Even before this event I had been thinking on whether 'late show' hosts were just a redundant dying breed now.
The original idea was that broadcast channels needed to fill airtime after their big, expensive shows finished airing, right? Kids are probably in bed, audience is getting sleepy and winding down. Need some 'light' entertainment that isn't costly to produce and flexible, mostly unscripted. Get a guy that's good at improv, interviews, and generally is charismatic, line up popular guests, give them a band, stuff a live audience in there.
Now, of course, people can watch whatever television programs they want, whenever, as late as they want. Livestreamers put on low-cost, light entertainment programs tailored to exactly whatever audience they target.
Okay, celebrity interviews are still kind of exclusive, but there's many other outlets for those too now.
At this point, a host would need to be particularly talented in some way to capture audiences attention from whatever else they could be watching. Or have an extremely loyal audience. I'm not saying they go away now, but maybe the format has to change a lot, and they're no longer the cultural force with the ability to demand high salaries anymore.
Only time I watch late shows these days is if I'm in a hotel and they charge money for internet service. Then I can flip on the TV and 'channel surf' (man, remember that?) to see if they're doing anything interesting.
On the other hand, shows that have LONG outlived their relevance (IMHO) like Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune are going pretty strong.
faceh
1d ago
I would say the Republican party has cohered around MAGA far more effectively than the Dems have managed to cohere around... anything.
This seems just patently incorrect to me.
In 2016-2020 there was zero penalty to defecting from Trump as a Republican, talking against him, voting against him (I still recall McCain casting the decisive vote to BLOCK the repeal of Obamacare. When he died he was still given full accolades by his fellow Republicans). They did work together long enough to not impeach and remove Trump, I guess.
In 2020-2024 you have the entire edifice of the federal Democratic party working together to ignore/cover up Biden's increasing cognitive decline. Although plenty of people noticed it, there were ZERO leaks until it was decided he needed to be replaced. And they've been working even harder since then to deflect and diffuse any responsibility now that they've had to admit what was going on. It is truly awe-inspiring.
Compared to how virtually every Trump appointee that quit or got booted immediately went and wrote a tell-all book about how inept and chaotic the administration was.
And now, post 2024, I still don't think the GOP has really conglomerated around MAGA. Its more like they've become content to just sit back and let him do things via the Executive order process and re-arrange deck chairs while he tries to steer the ship.
But you are somehow shocked that they later write a tweet endorsing Harris over Trump?
No, I'm "shocked" someone would spend such mental effort to try to create a persuasive essay in hopes of convincing others to take a particular course of action that... apparently, they themselves didn't find compelling.
Then literally say "whoops, I take it all back, ignore what I said earlier, I'm on the team again" without even a hint of mental distress.
Its like he didn't even believe his own words when he wrote them. So why should anyone else take him seriously on anything ever again?
HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS, MAN.
faceh
1d ago
So what do you do if they're (physically) much stronger than you?
Be far, far more vicious (gouge eyes out, rip at their genitals, crush small bones. Use hard parts of your body against small, soft parts of theirs.)
Or buy a gun. Train with it. Know what the self-defense laws of your state say about deadly force.
Being smaller, the stakes are inherently higher for you, which gives you both the REASON to be more vicious, and in many jurisdictions, the legal justification for employing deadly force.
Short of someone else larger stepping in,
Find and make friends with larger people. Doesn't have to be a full Master/Blaster relationship, but if you produce some sort of value for the mannerbund, expect them to come to your aid if physical violence is called for.
faceh
1d ago
In terms of ideological conformity, you can also take a look at organizations and institution that have become more left wing over time (almost all of them) and those that have become more right wing (good luck finding ANY).
What happens with Righties when they notice they've been pushed out of a space they like is... they go build a new one, start a new foundation on which to build a new institution. Note this is how Charlie Kirk got his start.
Look at how the Ratio of Conservatives to Liberals as College Faculty has dropped off a cliff since the 60's.
Note, this was precisely the sort of thing Charlie Kirk was trying to combat.
Of course, the left will simply say "Conservatives aren't as smart/don't believe in science/are anti-intellectual" as an excuse for this, as part of that whole "intellectual superiority and scientific backing" shtick. But amazingly the place where Conservative presence is the strongest tends to be the math, physics, and engineering departments, WHERE BEING CORRECT IN THE REAL WORLD continues to matter the most.
