domain:reddit.com
HereAndGone
2m ago
Felker-Martin was writing a new series for DC about Red Hood
Man, DC is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. How on earth did this specimen wangle that?
johnfabian
3m ago
The left seems to believe the situation is sufficiently dire as to justify violence. Is there sufficient cause for resisting them on their own terms?
Your social media algorithms are almost certainly not feeding you opinions representative of "the left", just like "the left's" social media feeds are currently displaying the dumbest and most overwrought reactions from conservatives.
Stellula
4m ago
The right understands the gravity of using violence for political reasons, and so they don't do it.
The left just murdered a 31 year old father of two little girls who's crime was trying to engage them rhetorically, and a substantial number of the left are cheering it on.
I'm sick of hearing this both sidesism. The left is violent, the right simply isn't. It's not both sides. They're different ideologies.
roystgnr
7m ago
Also a complete normie, and this is why I make cold brew. Better than instant or any kind of preserved hot-brew coffee, you can still use fresh-ground beans and everything, but you can do all the work in the afternoon or evening and then the result is quicker and easier to put together in the morning than fresh hot-brew coffee.
Zero "pleasant aroma filling my home" is a downside, though.
If I was more of a coffee person I might switch to one of those coffee makers with a "set it up the night before to turn on right before you get up in the morning" electronic timer, but I'd assume that gets noticeably more expensive - not because of the electronics, but because it's got to have some way (pods? a perfectly sealed grounds compartment? a built-in grinder?) to prevent the grounds from going stale as they sit there overnight.
HereAndGone
8m ago
I'm surprised by this shooting, I know nothing about Charlie Kirk except mentions online where I got the impression that he was some guy on the right. The only things I've seen about him have been, for instance, in a recent dispute online about "is Gavin Newsom a transphobe?" where someone in the comments gave out about Newsom being on a podcast with Charlie Kirkkk (yes, three Ks, KKK geddit?)
So that was my view of their view of him: he is (of course) a fascist Nazi white supremacist because he's a right-wing conservative.
And now this happened.
We have no idea what the killer's motivations were, so backseat psychiatry about "was this just another crazy disgruntled person?" is useless. But I do hope it was a random crazy. If someone really thought "right-wingers are all Nazis, and everyone agrees that it's okay to kill a Nazi", then things in America are really bad right now. I hope they're not at that stage yet (or ever).
HyphalKnot
11m ago
Based on what? I don’t have social media, but the reactions of group chats I’m in have been broadly negative about the future. Who are these thousands and how do you know them?
aaa
14m ago
Original gMark ended mid-sentence, which seems to me to indicate it was not finished because the author or scribe was interrupted
The endings of manuscripts get lost, it's quite common. What this means in this particular case has been debated for centuries with different scholars arguing for various interpretations (including the long ending being the original intended ending). Jumping directly to "the scribe was interrupted mid sentence" is quite the stretch.
Botond173
14m ago
Any policy option that is without drawbacks or tradeoffs is also merely symbolic and, quite literally, ineffective.
HereAndGone
17m ago
So, please attempt to modulate the 'tism a little
Are you being ableist at me? Mommy, mommy, Tollbooth was mean to me!
People do these things because they believe they will be popular with those around them.
To make my position clear, I think this in completely absolutely no way justifies political violence against the left. But the (from my point of view) typical leftist can be incredibly vicious even the person who was killed wasn't someone who advocated that gun deaths are worth it if it meant protecting the second amendment.
And probably most people (including the typical leftist) feels weird about this on some level, but there's varying levels, like "I probably shouldn't say this, but my friends will get a kick out of it", "I probably shouldn't say this, but other people are doing it so I guess it's okay", "I probably shouldn't say this, but he did have it coming", etc.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
33m ago
I have an effortpost cooking - probably in a week or two - about different philosophies about secession and which of them provide cover for violence. Which touches some similar topics, but it’s not ready yet.
For now I want to emphasize that large-group action (the kind that leads to revolutions and such) is dramatically different in its dynamics and political philosophy than individual or small-group action (lone shooters through Weather Underground type groups). I think this is under-appreciated. A large group usually has more of a deliberative process, even if flawed, while individuals and small groups can get swept away by mental illness, a charismatic leader, or an extreme emotional reaction to a specific event or person in a way bigger groups who are actually capable of making more considered decisions do not. For example, the American Revolution had pretty strong buy-in across colonies and delegates were sent in many cases directly by legislatures to form what would eventually become the Continental Congress.
