sulla
3d ago
Well this is related to Fuentes’s argument as well. The pro-Israel side is willing to let it all burn before abandoned their cause. Therefore, he says the anti-Israel side needs to have the same mindset.
The problem is, (a) since only one side can get their way, this just means both sides agree to let it all burn, and (b) the pro-Israel side is driven by deeply held beliefs related to their ethnic identity, and this is unlikely to change.
The anti-Israel side has some genuine points, but overall they simply choose to make the issue their top issue even though they have no genuine connection to the issue, and it is not the issue that affects Americans the most. So this mindset is not really “America first” in my opinion.
I also don’t think the Iran war is truly about Israel. Trump has said all along it’s about nuclear weapons. I think it is totally reasonable to stop Iran from having nukes.
sulla
4d ago
Yeah, but he also clearly just has a personal grudge. This was clear from his Tucker interview that he was extremely upset by the attempted deplatforming by the Israel lobby, and rather than acquiesce he made it his #1 issue out of spite.
He’s funny, he has good takes on some things, but his view that Israel is the most important issue and it’s worth burning it all down to beat the Israel lobby is, in my opinion, deranged and driven by personal grievance more than the logic you describe.
He actually does need to he made irrelevant, not because he’s anti-Semitic, but because he goes out of his way to make Republicans lose, and is very effective at it. And not even over an issue that is actually worthwhile.
sulla
4d ago
I think people liked the MAGA parts of Trump’s agenda, but disliked the neocon parts. So “back to the old Republican party” is exactly the wrong takeaway.
Unfortunately I also agree that the unpopularity of the war in iran is basically bullshit, and it was plainly the right thing to do. A full scale invasion would have been a terrible idea but neutering Iran is a positive. I hope we don’t let them off the hook.
Fuentes preached that if you wanted to stop the Israel lobby you had to be willing to hold a gun to the GOP’s head over the issue, even if it meant giving control to the Democrats. Clearly he meant it. I think this is idiotic. Complaining about money or military aid for Israel is one thing, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to everything else.
I want to correct a misconception that a lot of people seem to have. The conditions for an insanity defense in Massachusetts are not “bitch be crazy.” Clearly she was a little bit insane. That doesn’t make it legal for her to commit murder. Even hearing a “command” is not even remotely enough. The standard is stricter:
A defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the offense:
- the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, and
- because of that mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity either:
- to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of the conduct, or
- to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
1 is not enough. In my opinion she failed both tests in 2. By planning for her husband to be out of the house, she clearly showed that she appreciated that the act was forbidden and needed to be hidden. By waiting for him to leave, and by answering the phone calmly and continuing to deceive him and pausing the murder attempt, she demonstrated that she was capable of controlling her conduct.
She was certainly not well, but it seems to me that the evidence does not support reasonable doubt for the above.
It is a little beside the point though. Arguing the case is pointless. Actually the best thing you can do if you are anti-Lindsey is to ridicule her. Chase your kids around the house saying that you’re Lindsey Clancy with them laughing hysterically. Tell your wife that her friend is creepy and “giving Lindsey Clancey.” Etc. Don’t engage directly.
sulla
4mo ago
I’m a little confused by this post. MSNBC has “always” been like this and never really maintained the veil of credibility that ABC, NBC, even CNN to some extent attempted to maintain. It has been brazen Democrat punditry as far as I can remember (I’m not that old but still).
This has been their core brand and strategy for a long time. In fact part of the reason for their rebrand is explicitly to disassociate from the more “neutral” NBC news brand (neutral in their own eyes, anyway).
I don’t think this is even disputed by Democrats. Some may argue that Democratic punditry is more objective and correct than faux neutrality because they believe Democrats are the best, or whatever. Or they may argue that they’re not far enough left so they are pro uni-party, or whatever. But they’re not going to deny that MSNBC’s brand is targeted at Democrats.
sulla
5mo ago
The claim strains credulity, but it is definitely possible in principle. You would need a system of restraints, a trained dog, and possibly some urine from a female in heat. Likely some additionally actions would be required to prepare the prisoner’s anus, and a handler would need to guide the dog.
The question is not whether it could be done, but whether it makes any sense. While evocative clearly closer to an elaborate gay BDSM fantasy than a practical torture mechanism. If it happened, my guess would be it was the result of one or more fetishists acting on their own rather than official policy. Ask yourself how the dog was trained?
It’s too absurd to function as effective psychological warfare. Enemy soldiers won’t really believe it without strong evidence, even if they pretend to.
