Grace Lavery / Joseph Lavery & Daniel M. Lavery / Mallory Ortberg - "Straight with extra steps" couple trooning out to avoid "dwindling into mere heterosexuality"

[monstrous bubo]

The problem isn't who is raping people, the problem is that ANYONE raped by ANYONE won't see the rapist punished under Joe's brilliance.

Joe’s brilliant idea is that 100% of the criminal’s assets be given to the victim, which he terms restorative justice but is also in effect punishment. The problems with that approach include:

• What exactly is being „restored”?
• Jeffrey Epstein’s first victim would get the equivalent of victim Powerball, and the others nothing,
• Victims of poor criminals (which is most criminals) would get little.
• As there is no nexus between harm suffered and compensation/punishment, a criminal has no reason not to inflict maximum harm or even kill the victim, either for funsies or to evade detection.
• A victim left eg. crippled has more needs than someone not permanently physically injured. How are they to be restored if the criminal’s assets cannot cover lifelong needs?
• It is unclear who gets the assets in the case of a murder - especially if there are no next of kin. Murder a hobo and it’s a freebie?
• Once 100% of a criminal’s assets are seized, the criminal has no reason not to offend again, as no further punishment via seizure can be inflicted.
• Some people just need locking up to protect the rest of us, or at least some form of supervision. Some criminals genuinely benefit from early intervention and rehabilitation delivered by the justice system (for example, female non-violent offenders in for theft or fraud with histories of sexual assault or drug use). None of that is catered for in Joe’s scheme.

TL;DR Joe has waded into thousands of years of debate on theories of justice armed with a spoon to offer up a classic luxury belief. Let’s see how happy he is with a criminal’s old Air Jordans and crack pipe if he’s ever a victim.

ETA Just thought of a few others.

• I put all my assets into a trust, and I am the sole beneficiary. Legally I now own nothing - my trustee owns it all. Now asset-free, I can murder a person I want dead. Does Joe’s scheme contemplate garnishing future income streams if the criminal is currently poor? If so, for how long?
• If a criminal (eg rapist) is stripped of all assets, and has no real sellable skills, is this not an incentive to get better at theft as well?
• If a justice system does not embody the general community ideas of justice (which usually mix retribution and deterrence), does it lose legitimacy? Is legitimacy of a major institution important? If yes, then does an illegitimate system provoke vigilantism?

OK, I’ll stop there. I’m not defending the current justice systems anywhere - they all have flaws - but there are some great reasons why they have evolved this way,

 

[Mayhem]

I’ll never get over fat women getting breast removal. Fat men have moobs. If that woman gets her tits chopped they will return in a year or two as part of her general obesity. Lose weight first, then decide if hacking off your breasts is necessary or if it’s even worth the trouble given the weight you normally carry.

Genetics play a big role, but plenty of women will have small and flat chests at normal and low body weights. People with the genetics of Jayne Mansfield are fairly uncommon. Only thanks to the prevalence breasts implants, and padded push up bras, do we see so many ample breasts on thin bodies, esp in the media.

OT

Spoiler

I’ve always wondered what the world of fashion is like for women in Hollywood, strippers and trophy wives. Anyone who wears a size 5 (euro 3 dress or smaller knows finds are only suitable for very small chested women. I have normal boobs, but even I struggled with the tops of dresses being too tight. Small size dresses are made for flat or nearly flat chests. I figure there must be an entire world of alteration services in LA to deal with all the fake boobs on size 2 bodies. It’s a very artificial body shape. I always read not having breasts is considered one of the early achievement markers among anachans before they start striving to wear children’s size clothing.

I think most women dress overwhelmingly for comfort now, especially post-covid and the move to remote work. There are many women, though, that live in lululemon-style casual athletic wear. Most of them are young, but a good number are middle-aged and fit into that wealthy housewife stereotype. They do everything in their sports bras, skin-tight leggings, and maybe an oversized sweatshirt or jacket if it’s required.

Any woman who is disproportionate (meaning very large breasts or large hips) learns that there’s just some things that won’t look nice on her body or would require huge amounts of alterations. For instance, my friends with large breasts know not to wear button-down blouses because the buttons never lay right - however, it becomes an issue when you have a uniform that requires you wear something that doesn’t look nice on your body, like a t-shirt or button-down or polo shirt. I’ve had friends get in trouble at work for wearing blouses that a small-chested woman could wear without any issue. In my experience, women who have had plastic surgery or who have done a lot of cosmetic work on their bodies tend to favor items with a lot of stretch like the bodycon or bandage dress, or Express-style suit separates for work. But these women are really in the minority now, especially once they marry and have children.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Old photos are old, she says, perhaps whimsically. So's Joe, btw Mal.

