She’s not smart, because the vast majority of her platform is idiotic.
Okay, let’s break down the planks of her platform as mentioned in that Fox News graphic:
Medicare For All — In other words, catching the American healthcare system up to literally every other developed country in the world.
Housing as a human right — I mean, sounds fine to me; why wouldn’t we want to have fewer people living on the street?
A federal jobs guarantee — Again, not seeing a real problem with this; the government should want to help people find jobs.
Gun control/assault weapons ban — Okay, and the problem here is…what exactly? That a gun nut won’t be able to buy an AR-15 they don’t need?
Criminal justice reform, end private prisons — Man, so far, so good with this platform; neither of these sound all that bad, especially the second one (private prisons have every incentive to mistreat prisoners for the sake of profit).
Immigration justice/abolish ICE — Contentious, sure, but if we got along fine before ICE, we can get along fine without it.
Solidarity with Puerto Rico — It’s a U.S. territory; why shouldn’t we stand in solidarity with PR?
Mobilizing against climate change — Even you think global climate change is a problem (albeit apparently one we’re too focused on solving or some shit, according to you).
Clean campaign finance — How is wanting to know who is funding political campaigns a bad thing, again?
Higher education for all — I can understand why the GOP would be against this (they prefer their electorate to be uneducated and distrustful of the educated), so of course you’d probably have a problem with this.
Women’s rights — What was that you had been saying about wanting to see AOC’s tits, again?
Support LGBTQIA+ — You’re here, you’re queer, but are you really for this, Lodos? You voted for a guy who isn’t, so…
Support seniors — Just because they’re old doesn’t mean they stop being people.
Curb Wall Street gambling; restore Glass-Steagall — The rich already fuck us over so much as-is; the least we can do is find a way to keep them from fucking us over as much.
So, other than an objection rooted in “how will we pay for it” (which never seems to come up when we’re talking about the military but always seems to be an issue when we’re talking about literally anything else), what is so wrong with her platform that you think at least eleven out of the fourteen items on that list (the “vast majority of her platform”) are “idiotic”?
Spanish as minority
She is of Puerto Rican descent, you racist dipshit.
I never said anything anywhere, about her genetics in any sort of bad light.
The fact that you’re so openly agreeing with racist douchewaffles who say she’s “idiotic” but offer nothing but dogwhistles about her background means you didn’t have to. (The sexist bullshit doesn’t help your case, either.)
Assault weapons are already banned: she’s after self reloading.
And this is bad, how, exactly?
Building multi family building in single family communities.
Okay, and…so what?
Open borders.
[citation needed]
Abolish ICE without replacement.
We can “replace” ICE with the departments that handled immigrations and customs enforcement before they were crammed together into one agency that now has a history of legally sanctioned excessive violence against immigrants (legal or otherwise) and American citizens.
Green new deal.
What’s so bad about wanting to do something about climate change and the economy at the same time? I mean, climate change will fuck over the economy at some point, whether we like it or not.
End private campaign donations.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
major restrictions on investment trading
Again: You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I’m not afraid.
I think you are.
You’re not afraid of her platform; you’re afraid of its growing popularity. You’re not afraid of her; you’re afraid of the growing diversity she represents in both society and government. You’re not afraid of change; you’re afraid of change that you believe will leave you in the dust.
To put it bluntly, you’re afraid of the same things that Trump followers are afraid of. No wonder you voted for him: You share their white rage.
That game was far from a “rarity”. It wasn’t Ninja Gaiden levels of successful, sure, but it also wasn’t some unknown game until the NES-on-Switch service came along. Hell, it was one of my favorites back when the NES was still a thing.
Yes, and where in any of that is the conservative bullshit about the claim of, as you put it, “all whites are racist”?
The claim is the country was founded when the first slave ships arrived.
Show me the exact bit of text from the 1619 Project — and I mean a direct quote with no ambiguity or wiggle room for any other possible interpretation — that says the United States was actually founded when the first African slaves arrived on the shores of the American colonies in 1619.
Calling them “token[s]” is extremely disrespectful.
So is hiring a bunch of queer people into government jobs for the sake of saying “look at all the queers we hired, can we get your votes now”. Considering how Trump refused to name a US Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons (a position created under Obama) during his four years in office and otherwise did next-to-nothing to fight for/protect the civil rights of queer people — recall that he also wanted trans people out of the military — calling his queer hires “tokens” is at least accurate.
Trump and most Republicans did.
[citation needed]
And by that, I mean: Cite the earliest possible story you can find that says a majority of Republicans believed safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines would be available prior to the 1st of January 2021.
[HuffPost link]
Fair enough, but note that their concerns were at least grounded in the reality that Trump had already pushed for the use of hydroxychloroquil as a treatment for COVID-19 (which was later proven to…not be a treatment for COVID-19). The idea that he would fast track an unsafe vaccine for the sake of getting reëlected was not something borne out of, say, the kind of unfounded anti-science paranoia that convinced all the plague enthusiasts to go without masks.