My judgment: Almost certainly skin-lamp style atrocity porn. But technically possible.
sulla
6mo ago
And to make matters worse, since the runners end up quite spread out, it’s not like you can just move security with the leaders. You need to secure miles of area at once.
We really are lucky that “mass murder” isn’t on more people’s bucket list, and should do what we can to keep it that.
sulla
6mo ago
security was never good, so it remains not good. You'd think we could make a bit of a change though?
Are all of our institutions really so rotten?
I think it’s more than security is hard. The President interfaces with a lot of people at a lot of events at a lot of locations. He and others have extensive staff and support. These events all have many service industry workers.
As you is increase security the inconvenience eventually becomes unacceptable. This is one of the many reasons that not murdering the president or calling for his murder is an important norm.
sulla
8mo ago
Ubi enim senatus? For where is the Senate? Now empty… America burns.
Rather pointless to complain about what the legislative branch “should” be doing. If’s a dead body. The country is ruled by the President, the Courts, and the Oligarchy. The legislative branch is irrelevant.
This is the fact of how America functions in practice. I don’t really take the text of the ruling seriously at all. The Justices who struck down the tariffs did so because they thought they were a bad policy, and those who dissented thought they were a good policy.
sulla
8mo ago
Law noob here. If you reveal the existence of evidence to your lawyer in an email, even though the email is protected, is the evidence still subject to discovery? E.g. If I emailed my lawyer that I told Amy that I committed a crime, could that be used as evidence to compel Amy to testify, even if there was no other justification?
Everything I’ve learned from Hillary/Epstein/law in general is to never send emails ever. If email didn’t exist nobody would ever get convicted of anything.
sulla
9mo ago
Resident partisan hack checking in (well sort of). I am making this comment in the spirit of “expressing a worldview” of “resident Trump supporters” as requested rather than to argue the point per se. But I do earnestly hold the following beliefs.
We (the right) now clearly understand that the purpose of this sort of protest is to create violent situations with “bad optics” for ICE or whatever other group. The protestors (from “our” point of view) want violence and want shootings, because they perceive this as a win condition.
We’re quite simply not going to give them the win anymore. They want death and violence, and are actively going out of their way to create situations that can cause escalation. That makes them, in my opinion which is shared by others with similar worldviews, the baddies. This guy was being a baddy, played a stupid game, and won a stupid prize.
I honestly haven’t watched the video and don’t care. We consider the instant replay era over. It really has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether illegal immigrants should be deported.
That is the main reason these protests are not really succeeding. The only reason these situations are happening is because of the protestors (who we really consider at this point, insurrectionists who are committing federal crimes). “ICE needs to stop deporting illegal immigrants from Minnesota because some protestors are getting hurt.” There is literally zero logic to this statement.
We also don’t consider them legitimate protestors. They don’t have a “right” to impede federal law enforcement from executing the legal and popular will simply because they lost an election in which they were fairly represented.
It was probably a good shoot if you slow it down to 10k frames per second. Like I said, we honestly don’t know or care.
That is the view of (at least my slice of) the overly online right currently.
sulla
10mo ago
Okay. I agree not all escalations are justified. I think the escalation of standing in a spot so that the suspect cannot simply leave is justified.
sulla
10mo ago
He simply stood in a spot. That's is not the same as shooting a jaywalker or even remotely comparable. That is just a dishonest comparison.
sulla
10mo ago
But, the key (and obvious) point is that people who graffiti "kill ICE" on college campuses will pretend that it's obvious that the agent woke up today with the intent to kill, and refuse to see any other point of view.
sulla
10mo ago
It is literally a policy officer's jobs to escalate in order to enforce the law. That is what it means to have a monopoly on violence.
Well, fleeing shouldn't be a death sentence. But attempting to strike an officer with your car can be. (agent, officer, whatever). Sure, her intent was to flee, and striking the officer was simply a side effect to which she was completely indifferent. In Minnesota, if the officer died, it would have been considered depraved-heart murder, the second degree felony of which Derek Chauvin was convicted.
As for the officer, what happened? While he was getting his gun out, the car accelerated, he panicked, tried to get out of the way, was clipped by the car, and awkwardly shot his assailant through the driver-side window. There was less than a second between the assailant stepping on the gas and the shot being fired. Why did he shoot through the window? The car unexpected turned away, which is why he didn't become a pancake.
I don't think shooting was "the right move," in that by the time the shot was actually fired the danger had already passed. But that's a skill issue - the decision to shoot initially was 100% justified, as is backed by countless cases.
