the TTP probably violates a lot of our laws and rules as well. It was another of these "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it" laws.
We'll see what happens. If it is what we fear, then there are going to be some fierce court challenges. If not... then it is probably much a do about nothing.
I'd like to know what other thing your politicians have done in the US's interests that violated your rights though? Just curious.
Politicians don't respond to that sort of thing. They understand the blade at the throat, the steel at the back, the edge of the cliff that is too close for comfort.
Politics is about leverage. Think of it like a game of Go or like a game of chess when your king is in check. You just have to give them no choice. They do this or something bad happens to THEM. Ideally they lose their jobs or an election or something.
This is a big part of how politics works in any republic. We're all putting each other in "check"... forcing each other to comply. There is very little actual compromise or common ground or anything of that nature at this point. At least in the US. Its all "you will do this because you have no choice"... or "do whatever you want because your opinion doesn't matter any more"...
That's how ugly the politics have gotten in the US. Discourse is pointless. Appeals to reason are pointless. Sound and rational arguments are pointless.
All that matters is naked power plays. If it doesn't stop, we will destroy ourselves with our mutual loathing for each other and the system itself. But it can't stop unless people of sound mind love reason and the nation more than their temporary political agendas. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
Both sides are hoping to bring peace to the system by crushing the opposition so badly they come on their knees begging for terms. So far, no one is cracking.
Our constitution makes no provision for torturing terrorists etc. So I don't know what you're talking about. And really calling waterboarding torture is a bit of a stretch. Regardless, all that whine does is force us to go back to Cold War methods which means either truth drugs or we give the fellow to a willing allied power that will do the deed for us while we take notes. Either way... you're denied your political ammunition which is really all you care about in the first place.
As to killing an enemy in the field, you don't need to have a trial for that. If during WW2, someone joined the Nazis and started helping them with something... it would have been fine to kill them in Germany or where ever on the spot.This is a well understood concept and is not in dispute by any but the comically ignorant or irredeemably deceitful.
As to secret courts, you have a very good point here for once. And I agree with you. However, problems and struggles do not negate the whole character of the nation or its laws.
As to problems in our congress... this is a price you pay when you have a real democracy. People don't always agree. If you want everyone to march in step, then have yourself a dictatorship. Go to North Korea and listen to them all clap in unison. Every freedom has a price. If you have to ask the price then you can't afford it. Put the chains on and leave those burdens to your betters... I choose to pay the price. Freedom is worth everything or someone will talk you into slavery.
As to this notion that the army is going to engage a rebellion directly... the context is wrong. yes... the people all together would not be able to defeat the US military if it held disapline and followed orders and there were no defections. But it do none of those things.
And beyond that you're missing that we're everywhere. If things get that crazy the insurgency will be unstoppable. You saw how much trouble the US military had in Iraq with insurgents. Imagine that with the US population.
You're thinking in terms of pitched battles. Since when have the American PEOPLE ever fought that way? We didn't fight that way against the British and we wouldn't fight against any other oppressive military force that way either.
The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia and justifiable homicide.""
So are you saying the US is bad because it executes? Saying the US is bad because it goes to war? Saying the US is bad because we allow abortions? Saying the US is bad because "euthanasia"?
What is your beef there?
As to "right to roam"... we have public parks and national parks and all sorts of public easements. What are you asking for? A right to trespass? Don't be silly.
Lets see if you can back your position up at all. Because this is already looking too easy.
... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.
Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Too many people died to institute and then preserve that... and far more will die in futures to come.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights. They just ban things... for the children. I can't have that. The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many. And that's fine. Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
... well... you're right... there might be too many variables but lets just go with physics as we understand it.
That means no impulse drives, no warp drives, no teleporters, etc.
The reality is that you're probably only going to have enough mass and fuel for a hybrid engine weapon system.
Likely a high energy particle accelerator that is used both for propulsion and the likely only weapon.
You'll need to be a hole in space. So you need to be small enough to avoid detection, have minimal radar return, and your thermal signature needs to match the background of space.
The craft would have to be a drone of some kind. Squirt the weapon/engine once to get on a good trajectory and then scan for a target if you don't already know exactly what you're going to hit. Then when you see it... you fire on it if you're in range or carefully reposition.
Its more a game of assassins than anything. Anything big will be too expensive to move around much and too easy to hit and too easy to find.
Communication and synchronization with the rest of the swarm will be done through radio and communications lasers. Laser links will be used by anything that wants to keep its exact location a mystery. Radio will be used either by communications buoys or fixed bases that aren't really possible to hide. The lasers will communicate with the radio buoys and the buoys will broadcast. The radio buoys will be detectable but will be low value targets... and anything that goes after them will get scragged by one of the stealthed drones.