Anyone who got the vaccination is protected from maskless anti-vaxers
They’re protected from the most severe side effects of the disease (including death). They’re not protected from catching (and thus spreading to others) the same disease that Donald Trump said would simply go away. (How’d that claim work out for him?)
Republicans presented perfectly legal objections and questioned the election.
That their objections were legal doesn’t make their objections any less based on a lie. Until and unless someone presents any credible indication that massive voter fraud affected the presidential election in even a single state — and only the presidential election, since for some reason the Dems could only rig that race but not all the other downballot races in the contested states — their objections were (and still are) rooted in Old 45’s Big Lie.
Many Dems still cling to ‘Clinton Won 16’ as well.
Okay, so they’re pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote. And? Trump won the bullshit Electoral College thing. The Democrats didn’t object to Trump’s victory like the Republicans objected to Biden’s. And nobody did an insurrection on the 6th of January 2017 in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election in the name of Hillary Clinton.
Your whataboutism is ridiculous on this point. Nobody tried to take down American democracy in the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But Old 45’s followers did try to “stop the steal” and install the (popular and electoral) loser of the 2020 election as President simply because they couldn’t deal with the fact that a highly unpopular POTUS lost the election. And that says nothing about the after-the-election attempts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to restrict voting in those states so as to protect what power they still have left.
Republicans are pushing voting laws that intend to make sure only legally authorised voters can vote.
Is there any credible evidence that says anyone not legally entitled to vote in the U.S. actually tried to vote (or successfully voted) in the 2020 elections in substantial numbers? If not: The restrictions are meant to disenfranchise voters that Republicans don’t want voting.
No actual evidence of any large percentage of Republicans being white supremacists.
Note that I never made such a claim. I said the GOP is on the side of white supremacists, and this is true — because even if the GOP denounces white supremacy outright, it still pays lip service to those racists with dogwhistle politics about “thugs” and “welfare queens”. I don’t see the Klan seriously endorsing leftist candidates, sooooooo…
That existed before her. And has gained momentum in spite of her.
And yet, you were the one implying that the pro-M4A position wouldn’t be “popular” without AOC leading the charge: “The AOC progressives just happen to be a bit more popular because they got themselves a beautiful young lady to be their poster.” So which is it: Is the idea of M4A growing in popularity because of, or in spite of, that “beautiful young lady”?
Maybe not you specifically (I’d have to review your posts) but many, here and elsewhere, did.
That you made the leap from “fascist” to “Nazi” is understandable, but you made the leap yourself. I didn’t push you.
Environment over all, core socialism, and reverse racism does.
Why shouldn’t we prioritize caring for the environment? This is the only world we’ve got, and we’re slowly killing it, and it’s slowly killing us (and all other creatures) in return.
Socialism is already baked into the United States. Social Security? That’s socialism. Libraries? Hella socialist. Police, firefighters, and every other government department/service paid for with tax dollars? Socialist. As. Fuck.
Ain’t no such thing as “reverse racism” because no other racial group has ever had the same kind of sociopolitical power to inflict upon white people what white people have done to people of color for centuries. I mean, considering the Tulsa race massacre — where white people bombed Tulsa’s “Black Wall Street”, killed Black people in the process, destroyed any chance of the Black people who built businesses there from creating and passing down any form of generational wealth, and faced little-to-no consequences for their actions — when has something exactly like that ever happened to white people at the hands of Black people?
That government “socialised” healthcare falls under socialism is a happy convenience.
So what?
Few could tell you who Warren even was before she brought her views to the debate stage.
So what? To those that did know her, the policies for which she fought were largely popular. (I mean, at a bare minimum, taxing the fuck out of the wealthy should always poll well.)
The progressive movement simply coalesced around AOC as a mouthpiece for all of the movements.
No, it didn’t. She isn’t the singular mouthpiece for progressives; no one politician is. Even Bernie, try as he might, doesn’t speak for all progressives (nor did he speak for them even before AOC entered Congress).
Enjoying the pleasures of the human body does not make me a misogynist.
Implying that the only worth Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has as a person lies with her appearance does, though. And considering how you all but drooled over her in the same comment where you said she’s a dumbass, the implication that you think her only worth as a person is to serve as a living fleshlight is…less of an implication than I think you’re comfortable with admitting.
Nobody who knows me would doubt I’m a feminist.
And yet, there you were, begging AOC to show off her tits because you think that’s the only worth she has as a Congressperson.
So sure, not much.
