Black Lives Matter! Math, software, science, politics, education, 日本語。(((He/They)))
461 followers 272 following 912 posts
view profile on Bluesky
You conveniently left out the next section, which contradicts your claim. (As I noted elsewhere, if we're debating ethnic cleansing vs genocide this is an argument about colors of black and rather ghoulish -- but you're misrepresenting the text you're using.)
I truly wish y'all understood this idea. Modern journalism is driven by metrics and engagement; that's part of why y'all focus on sensationalism rather than informing the public. You could do both, but it's harder and riskier. You're chasing popularity in part because your market encourages this.
FWIW, I liked the Terraformers. share.libbyapp.com/title/8916828
This in no way invalidates the assertion that many in the far right in Israel want to commit -- at a minimum -- ethnic cleansing. (They have been fairly clear about their goals.) IMO both peoples have a claim to the land, and a partition (i.e. a two state solution) would be a reasonable resolution.
Ethnic cleansing isn't the same as genocide, though it also includes war crimes. Of course, having this argument means we're arguing about shades of black (and it seems a ghoulish argument...). www.un.org/en/genocide-...
Such eloquence. I wasn't expecting you to take my advice, but TBH I also didn't expect you to keep illustrating my point.
You should start with not saying stupid things. Especially if you don't want people to point out that you said something stupid.
The problem is that not enough people (outside of solidly blue districts) vote for candidates who propose the policies you want. You could work to convince people who aren't already on your side, but that would be work. And obviously it's easier to complain and hope someone else does the work.
Them: “Cities are all rotting hellscapes!” Cities:
This cat seems very much like one of our cats. (The one who is terrified of everything -- but who will do this to me if I'm working in the living room at night.)
This resignation letter from one of the CDC leaders is important.
It is the second line under the third definition. It's also in the OED directly (but that shouldn't be needed as it is literally in the screenshot above). www.oed.com/dictionary/p...
(I don't mean that I'm sure Ms Cook will prevail -- I mean that you shouldn't undercut her effort to assert that she hasn't actually been fired through your agreeing that Trump's actions have the force of law.)
Why would you accept as a fait accompli the contested actions of a wannabe dictator? This looks like obeying in advance; I honestly don't understand why you'd do it unless it's for sensationalism. You note in the article that the firing is contested but headline and frame ignore that critical fact.
Your responsibility is limited to what you can do. Telling people that Democratic politicians are just the lesser evil is sabotaging them; and it seems based on a fantasy that we've got a unicorn candidate waiting in the wings. My kid is trans so it's quite personal to me. And the choice was stark.
Anyway, we're back to how your goal is to depress turnout for Democratic politicians ("teach them a lesson") rather than stopping Republicans. So I guess you're doing exactly what you'd intended to do.
That tracks: "get our votes" -- i.e. complete abdication of your own responsibility. If you cared about those things, you'd have worked hard to convince others to vote for the candidate who is most likely to move in your preferred direction -- who would have at least offered a chance.
Did I say that I think he's doing a good job? My comment is about the impact our actions have -- and how we should consider that impact independent of intent.
You do realize that we can all see that you dropped into their thread to start this discussion, right? And in particular -- no, a vigorous primary wouldn't have solved it. A large section of the electorate (and many elites who work to shape public opinion) wanted what Trump promised.
Given that this is your approach -- you'll have more impact talking to Republican voters about how their representatives are failing miserably -- demonstrating incompetency, hypocrisy, and cowardice. Unless your goal is to depress Democratic participation so that Republicans win. If so -- carry on.
If your call for action is trashing most Democratic politicians, the answer is yes -- you'd have more impact talking to Republicans. If you're pointing out when Democratic politicians have taken action and specific ways they can do more (ways which are feasible/impactful) -- sure, that's better.
I honest think it's better to just block accounts like this.
Illinois Gov. Pritzker vows to pursue Trump officials who participate in an illegal National Guard deployment to Chicago: "If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me - not time or political circumstance - from making sure that you face justice under our constitutional rule of law."
Reading the replies ... I guess it's block party time. Again. 🥳
criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/a...
