Torch members in Colorado repossessed a hideous White Lives Matter "art" project from a hiking trail. If we can get One People Project's GoFundMe to $1,750, we'll smash it up and post the video. www.gofundme.com/f/support-on... WE PROTECT US.
Dr. Bryan Register Professionally philosophical, highly historical, avidly antifascist, gleefully gaming, merrily movieviewing. ATX. Scalawag fighting the long Civil War.
926 followers 368 following 2,246 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Torch members in Colorado repossessed a hideous White Lives Matter "art" project from a hiking trail. If we can get One People Project's GoFundMe to $1,750, we'll smash it up and post the video. www.gofundme.com/f/support-on... WE PROTECT US.
The Progress!
We can tell the dog is bisexual. Autism just needs its own color scheme.
You can do a philosophical question: if two people shoot at someone with the intention of killing the target, are they both murderers, or is that only the one whose bullet gets there first? Assume the second answer: then the non-murderer is still an attempted murderer.
100% agree. Chauvin was killing Floyd.
If I were convinced that Floyd just happened coincidentally to die of an overdose at the exact moment that he was being strangled, then I'd consider that Chauvin committed *attempted* murder.
That's not (just) a warning sign (about others). That's the thing itself. The canary in the coal mine was not a miner. If it died, that non-human death warned the humans. A miner dying before other miners died was not an alternative canary.
He worked as a stock room? Wow!
boom
I once saw some sort of bomb the Israelis were using as the sort of thing that's "meant to be used in a war zone, not in a city". Le sigh.
Enterprise visits the Planet of Polymorphous Perversity.
Some people have no money. And then later they have money, and then they are "rich". Some people will never be rich, no matter how much money they have. They will always be poor. Nothing will ever make Trump rich. This desperation, this poverty, is the closest thing he has to a "self".
If "adopting rationalism" is an intentional action, then occurs against the background of approximate rationality; if it doesn't, then it isn't an action.
It's like saying that there's some sort of extra-food possibility in everyone's past, and some people choose to eat and others don't. We can eat well or badly, but we can't just opt in or out of eating.
No; this is absolutely wrong. There's no such thing as "adopting rationalism"; it's in our nature to attend to evidence and logical coherence and everyone is approximately rational. The question is whether we do this consistently and with discipline, not whether to do it at all.
In "Highest 2 Lowest", there's a scene with a book on a table between Wright and Washington; its title seems to be or contain "Black Masculinities". Can anyone identify the specific book? What I see at bookshop.org when I look up that title doesn't quite match what we see in the movie.
If anyone is discovered who believes Giuliani's story about domestic violence, they need to be thoroughly studied. Specimens of homo gullibilis are inadequately understood, despite their majestic red-capped flocking behavior over the past nine years.
It's well worth dehumanizing millions of people to prevent that momentary disorientation! Honestly. What are people even thinking? How does a society that gets to the fucking Moon manage to completely crack up over where to piss?
I just stepped into a public restroom with a sign (like the sign on the other restroom door) saying to use whichever restroom I need. The moment that I walked in, a woman left one of the two stalls, and a man left the other one. This, being novel to me, was momentarily disorienting to me.
(To abbreviate, of course! The actual discussion is quite elaborate.) It smells plausible to me.
I recently read @juliaserano.bsky.social 's *Whipping Girl*, and she proffers the suggestion that people are getting themselves in a dither about trans women because of their femininity: we take trans women to be the worst kind of sneaking fakes that our generalized misogyny can project.
*One day* without a book on order and I order another book. I'm starting to suspect that I have a problem.
This week's comic, inspired by a study showing that AI summaries on top of search results are dramatically cutting traffic to websites.
You should really read this whole thread; it's an utter delight.
All I can do is ask you to re-read the thread up to this point.
No notes
I rather doubt that, but also, in what *classroom* is he being "biased"? Professorial neutrality is isolated to the classroom. In the classroom, you shouldn't be able to guess at my politics. Everywhere else, I'm a vigorous activist. That's not a problem in any way at all.
It's contagious, but don't worry — there's a vaccine for it!
Could someone just let the man know what's going on? He's been asking for thirteen years longer than the Hebrews wandered the desert!
Jesus, I made a joke about something like this happening in class today.
Wait'll you hear about Confederate monuments!
Homelander is a more sympathetic villain than Trump could ever be.
Where is he being "biased" in a classroom?
Given that I don't know anything about the publication, and the article keeps its sources secret, I can't quite evaluate this, but if it's true, it's... wow. www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indl...
