Why did he constantly talk about how the attacks were politically motivated? What is the basis for claiming that he was motivated by religion?

Worst performance since the Republicans took California but hey who knows, could’ve been even worse somehow if they did anything differently. Clearly the right play is to learn absolutely nothing from this. Even the really obvious stuff like the fact that virtually everyone in the country hates Dick Cheney’s guts with extremely good reason.

Also is it still hindsight if a bunch of people were screaming that it was a terrible move before it blew up in her face? Because that kinda seems more like foresight.

I give it like a 40% chance of global thermonuclear annihilation and a 60% chance of chaos and warlordism, probably with a decades long US occupation on the justification of preventing nukes from falling into the hands of whoever this week’s Al Qaida is.

life back then must’ve been crazy people just thought whatever

Have you seen people today?

I think you’re asserting something with no basis again, making you objectively wrong about that too lmao.

If you just say “I disagree” while having absolutely no grounds for that disagreement then you’re objectively wrong.

Well, there’s nothing you can point to in what I wrote that implies anything about intent so I’d say your disagreement is pretty objectively wrong.

No, I implied nothing. The other person went out of their way to assuage people that just because they were calling out misinformation didn’t mean they’re not on their side - I just stated facts without making any indication about what I thought of OP’s intent. Loyalty and tribalism come before truth. People posting false information have to be reassured that you think they’re great before you correct them. It’s ridiculous.

You might be interested in GNS theory. TTRPGS try to do three things at once, be a Game, tell a Narrative, and Simulate a world. Different games will prioritize different aspects, some people want a fair challenge where they build a character according to the rules laid out to face a challenge, other people want everything to serve the story, even if it means fudging mechanics or breaking with realism, and then some people just want the simulation to be as realistic as possible.

Like many things with TTRPGs, it’s table dependent and emphasizing any of those elements over the others is totally valid as long as everyone’s having fun.

I said literally nothing about their intent in my comment whatsoever.

If it’s fake news (and it is) then I have every right to say, “Get this fucking bullshit off my feed” (my actual response was quite a bit more measured than that). I shouldn’t have to be like, “Haha! Oh that’s so funny, you’re really smart and clever! Oh, but, fyi, that’s kinda misinformation, just so you know!”

Would you rather listen to the blunt truth or to a friendly lie? If it’s the latter, then that ought to be called out as well as the original point - falling for a fake news story is entirely excusable, but being unwilling to listen to criticism unless it’s phrased nicely and defanged is not.

Shit like this is part of why I use term “Blue MAGA,” because you’ll find the exact same mentality over there. The facts don’t matter, if you don’t demonstrate you’re one of us, we’ll write you off anything you say. Critical thought means listening to criticism, even if it’s, “antagonistic.”

There’s sweetened and unsweetened ones so that might be it but who knows.

Tfw you say something and everyone hates it and then someone else comes by and says the same thing in a slightly different way and everyone likes it 😑

OK, but a news article describing what “RFK says” should not say that he says he wants concentration camps when that’s not at all what he said. You’re free to speculate about what his real intentions might be, but the news has a responsibility to report what he actually said, not their personal opinion of what it might eventually turn into.

Saying that he said he wants “labor camps” is already taking some wild creative liberties. Like, if I rent a cabin in a campsite and bring my laptop to do some work while I’m out there, is that a “labor camp?” I’m at a camp and I’m doing labor, I guess. But to say that he explicitly called for “concentration camps” is just an outright lie. And it’s absolutely wild to me that anyone would want the news to lie to them! You’re asking for the press to be more sensationalist, and judging by the downvotes, that’s just majority opinion here.

Some of us actually take the risks seriously and need to have accurate threat modelling. I have no patience for this game of making stuff up to get mad about.

You should give oat milk a try (or soy/almond, but oat tastes the best imo)

So what you’re saying is that the reality isn’t bad enough so we need to make shit up and exaggerate everything? Because I disagree with that. I think things are bad enough that you can just be truthful about it, and lying is actually counterproductive because it discredits legitimate criticism.

