|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Very normal man returned to Twitter with a very normal post Well, I said all boys go through that phase... but clearly we have evidence here that some only go into that phase, never coming back out of it. EDIT: Tax time again already? Here, have my desktop pup. 
Robot Hobo fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Nov 22, 2019 |
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
I mean yeah I tuned into friends every week as a teen and I hated the show
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Well trump said it, it must be true. He certainly doesn't have a record for lying about everything all the time You know it's dumb when even Fox News questions him as to whether it's true or some made up horse poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is an interesting theory. to summarize, the house managers can issue subpoenas for testimony during the senate trial, and Justice Roberts directly and immediately rules on any objections to those subpoenas. Given that you won't enforce a subpoena without Roberts' vote anyway, this will allow the House to get what is effectively an immediate supreme court ruling on the testimony of any of the witnesses who have refused to appear - and accordingly, they're not giving up the chance to get testimony from people by quickly moving to a trial. hey cool i was arguing with people in the impeachment thread last night about how hard it would be to defy subpoenas that literally have Roberts' name on them, it's good to see people confirm that is the case
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well trump said it, it must be true. He certainly doesn't have a record for lying about everything all the time I can only guess at this point Fox News is worried that they're going to wind up in the investigative crosshairs as this continues especially since Sean Hannity is wrapped up in this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
We talk alot about Graham being a boot licker but man does Marsha Blackburn suck rear end https://twitter.com/Las4Liberty/status/1197913706522238977?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah that text is entirely "uh i'm pretty uncomfortable with this whole violence edgelord thing" and he is basically saying "look i understood it to be joking originally and now it seems to be driven by people who are not joking and i'm not down with that" It's more that while its true about the edgelord thing; I am sympathetic to the fact that, taking marxist critique to its end point that as PJ says, capitalism has no answer to climate change; you need to do away with capitalism entirely. And well, there's the rub. Not that I think its part and parcel to socialism, but I think there's some validity in how to couch it in reasonable terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1197908113107685376?s=21 I’m glad someone like him can make a speech like this, because like it or not that’s how a lot of people find out and get informed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah that text is entirely "uh i'm pretty uncomfortable with this whole violence edgelord thing" and he is basically saying "look i understood it to be joking originally and now it seems to be driven by people who are not joking and i'm not down with that" try this template. there's an old line from Martin Luther King Jr, on being asked to condemn black people rioting. he made it clear: he did not agree with them. but he would not condemn them. not because he did not view violence as worthy of condemnation! but because King was arguing that the powerful could be made to listen to reason, and the rioters had looked at the brutal repression black people were being subject to, and the brutal repression King was getting for peacefully opposing them, and had come to the very sensible conclusion that the only thing white people understood was force. "A riot is the scream of the unheard," was his line. the anger is there. you should feel unsettled by it. i feel unsettled by it! but history suggests that both ignoring it and trying to shoot the guys who won't condemn it are not winning plays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Re: guillotine jokes. First of all, yes, it's edgy and somewhat crass humor. But - why does that exist? Why is it important for people to make jokes about "hey billionaire, you're just a man, we can destroy your life?" The answer is simple. It's a rebellion against the fact that hyper-wealthy people can, and do, do the same to same to poorer people all the time. Sometimes that comes from business decisions that deliberately take human factors out of the process, because giving people a living wage just isn't profitable enough. Sometimes it comes from implicit threats to anyone who would change the power structure. All those Epstein stories weren't spiked because he had some special power of a thousands-strong sicko cabal. He just had a lot of money and a few powerful "friends." The journalists, and their bosses, and their bosses' bosses, all knew that if even a single billionaire felt like a personal vendetta against them then they'd be living a paranoid schizophrenic's worst nightmares. Billionaires, in our society, are an implicit threat to the people around them. The guillotine jokes aren't coming out of nowhere. They're a reminder that, yes, the "little people" can make the same threats right back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:https://twitter.com/ErikLoomis/status/1197877216308269058?s=20 Reading this article it really makes me feel like nothing matters and conservative voters will never see the err of their ways. They will never quite grasp that because of their preposterous "spiritual" beliefs they have sold the rest of us down the rive when it comes to politics. My only consolation is that there are more of us normal people out there. We just need to inspire people to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I