You also gave your tacit and knowing support to a man who:
installed judges on the Supreme Court who lean in the direction of overturning Roe v. Wade once and for all
refused to acknowledge Pride Month, celebrate queer people, and defend the rights of queer people both domestically and internationally
tore immigrant families apart and kept them in concentration camps at the southern border
denied the existence of a pandemic, claimed the pandemic would “go away” within days, then did what he could to make the pandemic worse by contradicting actual scientists with actual expertise in dealing with actual pandemics
insulted his political “enemies” (including people in his own party) like he was a young child on a playground
claimed there were “very fine people on both sides” of a white nationalist march and the protest against said march, which ended with the death of a young woman at the hands of one of those white nationalists
prepared to call the military into American cities to quell protests/riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death
offered few condolences for the victims of gun violence and no real solutions on how to solve the issue of gun violence
attempted to repeal Obamacare without any actual replacement plan from either the GOP or his own administration ready to pass in the wake of that repeal
lied for years about Obama being born in Hawaii, then admitted Obama was born in Hawaii without ever admitting he was wrong or apologizing for his role in the (absolutely racist) “birther” movement
…and that was after he did those things. That doesn’t even get into his attempts to overthrow American democracy via the courts (which laughed him out, as well they should’ve) and direct contact with state election officials (who ignored his requests to “find” votes for him, as well they should’ve).
So yeah, as far as I’m concerned, you have one thing in common with a shitload of conservative men: You voted for fascism, for suffering, for “own the libs at any cost” because you thought you’d get to laugh at the people you hate suffering under another four years of Trump.
Live with that knowledge at the forefront of everything you do. Die with that knowledge as the last thought on your mind.
Sammy, jeez, learn to keep it in one comment. Replying to all your stuff here for peace of mind.
Nintendo somehow makes a Game Boy Advance service for their online membership plan like they did for the NES and Super NES.
Given how long it took for Nintendo to start the SNES part of its online system after the launch of the Switch, and how few games of the total libraries of both the NES and SNES are on the service (even compared to the amount of games available through the Virtual Console on the Wii U)? Don’t hold your breath waiting for GBA games — or games from any other system, for that matter.
this is not the first time Nintendo left money on the table
Nor will it be the last. But it is one of the more infuriating times, especially for Metroid fans who want to play the games legally.
Metroid and Super Metroid are both available on those respective services
You know what games aren’t on that service? Fusion (GBA), Zero Mission (GBA), and the original Metroid II (GB). Considering how Dread will pick up from Fusion, the inability of Metroid fans to revisit that game legally on the Switch is notably egregious.
Nintendo's online service is so inexpensive it even costs less than Gamepass, Netflix, or Disney+.
And it still only gives you a fraction of the games that are available on the Wii U’s Virtual Console.
Would it kill Nintendo to release a Metroid collection that has Metroids 1 to 4 (the original, Metroid II, Super Metroid, and Fusion) in addition to Zero Mission? Like, they can price it at a full $60 and do that limited time bullshit like they did with that Mario battle royale thing, but at least it would be something people could get their hands on.
The larger problem here is that Nintendo could easily afford to do such a thing, given the broad success of the Switch and many of the first-party games for that system (notably Animal Crossing: New Horizons and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild). That they don’t is a testament to either its inability to give a fuck about its classic back catalog or its dismissive attitude towards the same fans that are willing to toss Nintendo money in exchange for a legal way to play the old Metroid games. Either way, it’s not a good look.
anyone who is slightly offensive, irritating, or who just doesn't fit in needs to shut the fuck up and hide because the only true crime is "not belonging". People who skirt as close to the rules as possible are signalling in a very loud way that they "don't belong", and so even if they haven't broken the rules you want them punished until they start behaving.
Well…yeah. That’s the whole point of curating a community: You generally don’t want assholes around.
or those of us who aren't insane control freaks and authoritarian fetishists, your attitude is incompatible with liberty, decency, tolerance, creativity, humor, kindness, convenience, and a hundred other qualities that I just don't have the energy to list.
No, it isn’t.
Say an asshole comes into a queer-friendly space and starts saying a bunch of anti-queer bullshit. They don’t technically violate the rules when they do it, but when pressed on why they’re being an asshole, they hide behind the excuse of “I’m not breaking any rules”. For what reason should the asshole be allowed to remain in that space even if everyone else wants the asshole gone?
Yes, it does make sense — trolls will test the absolute limits of what a stated rule says, then use whatever punishment gets handed down as a point of information in learning how to game the system. A troll will look for a loophole to abuse so they can keep trolling without technically violating the rules. Think of it as a game of “I’m not touching you”: Trolls love getting as close as possible to “touching you” without actually “touching you” (i.e., breaking the rules).
Your problem is in thinking trolls won’t abuse loopholes to keep trolling. We’re not here to solve that problem for you.
Trump said what he said after a presentation that pointed out how household disinfectants — including bleach — could kill the virus on non-porous surfaces. If you think he was referring to peroxide drips when he said “disinfectants”, you’re deluding yourself into thinking Trump is a genius when he’s really a fucking moron.
Assume for a moment that Twitter has banned users from posting the phrase “conversion ‘therapy’ ”, which refers to the psychological (and often physical) torture of queer people done with the intent of making them heterosexual/cisgender. How would proponents of “conversion ‘therapy’ ” get around that ban? Easy: They’ll refer to “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) or any of the other phrases they’ve invented to disguise or soften the image of “conversion ‘therapy’ ”.
