domain:asteriskmag.com
Jiro
23m ago
Hamas has done plenty of things that are terrible optics already. The media just refuses to publicize them.
Even sending rockets into Israel was terrible optics, but Hamas got away with it.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
27m ago
Video game speedrunning really isn't my thing, but I've definitely enjoyed Summoning Salt a few times. He has a nice delivery.
I won’t claim the video editing is out of this war, but Summoning Salt’s leitmotif, We’re Finally Landing, might as well be.
While it's certainly associated with him, I'd assert that HOME (the artist) is seriously underrated and deserves consideration on his own for his excellent music. He's the best of the synthwave/vaporwave craze.
This really dates me, but HOME's Resonance is deeply associated with my time graduating from school, and I listened to the track the night I graduated. The album Odyssey is worth a listen, if you like electronic music or chill beats.
Wow, really brings me back to listen to this stuff again. Very strange to feel nostalgic about music designed to appeal to nostalgia.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
33m ago
In case people are wondering, here is the actual text. Draw your own conclusions as you will.
For me the actual "resolution" part seems pretty tame, as does most of the description of Kirk, so I assume opposition is mostly either a vibes thing, or worry about upsetting the base. Interestingly enough, it does go on at much greater length than the comparatively sparse and bland Senate's resolution, which is rare for something penned by the usually insufferable Mike Lee.
Non-violent is overrated. Activists try to pretend that nonviolent is the same thing as nonharmful, and have invented very clever ways to harm people for a cause without being "violent".
Also, nonviolence harms everyone because a lot of nonviolence depends on taking advantage of other people's reluctance to use violence to prevent harm. That encourages violence in society and is a form of destroying the commons. It also involves media manipulation, which is a fancy word for lying (which is of course a nonviolent act).
Remember that debanking Covid protestors in Canada was an act of nonviolence. (Actually, so is debanking anyone.)
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
41m ago
Soros doesn't personally show up at enemy territory in an attempt to persuade them by means of dialogue, he throws money at causes he likes. He's more like than the Koch brothers than Charlie Kirk.
Jiro
44m ago
Charlie Kirk's actions that the left didn't like were speeches and political activism--the kind of things that we are supposed to accept as part of a free society even if we don't agree with them. Lenin, Mao, Joseph Rosenbaum, and George Floyd's actions that the right (or anyone) didn't like were not.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
51m ago
You guys are just not serious people.
Who is "you guys"? This is the second time in as many comments that you've arbitrarily lumped me in with abstract or unnamed groups that you dislike. Knock it off, please.
I feel as though you are not reading my comments, much less engaging with them, but rather immediately composing a reply in your head as you skim. I wrote a whole ass bit about how you're (now deliberately, I assume) conflating red tribe distrust in the traditional news media ecosystem with the actual and official communications from the President and his team, and then you just go ahead and blithely do it again in the very first sentence you write.
And demonstrate the exact same thing yet again in short order. How can Obama lie in 2007 about something that doesn't even exist yet?? That everyone agreed didn't exist yet? Almost literally no candidate ever has fully formed legislation ready to go while on the campaign trail. You're right about Obama lying -- in 2013-ish, and probably he lied (or misrepresented, it's a fine line for some things) about the health care plan during the 2012 election, but that's not what you said (you were very specific about the time frame), and all I did was point that out. No big deal, it happens. We all are wrong sometimes on small stuff. You're allowed to admit it.
KMC
51m ago
I will say, it was not exactly de novo, but it is significantly more since school started.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
54m ago
Seems like the sort of thing that would be easy to document terrible optics for Hamas. They're usually pretty good at managing optics.
jkf
54m ago
I take it that you live in some megopolis?
The Reddest of states still pulled like 20-30% for Harris, and I can assure you that lots of those people go out hunting like everyone else. (ie. not with stone tools)
jkf
59m ago
She was pretty much the definition of fringe at the time though? The amount of people undertaking an active terrorist campaign against The Man (tm) was surely << than the lizardmen, even in the seventies?
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
59m ago
I think a lot of moderate Breadtubers and influencers are really anxious right now. Because they're thinking 'if the current political climate is one where moderates are being shot by their political opponents, how safe am I?'
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
59m ago
Is it really so hard to believe?
Western society believes women are (for a variety of reasons) definitionally incapable of molesting children, and as a result we have no words to describe what it looks like when children are molested by women. Parents come up with a variety of justifications to look the other way, especially when they're part of the priesthood (churches and schools/priests and teachers are very similar in their social roles in modern times, and churches have been around sufficiently long to be present in humanity's genetic memory).
We pattern match it to "literally fucking" because of our modern pretense that men and women are the same- and in its majestic equality, the law prohibits both genders from engaging in molester behaviors overwhelmingly preferred by men [be they perpetrator or victim].
It is completely natural that the sex that receives sexual gratification from being an oppressed social token should perpetrate its sexual interference by trying to turn little boys into oppressed social tokens. This is why they believe it necessary to try and induce that identity. It's really not about encouraging the sex, it's about inculcating submissiveness to, and the sexual excitement of, being under the thumb of the patriarchy Big, Bad Men.