Getting rid of excess heat will be a big problem for the drones. I'm not entirely sure how they're going to keep their temperature down. But they have to remain undetected to remain effective while also not burning lots of fuel simply to be difficult to hit.
That is "MY" understanding of what a space battle would look like given our current understanding of physics. It will be a lot of hide and go seek... snipers in gillie suits fighting by star light.
First, suggesting that encryption is too strong merely says that it is "strong enough to be a problem"... thus advertises its potential effectiveness.
Second, the business community will not and cannot tolerate losing the ability to encrypt while also using the public internet synchronize their databases and handle communications.
Third, who are they actually trying to stop from using encryption? The corps respond to court orders quite readily so a bypass is not required. They're doing this because criminals, terrorists, and other people that are either more overtly hostile or who have nothing to lose by refusing to cooperate are using the technology. The idea thus is to compromise the technology of the enemy by compromising the technology in general. However they have failed to grasp the first rule of criminals... THEY DON"T FOLLOW THE LAW. Which means they'll use an illegal version of the encryption to encrypt. And... sure you could cite them for using banned technology but you won't get the data. Which means this ENTIRE anti encryption campaign is little more than an admission of stupidity.
I want to know who personally is pushing this... because whomever they are... they are fools.
The complaint advertises for the effectiveness of the encryption, the power interests in the West that ultimately make everything work will not permit their encryption to be compromised, and the fucking people they want to actually compromise with this policy will be completely uneffected because they don't follow the fucking rules in the first place.
Thus... whomever is pushing this... is an idiot or a fool... or both.
... Nope... you are showing zero imagination because you think if I had a limited bandwidth life line that I'd let you overwhelm it with facebook.
that's fucking retarded.
I would do no such thing.
Internet for everyone? No. Internet for a few key systems? YES. This is easily manged at the ISP and is done all the time.
How about access for the phone provider? Local calls are fine. Pick your phone up and call your neighbor.
But if you want to call out... No. It won't even ring. Send a text message though? Okay. We have enough bandwidth in that situation for everyone on the island to send as many two way long distance text messages as they want.
And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...
So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.
Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.
Okay. Is that a discussion you want to have... Because I can address it.
Just understand, the aeronautical education/experience argument is forfeit because... I struck that down.
I can tell you where your argument is going to go and I'll tell you roughly how I'm going to crush it.
Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.
I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.
I suspect you're not going to accept that which will end the discussion with me childishly mocking you because the actual argument will be over and I'll have nothing better to do than extract whatever pleasure I can at your expense at that point.
So... that's my prediction of the future. Your move... let us see how well I predicted it.:D
Your point about putting all the back ups in one place is a good one.
This is why backup procedures are to have the back ups be in different places.
Generally you want THREE redundant systems if you want a system that does not drop. And you want each of those systems to be in different places and possibly of different natures.
That all three will get knocked out at the same time is unlikely.
... Don't be obtuse. The sat link would give you enough bandwidth to handle banking, text messages, etc. Enough that people could deal with the issue and would not be cut off. You do not need high bandwidth communication in an EMERGENCY.
Indeed... As the black knight, you must of course tell me that you always prevail and that you're always victorious... even when your fucking arms and legs are cut off.
What would happen if the lid weren't on? Shit would go everywhere. In that case, the guy literally has to hold the lid down with his hands because shit is hitting the lid with such force that it would knock it off otherwise.
And if you put anything in a blender that is heavier like that... such as carrots or ice or even large chunks of apple... then chunks will hit the lid with such force that it will knock it the fuck off.
And that's on every blender I've ever seen.
The blender that fellow is using in that video is a Blendtec blender and they're widely regarded to be one of the best blenders on the market sold by anyone. The gimmick in their ads is that the blender is so good it can blend stuff that other blenders can't... such as cellphones.
... I'm sorry I referenced the cruise ship because you guys really know fucking nothing about how much bandwidth the sats can handle. You could very easily give the whole island high speed broadband with one of those systems. You'd just need to prioritize the island over other users.
Many tv news channels uplink their video through satellites. That's full video and sound.
And keep in mind, we're talking about maintaining basic services during an emergency. Not keeping your spank bank queue humming. Banking services don't use a lot of bandwidth. Neither do text messages... that sort of thing could be routed through a cheap sat link and it would be fine.
