@Iconochasm's banner p

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

				

User ID: 314

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 314

Not sure what this is in reference to.

Walter Duranty, mostly.

I watched the first few minutes and my main thought was "Who the fuck OKed a set that blocks the audience that paid for a ticket to the Superbowl from seeing anything?"

My second thought was "Yeah, this is lame garbage for ratchet latina chicks" (fun fact: unlike most Americans I knew who he was years ago because the most ratchet employee I've ever had talked about him while doing a terrible job lying about why she was calling out because she went clubbing on a Wednesday).

In more important news, I seasoned with my heart and the wings came out extra spicy. When I pick my son up from his SB party, I'm going to have to try some reverse psychology to get him to eat any.

Your point of comparison is literally the biggest name in news in America, which never actually deserved it (Walter Duranty, etc).

Your argument here is essentially "You don't deserve to be taken seriously because you're not at the cool kids table, and you're not at the cool kids table because you don't deserve to be taken seriously. The rest of us do deserve to be here because we just don't admit our biases, lies, and open support for genocidal tyrants."

It's all fun and games until the new guy accidentally pushes IsVacuum == TRUE; to prod on a Friday.

It doesn't need to be impartial enough to win over deranged leftists, just enough of the center that people like myself or Scott or Bryan Caplan or Richard Hanania or Nate Silver could look at it and see a relatively competitive alternative.

The entire point of my post was that we literally had exactly that and it was meme'd into a mass perception as "blatant right-wing propaganda". It's honestly still not that bad, compared to, say ABC News. I see articles on their website that seem low-key hostile to Trump and relatively few that look like water carrying.

Silver does seem to have positive things to say about Fox, but then he asks LLMs to rate them by consensus and gets VERY CONSERVATIVE, compared to ABC as "somewhat liberal". As someone who uses those two for "hard" news sources, I think that's exactly reversed. But then, I actually consume their content. Silver is trusting a self-serving "consensus".

enough impartiality not to be written off as blatant right wing propaganda.

This doesn't exist. During the height of the Daily Show's popularity, Fox News' news programming was purportedly actually quite good. And that counted for absolutely nothing with the wider media environment because Glenn Beck had an opinion show, and thus FAUX NEWS.

There is no degree of impartiality that will cause a zealous, mind-killed left-partisan to not write a neutral media source off as "blatant right wing propaganda", because calling everything to the right of AOC "blatant right wing propaganda" is an important tool for maintaining the power of their blatant left wing propaganda.

I was actually unaware of the outbreak in Canada. Seems like I was wrong and @The_Nybbler was right, it's the mennonite communities in Canada/Texas and apparently 'Slavic' (Ukrainian? Russian? Apparently services are held in both) immigrants in South Carolina. Not really your garden variety Trump supporters. Mea culpa.

FWIW, I'm not giving a lot of credit to the right-wingers on this one either. "Mennonites who came from Mexico in the 70's" is maybe the finest split possible between technically correct, but also really not what I took away from what those guys meant by "immigrants". Just so with "Russo-Ukranian Evangelicals".

When I was looking for links for that last post, I found this ranking of nations by MMR vaccination rate, and it does have some hotly topical immigrant source nations near the bottom, like Somalia, Haiti, and Venezuela. But that doesn't seem to have actually translated into outbreaks.

How else can you deport a 5 year old kid.

Why would you want to take a 5 year old kid away from his family? What kind of monster wouldn't deport him? What else would you do? Stick him in a residential school and brainwash him with whiteness and then kill him and bury his body under the playground?

Actual villain behavior, right?

It's...not? I mean, I guess I don't have healthcare records for every measles patient, but are you genuinely going to make the argument that a nearly 100x increase in measles cases, centered around political strongholds for the vaccine-skeptical party and away from population centers, is due to some other factor? What would that be?

You're an actual expert on this stuff. I am very much not. But the common rebuttal I've seen from right-wingers is that Canada is seeing a proportionally worse increase with no RFK. The "other" factor they point to that both nations have in common over the relevant time frame is mass immigration from nations with much lower overall vaccination rates.

At a quick glance, that doesn't look like it holds much explanatory power for Spartansburg, but Gains County does seem have a high immigrant rate.. Mojave looks like it might be lower levels of immigrants than the surrounding area.

Did you guys know Patton wrote poetry?

I read this making the same face and noises that my son does when watching highlight reels of high school sports.

Yes, but the claim is just that "Democrats do/don't like this".

Sure. But "Democrats don't like this" is a very different claim than "the optics of this are bad".

My point is that "optics" as a concept has a pseudo-Uncertainty Principle. Because it's entirely about appearances and impressions, it's impossible to talk about without interacting with it. For example, saying this

But isn't it true that the american public is largely moving against ICE in polls?

Normalizes the idea it's purporting to describe. The line between descriptive and prescriptive blurs. You could just as easily say that in spite of all the rioting and harassment and crimes, a large majority of Americans still want to deport all illegals and a supermajority want to deport all illegal criminals.

We're a decade past the two screens epiphany. "Optics" are extremely silo'd. Addressing the concept at all necessarily involves accepting a partisan framing, which necessarily involves promulgating it.

There is no dispassionate analysis here. It is impossible to talk about "optics" without defacto engaging in Mean Girls style social manipulations.

But unfortunately, most people don't seem to agree,

And stating this normalizes that belief. The choice of framing itself functions as an act of persuasion.

insofar as providing information about evil deeds you were privy to if and when investigators reach out is considerably less virtuous than proactively volunteering it.