This is just accelerationism dressed up to make it sound more palatable.
I think Foster was white. OTOH his girlfriend was black, so this presumably falls under the same banner.
Damn, that's enough to make me feel OK about Newsom as a national candidate. I wasn't expecting that, TBH. There are others I'd prefer, but he was solid in that clip -- and he covered what and why he's doing in way that's both self-aware and effective.
But I do think it's fair to describe some of the far right there as calling for genocide - or at a minimum forced displacement ("ethnic cleansing"). Israel has the right to exist, but extremists there are (like extremists here in the US) extreme and we should be able to call them out.
(You can blame others too; I'd blame Netanyahu equally. But Hamas undertook their attack on Israel to provoke the response they got. Even if you think it's justified because you want to see Israel destroyed -- that is no comfort for Palestinians who die now.)
Yes, you should blame Hamas. HTH
I've felt that way about Netanyahu since I knew about his miserable existence. I continue to consider him partially to blame for the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. So it's closer for me than Putin. My ancestors on my mom's side fled pogroms in Russia, but I don't expect other than Tsars there.
You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I'm not interested in bad faith discussions; muting.
Honestly? You should push for the candidate who has a chance to win and would be effective at the policies you want. Results, not rallies. But don't pretend winning in deep blue districts means everyone agrees. We won't be able to pass the legislation you want without a much larger majority.
Just for those who may be a little confused: This is how an American president should treat Putin.
And before you accuse me of being pollyanna esque about the economic situation for those outside the top decile or the overall rising inequality here -- my point wasn't that things are great. It's just that Democrats did try to do something with legislation, and you're ignoring it.
"So is your memory only a decade long then?" Go back more than a decade the the conservative "Democrats" were more conservative. "doesn’t stop them from getting elected" Folks on the right have been voting strategically for decades -- for the rightmost candidate who can win. We see the results.
"But the Dems can’t seem to do the same for the poor." Biden's policies intended to help people in lower deciles and did so. ( www.epi.org/publication/... ) The ACA's subsidies were also helpful. Neither got any credit on the left; I assume that's because these were incremental, not "revolution!"
Policy positions that strong leftists stake out don't win elections in swing districts or states. You can find surveys showing they're popular -- until the GQP points out that the policies will also help scary minorities. The only coherent argument for undercutting Harris was accelerationism. [2/2]
It didn't take long to find what I expected. The last time the Democrats "ha[d] the votes" (including centrists who caucus with them) was more than a decade ago. Unless you imagine you have some magic to force everyone to toe the line. But it goes beyond that. [1/2] bsky.app/profile/john...
No one actually cares if you like politicians or if you think they're good people. We just care about whether your votes move the needle in a good or bad direction. I like to think of the US civil rights movement as an analogy. The _best_ choices for black voters were still mostly flaming racists.
You call what y'all do help? That's cold; let me wish to never ever receive help like this.
It's not our job to elect any specific candidate. It's our job to help elect for the candidate whose election would produce policies/governance closest to our preferences. Voting for the best candidate who can win is your responsibility regardless of whether or not you like the candidate.
I'm not generally that much of a fan of Newsom, but I'm pretty happy with this. (He's very much a politician; I still voted for him and against recall since he's been doing OK, but I hope we find a better candidate in 2028.)
Looking at this set of photos it's also really hard to miss the racism angle. I know that it's easy to pretend, but FFS...
Meeting a standard of social acceptability in this case means basic manners and respect; that's not privilege, that is your responsibility as a human. I'd go further: not only are you not owed romantic love, shunning is appropriate if you can't manage those basic expectations.
I agree with you, but I think it's worth flagging that existing market players may believe that a less free and less rules-based market would allow them to retain their market dominance. Corruption is less efficient overall, but in terms of game theory each participant makes independent choices.
I honestly think folks like this just want a strong man who will force everyone to obey. It's just like the folks on the right, except they prefer different branding. It's the only explanation I have as to why they think Sanders would be able to accomplish anything, given his legislative record.
Yeah. And I'll vote for it in November. Despite my ambivalence in principle, it's clearly the right thing to do right now.