(Before you ask: Yes, the position of those quotation marks are intentional, and yes, they will be repeated every time I use the phrase.)
Spell out a rule in explicit detail and you’ll have the worst kinds of people looking for a loophole. Then you’ll have to further detail new rules to cover the loopholes, which will themselves have new loopholes to exploit. Semi-detailed rulesets that provide examples of prohibited speech but don’t limit the bans to those examples alone can be adapted on the fly to account for those loophole-abusing assholes.
Having the right to do a thing doesn’t make it the right thing to do. We’re allowed to say “they have the right to do that, but what they’re doing is bullshit” because of that principle. I’d love to see you explain why you think we’re not, though.
Also worth noting: His comments came directly after a presentation that talked about how household disinfectants — including bleach — could kill the COVID-19 vaccine on non-porous surfaces. Since Old 45 isn’t the brightest of even the dim bulbs, that his remarks could’ve referred to bleach is incredibly likely.
Remember: You obviously wanted this, or you wouldn’t have replied the way you did.
You invent multiple false cases over Trump who has condemned it all along every step of the way.
He may have paid lip service to the idea of condemning racism, sure. But he didn’t actually do anything to follow up his words. (And he also paid lip service to racists — or does “stand back and stand by” not ring a bell?) I mean, did he ever follow up Charlottesville with an executive order asking the FBI to investigate white supremacists or something? What did he do as POTUS — not say, do, as in “actions he took” — to show that he truly condemned racism?
But to support CRT? A bullshite flame all whites are racist?
Or [The 1619 Project]? Claiming America was founded when British citizens bought slaves from British ships operated by British companies?
It claims no such thing. The project intended “to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative”. Maybe if you actually read the materials in the project and tried to understand them outside of the bullshit framing given to them by conservative media outlets (which are more than happy to distort the project and other works like it to gin up white rage among conservative readership), you might learn something.
Trump was the first president to put people who fall into the LGBT community into power at EVERY level of government and staff.
So what? He rarely defended their civil rights and kicked trans people out of the military. Installing a few token queers doesn’t grant him a lifetime pass to Pride.
Trump pushed aside every piece of red tape to move for a vaccination that the Dems said couldn’t happen.
Nobody thought the vaccines would be ready as soon as they were. Placing that on Democrats alone — and without any evidence that they even once tried to stop development of the vaccines — is a bullshit move and you know it’s a bullshit, Lodos. You’re so eager to blame Dems for everything that you seriously come off as a Republican lawmaker.
When it became clear it would; they questioned the safety and effectiveness.
[citation needed]
Now that Biden took office they bitch about anti vaxers? Well, they did spend a year saying bad juju.
[citation needed]
Also, many of the people in the anti–COVID vaccine crowd were also “I WANT MUH FREEDOMS” anti-maskers.
Republicans, as a whole, fit none of your statements.
Republicans are the ones who tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Republicans are the ones passing voting restriction laws to shrink the franchise instead of expanding it. Republicans stand on the side of white supremacists (or at least pay lip service to such bastards because they’re in the voting base), evangelical conservative Christians who want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, and anti-queer bigots.
How are they not about any of the things I mentioned they are, again?
The AOC progressives just happen to be a bit more popular because they got themselves a beautiful young lady to be their poster.
Wow. Do you really think people can’t actually believe in Medicare For All without first hearing a hot piece of ass say “we need a better healthcare system in this country”?
Calling Republicans Nazis
I didn’t call them Nazis — I called them fascists. All Nazis are fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis. Congratulations, you Godwinned yourself.
The biggest reason, period, the progressive movement is popular is because they have a little hottie as their mouthpiece.
It, uh…it really isn’t as popular as you think it is, or else we’d have Medicare For All right now. And both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were championing a few progressive causes well before AOC showed up in Congress, so maybe stop thinking AOC’s looks have anything to do with it. (Seriously, it’s like you fell out of a Breitbart tree and hit every brainwashing branch on the way down.)
I wonder how many followers are waiting for her to go free-the-nipple.
I’ll admit, I am. Dem titties.
Go touch grass, misogynist.
And before you call me sexist remember I’m
…a giant piece of shit, yes, we’re all well aware of how much you have in common with conservative men.
She’s hot, not smart.
Is she not smart because she’s not smart, or is she not smart because the conservative media you (over)consume keeps distorting her actual words to make her sound like an idiot while simultaneously dehumanizing her into a mere sex object for their — your — desperate jackoff sessions?
You can ask the question over and over again, but you’re going to get either the response I gave you last time or this one:
I don’t believe moderation is censorship because believing that would make me an entitled asshole who believes in “free reach”. If I believed Twitter could violate my First Amendment right to speak freely, I could justify believing the ideas of “Twitter owes me a spot on Twitter”, “Twitter shouldn’t be able to delete my speech”, and “Twitter should make other people listen to me”. I don’t believe in any of those things because I’m not an entitled asshole.