It was NOT because the share of conservatives in the population dropped off sharply that they took over colleges. It was attributable to the intentional attrition of activists over a long period of time actively favoring their ideological peers for hiring, and actively making life unpleasant for righties, to ultimately cement control over the valuable institutions. They are very open about the strategy and tactics they were employing. Conservatives/righties generally don't use these strategies to co-opt functional institutions.
And believe me, I can get almost as critical of red tribe politics and belief if I choose. But the central point, borne out by decades of living around both sides... is that Red Tribe will actually leave you alone/accept you as you are much, much more readily than blue tribe, provided you don't start conflicts. Grey tribe is easily the most accepting of all, but tends to lose out to blue tribe operatives due to having no/poor antibodies to their entryist tactics.
One thing that's come into STARK relief over the past week, is there's a pretty noticeable difference between making jokes at the expense of the deceased, which can be bad taste ("too soon!") but isn't a hard taboo, and making jokes that celebrate the person's death directly/condones the act of murder.
I'm talking about stuff like Aaron Sorkin suggesting that the Dems should pick Mitt Romney as their nominee (an EXTREMELY Centrist proposal!), and then walking it back THE EXACT SAME DAY, with zero indication that this caused him any mental distress.
Tons of folks saying "we must have a convention, its the only way!" shut up the instant Kamala was 'announced' as the successor.
That's a level of group cohesion you NEVER, EVER see on the right.
What do you do when a liberal comes to your dojo? It must happen, and while in my experience, most people try to avoid politics on the mat (for good reason!) you're often going to get clues about people's affiliations.
Teach them what they want to know, basically. Then decline to hang out with them much outside the gym.
Its not like there's a hard and fast rule against discussing politics in the gym. But the transaction is simple, they are paying to be a member of the gym, they attend classes, they get the instruction they paid for.
And let me say, I'd argue that I'm a tad left of the median for members' political affiliation. Like I said, I'm grey tribe. Some of these folks are full on Q-anon adjacent, giant-truck driving, gun-nut red tribers.
I walked into the gym on Wednesday and multiple people, including the owner of the gym, were asking me about the Charlie Kirk thing, unprompted. Some of them are extraordinarily livid.
It is good thing that one of our more open lefties (who doesn't confront people about it, to be clear) was on vacation in Texas this week.
This sounds nearly as bad as all those psychologists and therapists reportedly distressed at the idea of having to provide help to Republicans.
Let me point out that I also used to work as a Public Defender, where my entire job was... defending people who were probably guilty. And I took my job very seriously in that respect, even if I found the people themselves distasteful, i.e. people I would not want to live around.
The way I solved that issue was:
A) never actually asking them if 'they did it.' I always just said "whatever story you tell, make damn sure it is consistent."
B) If it was clear and obvious that they did it, or they said they did it, I treat my main goal as making the state do their job properly. If the state screws up or lacks evidence to convict, my job is to point that out and try to create a valid defense. If the state fails to convict... that's on them.
From a sheer professionalism standpoint, I can set aside any feeling I have about an individual to provide them a service that they are 'entitled' to due to my contractual obligations. That is perfectly in keeping with my principles and social norms.
Separating my personal feelings out and teaching a lefty how to fight is easy, in that paradigm.
Also, getting buff and learning to fight is one of the things that can make a guy more right wing. SO I like to think I'm keeping the politically moderate guys from falling into Leftism, even if I'm not winning over lefties.
I have no intentions of confronting any individuals who do not confront me first.
Hence my point:
I still inherently wish to treat any individual person, even if they identify as left-wing, as an individual who has worth and dignity in their own right, even if they're hopelessly compromised by their ideology and will never have their mind changed.
I would not join a gym where the majority of the members were lefties. Freedom of association. I don't think the lefties at my gym want me dead.
But I do not want such people to have political authority over me in any way.
And because I live in one of the reddest areas of a Red state, they simply do not have political authority over me, so no lefties I know personally read as a 'danger' to me. But as a whole, coherent group...
I can live with that arrangement, blue tribe completely politically neutered and fringe enough that they are unable to ever effect any outcomes. If any get violent, they get exiled instantly. That's tolerable to me. But we're a long way from that arrangement at a national level.
This is approximately why I'm now ironclad in my belief that I do not want to share a country with anyone left of, say, Bill Clinton. I don't want them dead. I want them to leave. Preferably of their own accord. I don't even mind paying for the tickets, as long as they're one-way and they aren't coming back. And if they won't leave, I want them to generally be as miserable as possible until they wish they had left.