At a certain point, I realized that an awful lot of self-described libertarians just really don't like the Civil Rights Act but wanted to have a first principle other than racism to justify that dislike.
It *is* the most correct take of all time, but not even for the right reason! The right reason is that popcorn is noisy as fuck and the people around you are trying to hear the movie. If you insist on eating this nonsense, put the whole thing in your mouth and close your mouth and *then* crunch.
Plus, it's noisy as fuck. If you insist on eating this nonsense when other people are trying to hear something, put the entire piece of popcorn in your mouth and close your mouth before crunching on it.
1800 block of South Western Avenue in Chicago
Trump's checklist is way dumber than this, but at least 'bureaucracy' is spelled wrongly. Still, Trump probably couldn't even get this close.
Tom Clancy's Old Testament.
Damn, that goes hard. I personally am more of a humanist concerned with a mediocre corporatist/feudalist postmodern future than I am with the apocalyptic scenarios, but YEAH, THOSE TOO.
A series of low-yield high-atmosphere nukes should fry all the systems, liberating humanity from the machines. And mostly from life, too, but the survivors will be free once they're done burying the dead. I get *extremely* dark about the machines.
(The men, of course, in fact need to update their beliefs to correspond with contemporary attitudes and usage. That 70s stuff is pretty dead.)
If the straight dude has read e.g. Monique Wittig, he might be forgiven for his confusion. For a while in the 70s, a lot of uses of 'lesbian' barely had anything to do with sexual preference. It was political, separatist, and often misandrist. (And not for no reason! No criticism being made.)
This is a form of child abuse. "A.i." damages people's ability to think critically, robs people of the joy and human experience of creating art, and exposes them to propaganda controlled by fascist billionaires. Obscene. Do not let your kids participate in this. Yell at anyone who pushes it.
And networks are for entire campuses or at least buildings; you're only taking a test in one room.
We'd have to disable cell connectivity, too.
You have to admit that we no longer see flocks of whales gracefully flying off the coast of California. The best explanation is surely that they've all been chopped up by the turbines. (The sudden appearance of a Klingon scout ship near a turbine is another clue about the danger!)
Don't thank me too much; I had been going to buy it anyway but snagged it at the lower price. However, I also mentioned it to friends, so hopefully you can get a couple more sales that way. Either way, I look forward to reading it!
Jeddak of Jeddaks, Warlord of Barsoom!
Well, he said it in front of rainbows this time, so...
How do you protest an unjust law (or in this case, BS EO)? In some cases, by breaking it itself. I could never being myself to burn a flag, and I think that it's almost always a very bad tactic. But it's a uniquely valuable way of protesting a ban on itself.
So if the practice isn't natural, then who am *I*, who *defines* myself as engaging in this natural practice? Nobody! Your cross-dressing (or whatever) is my death. ...and that's why other people not doing gender your way "harms" you. ...I think.
When you put those together: someone else's not engaging in the gender practice shows that the practice is not natural. But then *my* gender practice isn't natural. But it's *part of the practice* that it be natural, and engaging in the practice is also how a lot of people identify themselves.
Second, people tend to naturalize it. I don't know whether it's possible to practice gender without naturalization being part of the practice, but people certainly *do* treat being masculine or feminine as a pre-voluntary, pre-rational, pre-cultural, spontaneous expression of our nature.
Think about MacIntyre and practices. The dominant practices in our culture are practices of gender. But the practice of gender has two peculiar features. First, people tend to identify with it — like if a chessplayer couldn't play chess any more and completely fell to pieces.
As the old slogan had it: protect what America stands for, not what stands for America.
You've just sold a book!
And AI is indeed a lie! Butlerian jihad now!
This is *entirely* against the Common Sense code. Entirely!
Nothing in that description is in the article linked, or any of the articles that the article links to.
None of that is in the article you link to, nor in the links in that article.
How *dare* false "Paynes" undermine public faith in the Thomas Paine brand, trusted by American patriots for centuries!
wow that’s fucked up that they killed everyone who didn’t complete the scavenger hunt
Well, everything is pretty awful, so...
Like, I know — the driver is working, people are trying to do their jobs, the whole thing is actually quite challenging in ways that I wouldn't understand, nobody's trying to jerk me around, but it's still *so* irritating.
In 2017, I was going through Aristotle's description of the personality of a tyrant, and a student was like, "This sounds like Trump", and I'm like, "Well, I can't exactly agree or disagree with you in class, but I'm glad that you're applying our material to current events".