Also: Moderation doesn’t violate your First Amendment rights. If and when it does, we can discuss moderation being censorship. But right now, it doesn’t. So I can’t do that.
Also also: What specific speech are you worried about being “censored”? Please be more specific than “conservative speech” with your answer.
When NYT runs op-eds, it’s not the NYT supporting the piece. It’s the author’s opinion.
But NYT does support the piece, regardless of whether everyone at the paper agrees with the views expressed therein. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t have run the op-ed — because to run the op-ed, someone at the paper had to make a decision on whether to run it.
Twitter doesn’t make those kinds of decisions. Speech comes first and moderation second because moderation is always reactive.
Don’t lower yourself to the crap of the GOP and Progressives.
Conflating a political party currently known for fascism, hatred, and nakedly partisan powergrabs with progressivism only makes me wonder what the fuck you’re smoking, Lodos.
A site hosting something someone else said does not equate to that site saying it.
But a site giving that speech its approval either directly (through a statement from the site’s owners/operators) or indirectly (through a refusal to moderate it) does equate to that site associating itself with that speech.
Being censored for wrongthink has nothing to do with trespassing.
And if Twitter, Facebook, etc. had the power to censor you by way of denying you the right to speak freely anywhere, you might have a point.
But they can’t.
So you don’t.
Why can't you just admit that it's censorship and you just agree with it?
Three things.
It’s not censorship.
If what Twitter does is censorship, Parler does it too, and I believe Parler has the same right as Twitter to ban speech it doesn’t want to host (like, say, leftist political speech).
What speech is, in your view, being censored? Be very specific; saying “conservative speech” isn’t good enough.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Okay, let’s break down the planks of her platform as mentioned in that Fox News graphic:
Medicare For All — In other words, catching the American healthcare system up to literally every other developed country in the world.
Housing as a human right — I mean, sounds fine to me; why wouldn’t we want to have fewer people living on the street?
A federal jobs guarantee — Again, not seeing a real problem with this; the government should want to help people find jobs.
Gun control/assault weapons ban — Okay, and the problem here is…what exactly? That a gun nut won’t be able to buy an AR-15 they don’t need?
Criminal justice reform, end private prisons — Man, so far, so good with this platform; neither of these sound all that bad, especially the second one (private prisons have every incentive to mistreat prisoners for the sake of profit).
Immigration justice/abolish ICE — Contentious, sure, but if we got along fine before ICE, we can get along fine without it.
Solidarity with Puerto Rico — It’s a U.S. territory; why shouldn’t we stand in solidarity with PR?
Mobilizing against climate change — Even you think global climate change is a problem (albeit apparently one we’re too focused on solving or some shit, according to you).
Clean campaign finance — How is wanting to know who is funding political campaigns a bad thing, again?
Higher education for all — I can understand why the GOP would be against this (they prefer their electorate to be uneducated and distrustful of the educated), so of course you’d probably have a problem with this.
Women’s rights — What was that you had been saying about wanting to see AOC’s tits, again?
Support LGBTQIA+ — You’re here, you’re queer, but are you really for this, Lodos? You voted for a guy who isn’t, so…
Support seniors — Just because they’re old doesn’t mean they stop being people.
So, other than an objection rooted in “how will we pay for it” (which never seems to come up when we’re talking about the military but always seems to be an issue when we’re talking about literally anything else), what is so wrong with her platform that you think at least eleven out of the fourteen items on that list (the “vast majority of her platform”) are “idiotic”?
She is of Puerto Rican descent, you racist dipshit.
The fact that you’re so openly agreeing with racist douchewaffles who say she’s “idiotic” but offer nothing but dogwhistles about her background means you didn’t have to. (The sexist bullshit doesn’t help your case, either.)
And this is bad, how, exactly?
Okay, and…so what?
[citation needed]
We can “replace” ICE with the departments that handled immigrations and customs enforcement before they were crammed together into one agency that now has a history of legally sanctioned excessive violence against immigrants (legal or otherwise) and American citizens.
What’s so bad about wanting to do something about climate change and the economy at the same time? I mean, climate change will fuck over the economy at some point, whether we like it or not.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Again: You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I think you are.
You’re not afraid of her platform; you’re afraid of its growing popularity. You’re not afraid of her; you’re afraid of the growing diversity she represents in both society and government. You’re not afraid of change; you’re afraid of change that you believe will leave you in the dust.
To put it bluntly, you’re afraid of the same things that Trump followers are afraid of. No wonder you voted for him: You share their white rage.
On the post: Nintendo Continues To Make It Hard To Play Classic Games Legitimately
That game was far from a “rarity”. It wasn’t Ninja Gaiden levels of successful, sure, but it also wasn’t some unknown game until the NES-on-Switch service came along. Hell, it was one of my favorites back when the NES was still a thing.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Exactly.
Yes, and where in any of that is the conservative bullshit about the claim of, as you put it, “all whites are racist”?
