Kulturkampf

[Besticus Maximus]

Even if by some random chance a hot girl came onto him it would be like posting a marshmallow through a letterbox, the kid doesn't have it in him

[HaughtyFrank]

Found this exchange interesting because it really shows the clash between emotional arguments and strategic ones. I don't even think Coates is entirely wrong, there is something good about questioning the status quo with loaded emotions but at the same time it becomes useless when you start ignoring realities, like that some of the people in power within Israel AND within Palestine want to keep this conflict alive.

[Eric Cartman]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/theserfstv/status/1848879331273224529?t=_haBUjguhCgusxMLZnlllw&s=19[/tweet]

Stepping back to look after a family you don't have yet is pretty hilarious

This is one of the people explicitly called out for receiving millions of dollars from russian disinformation operations, right?

[Nintex]

2016
Trump can't possibly be right 

2024
Trump was actually right

[HaughtyFrank]

This is one of the people explicitly called out for receiving millions of dollars from russian disinformation operations, right?

Yep, and shortly after he steps back. Surely unrelated

[benji]

He also recently filed a frivolous lawsuit against Kamala Harris.

[Uncle]

so we just plain didn't collect data on how much people trust the media for 20 years

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Found this exchange interesting because it really shows the clash between emotional arguments and strategic ones. I don't even think Coates is entirely wrong, there is something good about questioning the status quo with loaded emotions but at the same time it becomes useless when you start ignoring realities, like that some of the people in power within Israel AND within Palestine want to keep this conflict alive.

It's weird to assign, what I see as accounting terminology, to geopolitical conflicts. 


Technically correct, but what the fuck?

[Besticus Maximus]

Found this exchange interesting because it really shows the clash between emotional arguments and strategic ones. I don't even think Coates is entirely wrong, there is something good about questioning the status quo with loaded emotions but at the same time it becomes useless when you start ignoring realities, like that some of the people in power within Israel AND within Palestine want to keep this conflict alive.

It's weird to assign, what I see as accounting terminology, to geopolitical conflicts. 


Technically correct, but what the fuck?

You should watch the fog of war with Robert Mcnamara

[benji]

[D3RANG3D]

[Uncle]

"ever"

a random rapist from the 1600s

a serial killer from the 1800s

don't worry guys, there's someone worse

[Nintex]

Fabricated stories about Trump, lawsuits against Elon Musk and cancel culture against bros in full swing.

The Democrats and fake news media are really pulling out all the stops trying to desperately cling to power.

[benji]

[benji]

[Cauliflower Of Love]

that crazy uppity negro getting all potusy

[Besticus Maximus]

I will never understand how anyone can think Obama is not cool but Trump is 

[Potato]

I will never understand how anyone can think Obama is not cool but Trump is 

Americans are generally retards man...

[benji]

I have to admit I am fascinated by how Trump turned his brand from an endless joke into one people seem to legitimately think is dangerous, badass and powerful. All while changing nothing about how he promotes and sells the brand. Just slap your name on garbage and insist it's the best, except suddenly people started believing this was true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Steaks

https://www.facebook.com/FirstWeFeast/videos/introducing-trump-steaksthe-worlds-greatest-steaks/762787567163308/

edit: heh, was in the results looking for that clip

[HaughtyFrank]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BKCHarvard/status/1849134425776243025?t=iYRnQyiBOmoGC1SD-hh-Tg&s=19[/tweet]

[benji]

A powerful debunking of First Amendment orthodoxy that critiques "reckless speech," which endangers vulnerable groups, and elevates "fearless speech," which seeks to advance equality and democracy.

Freedom of speech has never been more important—or more controversial. From debates about what's permissible on social media, to the politics of campus speakers and corporate advertisements, the First Amendment is incessantly in the news and constantly being held up as the fundamental principle of American democracy. Yet, in reality, it has contributed more to eroding our democracy than supporting it.

In Fearless Speech, Dr. Mary Anne Franks emphasizes the distinction between what speech a democratic society should protect and what speech a democratic society should promote.  While the First Amendment in theory is politically neutral, in practice it has been legally deployed most visibly and effectively to promote powerful antidemocratic interests: misogyny, racism, religious zealotry, and corporate self-interest, in other words, reckless speech. Instead, Franks argues, we need to focus on fearless speech—speakers who have risked their safety, their reputations, and in some cases their lives, to call out injustice and hold the powerful accountable. Whether it be civil rights leaders, the women of the #MeToo movement, or pro-choice advocates, Franks shows us how their cases and their voices can allow us to promote a more democratic version of free speech.

Told through an accessible narrative and ending with a call for change that urges us to reevaluate the legal precedents and uses of the First Amendment, Fearless Speech  is a revelatory new argument that urges us to reimagine what our society could look like.

This is just rehashing of shitty critical legal studies/critical race theory books demanding massive state censorship from the 1980's.

Her first book, The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free

In this controversial and provocative book, Mary Anne Franks examines the thin line between constitutional fidelity and constitutional fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution reveals how deep fundamentalist strains in both conservative and liberal American thought keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.

Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential. Economic and civil libertarianism have increasingly merged to produce a deregulatory, "free-market" approach to constitutional rights that achieves fullest expression in the idealization of the Internet. The worship of guns, speech, and the Internet in the name of the Constitution has blurred the boundaries between conduct and speech and between veneration and violence.

Oh, so this is just her whole thing, bitching about the lack of absolute state power.

edit:

[benji]

The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights. This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s preamble.

Making such an edit to the First Amendment would provide stronger and fairer protections for the right of expression, including by acknowledging, as many state constitutions do, that every person remains responsible for abuses of that right. (Such a modification would, for example, help undo the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and remove constitutional barriers to reasonable campaign-finance laws that promote democratic legitimacy.) In addition, the implicit principle of the separation of church and state should be made explicit:

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

[benji]

Why is she complaining about this? It's what she wants.

[Potato]

If the democrats lose this election, the first thing they need to do is excise these far left wing nutters from the party, root and branch.

They need to put in place rules to ensure they never again have any power to influence or take over policy. 

I mean, they should do it even if they win, but especially if they lose.

[Polident]

What you’ll get is arguments they weren’t far left enough.

[DavidCroquet]

I always wonder how these people imagine the other half lives. They've painted such a picture in their minds from a couple twitter sentences of questionable veracity.

[DavidCroquet]

that crazy uppity negro getting all potusy

Did you say...potussy???

[Cauliflower Of Love]

If the democrats lose this election, the first thing they need to do is excise these far left wing nutters from the party, root and branch.

They need to put in place rules to ensure they never again have any power to influence or take over policy. 

I mean, they should do it even if they win, but especially if they lose.

Bernie for secretary or interior

[benji]

[D3RANG3D]