Share this page!

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Dec, 6 tweets, 2 min read
wsj.com/articles/south…

This is an interesting set of hot takes from the governor overseeing the highest positive testing rate of any state in the country.

I'm sure it won't come as a galloping shock that her "better" numbers are bullshit.

1/
This is already untrue. Cases in the last seven days/100,000 in South Dakota is 98.6. Illinois is 75.6.

If we include data since January 21st, South Dakota's per capita rate is almost twice as high.

But I'm sure we'll stick with "last seven days" throughout, right?

2/
Recent figures are probably the better measure, and Noem is correct to use them. Otherwise we're getting a lot of noise from the early going based on where the virus cropped up. At this point it's everywhere. So current numbers are more indicative of competence

3/
Oh... Damn. Here Noem shifts (as she must) from recent numbers ("active case counts") to "since the beginning of the year.

Why?

Because SD's last seven days' deaths per capita is almost five times higher than New Jersey's.

4/
And California's deaths per 100k are less than half of what Noem oversaw.

So far her "balance" is "let more people die in the name of the economy". Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne, I guess.

5/
Here we see what Noem is actually focused on.

Not health, not safety, not "keeping the citizens to whom she ostensibly owes her fidelity alive". The budget.

Though, hey, more dead people *is* good for the unemployment rate. Really cuts back on the number of job seekers.

6/6

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Actually malicious, no actual malice

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @apark2453

Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
8 Dec
I *do* want to pick it apart!

And... Wow. This is art.

154 pages.

One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".

1/
Typically one can sue a group of defendants together whey they acted in concert. It'd be a weird kind of joinder rule to be allowed to file one lawsuit against three different defendants under three different theories of wrongdoing solely because "it's all election stuff".

2/
Each of these is alleged at a different state. None are *true* of course, but even if true I'm not sure why Paxton thinks he can file one suit against all three on three different theories.

And the third is just silly.

3/
Read 76 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
8 Dec
Let's take some time to break this down.

Starting with the weird analogy between "actual distribution of species on the planet" and "representation of groups of people in fictional media."

It's a step or two removed, but it's basically the thermian argument.

1/
It requires viewing a fictional world like a continent: it either does or does not have certain things in it and that's just how it goes. There just don't happen to be kangaroos in Europe, so don't complain.

NB: there are, people pay to see them

2/
As no one should need to be reminded of: fictional worlds are not real places. Everything in them is put in them by choice. There's no natural selection, no speciation which leads to some species of birds in some places and not others. Every blade of grass is put in by choice

3/
Read 6 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
7 Dec
All right, R is off work and can confirm all of this. I'll preface by saying: I definitely got heated after someone suggested I get the gun I didn't know they had and shoot myself in the head.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

1/
First, to set the stage: both R and I were a bit leery of it to begin with. We'd had get-togethers and in all of the recent ones where were a lot of "those goddamned millennials" talk.

2/
With "millennial" meaning "anyone younger than them" since apparently it covered everyone from school administrators probably only a decade my mother's junior to my younger brother's (currently a college Senior) classmates.

Obviously that's not quite right.

3/
Read 20 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
7 Dec
Oh my goodness this article is bad. I have the day off so let’s do a good, old fashioned, “how are you this wrong” breakdown. And I want to lead off with the best one.

Keep in mind this is an argument for the US Supreme Court overturning the PA Supreme Court.

1/
The basic argument is this: Latches can’t apply here because the challenge is to whether a statute is constitutional. So the Supreme Court would reverse.

To support this the author cites, poorly, to “Stilp v. Hafer (1998)”.

2/
I say poorly because it’s missing two of the ways you’d know that’s not a US Supreme Court case. The actual citation is either “553 Pa. 128 (1998)” or “718 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1998).”

So let’s be clear: even if the author were right, this is SCOPA deviating from SCOPA precedent.

3/
Read 37 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
7 Dec
For those curious about this doctrine. The “Colorado River doctrine” is named for Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).

1/
The actual background is kind of fascinating, and if anyone (particularly east of the Mississippi where you don’t deal with prior appropriation) wants an explanation of “what the hell does ‘owning’ water even mean” I can explain.

2/
But the upshot is this:

Following changes to Colorado water law administration there were a whole lot of lawsuits in Colorado courts about water rights, including the water rights of tribal land (administered by the US itself).

3/
Read 9 tweets
Actually malicious, no actual malice Profile picture
6 Dec
Small problem. Even in your “fediverse” model, so long as I can post somewhere I don’t myself own, you are either (a) accepting someone else is liable for what I wrote, or (b) need the equivalent of 230.

If I can’t what you’ve created is email. If I *can*, you need 230.

1/
Whether people *should* want the interconnectivity of “publicly posting on other people’s walls/timelines/replies”, clearly people *do* want it.

The vagueness of “interconnection of sovereign spaces owned and controlled by individuals” only muddies the waters.

2/
If your vision is “twitter or Facebook but everyone owns their own page and no 230”, each individual “client” would face incredible liability.

If your vision is that people wouldn’t be able to freely post on other people’s pages, you haven’t made an FB competitor.

3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @apark2453 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @apark2453!

Read all threads by @apark2453