Show me the exact bit of text from the 1619 Project — and I mean a direct quote with no ambiguity or wiggle room for any other possible interpretation — that says the United States was actually founded when the first African slaves arrived on the shores of the American colonies in 1619.
So is hiring a bunch of queer people into government jobs for the sake of saying “look at all the queers we hired, can we get your votes now”. Considering how Trump refused to name a US Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons (a position created under Obama) during his four years in office and otherwise did next-to-nothing to fight for/protect the civil rights of queer people — recall that he also wanted trans people out of the military — calling his queer hires “tokens” is at least accurate.
[citation needed]
And by that, I mean: Cite the earliest possible story you can find that says a majority of Republicans believed safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines would be available prior to the 1st of January 2021.
Fair enough, but note that their concerns were at least grounded in the reality that Trump had already pushed for the use of hydroxychloroquil as a treatment for COVID-19 (which was later proven to…not be a treatment for COVID-19). The idea that he would fast track an unsafe vaccine for the sake of getting reëlected was not something borne out of, say, the kind of unfounded anti-science paranoia that convinced all the plague enthusiasts to go without masks.
They’re protected from the most severe side effects of the disease (including death). They’re not protected from catching (and thus spreading to others) the same disease that Donald Trump said would simply go away. (How’d that claim work out for him?)
That their objections were legal doesn’t make their objections any less based on a lie. Until and unless someone presents any credible indication that massive voter fraud affected the presidential election in even a single state — and only the presidential election, since for some reason the Dems could only rig that race but not all the other downballot races in the contested states — their objections were (and still are) rooted in Old 45’s Big Lie.
Okay, so they’re pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote. And? Trump won the bullshit Electoral College thing. The Democrats didn’t object to Trump’s victory like the Republicans objected to Biden’s. And nobody did an insurrection on the 6th of January 2017 in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election in the name of Hillary Clinton.
Your whataboutism is ridiculous on this point. Nobody tried to take down American democracy in the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But Old 45’s followers did try to “stop the steal” and install the (popular and electoral) loser of the 2020 election as President simply because they couldn’t deal with the fact that a highly unpopular POTUS lost the election. And that says nothing about the after-the-election attempts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to restrict voting in those states so as to protect what power they still have left.
Is there any credible evidence that says anyone not legally entitled to vote in the U.S. actually tried to vote (or successfully voted) in the 2020 elections in substantial numbers? If not: The restrictions are meant to disenfranchise voters that Republicans don’t want voting.
Note that I never made such a claim. I said the GOP is on the side of white supremacists, and this is true — because even if the GOP denounces white supremacy outright, it still pays lip service to those racists with dogwhistle politics about “thugs” and “welfare queens”. I don’t see the Klan seriously endorsing leftist candidates, sooooooo…
And yet, you were the one implying that the pro-M4A position wouldn’t be “popular” without AOC leading the charge: “The AOC progressives just happen to be a bit more popular because they got themselves a beautiful young lady to be their poster.” So which is it: Is the idea of M4A growing in popularity because of, or in spite of, that “beautiful young lady”?
That you made the leap from “fascist” to “Nazi” is understandable, but you made the leap yourself. I didn’t push you.
Why shouldn’t we prioritize caring for the environment? This is the only world we’ve got, and we’re slowly killing it, and it’s slowly killing us (and all other creatures) in return.
Socialism is already baked into the United States. Social Security? That’s socialism. Libraries? Hella socialist. Police, firefighters, and every other government department/service paid for with tax dollars? Socialist. As. Fuck.
Ain’t no such thing as “reverse racism” because no other racial group has ever had the same kind of sociopolitical power to inflict upon white people what white people have done to people of color for centuries. I mean, considering the Tulsa race massacre — where white people bombed Tulsa’s “Black Wall Street”, killed Black people in the process, destroyed any chance of the Black people who built businesses there from creating and passing down any form of generational wealth, and faced little-to-no consequences for their actions — when has something exactly like that ever happened to white people at the hands of Black people?
So what?
So what? To those that did know her, the policies for which she fought were largely popular. (I mean, at a bare minimum, taxing the fuck out of the wealthy should always poll well.)
No, it didn’t. She isn’t the singular mouthpiece for progressives; no one politician is. Even Bernie, try as he might, doesn’t speak for all progressives (nor did he speak for them even before AOC entered Congress).
Implying that the only worth Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has as a person lies with her appearance does, though. And considering how you all but drooled over her in the same comment where you said she’s a dumbass, the implication that you think her only worth as a person is to serve as a living fleshlight is…less of an implication than I think you’re comfortable with admitting.
And yet, there you were, begging AOC to show off her tits because you think that’s the only worth she has as a Congressperson.