Second, the comparison is false because a super computer cannot make a super computer. A better comparison would be "why do you not have that bit of software" Because a computer can replicate data. And because of the internet... I think you'd have to admit that there really aren't any programs only held by one person or organization. The best example in your favor would be high frequency trading code and hacking intrusion code. But both have leaked. The high frequency trading code is available to anyone that wants it from Goldman Saches no less... and the NSA's hacktool set has been published.
As to your list of things that can't build themselves... I think there is a core misunderstanding as to what we're talking about.
As to your belief that technology is controllable... I'll just point at tens of thousands of years of human history that prove otherwise. You can keep ahead of the curve through innovation. Adopting new technology faster than your rivals can steal/buy/implement your technology... but you can't stop it.
How long after the US nuclear bomb did the Russians have it? How long after the British jet fighters did the soviets have it? The chinese make versions of everything we have. Are our versions better? Perhaps... but it is just a matter of time before their versions catch up with whatever our versions were at that time. The trick is to never stop so by the time they copy something it is already obsolete.
The US maintains a 20 to 50 year tech lead on most of the world. And anyone closer than that only keep that close because we just give them our current tech.
We've had people drawing up plans for such things since the 50s. Aeronautical engineers... the concept has been proposed by aircraft companies repeatedly.
Most of the concepts involve flying wings. Modules are loaded and unloaded the way a cargo plane unloads large cargo.
Slashdot Mirror
the TTP probably violates a lot of our laws and rules as well. It was another of these "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it" laws.
We'll see what happens. If it is what we fear, then there are going to be some fierce court challenges. If not... then it is probably much a do about nothing.
I'd like to know what other thing your politicians have done in the US's interests that violated your rights though? Just curious.
Politicians don't respond to that sort of thing. They understand the blade at the throat, the steel at the back, the edge of the cliff that is too close for comfort.
Politics is about leverage. Think of it like a game of Go or like a game of chess when your king is in check. You just have to give them no choice. They do this or something bad happens to THEM. Ideally they lose their jobs or an election or something.
This is a big part of how politics works in any republic. We're all putting each other in "check"... forcing each other to comply. There is very little actual compromise or common ground or anything of that nature at this point. At least in the US. Its all "you will do this because you have no choice"... or "do whatever you want because your opinion doesn't matter any more"...
That's how ugly the politics have gotten in the US. Discourse is pointless. Appeals to reason are pointless. Sound and rational arguments are pointless.
All that matters is naked power plays. If it doesn't stop, we will destroy ourselves with our mutual loathing for each other and the system itself. But it can't stop unless people of sound mind love reason and the nation more than their temporary political agendas. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
Both sides are hoping to bring peace to the system by crushing the opposition so badly they come on their knees begging for terms. So far, no one is cracking.
Cite the constitution free zones?
Our constitution makes no provision for torturing terrorists etc. So I don't know what you're talking about. And really calling waterboarding torture is a bit of a stretch. Regardless, all that whine does is force us to go back to Cold War methods which means either truth drugs or we give the fellow to a willing allied power that will do the deed for us while we take notes. Either way... you're denied your political ammunition which is really all you care about in the first place.
As to killing an enemy in the field, you don't need to have a trial for that. If during WW2, someone joined the Nazis and started helping them with something... it would have been fine to kill them in Germany or where ever on the spot.This is a well understood concept and is not in dispute by any but the comically ignorant or irredeemably deceitful.
As to secret courts, you have a very good point here for once. And I agree with you. However, problems and struggles do not negate the whole character of the nation or its laws.
As to problems in our congress... this is a price you pay when you have a real democracy. People don't always agree. If you want everyone to march in step, then have yourself a dictatorship. Go to North Korea and listen to them all clap in unison. Every freedom has a price. If you have to ask the price then you can't afford it. Put the chains on and leave those burdens to your betters... I choose to pay the price. Freedom is worth everything or someone will talk you into slavery.
As to this notion that the army is going to engage a rebellion directly... the context is wrong. yes... the people all together would not be able to defeat the US military if it held disapline and followed orders and there were no defections. But it do none of those things.
And beyond that you're missing that we're everywhere. If things get that crazy the insurgency will be unstoppable. You saw how much trouble the US military had in Iraq with insurgents. Imagine that with the US population.
You're thinking in terms of pitched battles. Since when have the American PEOPLE ever fought that way? We didn't fight that way against the British and we wouldn't fight against any other oppressive military force that way either.
Hit and run. Strike and vanish.
... okay
""Right to life
The right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia and justifiable homicide.""
So are you saying the US is bad because it executes?
