WatDabney @ WatDabney @sopuli.xyz

Posts

10

Comments

1,009

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wouldn’t those who produce credit, or have access to it, be better at deciding when and when not to offer it?

2008 says no.

Gee whiz - who'd've thought Microsoft would undermine an older version of something in order to coerce people into switching to a newer one?

And Venezuela is exactly right

The Trump regime has been trying to drag the US into a war virtually from the very first day he was in office, with Canada, or Greenland, or Panama, or Mexico, or Iran, or somebody. There's various things they want - geographic control all the way from Florida to the Bering Strait, a resource rich island in the Atlantic that will likely actually benefit from climate change, control of the Panama Canal, control of oil... But it's obvious that behind that, they just want a war. They undoubtedly want that combination of freewheeling government spending and civilian restriction and control that a war brings.

Hell - as if his intentions weren't clear enough, he actually renamed the Defense Department the War Department.

And this attempt against Venezuela is just the most successful yet.

It's sort of funny to me to see people treating the claims that he's something of a groyper and the claims that he was romantically involved with a transexual as if they're mutually exclusive.

All that says to me is that he was not only terminally online, but terminally online on 4chan specifically.

In fact, the only odd part of it really is the "romantically involved" part.

ETA: it just struck me that "It's a trap!" could well be an insider nod to just that likelihood....

as political violence becomes normalized online, particularly among ideologically extreme left in America

https://meidasnews.com/news/mass-shootings-at-two-homeless-camps-after-fox-host-called-for-homeless-to-be-killed

At the very least, it'd be nice to not be governed by psychopaths.

Of course he couldn't - he's a deranged sociopath.

It's not intended as a pejorative, so its perceived weakness is irrelevant.

It's a precise term with a very specific definition in international law, and that's the point.

Israeli terrorists have just taken 1500 Palestinian hostages.

If so, then to which specific instance(s) (or more precisely, local mirrors of instances) would replies be sent?

That's how the right defines freedom of speech.

Look at any conservative forum. They all do the same thing - they overtly promote any and all right-wing content, no matter how violent and hateful and entirely regardless of whether it's even true or not, and they censor left-wing content and ban left-wing posters. Then they call it freedom of speech.

They really don't have any other choice (except of course for turning away from their overtly toxic and destructive ideology, and they're too angry and deluded and compromised for that). Conservatism is nothing but lies from top to bottom, so the only way they can give it the appearance of legitimacy is to promote right-wing lies and censor left-wing truth.

In the sense in which you're framing it, it would likely be more accurate to think of it as spectrums and subspectrums, in the same sense as sets and subsets.

But it’s been about six months since Schumer decided that it wasn’t the time for a fight, that neither he nor the country was ready. Democratic leaders have had six months to come up with a plan. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders.

We already know the Democrats need new leaders. Or more precisely, they need leaders, period.

Schumer and Jeffries aren't leaders - they're high-ranking tools.

That's what they've demonstrated with their treatment of Mamdani. They hold the positions they hold because they have no principles and no integrity - because they're owned by the donors and can be counted on to serve the interests of the donors regardless of any other considerations.

And for the time being at least, the donors - even the most generally leftist of them - aren't sufficiently opposed to what Trump is doing. They'd probably rather the tyrants have [D]s after their names than [R]s, and they're undoubtedly personally offended by Trump, since he's petulant and gauche and gross, but they don't have any particular opposition really to a program to benefit the wealthy few (which necessarily includes themselves) at the expense of the common people (which is just a bunch of shabby people they don't know), so while they'd certainly welcome efforts to make Trump look bad, they're not really committed to stopping him. And I guarantee that some significant number of them are already daydreaming about what they'll be able to do if/when the power that Trump has accumulated falls into the hands of a Democrat.

And again - Schumer and Jeffries are their tools. We already see that with their refusal to support Mamdani.

And I have little doubt that we'll continue to see it in their failure to meaningfully oppose Trump.

It's a bit late in the game for that isn't it?

I mean - she's right, but the SC has already cast aside law, precedent and the Constitution at this point, and is ruling almost entirely based on opinion. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say, "preference."

In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans.

Ah... so she's not just contradicting the plain reality of the current SC, but her own statements.

Or more precisely, just spewing whatever line of bullshit might serve her current purposes.

Which is undoubtedly the reason she was nominated in the first place, and the exact thing she was expected to contribute.

Helluva timeline we're living in here....

No - actually, Israel's best tactic to combat it is to just stop committing genocide and instituting apartheid.

See - this is a fine example of why I say, completely sincerely, that Israel is a nation of psychopaths. Fundamentally, what this report says is, "An increasing number of people worldwide are condemning us for doing the notoriously reprehensible things we are in fact doing, so our course of action should be... to lie harder."

That's not a rational position - it's a psychopathic one.

It's things like this, almost more than the tens of thousands of cruel and wanton killings Israel has committed, that make it clear that this is a genocide.

Israel, their countless lies to the contrary notwithstanding, has not set out to fight a war with Hamas or even to fight a war with the Palestinians - they've set out to utterly and completely eradicate the Palestinians.

And they more than anyone should understand how utterly evil that is.

Everybody - every single person around the world - who is currently supporting the IDF and the settlers and the Israeli government is a monster.

Yes - that's another good example.

Even on a very simple level, that's harmful to oneself, because all time and energy spent vainly trying to control things one cannot control is necessarily time and energy not spent on the things one can control.

Stoicism, properly understood, is in my opinion the only possibility humanity has for survival.

Unfortunately, stoicism is rarely properly understood.

Virtually every institutionalized societal evil exists at base because some number of people are stubbornly clinging to the delusion of control over others.

As but one example, while the wave of trans bigotry exists because some number pf people believe that they should have the authority to control other people's gender identifications, at heart it exists because those people believe that they can do so. That's the foundation upon which their ever-more aggressive attempts are built. It's really not a matter of whether they should or not - they literally can't.

Stoicism would've already informed them of that fact, and would've informed them of the harm that's done - not merely to others but to themselves - by ignoring that fact.

Because he's a leftist who's apparently sincerely promising to actually work for the benefit of ordinary people and appears ready to actually do that if he wins.

Democrats like to pretend that they're all of those things too, but really all they ever try to be is somewhat less awful than Republicans, which is an easy enough task that they can generally succeed.

But if they end up being compared with someone like Mamdani, they're going to be revealed for the complacent, corrupt conservatives they actually are.

What part of trying to kick in a window in a security door to gain access to the rooms in which congressional representatives were hiding from a violent mob on a rampage and refusing to heed an officer's repeated commands to move away from the door qualifies her for full military honors?