Like if you want to talk about concentration camps, we’ve already got them for undocumented migrants.

The term “concentration camps” usually doesn’t refer to places people volunteer to go to. The headline’s clickbait enough as it is.

In the US, things have improved a lot and there are informed consent clinics where you can go to a clinic and sign a document saying you know what you’re doing and get a prescription for estradiol (not sure about T). Obviously things are very dicey politically, and some doctors are still shitty, but generally the medical/scientific consensus is on our side, and recognizes that it’s better for people to get meds through a legitimate doctor/pharmacy as opposed to more sketchy online stuff.

I only say this because I hesitated to look into it because I’d heard horror storirs about medical gatekeeping, but when I actually looked into it it was much easier than expected.

I’m not an anarchist but I’d like to elaborate on your question.

In a competitive economy (big disclaimer), especially in the case of plumbing which has a low barrier to entry, you and the plumber don’t have a significant power differential. You need a plumber, but you don’t need that specific plumber, and the plumber needs customers but they don’t need you specifically. If a bunch of plumbers got together and said they won’t work for you, it wouldn’t be too hard for someone to learn the trade and break the monopoly, in the same way, you could try to boycott the plumber, but they could just find other customers.

But that’s in the theoretical case of like, the free market actually working. There are lots of ways in which it can go wrong. If the barriers to entry are higher, then it’s easier to form a monopoly, and in some industries that barrier is naturally higher (say, microchip production), and it’s also possible to raise the barrier of entry if an entity gets powerful enough to influence policy - for example, if you had to obtain an expensive license to be allowed to practice plumbing. So it’s really two questions: is trade inherently explotative, and is trade potentially exploitative?

Boycotts are sometimes idolized as a way to prevent bad behavior without the involvement of the state. But this is problematic for two reasons. The first being that boycotts are difficult to organize and only sometimes effective. The second is that to the extent that they are effective, they’re not always used to do good things. To use an example, we can look at the Jim Crow South. If I own a business in a town full of racists, and I try to run my business in a non-racist way, then I’m alienating a bunch of my racist customers and racist businesses may refuse to serve or do business with me, until I go bankrupt or am forced out of town. This problem was only solved through federal intervention through the Civil Rights Act.

Under those circumstances, it’s difficult for me to imagine how anarchism could work. As a trans person from the southern US, decentralization and giving power back to local communities sounds nice on paper, but like, have you seen these communities? Have you looked at what they’ve done historically when federal authority was looser? Who is poised to take power in those regions in the event of the abolition of the federal government?

That doesn’t mean that anarchism is fundamentally unworkable everywhere, though. It just means that you have to evaluate the actually existing material and social conditions and figure out what can be done where based on that.

I already spelled it out to you several times, but here you go again:

If you go back to my original comment, it was in response to someone saying, “The US army won’t drone strike a community meal,” and “the heinous acts were only possible by othering the foreigners.” If you agree that the state does sometimes successfully employ force to stop peaceful community building, then we are in agreement.

I don’t see what’s unclear about that. You might not have said that being right was a protection against force, but I didn’t think that that was at all clear from what the other person was saying.

There wasn’t really a need for any of this to be an argument. It was just a reminder that it’s not always safe, and not to rely too much on ideology for protection. If you think that’s valid, I mean, that’s what I was saying from the start and I’m not sure what I could’ve said or done differently that would better communicate that.

Yes, my point is broadly speaking about, “Revolution is hard” - in a certain, specific way. Is it not valid to look at the history of people trying to build community power and identify various unexpected dangers they encountered? It’s like, “Hey, be careful, there’s a spike pit after this jump,” “So what? You’re telling me this level has things that can kill me? No shit.” If we both agree there’s a danger there, then I don’t understand what I actually said that you take issue with.