Lefties are just not suited for sharing a country with other citizens who have differing belief systems; they cannot be trusted to cooperate (or 'not defect') on core issues regarding the country's safety and security, and they will generally prefer foreigners over their own neighbors in any dispute, it seems.
Yes the famous 'heat map' study is very flawed, but the point made by said heat map has been confirmed in varying ways by different studies. Lefties try to sympathize with 'everyone' (and often entirely non-human things, or abstract concepts, like "the environment.") and as a result often end up sacrificing those that would 'actually matter' to them.
Lefties also have far, far less diversity of thought within their circles than righties. It is in fact safe to assume that whatever any given lefty says they believe reflects very precisely what all of the other lefties believe. And they'll henpeck their own into line as needed.
This crystalized for me when I watched everyone on the Dem side fall into line behind Kamala Harris as Biden's successor in one day, even ones who had, that very same day, said she was the wrong choice.
Lefties are far more likely to cut off family, friends, and other relationships over 'minor' political squabbles. So you can debate them in good faith, and still find that they come away hating your guts if you don't capitulate, and then cut you off so you have no hope of ever changing their mind. This concept is so absolutely backwards compared to how I try to manage my relationships that TO ME It reads as entirely alien and incomprehensible behavior.
Lefties have no good theory of mind for their political opponents. They believe they know what their opponents believe, but they tend to fail the ideological Turing test badly. So its that much easier for them to demonize opponents for things said opponents do not actually believe. See aforementioned point about intellectual diversity.
Lefties also have that distinct tendency to claim intellectual superiority and scientific backing for their views, but also tend to be completely wrong on some of the most important, core facts about reality. The most egregious one being blank-slatism as it pertains to human beings and their mental development. Their battle against reality on this point has done untold amounts of harm, and its impossible to even have a discussion on the degree of nature vs. nurture in their framework. I don't want to be forced into their framework, I want to have the actual debate. Which probably requires removing the people preventing it.
And of course as we have now seen, it is pretty much incontrovertible that more lefties than righties tend to support, or at least excuse violence as a means of settling political disputes, up to and including murder. Not all of them, but a significant amount, and these members are NOT policed by other lefties so they have an outsize effect. My first encounter with this was back when the Charlie Hebdo murders occurred, and I went on Reddit's /r/anarchism subreddit to find them twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why killing a bunch of cartoonists wasn't exactly the moral abomination it sounds like. You can still find some remnants of their discussion.
In my view, it shouldn't be so hard to say "murdering non-violent people is BAD" regardless of how offensive they are.
I can back up each of the above points with various studies, but I apologize I'm not taking the time to do that at this moment since I don't have them all immediately handy. I'm not trying to just 'boo-outgroup' here, I think that observable, reliable facts of the world are reflected in what I said, and this informs my own belief on why I don't want to be around them. Maybe I'm the one with the twisted morality and worldview.
Ding me for that if you must, mods. I'm not calling out any particular persons on the site with this, I swear.
And while I don't immediately give righties/red tribe a pass, by any means, I could throw together a comprehensive explanation of why I prefer to live around Red Tribers rather than Blue tribers, and maybe will throw that together at some point. Ultimately it comes down to Righties being more 'genuine' in how they comport and portray themselves, and more in touch with baseline 'reality' where it counts.
I consider myself red-tinged Grey tribe, and it has become clear to me that I cannot, over the long term, co-exist with blue tribe, for reasons I have no control over, and I'm leaning a bit more in favor of 'conflict' theory over 'mistake' theory these days.
Note, I am literally only stating my own personal beliefs on the issue, and I still inherently wish to treat any individual person, even if they identify as left-wing, as an individual who has worth and dignity in their own right, even if they're hopelessly compromised by their ideology and will never have their mind changed.
I'm not calling for any particular actions against any persons, and I've already arranged my life so I don't encounter many blue tribers as I go about my daily business, so I'm not going to take any different personal actions.
But if you're asking me to make policy recommendations, I can't very well carve out exceptions for the few that I personally like.
faceh
5d ago
Well that's extraordinarily bad timing to release a film with a politically motivated assassination as the finale.
we get an early scene where we learn more about the political situation on the radio.
Thanks, I already hate it and I never read the novel. The "early movie news broadcast that specifically sets out the state of the world" is insanely lazy almost every time it is used.
we even get a flashback scene where the secret police drag Garraty’s father out of his house in front of Garrety, and then the Major PERSONALLY executes Garraty’s father.
