Iconochasm
All post-temple whore technology is gay.
No bio...
User ID: 314
The idea that Trump has done anything wrong ever, in his life, is a baseless, unproven conspiracy theory put out by bad actors with a reckless and wanton disregard for the truth.
This is what some people sound like.
The US responsibility is nothing
FTFY.
Musk is a goofy autist, but he's probably well-positioned to skim the cream of the crop. This is something I feel like I should just never shut up about. There's a huge disconnect between people whose experience with immigrants is massively filtered exceptions, compared to the normies. It really makes you appreciate how much a shared cultures does to smooth the friction when dealing with someone 20+ IQ points below you, much less the horror of 50+.
If he spent a week trying to help Haitians, Somalians and Guatemalans set up Starlink, he'd probably turn into Enoch Powell.
Because they don't distinguish between value-add and metric chasing. This makes them reliable metric pumping engines, especially if they come from a culture with normalized double-speak, e.g. "Achieve great success while adhering to the highest levels of ethics and accountability" -> "Cut every corner possible to juice the KPI as long as you don't get caught".
This was the fracture that started with Bernie v Hillary in 2016. The progressives and socialists have all the energy, but the party is arranged so that the Inner Party controls the mechanisms, and has functional veto power over the commons. The progs and socs might not have the power to win, but they can absolutely cause a mess if they're feeling betrayed or uppity enough to cause a Democrat Party civil war.
No, that already happened. China has something in the ballpark of a million of it's people who have American citizenship via birthright tourism - and the trend appears to be accelerating.
That seems pretty damn salient.
The amazing thing is how the extremists really do sound like the conservative caricature of the lefties. "Surely they can't be like that in reality/Whoops..." The lead-in to the "but we hate you!" screaming by the maker of the video was 'in your wildest dreams' stuff:
AIUI, there is talk of a problem among the Republican campaign staffers that it's hard to do attack ads because people think literal descriptions of Democrat rhetoric and policies are insane exaggerations. E.g. the "Yes, fuck you, we literally mean no more police at all" candidate for the House.
In the same way they love body- and homo-shaming when it can target the outgroup. "The Epstein Class" feels like a good soldier to send to war - same reason it gets spammed by twitter posters from third world countries with mass, normalized child rape.
Most of those same leftists will turn around and say it's a human right for 15 year olds to have access to books that tell them how to get on Grindr, even though that sort of thing is almost exactly what Epstein actually did.
He definitely hasn't "come out in favour of tactical lying" in the sense of saying that elected Democrats should be saying more things that are not true.
He tweeted literally that back in the day. Can't find an easily linkable version now, but something like "Yes, advocates should fight dishonesty with dishonesty. That's an honest view." I mostly remember because people have been throwing it in his face for a decade.
I'm sure he deeply regrets saying it now, whatever his feelings on the topic.
if you are in a city
Found the problem.
The second problem is that this is boring middle-class conflict, but one where it is socially acceptable for the Boomer to crash out, as opposed to being knifed and mugged by a naked, masturbating fent zombie, which they are culturally obligated to pretend is vibrant and exciting.
Eh, I can believe Matty is still trying to do the Obama technocratic progressivism thing, like a Japanese solider holding out on a remote island decades after the War, but the problem with openly coming out in favor of tactical lying is that people tend to hold it against you forever.
Purportedly, this was how they swung things in LA. Paying homeless people $5 to vote for the other socialist after the formal date, and then kept going until they had just enough to keep Pratt out of the runoff. There are videos of interviews with supposed homeless people. Believe, dive down a research rabbit hole, or press X to doubt as you choose.
Would you feel the same way about the rights granted by 2A as by 14A?
Even I'm amenable to the idea that there are categories of weapons that ought not be available to random assholes. McNukes are a fun joke, but not something taken seriously by people outside the range of Sovereign Citizens.
Similarly, I don't think the founders, or the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment, envisioned a world where a peer rival could trivially fly millions of pregnant women out to a tourist resort to give birth, and thereby build up a massive voting block of birthright citizens with entirely foreign loyalty.
Also in the news, Scott Wiener gets harassed out of a trans pride parade.
I can't find the full version of the video, but there's a bit where someone says something like "You've done a lot for the gay community, but...", where the lot is stuff like protecting 24 year olds who have sex with 14 year olds.
THAT GUY isn't far left enough anymore.
It wasn't even a lot of talk, it was a cheap throwaway line. I don't see any reason to think Martin was ever any deeper on setting stuff. AP Euro hammered the acronym PERSIA into my brain. Politics, Economics, Religion, Social, Intellectual, Artistic. How deep did he go into any of that for Westeros? He basically just did neat, fun crap at comic book depth, while having pretty solid characterization and a couple centuries of ancestries.
