domain:betonit.substack.com
Hieronymus
12m ago
The majority decision in Dobbs pretty well lays out the development of abortion law in the U.S., and it got stricter across the nineteenth century as the quickening standard was left behind. I don’t think it would have been as hard to make that case as you say.
Tanista
20m ago
There is also maxwellhill. Ghislaine Maxwell had a prominent hand in the general psy-opping of the giant psy-op that is Reddit. She was, maybe still is, an intelligence asset. What was Epstein, then?
This part of the theory was always baffling. Why would a known socialite working to pull off a psyop use her real name?
Sunshine
36m ago
I'm equally baffled by Trump's 180, and for the same reason. The best answer I can come up with is that Trump isn't on the list, but someone who is on the list has something on him.
aldomilyar
41m ago
Atleast that person stands for something and has a sense of gravity about the occasion, though.
I might not want to hang out with a Yakuza but I respect their commitment to their lifestyle more than I do 'oh I've got Milhouse smoking weed'
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
56m ago
absolute bunker-buster of a post from Big Yud himself.
Hey! I was looking for an excuse to post that pic 😡
(I really can't get enough of the WS hate. I barely know what the guy did to become a lolcow, but I'm munching popcorn nonetheless)
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
37m ago
I'm being serious, what part of having to be constantly looking over your shoulder and being unable to trust even your closest relatives sound appealing to you.
Power is a curse, all those who actually tasted it will tell you. It eats at all of your life until nothing is left, and for what? In the end you only can make the decisions that allow you to maintain your station.
History is full of men who wanted nothing to do with it. And rightfully so.
It's only redeeming quality is that in the hands of your enemies, it is even more terrible than in yours.
But what has humanity ever hoped for if not for someone else to deal with anarchy? Entire societies built just so we don't have to do this dirty work ourselves. Whole religions spent on dreaming someone is doing it for us when we are too weak.
Bartender_Venator
57m ago
I notice a strong correlation between sleeve tattoos and any particularly high-octane occupation - military, police, fire, EMS, extreme sports, etc. Part macho, part masochism.
aqouta
57m ago
Turok has a public Twitter account. Many of the people he responds to and interacts with on Twitter would be part of the "online racialist Right"
Here I think is the rub. I've personally gotten more familiar with the twitter/x sphere since the musk takeover. There is a common dynamic that happens there, where someone responds exclusively to the people they most disagree with in order to argue, a natural enough behavior. This however creates a kind of reverse echo chamber where the algorithm feeds them an overwhelming amount of exactly that type of person. I personally have frequently found my feed overwhelmed with Chinese Maoists regularly with only the occasional response to their nonsense. I know that Chinese Maoists are actually pretty rare so I've found it pretty easy to not assume that this is actually the mainstream belief but if you are responding to extreme racialists I can see how one could convince themselves that this is a major opinion of the online right. But what is really is is a kind of shadow of the poster's opinion, everything they most disagree with, because the algo accurately assumes it's what drives engagement.
This dynamic, where I see Chinese Maoists, confrontational conservatives there see idiotic leftists and @AlexanderTurok sees moronic Trumpists causes each of us to have a distorted vision of our opposition. Turok makes the mistake of then coming to this forum of actual thoughtful people and assuming the conservatives here need to answer for the worst Trumpists the engineers of X can serve. The conservatives here don't recognize themselves in the criticisms he levels at them and drama ensues.
This is all very understandable, but also very silly and avoidable. In fact the rules of this forum can and should correct for it But it's much more satisfying to assuming all of our enemies are as dumb as the dumbest people the algo of X can serve us. It's a very satisfying kind of assumption. It's just too bad that anyone who falls for it is going to spend the rest of their days tilting at windmills.
That figure is probably correct. Haaretz is an extremely leftist publication which is very hostile to Likud government, and if that government went crazy enough (which it wouldn't because as I said that would be idiotic) to try and hide massive death toll, they'd expose it gladly. Except in this case there's nothing to expose.
Al Jazeera is full of shit. And I mean it as the most general assessment possible, anytime they say anything about Israel you can assume they are full of shit and you will be right pretty much every time. If there ever is a conspiracy in Israel government, whatever it be, Haaretz can be plausibly the one that would uncover it (of course, given it's a Likud government, otherwise they'd just shut up, they wouldn't attack a leftist government), but not Al Jazeera.
How would they even do that? How many sources in top Israel government positions would leak to freaking Al Jazeera? Let's assume Israeli government and IDF and the Home Front Command and Hevra Kadisha and everybody else are all in on the conspiracy to hide hundreds or thousands of casualties. How the fucking Al Jazeera would know then? From where exactly? Who would tell them? When they have a at least half dozen of perfectly good media outlets in Israel itching to stick it to Bibi? Again, that would be completely idiotic. I like conspiracy theories but a conspiracy theory must make at least a minimal sense.
I don't know where Al Jazeera pulled that number from, and I wouldn't even bother to check. If you are interested in real numbers, get some from some place that isn't full of shit. You could use Haaretz if you want to - if they link to official figures, they usually wouldn't lie about it. Haaretz publishes a lot of lies, but lying about what could be easily checked against official figures would be too stupid, they don't work this way.
I don't know the exact number, I haven't looked it up, so I'd estimate it as several dozens from Iran thing and about the same from Gaza activities, overall probably between 50 and 100 casualties in the last 3 months.
Did you try checking Wikipedia? While it's not the most reliable of sources, they have a habit that most traditional press neglects, that is linking to primary sources, and those links usually contain such information. I'm pretty sure every death in Israel, be it civilian or military, is reported (though military deaths are reported after a delay due to family notification requirements). You just need to look it up.
More options
Context Copy link