MizuTama

From my understanding, the idea is that it is negligent behavior that caused the accident. Basically the crime is that you behaved recklessly in a manner that led to someone's death. I.e. If I decide to do my best Revolver Ocelot gun spinning impression and fuck it up and shoot you, or I'm doing my best Initial-D impression and bowl over a child or something, that is manslaughter. I think reducing it to just money is a bit reductive, there are plenty of other easy ways to get people into the prison pipeline too.

It makes it extra fucked that they're charging the parents with this because of that as a crucial point of manslaughter is assigning blameworthiness. Thus, this charge, in being applied, is attributing the blame for the child's death to the parents being negligent by checks notes walking two blocks to the store.

Edit: Swapped reckless for negligence. There is a difference legally speaking but it has been ages since I've taken a law class and I'm no lawyer so I mixed the two up. My examples are recklessness as opposed to negligence but I can't be bothered to go back and amend more.

We all do things in the heat of passion Jimbo

I mean Trump has been pretty pro gas, anti-EV for a while, well before and all during their little dastardly duo phase.

NGL I am somewhat uncomfortable by the amount of sexual tension that trump seems to have for world leaders that tell him no

Okay, but have you considered that this time is the time they were actually lying and they are now neolibs dressed up in a red banner. Insert some racist stereotypes to call them untrustworthy and remember that neoliberalism is the greatest form of governance ever (quote Churchill, QUOTE CHURCHILL) and obviously they recognized their ~~sins~~ that capitalism and liberal democracy are the best thing since sliced bread!

I've been spending too much time on reddit lately

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek and don't personally buy the argument fully myself and I'm partially just killing time between meetings and got tired of arguing on . The argument I was proposing wouldn't be though that all media is reliant on that consistency (and I agree with your points about attempts at portrayal) but rather the argument is the particular thematics and aesthetics of the work being argued about at that moment. I was using a piece of media in a particular sense as opposed to the general. It is actually why my edit mentions the rationalists and HPMOR as due to how rationalists' belief functions (from my admittedly hazy recollection) not attempting nigh-seamless consistency would undercut some of the rationalist messaging particularly about storytelling norms.

Obviously, this check fails against broad-spectrum storytelling if someone has seen the word Aesop before. I am also assuming someone who is being a deckhead and isn't just using it as a veil to prevent a change they don't personally like (which then I ask you why are you arguing with them) and isn't just yanking your chain to fuck with you, (I know, I'm really shifting goalposts here eliminating 90% of them) I presume they would try to either narrow their deck-headedness into a slimmer category to attempt to shore up their argument, especially since much of the consumerist identity culture mentioned in the Warhammer essay means they likely are not invested in whether their argument functions for art as a whole and only needs some form of it to hold for the things they like and are invested in.

If you want my actual personal thoughts on this, the entire ideology can basically just be undermined with this section of your comment:

or it will accurately portray reality which is itself inconsistent and absurd I used to have friends who would criticize media in such a fashion and I managed to convert one of them by obnoxiously noting such criticisms and then pointing them out every time I heard a story from reality that vaguely followed the same principles. I find the diegetic portion of fiction to be indispensable for many works and my enjoyment, but in a similar manner to like idk Game Theory (the YT), I find it to be insanely difficult to actually break those elements as if you genuinely are treating it as if it was a world (or anything vaguely approaching it) a lot of details can be handwaved and retconned in reasonable manners assuming the issue was anything short of the omniscient narrator contradicting itself (assuming that the diegetic element also is explicitly not supposed to be meta in nature either in the storytelling manner or in an internal metaphysical form, and about a dozen other reasons that I'll probably think of later).

As someone who has just heard that term and done exactly 20 minutes of skim-reading a Warhammer-based explanation of diegetic essentialism and why it's bad (this is the theory needed to bring about the revolution) couldn't the deckhead merely argue that the themes and aesthetic for this story (whichever the two proponents are whining about) are reliant on appearing self-consistent and its failure to do so undermines those two critical components of fictional narratives and thus undermining it as media as a whole. Obviously, this argument doesn't work for all media, but the type that would attract someone who is a deckhead likely could have them stretch some application of this argument for it. However, another caveat is this would very much depend on what aspect of lore and self-consistency is being argued about.

Edit: Actually, I found an example. As someone who spent too much internet time in rationalist adjacent internet spheres as a teen (the sphere the Zizzians originated from) something like HPMOR only conveys its themes when appearing internally consistent, (however ironically it often comes into contradiction with aesthetics due to this, and understanding that is not as comprehensive as needed for the scientific topics it covers leading to inconsistency). If it fails to appear consistent, it undermines its own themes and values and the conveying of them.

I mean true but also I thought they literally said that's what they were going to do. Like I swear we are constantly caught off guard by them going to do exactly what they say they're going to do

This is the standard political prowess of the French.

This is what happens when you declare game, set, match when the clock is still running.

A walk around the neighborhood without headphones is a nice way to just let your mind wander.

Sadly when I go for walks if I don't have headphones or if the birds aren't particularly bricked up that day, the only thing I can think of is how loud tinnitus is or how surprised I am my hearing hasn't gone yet with how noticable it is.

Thanks though I'll consider what I can try to do with that in mind.

Well you see when you've accidentally radicalized an entire people against you via ~~genocide~~ war, letting them live is creating infinite hamas! Thus, every ~~genocide~~ war must completely purge all opposition down to every man, woman, and child! It's only logical you silly leftists. Now excuse me while I go vote!