Iconochasm
All post-temple whore technology is gay.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Have you actually seen anything specifying "neonazi"? Everything I saw in the news had just a generic statement about "an extremist group" and "still unclear about the motive".
A fired shell casing was inscribed with “notices bulges OwO what’s this?"
Don't cite the Deep Magic at me, witch. I was there when it was written.
You should try that at a funeral. Get video.
It's only an ambush because those college kids think they're brilliant, generation-defining thinkers who definitely have all the answers and they're actually ignorant fools. If Kirk accomplished nothing but inspiring the faintest touch of humility and consideration in a small portion of the kids he debated, then he had more value than most of their professors.
But with that said, I have significantly more sympathy for people who celebrate his death than seems to be common among people who don't share that celebratory mood. It doesn't feel outrageous to me that people are enjoying this. Imagine that someone you really hated was randomly struck down by a freak bolt of lightning. Wouldn't you be pretty giddy?
No, because I am not an extra slow child. If someone I loathed from the other tribe, say AOC, was shot like Kirk was, my gut reaction would be "Oh, no! She's going to be insufferable after this. She's going to ride the sympathy and milk it for the next 50 years. She might get to be president now. This is a disaster."
You make left-wingers sound like retarded children who can't grasp the basics of cause and effect.
he was killed at an event that was explicitly aimed to promote (non-violent) dialogue between left and right
He was literally shot while a man was trying to convince him that the left was peaceful. I saw a bit of an interview with the guy in question, and the line went "I was trying to make a point about how peaceful the left was (long pause) right before he got shot."
Bit of a backpage story, but holy shit that guy must be enduring some cosmic grade horror.
And yet despite them being really rare, we're all tuned out and no one even knows when a new one happens. It doesn't really take much for people to shrug and go "well, that's just another Tuesday isn't it?"
School shootings seem to be strongly social-contagion affected. Raising awareness likely causes them to happen more often.
I don’t care for Cenk Uyger, but if a 20 year old Republican killed him in front of a crowd at a college I would be just as terrified and just as horrified if people celebrated it. I don’t think bringing up a nonviolent activist’s views is even necessary in the first 24 hours after he was publicly assassinated. They’re irrelevant.
Seriously. On raw tactics alone, my response for that first 24 hours would be telling anyone celebrating to sit down and shut the fuck up. Hold your damn peace, and hope that it's something more compicated than "one of ours wacked the guy".
Just wanted to say that I still think about that post sometimes.
If the person who did this turns out to be a sane Democrat or someone with a history of organised far-left activity, then this is very bad news. But right now the way to
bethope is "psycho with a gun".
Hope. That's the way to hope. Anyone making that bet without more info is a fool.
Simpler, more cynical answer: His initial "denounce violence" post was met with a bunch of people replying with the photo he staged of himself mocking Trump's assassination attempt, while holding a bottle of ketchup to imply it was staged. He's embarrassed enough to pretend to care.
But I'll at least give him that he knows the proper words to say, which is significantly above the bar for politicians anymore.
condemning the shooting
For the duration of the tweet. Tomorrow they'll be back to explaining how Charlie Kirk rhetoric justifies violence.
I was actually thinking earlier how it's the left-wing version of the "thoughts and prayers" ritual.
A friend brought it up in the group Discord. He's, let's say "not as left as he thinks he is". But he raised the topic and immediately started with the "was the video AI manipulated to look worse?" And then when that was dismissed all around, worked in a "I'm sure there will be a lot of talk about politics and culture war before we learn in a week that it was a neighbor angry about the trash cans so we should probably just assume that, haha".
And the thing that struck me was that he came off as very defensive. Which is kind of unnecessary because as I said, he's really not as left as he thinks he is.
The other person who brought it up and had something to say was my mother, who cold opened a conversation with "Oh, I guess a Republican died? Boo hoo, thoughts and prayers." At least she isn't entirely gone; she responded like a human to being called out for it, but Christ.
The social media and it's consequences has been a disaster for the Boomer women.
Nah, this is actual psycho behavior. If you told me my most hated outgroup influencer or politican got shot my immediate, gut reaction is "Oh, no! They're going to be insufferable after this."
This is because America is still in a talking battle. When we hear that "someone shot up a campaign event", most partisans will hope that their side was the one being attacked. Because that gives them a powerful story, and free reign to attack the outgroup as bad. Most partisans don't want to be in the position of having to explain why the rest of them shouldn't be blamed because one guy went and did something horrible.
You openly cheer for the deaths of people that you are in physical battle with. Where PR and optics are a negligible concern compared to who is left standing to write the history.
