When the left preaches empathy, remember how they feel about Charlie Kirk right now.
When the left asks for open discussion of ideas, remember what they did to Charlie Kirk, who was trying to do exactly that.
The left practices situational morality. Something is considered moral if and only if it advances the goals of the left. Lying, cheating, election fraud, murder. All on the table, as long as it serves a political need.
If an individual commits a crime, that person must be punished.
If an accomplice enables a crime (eg: a bureaucrat or politician who releases criminals back into the population), the accomplice must also be punished.
If a system incentivizes a crime, that system must be torn down and rebuilt.
But you do NOT punish an entire race of people for the actions of a few.
This message applies as equally to the anti-white racists in the political left as it does to the newly-minted anti-black racists who have formed in the backlash against them.
I just heard a programmer utter, unironically, the sentiment that “We can’t fix bugs until users find them.”
This is the current state of software development. In 2025, most programmers are not old enough to remember a time when developers tested their software before shipping it to end users. When software had to be as good as possible before release, because you couldn’t just patch it the next day.
Nowadays, end users have been conditioned that all software is more or less buggy shit. They crave updates like a junkie for the next fix - hoping that this time, this time maybe the update will fix more bugs than it introduces.
This is the current state of software development.
Stereotyping (and its specialized variants such as nationalism, sexism, racism, etc) is a powerful human instinct, which happens to have been correct just often enough to be passed down through evolution.
Do NOT mistake it for logic.
“I observe a member of group X to have Y trait or behavior”
“It seems like a lot of members of group X have Y trait”
“We can prove that a majority of group X members have Y trait”
These statements have varying levels of confidence which may allow you to make a stastitical inference about an arbitrary member of group X, but NONE of them is sufficient to prove the commonly assumed syllogism:
α is a member of group X, therefore α has trait Y
This simple fallacious formulation is very often used as the basis for “othering” huge populations of individuals, and, I believe, is the source of most of the injustice in the modern world.
The line, often quoted by censorship advocates, is from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion (Schenck v. US) by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It de facto outlawed trolling.
It was later overturned in a 1969 case (Brandenberg v. Ohio), which severely limited the situations in which speech becomes actionable. It added litmus tests like "imminent", and "likelihood".
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is not only NOT a law (it came from the judicial branch, not the legislative one), it's not even CASE LAW. It's nothing. A historical note. An error by the Supreme Court that they corrected 50 years later.
The First Amendment is part of the US Constitution. It is the very first change made to the Constitution, once they realized that the government needed to be explicitly constrained from infringing on human natural rights. It is the law of the land. Do not believe a misinformed (or politically biased) authoritarian who thinks a Constitutional amendment can be overruled by a erroneous deprecated court paper.
@realcaseyrollins I don't know who that is ... which might prove my point.
Regardless, this definitely applies to actors, journalists, politicians, and porn stars, all of which make up the bulk of people who one might call celebrities.
He does have some very valid points that need to be discussed, and I really was interested in going through them point by point.
But at this point, it's pretty obvious he's just searching for excuses to hate Trump, rather than making a rational judgment about policies. He's making it clear that hating on Trump is a religion for him. You can't argue rationally with a zealot.
Seriously, I never once lost respect for you for being a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Trump NPC, but right now, right now….
Dude, your TDS is showing badly. Please go back and read what you wrote and try to understand why you’re bringing this much emotion into this conversation.
I was gonna try to write up a point by point refutation of all the hyperbole and dogwhistle fallacies in this thread, but honestly, once you crossed into wishing death on people with whom you disagree politically, there isn’t really much point in trying to engage rationally here.
My suggestion for you is to log out for a little while, and try to analyze what is causing you to put so much emotion into a random internet conversation about events that, very likely, don’t even touch your life directly.
I’ve been accused of being Republican, and I want to set the record straight.
I criticize Democrats far more often than I criticize Republicans. But there is a reason. As you may know, most politics are local. In my local state and region, the following is true:
Every politician is corrupt
Every politician is a Democrat
There are no Republicans here on the left coast; only Democrats spanning from full-on communist to somewhat-moderate (meaning they still like taxing the middle class into poverty, but might have an objection to one or two spending projects)
So, in my defense, the simple reason that I don’t criticize Republican politicians as often is that I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen one.
My state has been ruined by overtaxation, overregulation, and overspending of government, and there’s only one party available to take the blame. It is very very difficult not to assume causation.
When you see the skyrocketing price of eggs today, you will be told that it’s because of the bird flu. This is fake news.
The egg prices you’re seeing today is indeed because hundreds of thousands of chickens have died, but NOT due to the bird flu. The flu has killed less than 100 chickens across the country.
Instead, hundreds of thousands of chickens have been culled - murdered by their owners and by the government for no reason - because of people overreacting to the hysterical bird flu stories.
@ILoveAmericaNews That would indeed be a good outcome. But that's not what was announced, and I see insufficient evidence that this slope is slippery enough to make it happen.
I've seen how often "first steps" don't make it as far as the last and most important step, and we all end off worse for the partial effort.
@ILoveAmericaNews I'm not so enthusiastic. The promise was to reduce government. I wouldn't mind seeing just the slightest bit of swamp *draining* before he starts adding brand new bureaucracies to it.
@wjmaggos I'm just trying to figure out how you reconcile wanting everything to be local and decentralized in social media, but when applying those same principles to other things people might want to do, it somehow takes on a negative connotation ("international anarchy") and must be met with a one-world police state.
A state which, as I try to point out, will be a power magnet for all of the worst humanity has to offer, and, as history has shown time and again, will inevitably become corrupt and oppressive.
You think handing your social media keys to Elon is dangerous. Imagine when it's everything in life. And there is no place on earth to escape to. (Then again, maybe you can't imagine that, which is why you still think it's a good idea)