Ah yes, how can one create emotional stakes unless the main protag and the main villain are personally acquainted.
The Major concludes the speech by shouting that he believes the Long Walk could get the nation to raise the GDP until the US is the number one economic power in the world again.
Clearly this film is about 10 years out of date and should have been released during the short craze for "Young teens killing each other in a game set up by a dystopian authoritarian government" that The Hunger Games triggered.
Only thing that could have made it worse, it sounds like, is if they specifically leaned into the "Battle Royale" parallels and had McVries do a Fortnite Dance while the Major screamed "WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER."
faceh
5d ago
Yeaaah.
The subtext of all the celebrations is they want it to happen again. And again. And again.
If it were a lighting strike, well, they have no way to influence that. Its wishful thinking at worst. Though still repugnant.
When its a targeted murder, then yeah, condoning, celebrating, and encouraging it IS influencing it to happen again. Its inviting another of their number to step up and do it for glory, for the cause, for their tribe.
Whatever you want to call it, it is the opposite of telling people to stand down.
There is definitely a lot to be said about proportionality in defense.
If someone pokes you in the chest with their finger, even with anger, you should probably (read: DEFINITELY) not shoot them.
They shove you, you should probably not punch their lights out.
But either of those acts is "Proof via demonstration" that they do not respect your bodily autonomy, and consider it fair to physically engage in violence.
That's what makes it 'justifiable' to return the same to them, as far as I'm concerned.
"minimal force necessary" works as a limiting factor, but I don't know that it works as a justification in and of itself.
"unless they use it against me first" is adding a special exemption.
Not really.
I'm not conferring any privilege upon myself that I think they don't have. There is no special 'quality' that I possess that grants me some moral authority over them.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, in fact. I do not believe myself entitled to enact violence on others without justification. I assume that other people ALSO believe this... until proven otherwise.
When I think of "Special exemption" I mean something like "I'm white and you're black, therefore I'm allowed to beat you." (see: the history of slavery in the U.S.). "I'm a woman and you're a man, therefore you can't hit me back."
Creating a category that you count yourself in that permits you to do things to people outside that category. And usually this category is 'arbitrary' and doesn't actually suffice to justify special status. "I'm the King and you're a peasant" sort of kind of justifies the king beating the peasant, to the extent the Peasant agrees that the King has been granted divine authority by God to rule.
I'm quite simply not doing anything like that. "I'm defending myself and you're attacking" doesn't rely on the qualities of the people involved. Simply a question of whether one is doing it to the other without 'justification.'
I could admit there's an amount of social construction going on here, but I think reasonable minds can reach a LOT of agreement as to what constitutes 'aggressive' violence, simply based on what you would agree you DON'T want others doing to you.
faceh
6d ago
I saw this one and I think my brain seized up a little.
faceh
6d ago
I'm curious, what did you think /speculation meant at the end of my comment there?
Now the right is committed to glazing Kirk and any concept of the "Truth" is out the window, and the right wants to silence you when you speak up.
By the way, here's a twitter post with over 100k likes claiming Charlie called someone a "Chink." The community note speaks for itself. The post is still up, of course, the right hasn't 'silenced' them.
The left isn't very committed to being the party of 'truth' right now, and seems damn happy with constructing an alternate reality for themselves.
I genuinely believe they can't help themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but it fits my observations.
Destiny, of course is now legendary for getting cucked HARD by his wife (they did have an "open relationship", but holy shit), having a teen son who hates him, and possibly having chatted sexually with a minor, and STILL possessing explicit sexual material of said minor.
Intellectual consistency to the point of self-destruction, it seems. I had him, among others, in mind when I spoke of public figures being "outed as sex pests, pervs, frauds, and generally slimy people..."
Anyway, he isn't necessarily intellectually inconsistent or cowardly, but not someone you'd really want to honor as a paragon of your side's virtues.
faceh
6d ago
Nobody ever 'admits they were wrong' in a standard internet-style debate.
The point is, as ever, to provide something persuasive to the onlookers.
And I think his main strength was simply demonstrating to College students, who otherwise feel like they're surrounded by peers who believe one thing and are pressured to play along, that there are in fact people who think like they do and thus relieve that pressure and contradict the appearance of consensus.
It helps that most college students are in fact pretty stupid about why they hold their beliefs and thus its pretty easy to pull 'gotchas' on them.