Saying the US is bad because it goes to war?
Saying the US is bad because we allow abortions?
Saying the US is bad because "euthanasia"?
What is your beef there?
As to "right to roam"... we have public parks and national parks and all sorts of public easements. What are you asking for? A right to trespass? Don't be silly.
Lets see if you can back your position up at all. Because this is already looking too easy.
Given that the US military is mostly made up of their sons and brothers... yeah.
What is more... we're everywhere. You can't defend a city from the people that live in it.
The concept is sound, sir.
And before you bad mouth it, consider that the Swiss literally give all the men in their society a machine gun and a bag full of bullets.
The anti gun stuff is largely propaganda. You don't understand the issue.
Don't be obtuse... pretending to be stupid doesn't make for a clever argument.
... Don't take it the wrong way... but I like the bill of rights. Put something in place that forbids the government from overstepping its bounds to any extent and Australia will be very interesting.
Short of that... you're an interesting vacation destination. A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Too many people died to institute and then preserve that... and far more will die in futures to come.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights. They just ban things... for the children. I can't have that. The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many. And that's fine. Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
... well... you're right... there might be too many variables but lets just go with physics as we understand it.
That means no impulse drives, no warp drives, no teleporters, etc.
The reality is that you're probably only going to have enough mass and fuel for a hybrid engine weapon system.
Likely a high energy particle accelerator that is used both for propulsion and the likely only weapon.
You'll need to be a hole in space. So you need to be small enough to avoid detection, have minimal radar return, and your thermal signature needs to match the background of space.
The craft would have to be a drone of some kind. Squirt the weapon/engine once to get on a good trajectory and then scan for a target if you don't already know exactly what you're going to hit. Then when you see it... you fire on it if you're in range or carefully reposition.
Its more a game of assassins than anything. Anything big will be too expensive to move around much and too easy to hit and too easy to find.
Communication and synchronization with the rest of the swarm will be done through radio and communications lasers. Laser links will be used by anything that wants to keep its exact location a mystery. Radio will be used either by communications buoys or fixed bases that aren't really possible to hide. The lasers will communicate with the radio buoys and the buoys will broadcast. The radio buoys will be detectable but will be low value targets... and anything that goes after them will get scragged by one of the stealthed drones.
Getting rid of excess heat will be a big problem for the drones. I'm not entirely sure how they're going to keep their temperature down. But they have to remain undetected to remain effective while also not burning lots of fuel simply to be difficult to hit.
That is "MY" understanding of what a space battle would look like given our current understanding of physics. It will be a lot of hide and go seek... snipers in gillie suits fighting by star light.
http://www.surlatable.com/prod...
https://youtu.be/-RwkYY7wb08?t...
yes, and their encryption isn't backdoored. Their datacenters are backdoored. their encryption is not.
... the banks aren't going to agree. So the entire thing is moot.
clarify, I can take that in three mutually exclusive ways.
Yes yes... you're going to bite my knee caps off... very scary.
First, suggesting that encryption is too strong merely says that it is "strong enough to be a problem"... thus advertises its potential effectiveness.
Second, the business community will not and cannot tolerate losing the ability to encrypt while also using the public internet synchronize their databases and handle communications.
Third, who are they actually trying to stop from using encryption? The corps respond to court orders quite readily so a bypass is not required. They're doing this because criminals, terrorists, and other people that are either more overtly hostile or who have nothing to lose by refusing to cooperate are using the technology. The idea thus is to compromise the technology of the enemy by compromising the technology in general. However they have failed to grasp the first rule of criminals... THEY DON"T FOLLOW THE LAW. Which means they'll use an illegal version of the encryption to encrypt. And... sure you could cite them for using banned technology but you won't get the data. Which means this ENTIRE anti encryption campaign is little more than an admission of stupidity.
I want to know who personally is pushing this... because whomever they are... they are fools.
The complaint advertises for the effectiveness of the encryption, the power interests in the West that ultimately make everything work will not permit their encryption to be compromised, and the fucking people they want to actually compromise with this policy will be completely uneffected because they don't follow the fucking rules in the first place.
Thus... whomever is pushing this... is an idiot or a fool... or both.
... Nope... you are showing zero imagination because you think if I had a limited bandwidth life line that I'd let you overwhelm it with facebook.
that's fucking retarded.
I would do no such thing.
Internet for everyone? No. Internet for a few key systems? YES. This is easily manged at the ISP and is done all the time.
How about access for the phone provider? Local calls are fine. Pick your phone up and call your neighbor.