So what does it mean if the staff at a mainstream media company like TMZ think that they are in a war to the knife with Charlie Kirk?
My dude, the guy said Tim Walz told him to do it. I was obsessed with that case, but the guy does seem to actually just be untethered to objective reality, like Jared Loughtner. FWIW, I think Mangione is in this category as well.
Relatedly, can you show a single right-winger who approved of Gendron? I feel confident predicting that an overwhelming supermajority of rightwingers support giving him the chair.
It's more one particular civilian/children/wounded/prisoner killing colonel. The film does a skilled job at rousing a ton of hatred and focusing all of it on Jason Isaacs.
I've been obsessed with the Unleash the Archers cover of Northwest Passage for years.
I was a den leader through cub scouts. The day we did Totin' Chip, the first boy showed up and I set him at the dining room table with my own boy, and then walked into the kitchen to finish gathering supplies. When I came back, not even 20 seconds later, the both of them were bleeding. It was one of those "I'm not even mad, that's almost impressive" moments.
But yeah, I get that this is likely a situation where my gut confidence is ignorance and arrogance. And yet...
YMMV on the relevance, but I'd say a twelve-year-old girl with knife/hatchet is still a deadly threat
Epistemic Status: I have zero experience with knife fighting and plentiful experience playfighting with children.
This is a thing where my brain just declines to recognize the danger. Even aside from the strength issue, most 12 year old girls are just not terribly coordinated. An athletic girl from say, the top 10%? Yeah, ok, she has solid odds of making it hurt. Less likely to be somewhere vital, because I'll have about a foot of reach, even discounting the length of the blade. But my mental model of a median 12 year old says I'd be more likely to accidentally hurt her trying to disarm her than to be seriously injured in the process.
But I fully admit that this might be a "I can totally wrestle a black bear" situation. I'd try to do the marker test with my own kid, but I'm honestly worried about going too hard and accidentally hurting her.
Maybe that's the issue. A 12 year old girl can feign vulnerability and get in close for knifework. IIRC, that was what the Japanese were telling their schoolgirls to do if the Americans invaded back in the day. Under real world conditions, I would probably try to be gentle, and maybe suffer sorely for the sake of chivalry. Because if bloodlusted, I feel confident that I would wreck any 12 year old girl in a fight, knife or no.
Even if you're not getting cut, you're still playing against them. I've heard kids on my son's all-white middle school basketball team make comments asking how they're supposed to deal with a "casual 6'3" dreadhead" that every team from certain towns seems to have. Or in football where there's always that one kid from the predominantly black down who looks like he's 4-5 grades ahead of everyone else. My son's class doesn't have a lot of size; he tends to get put wherever the disparity is worst. I've literally heard coaches tell him his position is "wherever their biggest kid is". When he was 9 years old, he came out of a playoff game in tears, because the black kid he was supposed to be handling was taller than the refs and just absolutely trucked him every play.
Maybe they just lie about ages for a few kids to cheat the system - I know for a fact that some of those towns train outside league rules. But that sort of thing absolutely drives kids towards lacrosse or hockey. (And funny note, my son just discovered a few weeks ago that the couple of enormous black kids in his 12-15 hockey league are only a year older than him. From the first game we saw them, two years ago, I assumed they were 15. Luckily they've been on his team often enough over the last few years for him to become friendly with them.)
But the Sailer sort of argument, as I've seen it, isn't that kids are being cut, but that Eastern Europe is putting up white guys in basketball at the NBA level because in that environment, they get to compete against age-appropriate athleticism all the way up, until things are evened out in late high school or college, so a lot fewer kids get discouraged and quit or go to other sports.
I can see it either way. On the one hand, my son has massively improved his hockey skills by comparing and sharpening himself against enormous (and talented) black kids. On the other hand, he occasionally brings up quitting football and basketball to focus on year-round travel lacrosse.
I really, really don’t want to litigate how bad any one of these actions is.
Of course not, because that involves getting BFTO most of the time. Not that it'll ever matter. The defining trait of TDS is the antimemetic effect where the afflicted form an angry conclusion, lose the argument on the details, and then immediately forget that step two ever happened.
Let whosoever among you never repeated the Fine People lie for years after it's thorough debunking retain a shred of credibility here.
The point is that polite (blue) society sees this and goes, “damn, reminds me of uncle Ricky telling jokes about the short bus.” It’s low-status. It’s decidedly not supposed to appear on national TV.