You also gave your tacit and knowing support to a man who:
installed judges on the Supreme Court who lean in the direction of overturning Roe v. Wade once and for all
refused to acknowledge Pride Month, celebrate queer people, and defend the rights of queer people both domestically and internationally
tore immigrant families apart and kept them in concentration camps at the southern border
denied the existence of a pandemic, claimed the pandemic would “go away” within days, then did what he could to make the pandemic worse by contradicting actual scientists with actual expertise in dealing with actual pandemics
insulted his political “enemies” (including people in his own party) like he was a young child on a playground
claimed there were “very fine people on both sides” of a white nationalist march and the protest against said march, which ended with the death of a young woman at the hands of one of those white nationalists
prepared to call the military into American cities to quell protests/riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death
offered few condolences for the victims of gun violence and no real solutions on how to solve the issue of gun violence
attempted to repeal Obamacare without any actual replacement plan from either the GOP or his own administration ready to pass in the wake of that repeal
…and that was after he did those things. That doesn’t even get into his attempts to overthrow American democracy via the courts (which laughed him out, as well they should’ve) and direct contact with state election officials (who ignored his requests to “find” votes for him, as well they should’ve).
So yeah, as far as I’m concerned, you have one thing in common with a shitload of conservative men: You voted for fascism, for suffering, for “own the libs at any cost” because you thought you’d get to laugh at the people you hate suffering under another four years of Trump.
Live with that knowledge at the forefront of everything you do. Die with that knowledge as the last thought on your mind.
On the post: Nintendo Continues To Make It Hard To Play Classic Games Legitimately
Sammy, jeez, learn to keep it in one comment. Replying to all your stuff here for peace of mind.
Given how long it took for Nintendo to start the SNES part of its online system after the launch of the Switch, and how few games of the total libraries of both the NES and SNES are on the service (even compared to the amount of games available through the Virtual Console on the Wii U)? Don’t hold your breath waiting for GBA games — or games from any other system, for that matter.
Nor will it be the last. But it is one of the more infuriating times, especially for Metroid fans who want to play the games legally.
You know what games aren’t on that service? Fusion (GBA), Zero Mission (GBA), and the original Metroid II (GB). Considering how Dread will pick up from Fusion, the inability of Metroid fans to revisit that game legally on the Switch is notably egregious.
And it still only gives you a fraction of the games that are available on the Wii U’s Virtual Console.
Would it kill Nintendo to release a Metroid collection that has Metroids 1 to 4 (the original, Metroid II, Super Metroid, and Fusion) in addition to Zero Mission? Like, they can price it at a full $60 and do that limited time bullshit like they did with that Mario battle royale thing, but at least it would be something people could get their hands on.
The larger problem here is that Nintendo could easily afford to do such a thing, given the broad success of the Switch and many of the first-party games for that system (notably Animal Crossing: New Horizons and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild). That they don’t is a testament to either its inability to give a fuck about its classic back catalog or its dismissive attitude towards the same fans that are willing to toss Nintendo money in exchange for a legal way to play the old Metroid games. Either way, it’s not a good look.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Well…yeah. That’s the whole point of curating a community: You generally don’t want assholes around.
No, it isn’t.
Say an asshole comes into a queer-friendly space and starts saying a bunch of anti-queer bullshit. They don’t technically violate the rules when they do it, but when pressed on why they’re being an asshole, they hide behind the excuse of “I’m not breaking any rules”. For what reason should the asshole be allowed to remain in that space even if everyone else wants the asshole gone?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Yes, it does make sense — trolls will test the absolute limits of what a stated rule says, then use whatever punishment gets handed down as a point of information in learning how to game the system. A troll will look for a loophole to abuse so they can keep trolling without technically violating the rules. Think of it as a game of “I’m not touching you”: Trolls love getting as close as possible to “touching you” without actually “touching you” (i.e., breaking the rules).
Your problem is in thinking trolls won’t abuse loopholes to keep trolling. We’re not here to solve that problem for you.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Prove it is and maybe we’ll care.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Trump said what he said after a presentation that pointed out how household disinfectants — including bleach — could kill the virus on non-porous surfaces. If you think he was referring to peroxide drips when he said “disinfectants”, you’re deluding yourself into thinking Trump is a genius when he’s really a fucking moron.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
It will also kill the host, but that’s not important right now.
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
Every time you open a “but”, you expose an asshole.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Assume for a moment that Twitter has banned users from posting the phrase “conversion ‘therapy’ ”, which refers to the psychological (and often physical) torture of queer people done with the intent of making them heterosexual/cisgender. How would proponents of “conversion ‘therapy’ ” get around that ban? Easy: They’ll refer to “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) or any of the other phrases they’ve invented to disguise or soften the image of “conversion ‘therapy’ ”.
(Before you ask: Yes, the position of those quotation marks are intentional, and yes, they will be repeated every time I use the phrase.)