View attachment 6113391

No, there are no photographers anywhere in the entire state of Michigan. Sorry, was outlawed in 1878 like keeping a skunk in your school desk. It's because of frauds operating a "camera" that steals your soul. Was better to be safe than sorry.

Spoiler: Maybe she is actually retarded

 

[Zemblan Physics]

ETA Just thought of a few others.

I was pondering the problem of “victimless crimes” (and Joe considers vandalism victimless because insurance or something), but I suppose that is just too bougie to even consider. You have to be a fash to appreciate quality of life.

 

[AMHOLIO]

Joe has waded into thousands of years of debate on theories of justice armed with a spoon to offer up a classic luxury belief. Let’s see how happy he is with a criminal’s old Air Jordans and crack pipe if he’s ever a victim.

Joe strikes me as the type to try and ruin a man forever if he was the victim of any crime. Like, even if he got a house and car out of the deal, Joe would still bitch and try to make them commit suicide. Then again, he might be materialistc enough that material things are all that matters and his narcissistic feefees are the only thing not hurt.

 

[monstrous bubo]

I was pondering the problem of “victimless crimes” (and Joe considers vandalism victimless because insurance or something), but I suppose that is just too bougie to even consider. You have to be a fash to appreciate quality of life.

That’s a really good point. So-called victimless crimes would I think be behaviours that the government wishes to curb, but where identifying an individual victim would be hard or impossible. A government might wish to stop such behaviours because of morality, public health, or other perceived effects on peace, order and good governance.

Vandalism could be seen as corrosive of some accepted norm, but basically it is defacing another’s property and incurring costs for the owner. The owner might be able to recover something from an insurer, but they had to pay premiums in the first place, and their premiums will still go up. There is thus still a clear individual victim whose possessions were fucked with, regardless of whatever steps they might have taken to mitigate the damage.

If Joe’s position is that an owner’s individual preferences about the state of their property should be overridden by another’s whims without consequence, then that is challenging the very nature of property rights. Joe probably would take that position because he’s a bourgeois pseudo-radical whose possessions include startlingly ugly clothes that would only be improved by some judicious vandalism. Perhaps however his position is actually

a) a victim is someone who loses something as a result of another’s unlawful action
b) loss is purely financial
c) insurance covers loss caused by vandalism
d) there is therefore no loss, thus vandalism is victimless.

Putting aside what actions Joe thinks ought to be illegal, frankly I’m surprised he hasn’t just suggested a universal government insurance scheme to compensate all victims equally. Not that there would be any victims, because the assured payout would mean no loss, on this logic. This of course ignores the corrosive non-financial impact of crime upon a victim and society, but Joe thinks locking up a serial child rapist is worse than having one roaming the streets, so no surprises there. At least they’re not roaming his streets.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Joe thinks he can square a prison abolition position with a restitution position through some kind of crime abolition position but he's too ignorant to get beyond any of the wording to consider why nobody else has ever come to this position ever as if it just needs a little tweaking in the presentation.

I think that Joe clearly wants the state to be able to immediately seize everything a person owns at any time upon mere accusation by the state. You can't allow the person to keep the assets when they go on trial or else they'll sell them off and give them away. Joe's trying to pretend to be some criminal justice radical but he doesn't even realize how many laws he violates every day that mean he would never have access to his own assets or his income. You couldn't hire an attorney with these assets, you'd have to rely on others to pay for you. The state would have to be tracking everything constantly to make sure other people weren't helping you skirt asset acquisition. I think Joe does have a solution though, since he claims to be a Fourierist. Nobody owns any assets at all, the state owns everything and you're only given what you need as you need it.

Either Joe wants to abolish prison by establishing a police state where the wealthy and connected can easily buy their way out of it (the police would be incentivized to take bribes to prevent charges from being brought, you'd give $1000 to avoid losing all your assets) or he wants a truly chaotic system in which everything escalates to murder and blood feuds. An obvious massive improvement on the traditional liberal system that self-evidently justifies its abolishment for this far more rationalized system of freedom.

"That is the traditional liberal system, checkmate, transphobe." "And I pirouette away."