I think one possible more minor way to evaluate: is violence mostly for “attention” or similar? If so, 99%+ of the time this is terrorism, a bad thing, and often counterproductive to boot. You’re very rarely “defending” anything with violence in any real way. At least in most Western democratic countries, that is.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
34m ago
That shows you the remaining divide between "Blue Tribe" and "Democrat". West Virginia isn't dominantly Republican but it is certainly dominantly "Red Tribe".
Rosencrantz2
34m ago
I understand the issue, I'm not sure how significant it is though. I feel that using preferred gender pronouns can be compatible with being upfront about a person's transness, so any misdirection would be just for a brief moment (for example, a news report can use 'she' while also mentioning someone's trans status right away). So your threat monitoring can resume as normal after just a beat.
To understand your approach better, may I ask how you decide when to 'award' preferred gender pronouns? You mentioned you do it with people who are well integrated. Do you use their assigned-at-birth pronouns at first, and then only after getting to know them and trust them switch over?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
36m ago
A lot of people on the right didn't like him, but the only group on the right I know who really hated him were the groypers. Were there more?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
37m ago
It's easy to play "no true Scotsman" here: all the politicians and almost all the big pundits on both sides have said reasonable things in the last day. Honestly I've been a bit surprised at some of them.
But that isn't everyone: there are plenty of terrible takes on the Internet, some by even marginally-famous ones. I struggle to quantify it (open to ideas!) but it feels like shitty takes are coming in larger numbers from people much closer to the establishment on the left (universities, trendy blue city bars mentioned in this thread, popular internet sites) than the reverse: the likes of David Duke, Alex Jones, and Nick Fuentes are seem thoroughly disconnected from any sense of real power like that.
I'm sure that can be argued indefinitely, but IMO that means it's a good time to step back from the details of this particular case and try to come to agreement on what "your fellow travelers are, in aggregate, worse than mine" even means quantitatively, and then how we might address that before deciding which way to point it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
39m ago
Magusoflight
43m ago
The only ones I see denouncing it on leftie spaces are saying “think of the backlash against peaceful democrats”
Magusoflight
45m ago
What was the political motivations of the Minnesota shooter? Seemed like it never got confirmed one way or another
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
46m ago
In related but "lighter" news (if such can be said): y'all remember Gretchen Felker-Martin, the transwoman who wrote that post-apocalyptic zombie novel in which all men (technically anyone with testosterone) turn into monsters and there's a throw-away line about JK Rowling being burned alive in her mansion? Felker-Martin has in the past publicly advocated killing people such as JK Rowling and Jesse Singhal, and recently went on a rant about Brandon Sanderson and how he shouldn't be "tolerated" in the SFF community (because he's a Mormon, therefore he is funding "conversion camps").
So anyway, as I pointed out recently, C-list writers like Felker-Martin often get a gig writing superhero comics, and Felker-Martin was writing a new series for DC about Red Hood (a vigilante anti-hero who used to be one of the Robins). It got cancelled after one issue. Guess why?
Very on-brand. Bluesky account is now suspended. I am not sure this represents a "vibe shift" (DC and Marvel would always be likely to fire a writer who openly cheers an assassination) but it is interesting how quickly Felker-Martin got "cancelled."
By the way, @gattsuru, I guess this is where I should clear my throat and say "Political violence is bad and I condemn the killing of Charlie Kirk"?
Magusoflight
49m ago
A “trantifa” posted this the day before. Might be the shooter
Stellula
49m ago
This event has effected me in a way I didn't expect, which makes me feel vulnerable. I had no idea how sociopathic a substantial number of my close friends are. I also had no idea how simply dumb they are. One of the things I keep seeing them post is "well he said that some gun violence was an acceptable price to pay for the freedoms associated with the 2nd amendment, so fuck him! Haha reap what you sow" etc.
They say this while at the same time arguing that the small number of detrans people are a small price to pay for the benefit of trans procedures overall. Or that the small number of vaccine injuries are a small price to pay for the benefits of vaccines, etc.
They also seem unable to extrapolate what their ideas imply at all. "Charlie Kirk was a nazi, he had bad views, I'm happy he's dead" etc. But how can they honestly not see that this could also be applied to their bad views? Or imagine any higher order effects?
It's very perception-shifting to see people say this stuff. I don't like it.
aaa
55m ago
Are you getting that from Ehrman or somewhere else?
I'm getting it from reading the thing.
