ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
The left has their mojo back.
I kinda see what you mean, but I'd be careful with these sort of statements. It's not 2016 anymore, when all this was new, so I doubt following the same script will yield the same effect.
I'm pretty sure we\ve had it for a while...
Or Europe...
It’s something weird here that is causing a massive amount of posts.
It's not weird, or at least nothing new for this forum. It's just the n'th iteration of George Floyd, Kavanaugh, Nick Sandman, Jussie Smollet, Kyle Rittenhouse, Richard Stallman, James d'Amore, etc., etc., etc. One side decides to ride or die on a particular issue, so the discussion continues more or less indefinitely, because no argument works, and autists keep banging their head against the wall in frustration.
But the entire dispute is whether Good used violent action.
Fine, they also tend to not defend pro-life activists that non-violently drive a car at the police, in an attempt to escape them,
This just goes to show how bad GDP is as a measure. There is no way this is correct.
If that is so, it should knock on the head the narrative that "she was only an innocent passer-by, driving home with her wife after dropping her kid off at school, a stranger to the city who wandered into the middle of this by mistake".
That should have died with the video from the officer's perspective, where they clearly taunting them.
Let's imagine there was no question whether he could dodge the car or not, that he was right in front of the grille. What would shooting Good have improved in this situation?
It could have minimized the time a friend of his would get dragged, if he got stuck the same way he did in the other incident.
I can agree that with perfect hindsight he shouldn't have shot her, but that argument strikes as kinda insane. How was he supposed to have perfect hindsight in the moment it was happening?
So does an eyewitness describing her as "very successful at blocking traffic" move the needle for you in any way?
And if it turns out she actually was pretty effective, and this moment wasn't representative of her activities on that they, will that change your mind about anything, or will we just move on to the next bowl of spaghetti to throw at the wall?
I am saying (implying) that if this was actually the case, we should expect him to have been trolling the last time he talked about starting a war for no tangible reason.
I absolutely disagree with this part, which is why I'm asking if you seen anyone claim he was just trolling about Venezuela. If not, that's evidence against your theory.
I would personally be pretty confident that I could get out of the way from the position he was in.
Everybody's gangsta when they watch a situation after the fact, in slow motion, from multiple perspectives.
I think it is excessively generous to frame the officer as actually being in danger,
Again, I think it only looks that way because of the ice factor. If the wheels didn't slip, he would get hit sooner and with more force.
There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.
Yes, but to a point. There's a reason why the "little green men" tactic was seen as below the belt.
N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars.
Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.
Did someone say he's trolling about Venezuela?
How "easily" is that, when he still got hit? And that was with the ice on the road making the wheels spin in place for a while.
Also, are you sure you're not moving the goalposts? You said he assessed a "currently unmoving car" as a threat, when he didn't do anything until the car started moving.
Well, again, can people like him start off with linking timestamped links to videos, pointing out to specific things that make them reach a particular conclusion, rather than starting off with an unbacked conclusion that later gets refuted by timestamped links to videos? I think this minor change in conduct would dispel most, if not all, accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
It's inaccurate and over the top. They probably should run it by some marketing / PR people to come up with a snappy term that's less severe than "terrorist" but still makes it clear she was acting with malice.
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
It's interesting you see it this way, because from my point of you it looks like LiberalRetvrn just gets to make shit up, and to even respond we have to provide timestamped videos.
Do you believe your in-laws literally want you dead and your daughter transed?
I suspect not.
Wrong question. People love to abstract evil away into mustache-twirling schemes to deliberately do harm, so they never have to face the evil in their own hearts. Evil isn't doing a "paperclip optimizer" routine, but for double mastectomies, it's convincing yourself your cause is so good, that you can, say, lie to promote / defend it because the chuds would """weaponize""" the truth.
What you want to ask in the case of his in-laws is, if his daughter said she's trans and he opposed it, would they hear him out, or write him off as a transphobe? Or for the "want him dead" part: if the cancel mob came after him, would they defend his character, or throw him under the bus (or for a borderline case: squirm like Alec Holowka's sister, hinting at the truth, but refusing to state it outright for fear of the mob going after her as well)?
You can conduct yourself in war the way Russians do in Ukraine, or the way Israelis did in Gaza (not to mention, heavens forbid, Americans in WWII). Existential war is no excuse for savagery.
What do you mean "do we actually know that"? She's dead, so I doubt they'll be pressing any charges, and I can't read minds over video, so I don't know what was going through their head when they decided to arrest her.
You asked what federal offense was she committing, and I gave you a link to a specific law that the situation seems to fall under under. Do you disagree? If not, how the hell was that an insufficient answer?
But I'm pointing out that they seem to be deliberately exploiting the right to self defense by putting themselves in danger in order to be allowed to defend themselves.
That seems like assuming the conclusion to me. It was a chaotic situation, and I doubt Agent Chud was scheming to manipulate people into suicide-by-cop. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to point what, specifically, implies this was all deliberate.
The hostility of the IRS is quite a thing to behold. Way back when, when I was still on Reddit, I ran into a thread where someone asked for advice on what to do with some income they, or someone in their family didn't declare. In my naivete I asked why don't they just come clean, and got told ny someone else this could land them in prison. Now I don't know if this was just Redditors spreading Redditisms, but I was rather surprised. This actually works in Europe! If you actively confess before they catch you, they don't even charge interest.
Integrating Substack felt too tedious so I opted for something more fun, which was hooking to https://gptproto.com/ to and have it describe and transcribe all bookmarked images. I think I'll focus on some neglected UI stuff like search and pagination.
How have you been doing @Southkraut? You've been reporting good progress the last couple of week, any cool screenshots to share?
- Prev
- Next

Damn. I hate it when my attempts at being technically correct get out-technically-corrected.
More options
Context Copy link