A leftist attempted to end the officer's life, or at least acted in a way that was completely indifferent to it, and because of that she died. Now most other leftists are trying to end his life a different way. We're not going to stand for it this time, or Monday Morning QB in ultra-slow motion the actions an officer took when a leftist protester was trying to murder him.
While we cannot see inside someone's brain from a video, the explanation above is perfectly rational, consistent with the evidence, and clearly the most likely explanation (compared the delulu fantasy that the officer for no reason decided he wanted to kill someone). Many will pretend not to understand, or pretend that it is implausible, hence making discourse impossible. I am not going to argue with them. Instead, we are simply going to call on the Trump administration and red states to protect this officer from Minnesota's deranged courts. We will not let people who openly brag about wanting to kill ICE agents lie about what happened today. This time, we are holding the line.
sulla
10mo ago
A lot of people think that moves like bombing Fordow were unpopular because the "evil jews" liked it. But the truth is most people vaguely know Iran=Bad and that destroying their nuclear facilities at minimal cost is badass. Same here. Their worldview is we took out a communist dictator and made it look easy, like the Avengers or taking out an evil supervillain or something.
You are correct: the foreign policy moves of Bush, Obama, and Biden were unpopular because they were failed, drawn out, and extremely costly. Trump's moves have been dramatic, successful, and low cost.
sulla
10mo ago
Total aura shift for Trump. He was a lame duck, dead in the water. The Fuentes doomers were winning. Trump had failed. He hadn't met his campaign promises, and his approval rating was in the gutter. But then, in an decisive display of competence and leadership, he ousted a dictator and took over a country that had been a thorn in the US's side for decades. And he did it at almost no cost.
His speech was fascinating and a dramatic shift from anything we have heard in the past 80 years. No "muh democracy." He talked about Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure and the inability of their government (deliberate or not) to stop the drugs. Their mortal sin was not dictatorship, it was incompetence and the negative impact their incompetence was having on the United States. He openly acknowledges that the oil will benefit the US, and says this is a good thing. And it resonates.
Trump wanted a big legacy-defining move, like buying Greenland, and this time he got it. Under his leadership, the United States took over Venezuela in a matter or hours at minimal cost. The outcome is truly astonishing. And he might not be done. He alluded that "something needs to be done" about the Mexican cartels. Destroying them would be a true legacy-maker. We'll see how it all works out in the long-term, and whether it becomes of a legacy of greatness or failure.
I predict we'll see a boost in Trump's approval ratings. The average person knows nothing about Venezuela except that it was bad and a problem. And now they see that Trump appears to have fixed it overnight.
sulla
10mo ago
I respect the elimitivist “consciousness isn’t real” position much more than the hybrid “consciousness is real but it is a property of computation” position, which is popular but nonsensical.
I have accepted more or less the gnostic position. Most people aren’t capable of knowing the “divine spark.” But for me personally, it is directly observable at any time and is such that its cannot be explained by properties defined by modern physics. It is directly revealed. Many others have access to the same experience, but it is incomprehensible to those who do not.
There is no point in arguing. It is either self-evident, or you are not capable of knowing. Persuasion is futile in either case. I believe eliminitivists feel more compelled to debate because they do not wish to feel inferior. But it is really not up for debate.
sulla
10mo ago
I agree but “A Jewish professor was murdered” is not sufficient to conclude anything. To make schizo conspiracy theories you at least need some details to work with.
sulla
10mo ago
I do think the Brown PD may be withholding info that could be used to help narrow down the suspect list out of misguided anti-Islamophobia, but I know people in the area and it is flooded with police and FBI. I really don’t believe they are just twiddling their thumbs and putting on a show.
We’ll see. Plenty of killers weren’t caught overnight. It’s not so new.
sulla
10mo ago
Everyone is out over their skis on the Jewish professor. You shared no evidence that it was a political murder, and not personal or a robbery of some sort, and I haven’t seen any elsewhere yet. Happy to be proven wrong, but let’s hold ourselves to higher standards here.
It’s just how communists think. A gun in a policeman’s hands is an instrument of oppression; the same gun in a revolutionary worker’s hands is an instrument of liberation.
This in and of itself is just lame cover for the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction. A gun in the hands of my friends is good. A gun in the hands of my enemy is bad.
Their friend has a gun. Imagine if the roles were reversed and their enemy had the gun?? That would sure suck, good thing their friend has it.
This is why “imagine if the roles were reversed” is a 0% effective argument with them.
More options
Context Copy link