just wanted to say that your posting has been amazing the last two days. Thank you.  quote:That being said, most people don't know those particular nuances in France. The guillotine is a symbol for the power that the public can wield against an oppressive, super wealthy class. It has power not because of bloodlust, but because it serves as a reminder that the public, when pushed enough, will use violence to uproot systemic oppression at the hands of the megarich and powerful If there's anything that I want to get across to people, it's that blood sacrifice, which people call state violence, is bad. Cruelty and oppression and rape and murder are the tools of despots whether they're old French nobility or tin pot dictators. State sanctioned violence is a disease and curing that disease with more disease is nonsense. It just forces all of us into cyclical patterns of violence. The correct thing to do is to abandon state violence and embrace care, disperse the concentrated wealth that has been stolen from the poor by the system we live in as a way of giving care and setting up positive institutions as well creating fertile ground for spontaneous movements that provide care. Violence begets more violence. Overthrow the state with violence and all you're get is another state whose legitimacy comes from violence. Even if that state doesn't immediately turn to violence to legitimize itself, the very foundations of the state are predicated on monopolization of violence. So long as we reach for violence as our final answer and concentrate the trust in the hands of a few to wield that violence, we will always live in a violent world, because people who are given a blank check to do violence cannot be trusted with it. This is not to say that we'll all get along. Violence occasionally needs to be done because some people will never respond to anything but violence. However, violence should not be monopolized in the hands of the few. It should not be their position. Someone needing to do violence should activate themselves and when the violence is over, return to their normal position in life, whatever that might be. No cops, no soldiers, no knights, no enforcers, all of these positions will be created or captured by someone looking to create a nation. Further, someone who does violence should be judged by the community that they live in to see if that violence was necessary, not by the state. I am growing less and less enchanted with large swaths of the body of law. Some of the law, yes, good, because it's been written in blood and serves a moral function. It's when the law serves the powerful that I have little interest in obeying it. What I care about deeply is custom, the law that seems innate. The law that we would never think of breaking if we are indeed good people. The laws written upon our hearts and that most of us follow not because there are men and women of violence enforcing it, but because it's how we've been socialized and we follow those customs because they're pro-social and allow us to live in a society. I would rather light those anti-social laws on fire because they protect the corrupt and abusive and analyze from basic principles what our customs are and hold the corrupt to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1197908113107685376?s=21 Calling Mark caesar is probably something he wants. He has a weird obsession with Augustus after all. That's why he has the haircut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1197908113107685376?s=21 I thought the Caesar thing was literally true? As in, it was confirmed and admitted that he identifies with Roman emperors and deliberately made his hair look like theirs did?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Bingo, what they released (a small procedural issue) reveals what they actually have (jack poo poo) i wouldn't characterize falsifying evidence as a "small procedural issue" - someone who did that should be (and apparently was) drummed out of the FBI and presumably the legal profession - but you're basically right, they falsified evidence to cover up a minor error, nothing at all relevant. Raenir Salazar posted:It's more that while its true about the edgelord thing; I am sympathetic to the fact that, taking marxist critique to its end point that as PJ says, capitalism has no answer to climate change; you need to do away with capitalism entirely. And well, there's the rub. Not that I think its part and parcel to socialism, but I think there's some validity in how to couch it in reasonable terms. i think that if your thinking involves the phrase "as PJ says" you should back up and try again. as to convincing, if you believe society needs radical change you probably want to lead your argument with "we need radical change and here's why" rather than "yeah those edgelords posting about violence are great" more to the point however, that analysis is garbage. the core issue with climate change is if sufficient power can be accumulated behind people pushing to fix it to force people who would like to defect/ignore it to play along. if, in a bloody revolution you replace the government of the united states with a socialist non-capitalist government...then what? you still need the government to be willing to take the economic pain of sunsetting all fossil fuel use (and that is difficult for any government, capitalist or communist). you then need an international coalition to stop brazil from cutting down the amazon. you then need an international coalition to end the use of horribly polluting tankers (and take them out of use entirely). you then need china and india and other developing nations to end their fossil fuel use. and that last part is monumentally hard. why's it hard? well, part of why America (as a country) is so wealthy is industrialization via cheap fossil fuels. China and India would like their nations to be as well-off as the United States. they want to follow that same path, or be compensated so that they get put in a similar place as