Whomst among us?
The accordion acronym would be fine if it just stopped growing. The ones I left as lines just shouldn't show up in electoral politics.
Critical race theory is one instance/application of critical theory. Critical theory broadly is what people are expressing their ignorance about when they complain about "cultural Marxism".
Rich. Mean. Rude. — — — Homeless. Hungry. ...yeah, we're stuck with this one. Being mean to gay people. Gay. (Or whichever one is most applicable.) Your husband running your life for no good reason. Inmate, prisoner. Imprisonment. (Fortunately, yeah, most electoral Dems don't use these very often.)
That's... what it means. Someone who holds a stake in the issue.
Le sigh.
"You might as well insult the voters because if you don't, someone else will" sounds an awful lot like it not mattering what you do or say.
Suggesting that messaging should be tailored to the audience isn't the same as "banning" the other messaging. I'm gonna roll my eyes at the snob that I vote for; I'm not gonna throw his tweets in a bonfire or have him locked up.
He seems pretty friendly. I haven't seen him use special better-than-you words. He is maybe not the example you're looking for. Fortunately, few electoral Dems use these things very often anyway.
Do you really think that what we say and do has no effect on elections?
No, but apparently you do, because "try not to alienate voters needlessly" isn't a "ban".
...banning?
If you can avoid handing FOX one soundbite of you sounding snobbish, and that soundbite makes, say, fifty voters in your district and fifty voters in the rest of the country find it easier to blank out a real issue, why would you hand it to them anyway?
If you can avoid turning off 2% of the voters over some irrelevant nonsense, so that they hear a couple of your substantive points that time, why would you refuse to do that? It's not about "suddenly" or "people". It's about gradually and some people.
They have no other known purpose.
I don't know it, but if I did, so? What *electoral issue* requires that level of specificity? The best-case scenario is that the voter hears "x is a microaggression" as "x is rude and you're a lowly worm". The worst-case scenario is that they don't know about the rudeness part.
(Well — I do understand. There's a fragment of the overtalkative left that is happy for conservatives to hunt the homeless for sport as long as that fragment is able to congratulate itself on its intellectual and moral superiority. The worse the violence, the greater the self-congratulation.)
Why 'microaggression' (dumb, fake, long) when 'rude' (smart, real, short) is just sitting there? Why make up new "I am smarter and more sensitive than you pissants" words when old normal words work? I don't understand why it's important to make ourselves sound like an alien tribe of invading snobs.
Words/phrases Democrats should never use: * bipartisan * my Republican friends * real, valid, legitimate, serious, important (to describe issue raised by Republicans) * yea (when voting on Republican bills) * distraction (to describe bad thing Republicans did) * woke (in derogatory sense)
A modest proposal of some terms to replace those that elite brokescolds like to pretend are pervasive among the left: Birthing person > sprogpopper Pregnant people > il Perganantii Chest feeding > chesticular noms Heteronormative > straightcunty Patriarchy > brociety
They are similar in that they are words. It's just that you've agreed to be afraid of this one. You don't have a principle of "not being afraid of words"; you have a piece of decontextualized rhetoric that you're using to evade the simple point that when we talk to voters, we ought to sound normal.
Thank gods I'm not a political strategist, so I really don't know. But the fact that something is true, and even *obviously* true, doesn't imply that people know it or believe it or act on it.
I've done a modest amount of activism on behalf of the homeless, and I've always used 'homeless'. Do you really think that Newsom is indulging in sadism toward homeless people because he uses 'homeless' instead of 'unhoused'?
"You should use 'homeless' rather than 'unhoused'" does not exactly naturally segue into "we should hunt the homeless for sport". Obviously it's about getting Republicans on board. We're trying to get people to vote for our candidates. "People" includes Republicans. That's not hidden or obscure.
Refraining from using weird language does not constitute "aligning with the Republicans". If people are pissed because they've chosen to be distracted by what they regard as a distraction, then people should just refocus on what they don't regard as a distraction.
If we think that trying to get people to vote for our candidates is absurd, then we've simply opted out of winning.
That's not a matter of time; that's a present occurrence.
They're "given free rein" by people over whom I have no control. Yes, rational people are horrified by "Haitians eating cats" and no more than slightly perturbed by "the unhoused". Unfortunately, many voters are not exactly rational.
Given the election results, apparently not. If everybody's already following the advice, then I don't understand why anyone's upset about it. "Don't support Napoleon III!" wouldn't get all of this this handwringing.