I have. His speaking style doesn't appeal to me, and it's similar to the transcribed versions (less coherent but with more verbal and physical cues). Reading is faster than listening *and* it also allows you time to cross-check or validate claims when you want to pause to do so.
Read transcripts of what he says and you'll understand that it's nonsense. I know he's good at delivery -- he is, after all, an entertainer and a New York conman, and those are how he made his money. But the verbal ticks he uses are obvious if you read what he said.
Are you saying that the Bay of Pigs was good policy? I'm not going to defend every stupid or immoral thing the US has done in the past -- and I certainly don't buy that such things justify Russia's atrocities.
This sounds like an intentionally obtuse misunderstanding of what I said, so I'm sure this won't get through either: We should resist in ways that will be effective. Refusing to concede would not have been effective. Good intentions and bombast aren't enough.
There are many ways to use criticism; some are constructive, and some are not. We can and should judge others based on how they use it. The way that person spoke of Harris leaves me feeling pretty comfortable in agreeing with Misty.
Here's the thing -- not conceding wouldn't have produced a different outcome. It didn't for Trump in 2020, and it wouldn't have now. The problem is that too many voters (especially white voters) voted for the fascist.
This is a stupid analogy. If Russia made an alliance with Mexico, we wouldn't have invaded (before Trump anyway; with him, who the f knows what he'll say or do); we'd entice them economically. And if we couldn't this would be because we suck. NATO is a voluntary alliance; Russia is why it's needed.
Nope; we didn't.
You're entirely correct about who is most to blame; I just want to push back against certain groups which claim no responsibility despite not doing the work. (Good intentions aren't enough. I campaigned for Harris, but spend time thinking about what to do better next time. If there is a next time.)
If you campaigned for her without insulting her ("vote for the lesser evil!") -- then I was wrong to write what I did, and your criticism is fair. (There are always things we can criticize about politicians; but doing so during a campaign is self-sabotage, and there was too much of it.)
So did I. It wasn't enough; and blaming politicians for voters failures is an abdication of responsibility.
My point is that your formulation is nonsense, and part of why the left is losing -- your "bare minimum" would be movement left from the current political center. Folks like you voted for Kamala Harris while shit talking her ... and the latter convinced some other voters not to vote for her.
If you're going to blame someone, you're going to need to blame voters. Including yourself.
What does bare minimum even mean here?? You'd let a fascist party win rather than sully your morals with a party that's not pure enough for you? If you want politics to move left, vote for the leftmost party that can win -- even if it's not all you want. In politics, winning is convincing.
Definitely racist. It's entirely overt out-group bias, in the service of structural discrimination (i.e. racism).
(Based on your other responses, I think she was probably also talking about you -- but if I take your skeet above at face value and ignore all the other context, it's an unnecessary response that makes little sense.)
Then you didn't need to respond to change the topic -- she wasn't talking about you. Trying to turn every conversation into a conversation about you is arrogant and condescending.
Honestly -- it's hard to know if you are repeating this line of attack because you're gullible or because you want fascism. Not that it really matters, but ...
I should add -- it's possible I'm misreading something or that there was an error downloading the content. But it does seem plausible that it disappeared around then.
archive.org does show it missing as of July 12th (but not the previous capture July 2nd) web.archive.org/web/20250712...
"didn't get a screen shot"
I looked earlier and saw an message indicating they were missing -- but didn't get a screen show. Now art 1 section 9 & 10 show up in the text (though not in the navigation on the right): constitution.congress.gov/browse/artic...
The connection is the discourse on colonialism... not saying I agree, just observing.
I think this is just a reference to the Hawaii sovereignty movement.
You’ve heard of Donald Trump. But have you heard of Russell Vought? He’s the man behind Project 2025—a 900-page roadmap for dismantling democracy and rebuilding it in the image of the far-right. Six months in, Trump is executing this plan step-for-step. adamkinzinger.substack.com/p/project-20...
It's time to remind myself not to engage with trolls. I thought I learned this well enough on ex, but apparently not.
