It is like a home movie in that it is an attempt to humanize the victim. There is no evidence in a home movie, no relevant facts, just an idea of the person that’s gone. You’re right that one is a memory of something that happened while the other is a fabrication of something that might have happened, but they are both equally (ir)relevant and emotionally manipulative. Many jurisdictions do prohibit victim statements beyond a written or verbal testimony. Some countries and states require you to use a form and won’t admit statements that do not adhere to the form.

Also remember that this is for the judge, not a jury.

If someone drops into St. Peter’s Square with a parachute, I win $3,000.

Victim statements to the court are always emotionally manipulative. It’s akin to playing a video of home movies of the deceased, and obviously the judge understands that it is a fictitious creation.

It should be obvious to everyone at this point that this is what the Republican party has always been.

They don’t trust you to tell the truth, why would they come to you for the results of a test?

Right, but was he lying when he said it? He’s not sure.

That just seems like the EU sold a bunch of data to China for $600 million.

It’s because 3d chess is a sci-fi trope. There are a few versions, but it probably became most famous from the Star Trek version. 3d chess is ostensibly more complex, although the precise rules are usually not described in fiction, and the people who are very good at 3d chess are demonstrated to be extremely smart and tactical. Having a sci-fi character win at 3d chess is itself a trope to demonstrate that the character is a genius. In those examples, often the opponent will be overconfident and derisive of the character’s strategy, only to be humbled by the loss moments later. It’s a way to showing the character is cool headed, gracious in victory, and leagues ahead of his opponents.

The 4d chess meme was an escalation of a sarcastic exaggerations of the trope, like a way of saying a moron is just doing something obviously stupid is really enacting a super-strategy that you just don’t understand.

God forbid poor people enjoy a treat. They should suffer on gruel until they apologize for being so poor.

Guarantee that at some point he (or some Republican idiot) suggests we engage in more trade with Russia and India.

That seems low to me.

Have you checked to make sure that the universe is not a hyper realistic simulation and you are every person in it?

Much more accurate than guessing is not a strong endorsement.

They are, for better or worse. Kids learn to be people from the people around them. The only situation where your parents aren’t role models is when they aren’t around you, and that’s a sort of role model in its own way.

Kids also learn from their peers, their mentors, their heroes, etc, so it’s not like kids of shitty people are completely fucked.

Watching the Brak Show feels like smoking weed to me, but I’m completely sober. Except for when I’m high.

While you are correct, the only people using “woke” anymore are using it as an insult, meaning “not a bigot like me.”

It’s hard to put yourself in the headspace of someone who believed in Donald Trump, and it’s always surprising what each person’s “last straw” was. Like, now that he hurt my business with tariffs, he’s suddenly a horrible person. As though he wasn’t a felon, a rapist, a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, a pedophile, a despot, an incestuous, traitorous, egomaniacal, lecherous, kleptocratic, lying sack of shit yesterday, but today he’s gone too far.

Just checked for local restaurants, and sure enough there’s a few in my area. I haven’t eaten at any of them, but now I know not to.

That’s not even fraud. There’s nothing unethical about it.

It didn’t work for me. Why not?