domain:streamable.com
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1hr ago
Yeah, yeah, so it would cost some money, give me your Paypal, and I'll be happy to chip in.
Patreon link is right here. Currently it pulls in $212 / month.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Sounds similar to Freddie Deboer's Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand
Moofy
Chacrinha of Cold Brazil
2hr ago
Can anyone help me recall/locate an essay written around 2018-2020 which had as its thesis the idea that when the ideas circulating around the Social Justice movement developed a name that could identify the ideology readily to the general public (and one more value neutral than Social Justice / SJW), then the Social Justice ideology could be effectively counteracted? I remember this circulating prior to Woke becoming the common term for the ideology.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2hr ago
Gundam Battle Operation 2 gameplay: Spider-Chieftain, Flailthroughs, Sneed Plays, Ninjaguy _12, Salty Walty, xLord Anubis
Miscellaneous gameplay: Raocow (longtime let's-player with 13,000 videos)
War Thunder gameplay: Orangefan
Splatoon 3 gameplay: DH1125
Magic: The Gathering: Arena limited-format gameplay: Gomlet X
DuplexFields
Ask me how the FairTax proposal works. All four Political Compass quadrants should love it.
2hr ago
Seriously. I’m not thinking of a job where Excel will be a primary tool for database work, but admin jobs and other jobs where Excel is an ancillary tool.
remzem
2hr ago
I think this could go either way depending on how worried China is about AGI. I'm sure it'd rather have the foundries for it's own use, but Taiwan is something like 60-70? percent of advanced chip manufacturing. If China ends up destroying them it could allow them to catch up in production as it'd just be their own domestic production vs US + korea, japan, bit in Germany. And Korea would be vulnerable similar to Taiwan + China might feel it would have less red tape and corruption to deal with in revving up it's own domestic production compared to the US in the potential AGI arms race.
RegularlyExpressed
3hr ago
Definitely an unexpected timeline.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
3hr ago
I want to say that I appreciate you laying this all out. There’s certainly some continuity to be found, and you’ve done a better job elaborating on it than most people who make the attempt.
With that said…doesn’t this argument work a little too well?
There didn't have to be a war, or a famine, or a disease -- or even anything palpably wrong -- in order for [Americans] to heap blame on the [communists]. [Every President] urged his followers to look for the tentacles of [communist] oppression in every event, no matter how small, and they generally obliged.
The Reds made a near-perfect bogeyman. As a result, the American immune response had an obvious rallying point. Compare our wartime propaganda against the Germans or Japanese. After all, they really could have been infiltrating or at least sympathizing.
Rallying the home team against outsiders is tribal psychology 101. That rather takes away from its predictive value. Were our wartime ancestors right to be suspicious? Were the wartime Soviets? How about today’s anticommunists, looking for the ghosts of our old enemies? And what about the progressives?
The shoe fits. It fits enough different movements that you’d need to narrow it down.
I guess I look forward to part 4.
As an aside, when I checked on the Julianne Hough thing, it appears she was immediately attacked and released an apology. While the pushback looks tame by 2020s standards, it’s not exactly ignoring the event, is it? Leaves me a little skeptical of your other links.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
3hr ago
I don’t know if I’m qualified enough to give you a good answer, to be honest. Labour was strongest before I was born, I wasn’t there to see it.
As far as I can tell, the Israeli left gradually lost power both due to demographic changes and because socialism in Israel failed economically. The biggest turning point was in the late ‘70s when labour lost the plurality vote for the first time, following… a whole bunch of stuff, really. Wiki has a long list under ‘history’ on the 1977 election. As I understand it, and again I wasn’t there, hyper-inflation was one of the biggest factors here. Older people tell of going back to a barter system for some items.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Israeli_legislative_election
I’d say the second biggest inflection point was the stabilization program in the mid 80’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Israel_Economic_Stabilization_Plan
After the Labour-led government distanced itself from socialism in practice, it lost the ideology it was previously offering. Today Labour is less socialist than Shas, and mostly serves as a vehicle for whoever wins leadership there to enter politics. Case in point, Yair Golan just won leadership of Labour - two years ago he lost when trying to gain leadership in Meretz. He just won because he’s perceived as a hero (rightly, I think) due to his actions on October 7.