if they did rather than the US/Europe racing up the economic ladder and pulling it up behind them. They don't want to remain "developing" countries they want to be developed countries - and why shouldn't they? but there's no way to do that short of (a) massive fossil fuel use; or (b) subsidies from the US/Europe that are pretty massive - and are politically difficult. that latter issue is the absolutely massive issue that is really hard to deal with and it has nothing to do with capitalism v. communism (as you can tell because China is one of the nations). it is, instead, a problem partially caused by the lack of a single world government - you can't make China or India do anything, you have to persuade them to do so. and the citizens of any country want their lives to be better, regardless of the form of government or economy. it is, basically, the world's biggest prisoner's dilemma problem except we only get to play it once. people think that just because a government is socialist you get to significantly degrade the standard of living (or fail to increase it). no, that makes people unhappy. what lets you do that as a "socialist" country is an authoritarian government that doesn't need to care about popular support too much (but even that gets you only so far: the government of China believes it must keep increasing its citizens material wealth to maintain its control of the country). so basically it's a dumb analysis by PJ that you should ignore
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Re: guillotine jokes. I understand and I get why people want to reach for violence. It feels good. It creates a release. However, as the saying goes, these violent delights have violent ends. Peaceful revolutions have higher success rates than violent ones. They also don't gently caress up where you live. If you get rid of the state in a violent way and have put yourself in charge, what you've created are shitloads of blood feuds between yourself and the relatives of the dead. The nation was created specifically to resolve these blood feuds that plague tribal society as well as to steal from people in the form of taxes. Monopolizing power over violence to suppress those blood feuds becomes paramount and that suppression comes in the form of violence. Imagine though if you peacefully overthrow your oppressors by denying them your labor and shutting down their means of authority, which is consent from ordinary people. Then all debts square to zero meaning that when they flee, you can capture whatever capital you can put your hands on. Legitimacy can come not from violence, but from distribution of their hyper-accumulated capital to ordinary people. I call that care. Not a guillotine in sight and good riddance. Our problem comes back to first principles. The nation itself is a plague. All "consent" is manufactured through violence. All of it. So long as the current idea of the nation exists and is practiced, we will always be a savage and barbaric people. There can be no moral political consent with the threat of violence no more than sex under the threat of violence can be considered anything other than rape. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:
Oh wow I can't wait to read ahead and find out what happened to the French Empire I bet it lasted 1000 years at least
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i wouldn't characterize falsifying evidence as a "small procedural issue" - someone who did that should be (and apparently was) drummed out of the FBI and presumably the legal profession - but you're basically right, they falsified evidence to cover up a minor error, nothing at all relevant. 2.) Kind of the whole point of socialism/communism is that it results in a net Improvement of conditions for a wide swath of the population once wealth has been redistributed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
A lot of that state violence will also be directed towards those of marginal power (e.g. petty bourgeois or whatever) while true elites will escape. Ever heard of the Emigres after the Bolsheviks got power? A whole bunch of nobility was just enjoying themselves in France.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Peaceful revolutions have higher success rates than violent ones. Just want to point out the obvious fallacy here. Peaceful revolutions usually work out better because they're happening in a society where a peaceful revolution is POSSIBLE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
zuckerberg is so far off from augustus its farcical
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought the Caesar thing was literally true? As in, it was confirmed and admitted that he identifies with Roman emperors and deliberately made his hair look like theirs did? most of the actual Roman emperors would stuff him in a locker, although tbf I guarantee the Romans would have loved Facebook shitposting, instant private communication, public announcement of your patron-client networks, and cat pictures? hot drat
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Zuckerberg will always be a Soong-type Android to me. He’s probably Lore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:most of the actual Roman emperors would stuff him in a locker, although tbf I guarantee the Romans would have loved Facebook "This is much faster than having a fresco commissioned about what a whore my rival's wife is!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
The billionaire class respects no one. They've defied every law, every pledge, every societal norm. As their hubris grows and their defiance of any attempt to reign them in grows more transparent, more ghoulish and more brazen, it can't be a surprise that the resulting rhetoric from those who feel increasingly powerless turns to violence. A call to civility, while well intended, is a concession. They billionaireswon't stop. There is no line too horrible to cross. To expect the same from the exploited populace is, in some ways, admitting defeat
