It’s funny that after years of console fans saying that fragmentation in the PC world was a reason to get a console, there’s now like a half dozen versions of every console.

Almost as if geek culture just is the dominant popular culture in the world, has been for years, and the geek pretense that they’re a marginalized group is just an excuse to behave badly!

Another trick: recognize that video games are only one wonderful part of the infinite variety of human life and enjoy them in moderation, playing them without any guilt when you choose to play them while maintaining a whole variety of other interests, so that she won’t fixate on this one interest.

I mean he’s so good, he’d be world class without PEDs even if he is on them. He’s once in a lifetime.

1. Of course it happens in other countries. It happens in ALL countries, certainly including the United States. But it wouldn’t be rational to assume that there are no meaningful differences in the odds that a given user of PEDs is caught.

Since the question was specifically about the country, and bearing in mind that this kind of suspicion should never discredit any particular athlete, it’s worth mentioning that Jamaica has notoriously lax drug testing.

What can Parker do to remove himself from the cloud of judgment later in his life? Is rehabilitation possible? Should he live under the weight of judgment for a crime he was acquitted of for the rest of his life? How is that consonant with basic principles of social justice?

What do you mean, the facts don’t bear it out? Does the fact that he was acquitted mean literally nothing? I understand people want to confront the devastation of sexual assault. But carceral feminism is not the answer. And building an assumption that literally nothing can exonerate someone once accused is carceral…

But how can we reduce the prison population is we presume that people accused of violent crimes are necessarily guilty, as you’re doing here? If even those who have been legally acquitted are presumed to be guilty, then that inevitably and necessarily contributes to the culture that made mass incarceration possible.

But you’re assuming that he is in fact guilty of those bad actions despite doing everything that a person can do to demonstrate otherwise. That’s not progressive; it’s law and order conservatism. This is the very tension I’m talking about: you can’t claim to believe in the project to reform our criminal justice system…

But what if he sincerely is not guilty? Is that idea completely precluded? How can you claim to be in favor of criminal justice reform if a not guilty verdict does nothing to challenge your assumption that someone is guilty? There’s no way to reconcile the blanket presumption of guilt with commitment to restorative…

Restorative and rehabilitative justice requires the capacity for forgiveness. What you’re describing is not forgiveness.

I don’t understand how people who claim to want to be part of a movement for criminal justice reform can insist that even someone who was acquitted has to carry around the burden of guilt for the rest of his life so that the accusation defines him forever. Restorative justice - the idea that we want to rehabilitate…

Then say that. If people’s concern is the behavior they expect of Trump supporters, then fine - make that case. But this story has been signal boosted again and again by acting as though “election observers” is some new, Orwellian term that Trump’s invented, instead of a perfectly banal part of the conventional…

Every campaign has election observers. All of them. This is not at all new.

Seriously, does no one do any research? Every campaign has election observers. Trump sucks enough to not have to make things up.

lot of salty jingos in this thread

Ah, beaten to the punch!

They were already that good.