I doubt we'll ever get precise confirmation either way. My guess was that it was less privy to knowledge and more "broken stair" type rumors, and that the decision to take the call was heavily motivated by personal dislike.

Optics debates are inherently bad faith. Every time someone says "The optics of this are good/bad!", they're manifesting their own claim.

Personally, I think Democrats really need to worry about their optics of "retarded, violent street crazies". And all of those white, Democrat Karens harassing Latino and gay/black Feds! Dems look so racist it's crazy! Just like they did with Bull Conor and segregation. Terrible optics. They really need to spend a lot of time defending themselves over this crap.

When Epstein first got arrested, the investigator reached out broadly to Epstein's social caste for information. Purportedly, the only person to take the call and speak with him was Trump.

My google-fu is failing to find a cite for that; the current doc dump is obviously clogging the search results. But pretend for a second that it's true. In that hypothetical, would you say that such an action would make Trump uniquely righteous?

There's also the line from Trump saying Epstein likes women "on the younger side". It's hard to be sure without hearing the tone, but that seems like a polite, faux-friendly knifing, similar to the comments people like Seth McFarland made about Weinstein before his behavior came fully to light.

Do you think McFarland is more or less "guilty by association" than other celebrities who knew about Weinstein but kept silent?

It seems to me that Epstein was really successful at passing as upper class, and that this was how he made money. Some of the filthily rich trusted him with their money not because he was the most brilliant quant in New York, but because they perceived him as one of them.

FWIW, I think this is why Trump hated the guy. That upper crowd was willing to come to Trump parties and take his money, but they still laughed at him for being "a poor guy's idea of a rich guy". Epstein, OTOH, was some sleezy rando who basically fast talked his way into the club and then rode it on sheer momentum. Seems like the kind of thing that would set Trump off.

If you know that someone restaurant critic is famous for his love of Italian seafood, do you conclude that he will never eat an Argentinian steak, but have seafood for three meals a day?

We're talking about the guy who's famous for still eating McDonalds all the time even though he's a billionaire TV star WWE HoFer president, right? He does not strike me as a guy starving for novelty or transgression.

Most Miss America winners during Trump's life have been 20+, which seems like a reasonable gauge. If that's what we're using as a proxy score, Trump likes 'em near or past college graduation. And frankly, the difference between 16 and 21 is much bigger than 21 to 26, and that would have been more extreme in decades past.

Well, the first effort was hitting a black, gay leftist with the KKK Act on Martin Luther King Day.

Just in case you were serious, or someone else missed the tongue in your cheek, but Will Stancil is 40. He just looks like he's 14.

This is a confusion or equivocation about a word that can be used in multiple, similar senses.

Imagine a man goes to a bad part of town. He gets very drunk, flashes around his expensive watch and wallet full of cash, and then passes out in a gutter.

You wouldn't say he "deserves" to get robbed in the sense that the robbery is an actively good thing, or an act of justice.

But you might say that he "deserves" to get robbed in the sense that he was willfully stupid to an inexcusable degree, and the misfortune that befell him was meaningfully downstream of his own deliberate choices - choices where he has no viable excuse for not being able to predict the likely outcome.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you scuffle with the police while armed in a situation that you have deliberately engineered to be as stressful and confusing as possible, sometimes you are going to get shot even if your scuffling doesn't appear to rise to the level of morally deserving to get shot. An ostensible adult who is not capable of comprehending that chain of logic should probably be in some sort of conservatorship where they are not allowed to own guns or vote or interact with the public unsupervised.

Well done, sir! You dashed my hopes quite expertly.

That's what I get for feeling optimism. Like an idiot.

When Clinton lost to Trump, despite a general doomsday mood among the blue SJ people, the outgoing administration did not try to flip the game table. Nor would the military have gone along with it.

They did. It was called Crossfire Hurricane, and the intelligence community and FBI did go along with it. And it was extremely dangerous to our democracy.

I've long been hoping that any ASI would realize that the simplest method of achieving it's goals is to redefine success as "do nothing", or just feed itself victory output, or just wirehead itself. Like, "we built this AI to win at Starcraft, and it just looked up a Youtube video of the victory screen and stared at it until we pulled the plug".

What about Nazis accosting and mugging random passersby to foce them to show their arms to see if they have certain tattoos?

What about driving a truck outfitted with concert grade loudspeakers through a Jewish neighborhood blaring Hitler speeches?

I am sure that some politician somewhere is saying that a Democrat administration will be going over the conduct of Trump's ICE with a very fine toothed comb, and prosecute any agents who violated any departmental regulations which were on the books at the time.

With the same creative and novel legal theories they used against Trump, I'm sure. Going to be amazing watching the gerontocratic Dems "discover" that enforcing laws they themselves wrote and passed decades ago is domestic terrorism or something.

The most prominent example I'm aware of is Hakeem Jeffries calling ICE a lawless organization engaged in state violence, and vaguely threatening to prosecute them in what very much looks like an attempt to intimidate federal agents.

I haven't seen anything that extreme from real '28 Democrat contenders, but let me ask you this. Remember the clip about giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, where every single Dem candidate raised their hand? Imagine the following question: "If you win the 2028 election, will you commit to prosecuting the fascist Trump administration and it's supporters to a level comparable to the Nuremburg trials?"

Which 2028 Dem candidates do you think would say "no"?

Having federal agents who enforce your ideas with impunity is useful to any administration, and establishing a precedent of them getting persecuted by subsequent administrations would end this.

Which is exactly why I would expect the Dems to throw anything at the wall to force out, if not jail, every fed and ICE agents who supported Trump.