No, it's more venal than that. It appears on national television 500 times per day - but there's a removal. It's not supposed to be the politician making the jokes. It's supposed to be the legion of Colberts and Kimmels and media flacks, etc, etc who gin up clapter and Two Minute Hates while the "respectable" politician laughs in the audience.
Well, the right doesn't have that (aside from shitposters on the internet) so Trump (the OG shitposting king) just makes the jokes himself. It's truly something watching progressives pretend to be Maude Flanders while Stephen Colbert is nervously trying to pretend his audience doesn't want Trump dead.
I truly, sincerely do no understand how anyone over thirty can take it seriously. The whining, prissy fussiness about muh respectability standards from the same people who brought us Piss Christ and That's My Bush and Samantha Bee. If I say "Fuck your norms, fuck your pearl-clutching, fuck your traditions, I piss on all your self-righteous, self-serving bullshit"... where on earth could I have learned that except the last 60 years of blue tribe culture? They're like mean girl bullies who throw a crashout fit whenever they catch some flak back. It was all fun and games until the right grew a sense of humor. Have you seen the new South Park? Shit's fucking hilarious.
If an ingroup politician did something like this they’d be groveling for months.
I call bullshit. That particular one might, because it triggers a blue tribe sacred cow of ableism, but I bet even that would be waived if the target were a Red. And I don't even have to bet, because I've been hearing progressives call Abbot "Governor Hotwheels" for years. Oh, remember when a congressional meeting devolved into Jerry Springer? Far from groveling, Ms. Crockett's star rose. I can't really think of an example where mockery of the other side triggered an internal backlash. I mean, they're all sister-fucking, illiterate white trash nazis with meth mouth, right? The insults just sting because they're true, no?
If somebody thinks Donald Trump should have lost 1 point of social credit for telling a rude joke, she probably would have deducted more for the “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment. Or the “bleeding out her wherever,” or “I like veterans who weren’t captured,” or any number of his greatest hits. Curiously, his balance never seems to go negative. From this perspective, he’s consistently avoiding his just desserts.
No one cares, Maude. His immunity to social criticism is his biggest drawing point. Because if he hadn't said any of those things, they'd just be making them up, like the hundreds of other examples that never seem to die.
Learn to take a joke.
Left-wingers are not mysteriously unable to notice the Dems' underhanded tactics.
I think you are brutally underestimating the power of media bubbles and the Two Screens hypothesis. My Republican father and Democrat mother dragged me into a discussion yesterday because dad was just astounded that mom had never heard a single rumbling that suggested that the Russia Collusion Incident might be flawed (much less a deliberate hoax).
My mother spends a great deal of time on social media mainlining Democrat narratives. When would she ever hear about an underhanded tactic from her own side?
Nor do they necessarily approve of them. But whether or not you approve, unethical shortcuts are much more forgivable when wielded towards mostly-good aims than when wielded towards evil aims. It's the difference between your properly corrupt cop who's covering for a gang boss in exchange for cash, and your archetypal cop-show "loose cannon" who ignores protocol & anti-entrapment laws in his quest to fuck the bastards back. They may violate exactly the same laws on paper, but one is obviously rotten, while the other should probably be tolerated. There's no hypocrisy here, just an underlying values difference which is rarely admitted to in plain English because "it's okay when our guys do it" sounds hypocritical.
This is just Russell's conjugation.
It would probably be helpful to look at an actual chart of US tax receipts and a chart of US GDP around the time of the DJT tax cuts(Jan 1 2018) you can see that GDP continue to trend up and the tax receipts stayed stagnant.
What exactly are you seeing there? It looks rather like GDP kept on a similar trajectory from the end of the global financial crisis until Covid, whereas the tax revenue chart shows movement that basically cancels out from 2015 until 2018. It looks like tax revenues were stagnant until the Trump tax cuts, which started revenue growth that was, if short of the steep climbs during the back half of Bush 2 and post GFC under Obama, still pretty in line with the 90's.
Of course, that only gives us not quite 2 years until Covid throws everything out of wack.
Yes, they were an extension of the previous Trump cuts, they still create a straightforward reduction in revenue. No it is absurd to suggest we are on the side of the Laffer curve where higher taxes would reduce total tax revenue, we're not even close to that point and no one seriously suggests we are.
It is not clear to me that this is absurd, given that revenues rose after the cuts were initially enacted. The thing about the Laffer curve is that it's only ever a post-hoc explanation. You're expressing a high degree of confidence that tax hikes won't negatively impact the economy. Why?

If you want to understand Donald Trump, imagine your normie grandfather having a power fantasy about being the super-model banging billionaire who saves America with Common Sense and Not Being A Loser.
More options
Context Copy link