And ironically he had a Groyper problem for a while, where guys who were further right than him would try to point out how his positions were inconsistent. And they were much better at tripping him up than the average college student.
That... is not what Sacha Baron Cohen is achieving with his work.
faceh
6d ago
that would make all sorts of things special exemptions like killing in self-defense (nobody needs to defend themselves against me)
Nah.
"Self-Defense" is actually quite simple. "I will not use violence against any person... UNLESS they use it against me first." Both defense and offense are 'using violence.' But generally speaking, offense is the one who initiated, and defense is the person responding to it.
A person who uses violence against me 'first' is demonstrating that they are okay with violence being used against them. Else, what entitles them to do it to me? I am absolutely happy to oblige them and have no moral qualms about this. I will, of course, exhaust most other possible remedies first before doing so because violence, as a sheer practical matter, sucks for all involved and still puts me at risk of harm.
Remember. I literally teach this stuff professionally. I also live in a state where the law supports self defense. I practice law. I am vigorously overqualified to argue what is and is not justifiable self-defense.
And I believe EVERY human is entitled to use violence to protect themselves from others who use violence on them.
No special pleading necessary.
prohibiting 6 year olds from drinking alcohol.
I can cover that one by pointing out that you're not really prohibiting six year olds from drinking. Most six year olds don't know what the fuck alcohol 'is'. You're prohibiting people from giving alcohol to six year olds and there are absolutely justifiable reasons for doing that.
/begin speculation
I'm noticing that a lot of 'moderate' lefties (including my own father, sadly enough) are internally struggling with the fact that yeah, they didn't like Kirk, and would prefer he shut up, and yet having him killed this way makes it clear that they're not the good, peaceful, intellectually superior side in the conflict by default.
So they're casting around for some way to resolve this by either tearing down the victim, or criticizing the hyperbolic praise being heaped on him (as a way to indirectly tear him down), or pointing out lefty victims that didn't get this much attention, or trying desperately to make it about guns, or about righty hypocrisy, or, recently, to imply that the shooter was actually righty.
That so many of them are wedging their shoe firmly in the back of their throat, thus making the point stronger is kind of a natural outcome of their mindsets.
/speculation
Nice try.
Is "Hey fascist! Catch!" a /pol/ or /k/ meme?
Did he write it on his bullet casing ironically?
Can you provide me a single reason why a Trump Supporter, groyper, /pol/ or /k/ poster would want Charlie Kirk dead?
What about the statements of the family:
Utah Governor Spencer Cox said a family member interviewed by investigators stated that Mr Robinson had become "more political" in recent years.
The relative also said that during a dinner conversation before the attack, Mr Robinson had stated Kirk "was full of hate and spreading hate" and mentioned Kirk's upcoming event at Utah Valley University, according to Cox.
Oh and I haven't seen evidence that HE was a Republican at any point:
Public records reviewed by the BBC suggest Mr Robinson had in the past registered as an unaffiliated, or nonpartisan, voter in Utah. Matthew Carl Robinson, the suspect's father, and Amber Denise Robinson, the suspect's mother, are registered Republicans, according to state records.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wl2y66p9o
I'm updating against him being trans, but much, MUCH more in favor of him being a brain-poisoned Zoomer with lefty sympathies.
Do you want to register a prediction right now as to which sort of Discord communities he was active in?
I am going to say its mildly ironic that the most competent/effective assassins that the left has are heterosexual young white men. Interesting message that sends.
But, the right has a LOT more of that particular demographic than the left does.
I mean, give Kirk some credit for absolutely practicing what he preached. Guy was married, two kids, clearly devoted Christian, didn't even use foul language which a lot of the right indulges in. When South Park started ribbing him, he leaned into the joke! He was not one to play victim.
And of course he put himself out there, he was the guy sitting down and talking directly to people, face to face, not 'hiding' behind a camera, only talking through the screen.
Maybe calling him "The Conservative Mr. Rogers" is a bit much. BUT. This is an example of the sort of role model that males might actually find appealing and would pull them away from, e.g. the Andrew Tates of the world.
And one thing I learned in the wake of this is that Kirk was WAY more popular, including among young people, than I anticipated. Despite his flip-flopping on Tiktok, he had 9 million followers on the platform.. Turning Point USA was and is a LARGE Org, well funded. And, as we can now see, pretty well-liked among normies.
And no, being 'better' than Andrew Tate doesn't qualify you for sainthood, but... I will actually make the claim he was at least a step or two above ANY left-leaning commentator you could name.