 

[Autistic Nonetheless]

To be fair, Joe has quite a good reason to fear the statisticians. Im sure he knows as well as we do that he and his kind end up rather at odds with quite a few distribution curves .
Also Is it me or does he come off as significantly more angry.
Moving from passive aggressive to aggressive aggressive and sprinkling his responses with babe’s and hon’s and sweety’s, which for him seems to be the equivalent of adding a emoji to reassure people you are totally not mad.

 

[Bookwork]

Courts already order compensation when feasible and can also order convicted defendants to pay into victims' compensation funds that amass money from many cases, add a government contribution, and share it out to the most needy victims who, for instance, have to but can't afford to replace a door and frame that was kicked in.

Criminal charges are brought by the government, not by the victims, so depending on the nature of the charges, the government can seize defendants' assets, not just to compensate the government for its efforts in gaining the convictions but to prevent the criminals from benefiting from their crimes. Poof go the drug dealer's Lambo and the fraudster's stacks of cash.

On the civil side of the courts, victims of crimes already sue criminals when they're willing to bear the lawyers' bills going into it. Think Ron Goldman's fam suing OJ. The goal is usually justice, not money, and the defendants are only ever those with significant assets.

So if keeping the peace in any fair land depends on an exchange of funds or items of value, IT'S NEVER BEEN ENOUGH to suppress crime.

But Joe's goal in life is to insist at greater length and with greater fatuousness than everyone else so they get too tired of him to go on and he declares himself triumphant in his grandiose babbling.

After busying himself with the sins of Julie Bindel, he's now alleging that he's cooking two "books" to confound us further, one on demonic possession and one countering JK Rowling and other unacceptables, the latter possibly titled "The Final Resurrection of Tom Marvolo Riddell."

Spoiler: Text

Prof. Grace Lavery
@graceelavery

10h
I’ve been teaching children’s literature on and off for about a decade—i.e., since before JKR had ever heard of Maya Forstater, and before Jesse Singal could spell “horcrux.” Finally on the verge of writing the thing about Hog Warts I’ve been planning all along.

Prof. Grace Lavery
@graceelavery

10h
For the majority of the last decade I’ve been simmering this piece under the name “Forget What You Learned at School,” but I think it is going to be called “The Final Resurrection of Tom Marvolo Riddell,” and it’ll be the epilogue to the new book (the demonic possession one).

He has drawn only one response to that announcement and the response was from him.

Mal, meanwhile, is longing for ... for .... for ... reality?

Spoiler: Text

Daniel M. Lavery
@daniel_m_lavery

Jun 23
I want to reach that part of a writing career where you stop saying things like “this one meant a lot to me” and start saying things like “I’m only interested in what’s real anymore” and “I no longer believe in the sentence”

 

[Potatis Salad]

Joe says: "I've been teaching children's literature on and off for about a decade."
Translation: "I taught one (1) class on children's literature in 2017."

Link (archive, page 2) to the list of courses he has taught at Berkeley.

Side note, why does Joe think that Jesse Singal has any reason to spell "horcrux"? Say what you will about Singal but he's an actual journalist, he's not sitting around fingering his asshole trying to pretend that children's books and sitcoms are smart, actually.

 

[behindyourightnow]

Side note, why does Joe think that Jesse Singal has any reason to spell "horcrux"? Say what you will about Singal but he's an actual journalist, he's not sitting around fingering his asshole trying to pretend that children's books and sitcoms are smart, actually.

Because Jesse Singal is a Bad Person Who Disagrees With Joe and therefore must be intimately connected with the other Bad People Who Disagree With Joe. Joe's world is very small, because only people who are connected with Joe (positively or negatively) actually exist. Therefore, within this small world, his enemies must all be connected too.

(I'm not sure if he's trying to be ironic spelling "Hog Warts" as two words in the same sentence where he snarks about Jesse Singal's spelling. I'd usually think it was on purpose, but he seems to be spiralling, so who knows)

Anyway, congratulations on admitting that you have been seething about a children's book for ten years, Joe. Make sure you tell all your new buddies in Lansing Michigan; nothing impresses important new friends more than a jowly 40-something fat man in women's clothing spluttering about his ten-year plan to debunk a 20-year-old series about flying wizards who go to wizard school.

 

[Zemblan Physics]

the government can seize defendants' assets, not just to compensate the government for its efforts in convicting

Is this true??? Sounds insane to me (but I’m a eurofag). I’m supposed to pay for the prosecution as well as the defense? Sounds, eh, illiberal if true.