The same tribe who used to vote Labour today vote for Yesh Atid (Yair Lapid) or Benny Gantz (I don’t even remember his party’s bame off the top of my head). They’re both kinda generic ‘centre’ parties, saying they like good things and dislike bad things. It’s not a good time for Israeli politics, honestly. The tribe’s biggest issue is that they (we?) don’t have as many children as everyone else, so over time the left-urban section of the population has lost a lot of electoral power.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
3hr ago
I mean, I've looked at the FECA text, I've looked at the FEC website, I've listened to some pods, I've looked at the jury instructions, I've read some commentary. That's what I've got. I'm not going to be able to produce anything more than that.
All those things seem to me to answer the question of "what is the law here" in a fairly clear and consistent way. I can be convinced they're all wrong, but at the least you need to be able to tell me what's specifically wrong, and what the right answer is. But as far as I can tell you don't have any alternative formulation, it's just wrong because of the vibe.
Like, say you're the trial judge and you have to write jury instructions. What are you going to tell the jury they need to find to determine if a campaign finance violation has occurred here?
Silverdawn
I wake up 🔄 There's another psyop
3hr ago
Any lawyers care to comment on how true this is? I'm not very fluent in legalese but that official legal document seems to be saying ''companies should actively hurt 'problem people' for the good of diversity''?
I want to assume this is somehow out of context or I'm misunderstanding something because the alternative is pretty horrifying.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
4hr ago
interesting far rightist perspective, that maybe is common here, but expressed in much better form, than you can expect from mottizens with similar views.
I feel personally attacked.
And can also offer no protest to your assertion.
My YT Submission: Horses
Very stylistic documentary shorts on ... nothing in particular? But they're very well done. The one on Icelandic Witches is a must watch.
Mental Outlaw - Based and FOSS-pilled IT news (may contain farming).
Whose Body Is It - A hippie, new-age, conspiracy-theorist feminist podcast. It might be the very anti-thesis of our forum, now that I think about it, so perhaps some of you will run away screaming. Still, lot's of interesting interviews, and I feel it's the kind of anti-thesis that, unlike the more mainstream / elite forms of feminism, could lead to a synthesis.
Transparency Podcast - Trans dudes discussing the trans-mania. I especially recommend the National Transgender Health Summit series.
EveryBodyShook - A documentary series about the totally schizo, not at all actually happening as we speak, depopulation conspiracy theory.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
Ok, so not amending. Got it.
And ..sigh. Let me try again. If Trump uses personal funds to buy a "Blue Lives Matter" sign, do you have any citation from any statute, FEC interpretation, or DOJ manual, that "these types of expenditures" (I.e., Blue Lives Matter signs) actually meet the definition of "expenditure", as limited by the Supreme Court, and that they then trigger a reporting requirement (where it is a criminal offense to fail to report)? We'll get to NDAs in a bit.
ControlsFreak
4hr ago
I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Brad Smith's personal belief can't be the standard by which the law operates. There has to be some sort of actual standard
Aaaand now you're getting us into the land of 'void for vagueness'. Brad Smith says that the FEC believes that there is an objective test here. He believes he understands that objective test. But we know that the standard by which the law operates can't just be any of our personal beliefs about the few words we have in the statute (not even the jury's personal beliefs). If it were that, then there is no way for an individual to know ahead of time, objectively, whether the actions they were thinking about taking were in the illegal bucket or the not illegal bucket. This is classic void for vagueness territory.