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Cato would you turn off your loving sig it is getting really old
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/adamcbest/status/1197908113107685376?s=21 Is the "Silicon Six" a term he coined because its great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Cato would you turn off your loving sig it is getting really old User Control Panel -> Edit Options -> Show user's signatures in their posts? -> No
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:zuckerberg is so far off from augustus its farcical He's more of a Crassus than anything. Insanely unbelievably rich but when he decided to play general he got his dick absolutely STOMPED on and got an entire Roman army torn to shreds. haveblue posted:Cato would you turn off your loving sig it is getting really old This is a good joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:A lot of that state violence will also be directed towards those of marginal power (e.g. petty bourgeois or whatever) while true elites will escape. Ever heard of the Emigres after the Bolsheviks got power? A whole bunch of nobility was just enjoying themselves in France. I'm sure handwringing liberals were totally going to hold them accountable for their crimes and not let them continue to abuse the Russian workers
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:Just want to point out the obvious fallacy here. Peaceful revolutions usually work out better because they're happening in a society where a peaceful revolution is POSSIBLE. I'll note that peaceful revolutions aren't bloodless revolutions. Normally the state pours on violence in order to gain what I'll dubiously refer to as consent. That violence can backfire. The intelligent despot knows to quash rebellions early. Once they've gained a certain critical mass it's extremely difficult to destroy a peaceful uprising, if outright impossible. And each act of violence by the state causes it to grow. Outrage destroys legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Devor posted:User Control Panel -> Edit Options -> Show user's signatures in their posts? -> No Carthago delenda est.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought the Caesar thing was literally true? As in, it was confirmed and admitted that he identifies with Roman emperors and deliberately made his hair look like theirs did? i think he's obsessed with augustus which isn't as nutty as it seems as augustus is one of the most consequential historical figures in history. but the lessons you can learn from someone who very effectively won a series of civil wars and then established a successful lasting dictatorship are, uh, either not relevant to the present day or are perhaps not traits we value as moral in this day and age
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Thank you for that and also 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh wow I can't wait to read ahead and find out what happened to the French Empire I bet it lasted 1000 years at least I don't think the length of the Empire is the point there. It took a few bloody wars and a lot of death and destruction to fix the problem. Even after Napoleon had been kicked out he came back and had to be kicked out again. Guillotines didn't fix the problem, they only advanced the process to fix the problem that had to be done by multiple countries curb stomping France Guillotines are just a reminder that even the wealthy can be punished when the poor are pushed hard enough. That's about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i think he's obsessed with augustus Part of it is undoubtedly that he set up a stable form of government for the next century or so and put Rome on a path to hyper-empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I don't think the length of the Empire is the point there. It took a few bloody wars and a lot of death and destruction to fix the problem. Even after Napoleon had been kicked out he came back and had to be kicked out again. Guillotines didn't fix the problem, they only advanced the process to fix the problem that had to be done by multiple countries curb stomping France and more proximately to the monarchy question, both times Napoleon got thrown out the Bourbons got reinstalled 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So my brother texted me asking me, in all seriousness, why is it acceptable for left wing groups to pass around guillotine/eat the rich memes, and why would that be acceptable, instead of being seen as anything other than left wing ISIS. Explain to him that structural violence is also violence, and that our current systems, fostered and paid for by the rich, enforce massive, unwarranted deaths upon the population. Every person who dies not being able to pay for insulin is a death that did not need to occur. Lack of access to housing, leads to death. Our imperial wars require lives to be ground up in the machine. The elites aren't sending people to actively kill you in the streets, they're doing something more insidious, and more foul. They're controlling access to life. The fact that spreading guillotine memes is our response to this ghastly institutional violence is actually good fortune for the elites and they should be happy this is all their amorality has wrought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:He's more of a Crassus than anything. Also because of his stupidity and arrogance lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic! Just like how Facebook is killing the American Republic except there's no idiotic general out in the middle of the Syrian desert getting his rear end kicked because he doesn't understand a thing about classical-era battle tactics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
im a loving gigantic roman history nerd and just lol at actually wanting to emulate anyone from that time beyond maybe like, Cicero or Diogenes
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:08
|
|