I looked around and realized that the left doesn't have a real Charlie Kirk equivalent. There is no lefty figure who actively seeks out havens of conservative thought to openly challenge their consensuses, to their face.
I mean, you have Sacha Baron Cohen, he goes into right-leaning spaces... but he's doing it explicitly to mock and parodize them, not to have dialogue.
You have your Jon Stewarts and John Olivers that use their platform to preach without permitting response or critique to them, just endless lecturing and jokes.
Your Hasan Pikers who interact with a self-selected audience in chat, and rarely allow a single contradicting thought to penetrate the bubble.
Your AOCs, your Bernie Sanders', and Mamdanis who WILL go out in Public, and love to do photo ops and heap criticism on the right from the heights of their podium... but once again will not enter any arena where they don't have a clear popularity or numerical advantage.
No, Charlie Kirk wasn't just unique on the right, he was something that ONLY appears on the right.
I don't know of any lefties who ever put themselves in "the lion's den" and attempted to make the case for their ideals directly to their ideological opponents.
What's that say about the state of the left's intellectual honesty? I dunno. I never credited them with much. The lefties who found their way into this space, (Anyone remember Darwin?) they haven't fared well when pressed on their ideas without the ability to falsify a popular consensus.
I think Charlie Kirk is a better man, more deserving of national honor on his popularity alone, and certainly a more consistent and principled man (even if one of said principles was 'don't openly contradict Trump') than literally any lefty you could name. In a time where so, so many public figures are getting outed as sex pests, pervs, frauds, and generally slimy people, I actually think Charlie Kirk was precisely what he presented himself as.
If we want to start pulling people down, we know that there's ample material with which we could smear, e.g. Martin Luther King Jr. But that wouldn't erase their positive accomplishments.
And more directly to the point, he's probably the least deserving of being killed for his speech than most of the righty commentators I can think of, who are often more vicious in their rhetoric.
faceh
6d ago
Killing Nazis is a pretty decent representation of the concept.
Self-avowed/identified Nazis are tacitly or explicitly in favor of genociding Jews, of course.
Which is to say, committing a little homicide on them is easily within bounds.
And scale it up to Nation-State size. "Well you clearly established that you're okay with military invasion and occupation of neighboring countries, can't very well complain that we invaded and occupied you.
(This runs into the issue I talked about elsewhere, that you should do you best to target retribution at the actually responsible parties.)
I don't believe that rejecting certain principles automatically means that you no longer get to benefit from them.
I do. Its a simple application of the silver rule. If someone treats YOU in a particular way, then they're basically implying they agree it is fair for them to be treated that way. Unless they're carving out a special exception for themselves, which I would LOVE to hear their justification for.
Happily supporting the death of someone over their speech is not in any way consistent with support for 'free speech' as a concept.
If you do not believe in the concept of private property, and if you take things that others claim as their property, I don't see how you justify then complaining if others take things from you. On what grounds, specifically, can you complain? "I don't like it." Well tough titties, you didn't extend that consideration to the ones you victimized.
Ramp that up to claiming the unilateral entitlement to hurt other people who you dislike.
Oh, and I also want to make clear that I have been vehemently asking Dems/lefties to reduce the temperature For a while now. If that helps explain my frustration. I anticipate these events to continue, maybe get worse.
Tit for tat (with forgiveness) tends to work where repeated entreaties fail.
I see four (4) possibilities for actually lowering the temperature:
-
Lefties/Dems rein in their own side from revelling in murder, and expel those who can't be reined in.
-
The Government applies legal rules that rein in everybody, including/especially the lefties. (my preferred outcome)
-
Righties will take steps to rein in the lefties.
-
The lefties who revel in murder will exercise restraint based on their own self-interest. (Haha. Hahaahaaaa. Haaaaaahhaaaaaaaa I assign 0% likelihood to this).
If the temperature is not decreased, if these actors are not reined in, then these events will continue.
THAT is not an acceptable or good outcome.
1 is not happening.
2 might not happen.
4 will not happen.
Guess what 3 looks like.
faceh
6d ago
It feels like bad faith when a man like Charlie has hundreds upon hundreds of hours of his words out there, but his opponents will snip 5-10 seconds and claim it representative.
At least TRY to find something that would make him seem sympathetic while you're at it, rather than just taking the lastest NPC update and repeating it.
There are streamers with huge audiences that can swing celebrity guests these days.
Adin Ross got Donald Trump himself.
More options
Context Copy link