The way these things are usually handled in the administrative state is something something agency rulemaking, something something Chevron maybe. Before you get into the morass of trying to prosecute people for a bunch of impossibly vague statutes, an agency, in this case, likely the FEC, should go through the rulemaking process to try to interpret the ambiguity in a clear way so that people can be suitably informed. There's notice and comment procedures and everything that you have to go through to get this, but if you did, then it would basically be "the FEC's personalinstitutional beliefsinterpretation" that would control. But we don't have that here. The best we have is a Democratic appointee to the FEC saying, "If the FEC had really gone through the process to make this abundantly clear, so that everyone knew that we were thinking that there was an objective test involved, then the result would be that this is not a crime." But we're stuck in a spot where the best that you can say against Trump is that they haven't gone through this process to put a full administrative interpretation out there. Not only is it classic void for vagueness in the absence of such an administrative interpretation, it heavily weighs against scienter, because Trump can't have intended to violate a standard that is only ex post knowable from your comments on an obscure website, the personal beliefs of a NY judge he's not met yet, or the personal beliefs of a jury which has not yet been convened.
The hilarious part about this is that we have to get through 90% of all these other examples of, "No, the wording in the statute doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean, because [reasons]," many of which are at least reasonably spelled out by clear FEC interpretation or Court precedent if you've read enough. But at the end of all that, when we get to the final stage, we still have a thing that likely doesn't mean what the words in the statute appear to mean at first glance, again, for [reasons]. This is the reason why many people don't view this as a simple case of, "Trump broke the law; he's not above the law; he should be prosecuted just like anyone else." It's why the entire concept of the case is so troubling, and it's frankly the reason why they pursued it the way they pursued it. If you just shove all the mess of the core, vitally-important questions into a tiny box that you try to mostly ignore and swear that it's totally a crime if you don't think about it too much, but trust us it's totally a crime, without actually having to prosecute and prove that crime in an appropriately competent court with domain expertise and appellate review for the trickier questions, it all appears sketchy as hell.
Like I said at the outset, when this eventually hits appellate review, either in a federal circuit court or just at SCOTUS directly from NY's highest court, I think it's highly likely that it ends up resolved in Trump's favor. I'd probably say more 80/20 than 50/50. It likely won't be until after the election, unfortunately, likely because there are too many folks in the process with the capability and desire to slow-play it. And that really is damaging to democracy.
hydroacetylene
4hr ago
While most Mormons and (white, church attending) Catholics are broadly red tribe, the stereotypical(and typical) red triber is neither- he’s an evangelical Christian who knows which church he ought to attend more often, believes the Bible to be true in perhaps a more literal manner than physical realities, and is basically orthopraxic and (by American standards)socially conservative in his Christianity, not very concerned with theological details.
yofuckreddit
4hr ago
my undergraduate alma mater Auburn University
Well shit, man. War fuckin' Eagle!
coughs
Uh, just kidding, I went to Stanford everyone.
Developing on video watching speed discussion: What Youtube channels you watching? Preferably relatively less popular and of the "hidden gems" variety.
To start:
Stupid Ones Games, - there is little to watch here, but the guy is developing Paradox-like grand strategy similar to Victoria II in Unreal Engine. Right now there are no dev blog style videos, only snippets of some features no longer than 3 minutes, but I expect this to change in the future.
Min Maxer Gaming, Quite niche content and only two videos, but if like you old RTS and specifically solo missions there is something for you. Currently he tries to complete Age of Mythology campaign without losing a single unit.
Engel, Dead channel, but author already made quite a number of video essay style game reviews which were sadly never popular.
DiploStrats, Main and only focus is analysis of Diplomacy matches, which because of their interwoven strategic and social nature are interesting even for people who never played it.
The Distributist, I think many people here already heard of him, but still I wanted to mention this channel for its interesting far rightist perspective, that maybe is common here, but expressed in much better form, than you can expect from mottizens with similar views.
NelsonRushton
5hr ago
Aye. Fixed now. Thanks for the catch.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
5hr ago
For example, in 2008, tech entrepreneur Brendan Eich donated $1000 to support California Proposition 8 -- a ballot initiative that designed to keep marriage in California only between same sex couples.
I'm guessing you meant "opposite sex couple" above?
No-one stopped to ask the real question. What if it is a man that is wearing a bear as he had to kill and skin it to survive the Hock.
More options
Context Copy link