Tolkein at least was explicitly doing Mythos. What's Martin's excuse?
Eh, "unconditional surrender" did not come up in any of the overviews and AI summaries I looked up when making that post. Totally makes sense that he said it; demanding massive asks and threatening to walk away is the man's main tactic.
Compare it to the Iranians who have sworn to fight "until complete victory" while insisting that no negotiations have even been happening. This is what I mean when I referenced a fog of bluster, threats and maneuvering. What's going on in the minds of them men involved? What do they really want, what are they really willing to trade or sacrifice, what do they really think of the situation so far? I think I don't know, you don't know, Daes definitely doesn't know (or can't say if he did, isn't he posting from China these days?) and none of us have any plausible methods for rectifying that.
People can call that cowering in the fog of war. I think I'm dispaying some epistemic humility while acknowleding the basic surface-level consideration that there does seem to be a lot of fog.
On 1, 2, 3 we don't have any data that shows a significant decline in capability. The ability for Iran to project power has not been meaningfully reduced in any way that is testable, as they still possess the naval/missile capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, threaten their neighbors, and force a deal that benefits their proxy Hezbollah.
Maybe. Their rate of fire did plummet something like 90% over the first few weeks. I am definitely open to the position that the Iranian decentralized method is overly difficult or impossible to completely stamp out with just air power. There's a lot of middle ground between "strong enough to shut the Strait", which seems not really true since we've been running ships through it, and "plucky enough to kick shipping insurance premiums into intolerable territory", which seems reasonably true.
There's a fair bit of room for criticism of the US here, but I do think this hUmIlIaTiNg LoSs line is just nakedly motivated reasoning.
The objective isn't to kill a lot of Iranians, it's to achieve some kind of strategic goal.
And this is exactly what I'm taking a wait-and-see approach about.
The joke is that they'd transmit along the radio spectrum, and thus be subject to FCC regulation.
The explicit early war objectives laid out by Trump and Hegseth were
- Destroy their missiles
- Destroy missile production capacity
- Destroy Iran's navy, broader security infrastructure
- Ensure they never get nukes.
What kind of benchmarks would you consider success for 1 and 2? 80%? 99%? I suspect you'd call anything short of 100% a "humiliating loss", and probably even then. Their Navy is about 90% destroyed.
And the MOU is "an agreement to talk out a future agreement", but one of the points purportedly agreed upon is 4. Which is still very far from a done deal, and very much obscured in the fog of the negotiating table. And that describes the entire situation. This isn't some trad war where a total surrender happens at a formal event. Both sides are going to posture and threaten and build contingencies, likely for years to come.
I will admit that this whole ordeal has strengthened the conventional wisdom that airpower alone is limited. But "we blew up most of their shit and crippled their economy, total W for them" seems like a retarded and delusional take.
And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm?
I was more "passively war-tolerant". War with Iran was not something I was actively rooting for, and if you'd asked me beforehand I would have urged against it, but I was willing to let bro cook and see how it played out. Both in terms of reasons for the war and how the negotiations are going, I think the degree of misinformation and chaff is so extreme that normies watching the news (including all of us) have little ability to distill a signal from the noise. Especially for the latter, as I expect everything from the Trump administration to be positional maneuvering rather than statements of fact, and of course the same has always been true for Iran.
In fairness, that's also pretty much how I interpret everything you say, and why I usually just skim your posts.
I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?
See, this is what I mean.
At some point there is going to be litigation over whether the 2nd amendment permits private ownership of killer drones. The legal arguments will be about as edifying as the litigation over full-auto and scary-looking semi-auto rifles, but the results will matter.
Speaking as something close to a 2A absolutist, this can be mitigated the same way the US can regulate psi-emitters and other forms of bio-engineered insectoid war-horrors - by the FCC.
I actually enjoy the guy, and think he's quite a bit better than that description. Not that he doesn't do anti-woke tirades, but he generally reserves them for when they're earned, and he's willing to call fair strikes even against his monetization interests.
Someone has to provide content for anti-woke YouTube tirade channels.
but in US media Black gang-bangers and South American drug cartels exist as stock villains right alongside Nazis, Communists, and Arabs.
They used to. Is this still a thing, post 2020?
The best part of my week is D&D with my friends. It's not the actual playing, though. It's the first hour, where we're eating Chinese takeout and shooting the shit.

This seems plausible to me. I remember hearing the advice to not have a TV in the bedroom decades ago for reason that were, ah, directly related to fertility.
More options
Context Copy link