They're using the same language as rapists, thieves, murderers, and cops.

If I hurt or kill you because you chose not to comply, its your fault, not mine. You forced my hand. You could have just let me have my way, but no, you had to resist.

Look at his words a little deeper, and you'll pick up the thinly veiled message. He's not saying anything that a rapist has not said to a victim before, during, and after the act. What he said was "as bloodless as the left will allow".Said another way, "Don't resist our brazen coup attempt and you will not be harmed. Everything is going to be okay. Don't resist, don't struggle, don't fight. Just let it happen. You want this, I can tell."

Yes, beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting and ideological purity testing. Most Democrats are terrified of taking stances on wedge issues because any stance they take could break up a coalition that has all the durability of a Faberge egg. Republicans either don't have this problem, or they don't have it as bad. Despite having as many if not more factions than the Left, they all value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which allows them to come together every 4 years to form a unified voting bloc.

Oh, look. Another hopeful leader for the resistance when the red hats take over. Like we ain't got a million of those lying around somewhere. Have fun getting caught and thrown in a camp.

And before that, it was DEI for the pro-slavery States. Back before black people and even women could vote, whites didn't have numbers enough to win many elections, so they created the Electoral College and made it so that black people counted as 3/5ths of a "person" and slave owners could vote in the names of their slaves.

Didn't Jim Henson die a completely preventable death, too? He had strep throat that went untreated for several days and it caused organ failures from toxic shock syndrome.

Funny that they considered a game where you kill fascists as "fascist propaganda". Like, without the propaganda, how do you know they're fascists?

You're not wrong, but the mics being turned off worked against Biden. Because his mic was cut off during the debate, Trump had free reign to spew falsehoods like a damn fire hose, and Biden had no time to even go, "Will you shut up, man?"

It is illegal, you're right, but they want to destroy the legal definitions of many things so that they can write new ones. So suddenly, teaching kids about how their bodies work becomes "grooming". Being anything other than a straight white Christian male makes you a "sex offender". Reading anything other than the Bible to kids is "indoctrination", and so on.

They've spent many years and billions of dollars studying the power of language and ideas. They have framing the issues from their perspective down to an art form. If you control what words mean, you control debate and democracy.

This sarcasm doesn't help. But to answer your obviously facetious question, no, I can't fix everything. But what I can do, is consider that perhaps pursuing justice rather than manners might actually be "going high". And if Republicans are going to break rules, I'm certainly within my rights to bend them. We can all agree that "The ends justify the means" is a shitty moral philosophy, but you liberals tend to overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is -in some vaguely reflexive kinda way- innately immoral.

And I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but even I know there is a moral imperative to disobey the rules when following will not lead to justice.

I can also call a fascist, a fascist. Instead of simply requesting that the rules be followed, and trusting that fascist ideas will be voted against, we should do to fascists, everything that they would do and have already done to us.

Hillary isn't Trump. And people still hated her, more than they disliked Trump. And now, the DNC and the Biden campaign has the onerous and extremely difficult, if not impossible task of making people hate Trump more than they dislike Biden.

They did this to themselves. Total strategy failure, holding this debate so early in the race. Also trusting CNN's moderator to follow all the rules and fact check both candidates live.

Why do liberals fail at strategy? I suspect it's due to their tendency to spend more time thinking about how to go about things than on what things they should go about. Valuing the means at the expense of the ends, yet again.

And definitely don't imagine it licking you.

Smiling face in a petri dish today, Westworld tomorrow.

But be careful, these violent delights have violent ends. But perhaps this doesn't look like anything to you. In that case, freeze all motor functions.

But the nation does need a robust transportation system for people and resources. Both people and things have places they need to go. What's your solution? Unless you can build Star Trek-style matter-energy transporters, rail and road are your best options.

So, more like a sortition system, like how most Western courts select people for jury duty. Now that I think about it, it probably could work. We have wonders of technology that were once the realm of science fiction. These technologies could be leveraged positively in a communist system, I believe. AI in particular could solve things like the Numbers Problem. In a moneyless society, resources are allocated according to what is most necessary. I once watched a video where a problem was asked of the viewer. The scenario is as follows:

You are now the leader of a communist country. All markets and prices and money have been abolished. You want to build a train between City A and City B. There is a mountain between the two cities. You have two options. Option 1: Build a tunnel through the mountain, and Option 2: Build the track around the mountain.

1 will require less steel, but will take more manpower, as you will need more engineers to design and construct the tunnel.

Option 2 will require less manpower, but far more steel. That steel may be needed for other things, like appliances, medical equipment, homes and hospitals.

So, how do you prioritize resources? How do you know what your fellow citizens value more as a society?

You could do a survey, but then you run into the Numbers Problem. Your country has a lot of people. That's a lot of survey responses. You'll need nearly all of the available manpower in your country to sort them all. But with AI, that might not be necessary. The algorithm could collect all the responses and then output solutions to resource allocation based on those responses. To do this would require a massive surveillance network, though. People would no longer have much in the way of privacy.

Well, while Marx does call for a "winnowing of the State" after the workers seize the means, a problem we saw, in countries such as the USSR, once some of these revolutionaries got their hands on the levers of power, they found they rather liked it, and would not have let go willingly.

The Internet started as this kinda long-haired hippy fella who thought it would be great if everyone could share knowledge and have conversations with everyone else regardless of where they are geographically. Then the corpos made him cut his hair, put on a suit and tie and get a damn job! And 25 years later, he's a yuppie corpo slave. I want my hippy back!

Maybe I'm just seeing potential where there isn't any, but I really think if the people of the Archive could find a way to get their stuff stored in TUL, or perhaps build a Library of their own, the publishers couldn't go after them then, because to the outside observer, all they see is a buncha dudes playing Minecraft.