 

[everybody in Portugal]

Is this true??? Sounds insane to me (but I’m a eurofag). I’m supposed to pay for the prosecution as well as the defense? Sounds, eh, illiberal if true.

Idk about the rest of Europe but in Britbongistan they can't do this while you're just a defendant, but once you're convicted your assets are fair game—at least for financial crimes. Never heard of it happening in something like a violent crime case though, while there is financial redress for victims of CSA and the like, I believe the fund for that comes straight from central govt/taxes.

 

[A Sentient Cloud]

No, there are no photographers anywhere in the entire state of Michigan. Sorry, was outlawed in 1878 like keeping a skunk in your school desk. It's because of frauds operating a "camera" that steals your soul. Was better to be safe than sorry.

Spoiler: Maybe she is actually retarded

View attachment 6121648

Nope, no photographers in Lansing, that technology hasn't made it out here yet. There is a host of courtroom sketch artists on the sidelines of every Spartans game. When MSU students graduate they commission a portrait bust.

 

[Bookwork]

Is this true??? Sounds insane to me (but I’m a eurofag). I’m supposed to pay for the prosecution as well as the defense? Sounds, eh, illiberal if true.

Oh, yeah, we do that in the U.S.

Spoiler: Details spoilered because off topic

The Department of Justice, particularly its Drug Enforcement Administration, is really good at it. Cash, vehicles, clothes, firearms, even houses. The DEA, in fact, has been caught relieving airline passengers traveling with large sums of cash from their burden - without even charging them with a crime. Fun read:

Washington Post: Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime | Archive | Link (paywall - use Archive instead)

In most of the seizures examined by the Inspector General, DEA officers initiated encounters with people based on whether they met certain criteria, like "traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage." ...

Most individuals who have cash or property seized by law enforcement do not dispute the seizure. There's no right to an attorney in forfeiture proceedings, meaning defendants must foot the bill for a lawyer themselves. In many cases, forfeiture amounts are so small that they're not worth fighting in court.

The report that sparked that article: Review of the Department's Oversight of Cash Seizure an Forfeiture Activities | PDF Link

And here's the Department's 2023 Asset Forfeiture Manual intended to stop certain, ummm, excessive behaviors while still harvesting assets | PDF Link

A couple of examples of things going right with forfeitures:

• Two fraudsters running a scam that promised to reduce convicts' prison sentences got hard time but also had to forfeit $4.4 million | PDF Link
• An IT guy working for the Department got 7 years for driving across state lines to have "daddy-daughter" sex with an undercover agent he thought to be 15 years old also had to forfeit the car he drove. He was kind of lucky that they didn't also seize the vacation house where he planned to diddle the kid. | PDF Link

ETA - The ATF, DEA, and FBI hand over forfeited goods to another Department of Justice component, the U.S. Marshals Service, which then has contractors auction off the shit. It can be entertaining.

• They've got a forfeited vehicles auction coming up on July 1. Link
• There's another auction with all kind of gear - shoes, bags, coats. Link
• Annnd a 40-foot yacht. Link

They're set up to auction forfeited planes, too, but none in inventory at the moment. There have been times when I've found tons of ghetto bling and bad wall art up for auction. Being a criminal doesn't guarantee you'll have good taste, I guess.

 

[Potatis Salad]

If you're not looking at Joe's Instagram Stories, you're not missing much. He's quite prolific, but almost all of his Stories are reposts of memes from other Instagram users. 95% of them are disgustingly hypersexual, just like Joe. Here is a typical example:


But today, Joe is treating his fans to some original content! If you are not aware, "breeding" usually refers to a sexual kink where men get off on the idea of impregnating their sexual partner. Gay men sometimes use the term ironically.

Just fucking imagine, for one second, that your partner or spouse was publicly posting this kind of shit. If you are a father, think back to when your child was eight weeks old and imagine the state of mind you'd have to be in to publicly post something like this. Once again Joe Lavery beggars belief.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

I hope he goes and gets fucked by a man out of ennui and a desire to outrage squares, and ends up bringing AIDS home as a party favor for his ladies. What a great ending. Except poor Rocco, but that kid was never getting out unscathed.

 

[Dr. Butt]

What the fuck's a "breeding finger"?

 

[Larry David's Opera Cape]

What the fuck's a "breeding finger"?

Appears to be his original coinage, google doesn't recognize the phrase as having any set meaning. I'm sure it's something really disgusting.

 

[Bookwork]

Is Joe reminded of a penis here? Is that what he found so captivating?