Even with a "late" gMark date of 73ish, the author would have been in the temple as all male Jews
The author of Mark wasn't a jew. What kind of line of argumentation is this? I'm bringing this as proof that the authors are far removed from the events and your response is "well, under the assumption that they are not far removed from the events this is impossible". You are making my point.
The historical investigation has the fatal flaw of needing to presuppose that nothing supernatural happened. If you approach without that presupposition, then the evidence points elsewhere.
A prediction coming true is not supernatural, people predict things all the time. The problem is that correct predictions only become relevant after they become true. Suppose Mark was writing in the 50s, some guy said "the temple is going to be destroyed" 20+ years ago and it never happened, are you going to bring that up? And it's not just the prediction, it's how it's treated. You wouldn't write the parable of the fig tree if the destruction of the temple hadn't already happened: the jews have already failed to deliver and god has already punished them.
Yeah, and then Paul died. He died during Nero's reign, in AD 64/65. He arrived in Rome in AD 60. Acts ends saying, "He spent two years in Rome preaching." Then there is a gap of another couple years, and then Paul died. If Paul died before Acts was written, Luke would have included Paul's dramatic death. He did not, because Paul's dramatic death didn't happen for another two years.
Or possibly because Paul dramatic death hadn't been invented yet. You are trusting sources written hundreds of years after the fact on this, farther from the facts than the most pessimistic estimates of acts. The ending of acts is truncated whichever way you look at it. Supposed it really was written while Paul was still in Rome you wouldn't say "it preached in rome for two years" you would also say "and he's still there" or "and he's now moved to spain" or "and then they arrested him again a second time".
This is just silly. If for the sake of argument we allowed that there could be an infinitely long hierarchical series— D actualized by C, which is in turn actualized by B, which is in turn actualized by A, and so on in infinity, there would still have to be a source of causal power outside the series to impart causal power to the whole
What's causal power. Make me an example of causation. Feser makes arguments like this and I'm convinced that his idea of causation doesn't exist outside of his brain.
Consider a mirror which reflects the image of a face present in another mirror, which in turn reflects the image of a face present in another, and so on ad infinitum. Even if we allowed that there could be such a series of mirrors, there would still have to be something outside this infinite series— the face itself—which could impart the content of the image without having to derive it. What there could not be is only mirror images and never any actual face.
LIght travels at finite speed so at most there would have had to be, at some point, a face. But I don't think this is the case, I think there's actually nothing logically contradictory in an infinite series of mirrors you are tricking your brain into thinking there is because the brain thinks in aristotelian terms, with efficient and final causes, but those things don't exist. Suppose the universe was nothing but a single atom travelling forever at constant speed, is that impossible? Our brain wants to say no because everything that we experience moving is moved by something but actually there's nothing logically impossible in it. If the universe was nothing but an infinite series of mirrors reflecting a face infinitely in both directions that's just how it would be.
FtttG
57m ago
Aguilar provided a video of the soldiers shooting into the crowd, then cheering and saying “I think you hit one”. Did you watch it?
Yes. In the segment of the video I watched (in which one of the soldiers says "I think you hit one"), no civilians are visible on camera when the soldiers begin firing. When one of them says "I think you hit one", it isn't even clear what the "one" he's referring to is - certainly the soldier saying this doesn't accompany footage of a civilian being shot. I find this very suspicious. Do you mean to tell me that, of the 2,000+ Palestinian civilians allegedly shot dead at these aid distribution sites, not a single one of these was captured on video? Not by any of the soldiers wearing bodycams, or by any of the Palestinian civilians who presumably have smartphones on their persons?
FarmReadyElephants
58m ago
Reddit is a lot bigger than bluesky, and it is also full of this stuff. Reddit is a problem
Charlie Kirk was asking for someone to bail out the Pelosi attacker specifically to ask the guy questions about his motives. Not because he supported the attack, but because he wanted to learn more about it. And then compared how easy most violent criminals are let out on bail compared to this attacker.
That is 100% different from thousands of people gleefully saying, "Finally! I hope they do Matt Walsh next." Sure, it's not as bad as Obama saying, "Finally! I hope they do Matt Walsh next!" But it's still pretty bad! If Obama made a similar statement to what Kirk said about the Pelosi attacker, something like, "I hope someone on the left gets the opportunity to talk to the assassin and find out his motives before the corrupt Trump DOJ gets their hands on him!" I don't think you'd see a problem with that statement.
More options
Context Copy link