mycodendral

6 ms·

31.
by mycodendral 1y ago
If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the targe
32.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. That’s not what that means. My mention of federal obstruction
33.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Throwing around words like ‘police state’ and ‘regime’ makes you sound paranoid. No one is being questioned for speech alone, only when it relates to a possible crime. If you have evidence otherwise, show it. If not, you’re just being drama
34.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I’ve repeatedly clarified that speech isn’t obstruction and that investigation isn’t punishment, yet those were your projections, not my original claim. You’ve been arguing against a version of my point that only exists in your own framing.
35.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Awesome idea
36.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to ve
37.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Good luck with that
38.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole react
39.
by mycodendral 1y ago
You're hyperbolizing and mischaracterizing events to fit a delusional victimhood narrative. 1) No one prevented anyone from engaging in free speech. 2) In this case "government adversary" just means you may become person of i
40.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I’m not suggesting that speech is obstruction, that wouldn’t make sense. I’m saying the man interviewed was an adversarial person of interest, not someone guilty of a crime. Portraying him as a victim whose free speech was violated is absur
41.
by mycodendral 1y ago
It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off p
42.
by mycodendral 1y ago
The FBI, by nature, investigates crimes, that doesn't need to be said. To quote my other post: I’m saying from a risk-assessment standpoint, speech that signals hostility to enforcement naturally places a person in an adversarial categ
43.
by mycodendral 1y ago
here you go - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
44.
by mycodendral 1y ago
If by ‘go after’ you mean investigate, then yes, officers should investigate people based on their words when those words suggest a possible lead in a crime. That’s basic police work. I’m not saying the state should punish someone for words
45.
by mycodendral 1y ago
NBA legends. Rigged shuffling machines. Specialized contact lenses. Instagram mafiosos. This case is incredible.
46.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I switched from Android to iOS exclusively because of Liquid Glass. It's amazing. I'll just sit there and drag the glass back and forth over different things on my screen and stare in awe.
47.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I don't think this issue has been reported on the P365/x-macro platform, for those discourage by this unfortunate situation. Different striker system.
48.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I would rather it just be expensive to live in NYC
49.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Can you cite some practical failure scenarios besides a wile e coyote billboard where camera inherently won't be able to accomplish what lidar/radar do?
50.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I'm not here to argue the stats, I'm just sharing my personal anecdotes from doing psychs 100s of times and going to dozens of psych festivals. My username is mushroom brain. I'm just sharing that it's not all enlightenm
51.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Have you been around someone experiencing psychedelic induced psychosis? They are often quite a danger to themselves and others. Usually requiring sedative/chemical restraint & police intervention by EMS. Ask any EMT about this.
52.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Studies that look at mushrooms in a controlled therapy session are not the same as unreported/unstudied crises at high intensity parties.
53.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I'm talking about the people experiencing hypomanic/psychotic episodes, not heat exhaustion.
54.
by mycodendral 1y ago
Maybe heights specifically, but hang out at the medical tent at any decent size music festival and tell me psychedelics are as harm-free as people suggest.
55.
by mycodendral 1y ago
I don't buy it, personally. I used to be a big psych guy until I had multiple friends get in dangerous police situations because of them. And I've heard a lot more individual stories. Pretty much every psychedelic festival has peo
56.
by mycodendral 1y ago
People jump out of windows/off roofs all the time on psychedelics.
57.
by mycodendral 2y ago
I think I found this on stumbleupon when I was really stoned back in the day
58.
by mycodendral 2y ago
I agree to not do it casually But it could reasonably be arranged under supervision with an anesthetizer option. They probably already have some protocol for erratic behavior.
59.
by mycodendral 2y ago
I agree to not do it casually But it could probably be arranged under supervision with an anesthetizer option. They probably already have some protocol for antisocial or psychotic behavior.
60.
by mycodendral 2y ago
I felt the same way when watching the Trump Assn. attempt. The number of people in the stands who just remained standing and gawking with no self preservation instinct (duck!) was eerie.

More ›