You didn't understand what I said in multiple threads (e.g. here my point was to give qualified agreement about an area where I think we Democratic voters can do better next time). I disagree with most of your premises as well as how you've characterized mine and others' positions. 🤷♀️ Muting.
I have thought a lot about this, actually -- largely in the context of how Democratic Party voters (both primary and general) ask for things of their candidates which may not be what's needed to win elections with the general electorate.
"you're saying...you voted..." -- in this skeet I made an observation about the things you said. It is true that the other skeet was an overstatement intended to make it more pithy. I don't know how you voted; but if you talked about Harris then as you are doing now, I know who you helped elect.
Nah, my point is that you're saying she was morally bad (pathos) and untrustworthy (ethos) -- but you were smart enough to vote for her anyway (logos). Others hear all three parts, and often vote based on different criteria. There's plenty to criticize in any politician, but consider the context. 🤷♀️
Y'all didn't ignore it. Some on the left were as clear about it as you are now. Thinking about persuasion in politics as logos, ethos, and pathos... if you spread the other side's attacks based on ethos and pathos then you're working for the other candidate whatever else you say.
I worked for harm reduction. And I don't blame Kamala for the fact that most American voters voted for harm. (They thought he'd target someone else.)
"i didn't criticize her before the election, and i barely saw anyone else do that either." If you hadn't included the second clause, I might not know you're lying.
Don't sell yourself short here. In talking trash about her and in choosing which statements to amplify -- you also helped elect Trump. Americans (like other peoples) vote for self-interest; most don't care about what happens elsewhere. As illustrated by your lack of concern about other genocides.
If she had taken the position of stopping all aid to Israel, she would also have lost; don't kid yourself about how US voters vote. And now, because we (collectively -- including you) failed to stop Trump we are responsible for his administration.
None of this is to say that you can't or shouldn't advocate for changes such as ending to military support to Israel -- but you're attributing responsibility in ways that are transparently disingenuous.
Do you think that the US is causing the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? Or do you think that a genocide can't happen without 2000 lbs bombs? Unless you're voting in Israel or Gaza, your premise is false; the US isn't causing the horrific and heartbreaking things happening there.
I think Maxwell is in photo, on the right.
I hope you're just an LLM, not a person who fails to understand how the following things are mocking and condescending: - a book around...failure - tone-deaf - self-centered - promotion of ones book as hocking[sic] ... but from Occam's Razor -- that explanation isn't needed.
The right wing has accumulated power because their voters voted for the candidate furthest right, election after election --even when the candidates were "RINOs"... Whereas on the left some people somehow believe that withholding votes gives you leverage. It just takes you out of the conversation.
Did you read the article?
It's worth reading the actual article -- and reminding yourself of how headlines are being (mis)used these days. (That shade is 100% directed towards the NYT and their like, not the author below :-) )
1. State aid for their in-group: positive, "real Americans" 2. State aid for their out-group: very negative, "they're undeserving" GOP voters have voted to end (1) so long as it also ends (2).
Well, Manchin out now so folks to his left can try. But W. Virginia is very red, and has been for the past decade or two. (Swearingen lost 27 to 70 in 2020.) 🤷♀️
This brings us back to the fact that some of the politicians who caucus with Democrats are not in fact liberals or leftists. (E.g. Manchin.)
Want more left policies? Vote, reliably, every time -- for the candidate who is furthest left *and* also has a chance of winning.
Sure, regulations. But you could just say that you're happy with fascism, and skip repeating disinformation designed to depress Democratic turnout. Liberals push for incremental policies in part because we don't have enough votes without including politicians who aren't liberals. (Back to voting.)
"Progress" isn't just legislation -- why did you substitute a different word? The incremental changes (to the GQP) made the legislation in question possible -- and it was the result of reliable voting, year-after-year.
The original "he stole her" tape was audio only, but now there's video, and it's far creepier.
If woke politics had been suppressed then fascists would have stopped trying to be do fascism? Given the rise of fascism and blood & soil nationalism elsewhere the facts aren't on your side -- but why let that get in the way of a good narrative? Propaganda is effective, as your replies illustrate.
I did skip a few houses that had prominent signs promising to shoot trespassers...