Spell out a rule in explicit detail and you’ll have the worst kinds of people looking for a loophole. Then you’ll have to further detail new rules to cover the loopholes, which will themselves have new loopholes to exploit. Semi-detailed rulesets that provide examples of prohibited speech but don’t limit the bans to those examples alone can be adapted on the fly to account for those loophole-abusing assholes.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Having the right to do a thing doesn’t make it the right thing to do. We’re allowed to say “they have the right to do that, but what they’re doing is bullshit” because of that principle. I’d love to see you explain why you think we’re not, though.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Instagram Takes Down Instagram Account Of Book About Instagram (2020)
Also worth noting: His comments came directly after a presentation that talked about how household disinfectants — including bleach — could kill the COVID-19 vaccine on non-porous surfaces. Since Old 45 isn’t the brightest of even the dim bulbs, that his remarks could’ve referred to bleach is incredibly likely.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Remember: You obviously wanted this, or you wouldn’t have replied the way you did.
He may have paid lip service to the idea of condemning racism, sure. But he didn’t actually do anything to follow up his words. (And he also paid lip service to racists — or does “stand back and stand by” not ring a bell?) I mean, did he ever follow up Charlottesville with an executive order asking the FBI to investigate white supremacists or something? What did he do as POTUS — not say, do, as in “actions he took” — to show that he truly condemned racism?
Critical race theory isn’t what you’ve been brainwashed by conservative media to believe. Try actually learning what CRT is on your own for once.
It claims no such thing. The project intended “to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States’ national narrative”. Maybe if you actually read the materials in the project and tried to understand them outside of the bullshit framing given to them by conservative media outlets (which are more than happy to distort the project and other works like it to gin up white rage among conservative readership), you might learn something.
So what? He rarely defended their civil rights and kicked trans people out of the military. Installing a few token queers doesn’t grant him a lifetime pass to Pride.
Nobody thought the vaccines would be ready as soon as they were. Placing that on Democrats alone — and without any evidence that they even once tried to stop development of the vaccines — is a bullshit move and you know it’s a bullshit, Lodos. You’re so eager to blame Dems for everything that you seriously come off as a Republican lawmaker.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Also, many of the people in the anti–COVID vaccine crowd were also “I WANT MUH FREEDOMS” anti-maskers.
Republicans are the ones who tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Republicans are the ones passing voting restriction laws to shrink the franchise instead of expanding it. Republicans stand on the side of white supremacists (or at least pay lip service to such bastards because they’re in the voting base), evangelical conservative Christians who want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy, and anti-queer bigots.
How are they not about any of the things I mentioned they are, again?
Wow. Do you really think people can’t actually believe in Medicare For All without first hearing a hot piece of ass say “we need a better healthcare system in this country”?
I didn’t call them Nazis — I called them fascists. All Nazis are fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis. Congratulations, you Godwinned yourself.
It, uh…it really isn’t as popular as you think it is, or else we’d have Medicare For All right now. And both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were championing a few progressive causes well before AOC showed up in Congress, so maybe stop thinking AOC’s looks have anything to do with it. (Seriously, it’s like you fell out of a Breitbart tree and hit every brainwashing branch on the way down.)
Go touch grass, misogynist.
…a giant piece of shit, yes, we’re all well aware of how much you have in common with conservative men.
Is she not smart because she’s not smart, or is she not smart because the conservative media you (over)consume keeps distorting her actual words to make her sound like an idiot while simultaneously dehumanizing her into a mere sex object for their — your — desperate jackoff sessions?
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
You can ask the question over and over again, but you’re going to get either the response I gave you last time or this one:
I don’t believe moderation is censorship because believing that would make me an entitled asshole who believes in “free reach”. If I believed Twitter could violate my First Amendment right to speak freely, I could justify believing the ideas of “Twitter owes me a spot on Twitter”, “Twitter shouldn’t be able to delete my speech”, and “Twitter should make other people listen to me”. I don’t believe in any of those things because I’m not an entitled asshole.
Also: Moderation doesn’t violate your First Amendment rights. If and when it does, we can discuss moderation being censorship. But right now, it doesn’t. So I can’t do that.
Also also: What specific speech are you worried about being “censored”? Please be more specific than “conservative speech” with your answer.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
But NYT does support the piece, regardless of whether everyone at the paper agrees with the views expressed therein. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t have run the op-ed — because to run the op-ed, someone at the paper had to make a decision on whether to run it.
Twitter doesn’t make those kinds of decisions. Speech comes first and moderation second because moderation is always reactive.
Conflating a political party currently known for fascism, hatred, and nakedly partisan powergrabs with progressivism only makes me wonder what the fuck you’re smoking, Lodos.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
But a site giving that speech its approval either directly (through a statement from the site’s owners/operators) or indirectly (through a refusal to moderate it) does equate to that site associating itself with that speech.
On the post: Reason Shows How To Properly Respond To A Questionable Social Media Takedown: By Calling It Out
And if Twitter, Facebook, etc. had the power to censor you by way of denying you the right to speak freely anywhere, you might have a point.
But they can’t.
So you don’t.
Three things.
It’s not censorship.
If what Twitter does is censorship, Parler does it too, and I believe Parler has the same right as Twitter to ban speech it doesn’t want to host (like, say, leftist political speech).
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
you’re making even less sense than usual
Next >>