But if you want to call out... No. It won't even ring. Send a text message though? Okay. We have enough bandwidth in that situation for everyone on the island to send as many two way long distance text messages as they want.
And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...
So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.
Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.
Okay. Is that a discussion you want to have... Because I can address it.
Just understand, the aeronautical education/experience argument is forfeit because... I struck that down.
I can tell you where your argument is going to go and I'll tell you roughly how I'm going to crush it.
Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.
I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.
I suspect you're not going to accept that which will end the discussion with me childishly mocking you because the actual argument will be over and I'll have nothing better to do than extract whatever pleasure I can at your expense at that point.
So... that's my prediction of the future. Your move... let us see how well I predicted it. :D
Your point about putting all the back ups in one place is a good one.
This is why backup procedures are to have the back ups be in different places.
Generally you want THREE redundant systems if you want a system that does not drop. And you want each of those systems to be in different places and possibly of different natures.
That all three will get knocked out at the same time is unlikely.
... Don't be obtuse. The sat link would give you enough bandwidth to handle banking, text messages, etc. Enough that people could deal with the issue and would not be cut off. You do not need high bandwidth communication in an EMERGENCY.
Indeed... As the black knight, you must of course tell me that you always prevail and that you're always victorious... even when your fucking arms and legs are cut off.
You're absurd.
blenders are even worse... you're so fucking stupid.
Blenders splatter shit all over the place if you don't put the lid on. What are you blending? I use mine to make smoothies and sauces.
Goopy stuff... and it splatters HORRIBLY if ANYONE doesn't put a lid on it.
It isn't a question of what brand you have. They all do it. FUCKING ALL OF THEM.
Why do you think they have lids on them in the first place?
Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What would happen if the lid weren't on? Shit would go everywhere. In that case, the guy literally has to hold the lid down with his hands because shit is hitting the lid with such force that it would knock it off otherwise.
And if you put anything in a blender that is heavier like that... such as carrots or ice or even large chunks of apple... then chunks will hit the lid with such force that it will knock it the fuck off.
And that's on every blender I've ever seen.
The blender that fellow is using in that video is a Blendtec blender and they're widely regarded to be one of the best blenders on the market sold by anyone. The gimmick in their ads is that the blender is so good it can blend stuff that other blenders can't... such as cellphones.
Seriously... fuck off. You're a degenerate.
... I'm sorry I referenced the cruise ship because you guys really know fucking nothing about how much bandwidth the sats can handle. You could very easily give the whole island high speed broadband with one of those systems. You'd just need to prioritize the island over other users.
Many tv news channels uplink their video through satellites. That's full video and sound.
And keep in mind, we're talking about maintaining basic services during an emergency. Not keeping your spank bank queue humming. Banking services don't use a lot of bandwidth. Neither do text messages... that sort of thing could be routed through a cheap sat link and it would be fine.
Show a little imagination here. Come on.
First, why do I need a super computer?
Second, the comparison is false because a super computer cannot make a super computer. A better comparison would be "why do you not have that bit of software" Because a computer can replicate data. And because of the internet... I think you'd have to admit that there really aren't any programs only held by one person or organization. The best example in your favor would be high frequency trading code and hacking intrusion code. But both have leaked. The high frequency trading code is available to anyone that wants it from Goldman Saches no less... and the NSA's hacktool set has been published.
As to your list of things that can't build themselves... I think there is a core misunderstanding as to what we're talking about.
As to your belief that technology is controllable... I'll just point at tens of thousands of years of human history that prove otherwise. You can keep ahead of the curve through innovation. Adopting new technology faster than your rivals can steal/buy/implement your technology... but you can't stop it.
How long after the US nuclear bomb did the Russians have it? How long after the British jet fighters did the soviets have it? The chinese make versions of everything we have. Are our versions better? Perhaps... but it is just a matter of time before their versions catch up with whatever our versions were at that time. The trick is to never stop so by the time they copy something it is already obsolete.
The US maintains a 20 to 50 year tech lead on most of the world. And anyone closer than that only keep that close because we just give them our current tech.
We've had people drawing up plans for such things since the 50s. Aeronautical engineers... the concept has been proposed by aircraft companies repeatedly.
Most of the concepts involve flying wings. Modules are loaded and unloaded the way a cargo plane unloads large cargo.
I agree. Its the 21st century we could do that.
... why do people think strawmen are valid arguments? Its a real mystery.
Nothing you're talking about relates to my point.
I"m not even going to respond to it. Try again with less strawmanning and I'll respond.
A madness going through San Franciscan progressives is not applicable to anyone but themselves.