In this case, he most likely acted different, and different = submissive and breedable oppressed by default, so why shouldn't he be introduced to the sexual arousal that comes from being in the uniform of different? It's also absurdly heteronormative if you think about it for 5 seconds- it's just that instead of "men can't wear dresses, dresses are for women, it is not for men to wear", it's "men can't wear dresses, dresses are for women, therefore anyone who wears a dress is a woman"- but female sexuality is just as heteronormative as male sexuality is, so...
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1hr ago
Yeah she was actually on the verge of tears at one point. This whole thing genuinely got to her.
Jiro
1hr ago
This doesn't help. There's no amount of food that Hamas can't realistically take. There's an amount that they can't realistically eat themselves, but they'd just take it and destroy the amount they can't eat.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1hr ago
Yeah, I'd probably vote 'present' or whatever the neutral response is. Just the usual clown show nothingburger motion at the circus.
If someone came after me for neither supporting or opposing, I'd just shrug until they went away.
jkf
1hr ago
Uh -- did you find it funny?
Like, I'm all for funny jokes -- but isn't rule #1 of comedy that if you're gonna be edgy you do need to keep in mind that you also have to be funny.
Objectively speaking, that was not a funny joke.
Jiro
1hr ago
US/British troops post-war were in full control of Germany, so they didn't have to deal with Nazis who would forcibly take the food when they tried distributing food to German civilians.
stuckinbathroom
1hr ago
bush-league TV pundits
W or Bush Senior?
jkf
1hr ago
Just carpet-bomb the place -- make your $20M $200M and drop pallet loads of rice on chutes all over the place -- if people are literally getting machine gunned for food, they will figure it out if the odd bag breaks.
jkf
1hr ago
Have the past 5 years not taught you that medical credentials are no guarantee against lying -- indeed they seem pretty well correlated when the lies are in service of a cause that the professional hodls dear? I thought you were all about Noticing stuff?
"What's the difference between God and a surgeon?"
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
It's not structurally part of the joke, though? The joke, such as it is, makes perfect sense without the intro - thus it's clearly a throwaway lead-in. It's there as a transition. If you cut off everything before (2:15) "In between the finger pointing there was grieving... uh, on Friday the White House... (quote continues)" it still makes sense. Heck, you can even cut off everything before "on Friday" and a random viewer would perfectly understand. (Kirk is even introduced as the topic within the video clip; again, the intro is completely disposable).
Why is that relevant? No one is paying attention to his insinuation that Kirk's killer was MAGA, or at least most viewers aren't. It's not the same thing as a newscast where the main news headline is false, which is what the FCC might get mad at. Obviously the prominence of a claim should directly bear on the seriousness of a deception, and that's doubly true when the purpose is not to convey news. The purpose is, more or less, to have fun doing "boo outgroup", and that's allowed to happen on TV by a comedian.
Who was deceived, and how badly? Anyone who read the news certainly isn't going to throw out whatever facts they read because Kimmel insinuated something in passing. Anyone who doesn't read the news might get the wrong impression, but again, even a trivial attempt at fact-finding would quickly reveal the truth. And in fact, the very next day we DID get the truth, and in far more detail.
Is it really the betrayal of the "public interest" of an entire channel that a comedian subconsciously gave people the wrong impression about something? Because to be clear that's basically the full extent of it.
If it's not about the whole public interest thing, then it's not a conversation about factual accuracy, it's a conversation about what constitutes poor enough taste to take a comedian off the air. The FCC's Carr engaged in a deliberate bait and switch by conflating the two. And many of you here fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
jkf
1hr ago
Uh, do they actually idealize themselves as Christian warriors?
I mean I'm pretty sure that the Hell's Angels draw more heavily on the Christian mythos than neo-paganism or whatnot?
"Christian warriors" may not be quite the right label though, I must admit...
From the point of view of Progressivism, Kirk was profoundly harmful to society. He successfully advocated for views which were obviously wrong, and likely did so while knowing he was wrong. He was a persistent purveyor of disinformation. Even supposing that he did not understand the fascist nature of the views he espoused (which he likely did in private), enacting his political and cultural ideals would, in fact, result in fascism. Preventing fascism is the most important goal of democracy, and Kirk was daily working to undermine that. His kind of political activism was inherently illegitimate, since it sought, wittingly or not, to demolish liberal democracy and its protection of minorities. Tolerance of the intolerant is not a virtue. Kirk did far more harm to society than most "violent" criminals locked up in prison, and yet he was allowed to walk free and spread his hateful ideas unchecked. That he was typically polite cannot hide that his ideas were inherently hateful. Kirk was "nonviolent", but he was the propaganda arm of a system that every day uses violence to control marginalized people. Without people like Kirk, that system of violence cannot survive, and so Kirk is responsible for a great deal of systemic injustice.
More options
Context Copy link