s also kind of victim-blamey. In an “X implies Y, therefore not-Y implies not-X” sense, a belief that an honest person cannot be scammed necessarily implies that all scam victims are somehow dishonest.
December 30, 2025 at 5:14 PM
It’s also kind of victim-blamey. In an “X implies Y, therefore not-Y implies not-X” sense, a belief that an honest person cannot be scammed necessarily implies that all scam victims are somehow dishonest.
I’ll bet they send you work emails during dinnertime too. Have some common courtesy!
December 18, 2025 at 1:58 PM
I’ll bet they send you work emails during dinnertime too. Have some common courtesy!
The Constitution reserves the appointment of militia officers to the States. (Art. 1, Sec. 8). But Art. 2 Sec. 2 says that the Congress can vest the power to appoint some officers in Department Heads. Surely this shows the Constitution permits non-militia Executive Branch officials.
December 8, 2025 at 10:45 PM
The Constitution reserves the appointment of militia officers to the States. (Art. 1, Sec. 8). But Art. 2 Sec. 2 says that the Congress can vest the power to appoint some officers in Department Heads. Surely this shows the Constitution permits non-militia Executive Branch officials.
Yeah. The only way the ideology can operate is with the hidden premise that the workplace ought to not be feminine, and so the only ways left open to elevate femininity is to steer women away from that area of life.
That’s why it’s a lie to call it “feminist” even if it claims to elevate women!
That’s why it’s a lie to call it “feminist” even if it claims to elevate women!
November 13, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Yeah. The only way the ideology can operate is with the hidden premise that the workplace ought to not be feminine, and so the only ways left open to elevate femininity is to steer women away from that area of life.
That’s why it’s a lie to call it “feminist” even if it claims to elevate women!
That’s why it’s a lie to call it “feminist” even if it claims to elevate women!
You’d think the “feminizing the workplace results in wokeness” people and the “we should elevate the special status of femininity” people would come together around the obvious conclusion of “therefore we should celebrate wokeness in the workplace as successfully elevating the feminine.”
But nooo….
But nooo….
November 13, 2025 at 6:08 PM
You’d think the “feminizing the workplace results in wokeness” people and the “we should elevate the special status of femininity” people would come together around the obvious conclusion of “therefore we should celebrate wokeness in the workplace as successfully elevating the feminine.”
But nooo….
But nooo….
Not for nothing, here are alternative possible fundamental purposes of religion:
- Achieving the best disposition of adherents’ soul (salvation, nirvana, etc)
- Serving god(s) and following divine law
- General moral instruction on how to live a virtuous life
- Achieving the best disposition of adherents’ soul (salvation, nirvana, etc)
- Serving god(s) and following divine law
- General moral instruction on how to live a virtuous life
October 20, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Not for nothing, here are alternative possible fundamental purposes of religion:
- Achieving the best disposition of adherents’ soul (salvation, nirvana, etc)
- Serving god(s) and following divine law
- General moral instruction on how to live a virtuous life
- Achieving the best disposition of adherents’ soul (salvation, nirvana, etc)
- Serving god(s) and following divine law
- General moral instruction on how to live a virtuous life
Should instead say “Could be in word list”, and then give you a score range.
September 26, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Should instead say “Could be in word list”, and then give you a score range.
There’s a pizza in the middle of Sardinia, and each region gets one slice.
September 16, 2025 at 10:45 PM
There’s a pizza in the middle of Sardinia, and each region gets one slice.
Make it a high-powered X-Ray laser. I’m sure daily use near one’s brain wouldn’t have any adverse side effects.
September 3, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Make it a high-powered X-Ray laser. I’m sure daily use near one’s brain wouldn’t have any adverse side effects.
After clarifying parameters, I even answered it with a specific percentage!
August 30, 2025 at 1:50 PM
After clarifying parameters, I even answered it with a specific percentage!
(Assuming that facial structure is a sexed trait like gamete production, and isn’t merely a non-sexed trait like height which correlates with sexed traits. Etc etc)
August 29, 2025 at 12:31 PM
(Assuming that facial structure is a sexed trait like gamete production, and isn’t merely a non-sexed trait like height which correlates with sexed traits. Etc etc)
Do these studies demonstrate anything beyond the facts that sexed biological traits have a very strong tendency to appear together in two clusters, and that humans are very good at associating a given appearance of a sexed trait with its respective cluster?
August 29, 2025 at 12:28 PM
Do these studies demonstrate anything beyond the facts that sexed biological traits have a very strong tendency to appear together in two clusters, and that humans are very good at associating a given appearance of a sexed trait with its respective cluster?
Interesting study, but it’s radically different in crucial ways from the abstract exercise. For example, in the real world we wouldn’t artificially exclude perfectly androgynous faces from our scoring, as the researchers apparently did in the generated-faces study.
August 28, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Interesting study, but it’s radically different in crucial ways from the abstract exercise. For example, in the real world we wouldn’t artificially exclude perfectly androgynous faces from our scoring, as the researchers apparently did in the generated-faces study.
Disagreements, not errors.
August 28, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Disagreements, not errors.
(And to clarify, I mean 90% agreement, not 90% disagreement. Sorry for not being clear.)
August 28, 2025 at 4:13 PM
(And to clarify, I mean 90% agreement, not 90% disagreement. Sorry for not being clear.)
But as I also said, that’s a wild intuitional guess. If there’s any evidence of this experiment being run in the real world, I may change my mind.
August 28, 2025 at 4:07 PM
But as I also said, that’s a wild intuitional guess. If there’s any evidence of this experiment being run in the real world, I may change my mind.
I just thought I said - a heavily caveated 90%-ish.
August 28, 2025 at 4:06 PM
I just thought I said - a heavily caveated 90%-ish.
But that’s a wild guess. I could be wrong!
August 28, 2025 at 4:03 PM
But that’s a wild guess. I could be wrong!
…but if we live in the same society with similar notions of what the society’s general consensus subjective interpretation would be…I dunno, maybe 90% agreement with really wide error bars for all of the indeterminacy involved?
August 28, 2025 at 3:53 PM
…but if we live in the same society with similar notions of what the society’s general consensus subjective interpretation would be…I dunno, maybe 90% agreement with really wide error bars for all of the indeterminacy involved?
…and even the 100 might not know the status of all of their own sexed biological traits…
August 28, 2025 at 3:51 PM
…and even the 100 might not know the status of all of their own sexed biological traits…
…add that to the fact that I only have access to a stranger’s gender presentation and not to their sexed traits directly…
August 28, 2025 at 3:50 PM
…add that to the fact that I only have access to a stranger’s gender presentation and not to their sexed traits directly…
My definition of biological sex is a subjective interpretation of a bunch of sexed traits, so even two people with perfect knowledge of the same individual’s biology may come to different conclusions under the same definition…
August 28, 2025 at 3:49 PM
My definition of biological sex is a subjective interpretation of a bunch of sexed traits, so even two people with perfect knowledge of the same individual’s biology may come to different conclusions under the same definition…
Or I guess I could leave that open - take the 100 people as they are, with whatever definitions they personally happen to have.
August 28, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Or I guess I could leave that open - take the 100 people as they are, with whatever definitions they personally happen to have.