Funny events in anti-woke world

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Alex Jones cannot handle actual pushback, even with the deck stacked in his favour. Is amazing hearing a 50-odd year old nazi-adjacent man act so much like a defensive sulking child lol.

In this installment, Dan and Jordan begin an analysis of Alex's monumental, very serious and sincere debate about whether or not January 6 was a manufactured event. Then finish up their coverage of the debate that finally settled the question, once and for all, about whether January 6 was a false flag. Guest stars a-plenty! Incoherent yelling! This debate truly has it all.

4 Hours yes is mad long, haven't got to the end yet after multiple attempts but has been entertaining each time if only to hear Jones cartoonishly crumble - first part wasn't added cos a bit too slow getting to madness.

 

[Chimpzy]

 

[bluegate]

Who that? Cher?

 

[Chimpzy]

Who that? Cher?

Laura Loomer

 

[Silvanus]

sort of. anyway, if it's one person, then that is not deciding the election.

Yet strangely, we try to decide how to use our single votes on the basis of the impact they could have in conjunction with lots of other people with similar priorities. Anyone encouraging a vote in any direction is doing just the same. Curious.

if it's half the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is likely to be finished in short order and something better can take its place.

"In short order" meaning... twenty electoral cycles? Thirty? A hundred and fifty years of increasing Republican dominance?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Isn't that the final scene from Lost in Translation?

 

[Chimpzy]

Isn't that the final scene from Lost in Translation?

Yes, if Murray and Johansson rolled around in bronzer first.

 

[BrawlMan]

Laura Loomer

Who?

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Laura Loomer

Oh, okay. If it had been Cher, I'd have been mildly disappointed.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, okay. If it had been Cher, I'd have been mildly disappointed.

Would have sparked some good Cher song puns though. "Gypsies, Trumps and Thieves", "Love can Build a Wall"... huh, "if I can turn back time" doesn't even need any amendment to the title!

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Would have sparked some good Cher song puns though. "Gypsies, Trumps and Thieves", "Love can Build a Wall"... huh, "if I can turn back time" doesn't even need any amendment to the title!

"If I could hide my crime" may be an workable alternative.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"If I could hide my crime" may be an workable alternative.

If I could hide my crime
If I could find a way
I'd destroy all the votes that threw me out
And I'd stay

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The majority never agreed with Trump's presidency if that's what's important to you.

Yet it's just become super obvious that the electoral college is a good thing when states are removing candidates that about half the country want to vote for.

If you don't want to acknowledge the exceptional prevalence of racism, sexism and homophobia in the far-right, then that's just ostrich-head-in-the-sand territory.



"Better" isn't an objective term. None of this is objective.

The point is, I'd end up with a party that reflects what I want even less.



You're just going to fawningly support any decision I cite. Suffice it to say their priorities are deeply out of step with the majority of progressive voters.



"Nuh-uh" isn't going to convince people to consider the two parties equivalent.

You do realize that everyone is prejudice right? Every institution started out racist because people just don't like other groups. Whatever group is a minority anywhere was at least initially are kept out of certain parts of society (like jobs and institutions) and it takes awhile for that to eventually go away. Same for even kids in school not liking the weird or smelly kid. It's not inherently right-wing, it's basic human nature. Same thing with sexism, when women started becoming part of the working force, same thing happened there.

There are some objective metrics to look at. Defunding the police is going to raise crime and make minorities worse off, but people genuinely believe they are trying to help those minorities. So if you wanna help minorities, you'd be on the side of the right with regards to defund the police even though you feel the left is for the betterment of minorities.

The SCOTUS deciding cases based on what the right or left wants isn't what a court does, it's based on legality.

Again, Trump and Biden were actually president already and nothing horrible happened. Biden did make more decisions that directly affected people though so there is that.

 

[Silvanus]

You do realize that everyone is prejudice right? Every institution started out racist because people just don't like other groups.

If you think that's equivalent to the exceptional high prevalence of discrimination in the Metropolitan police, and the far-right, you're deluded or deflecting or both.

There are some objective metrics to look at. Defunding the police is going to raise crime and make minorities worse off, but people genuinely believe they are trying to help those minorities. So if you wanna help minorities, you'd be on the side of the right with regards to defund the police even though you feel the left is for the betterment of minorities.

Dude, defund the police has no presence as a policy in the Democratic Party, and has no meaningful presence even as an idea.

The SCOTUS deciding cases based on what the right or left wants isn't what a court does, it's based on legality.

In theory. Yet the US Supreme Court justices are very much political appointees, who will skew decisions in the direction of their political inclinations.

Again, Trump and Biden were actually president already and nothing horrible happened. Biden did make more decisions that directly affected people though so there is that.

Nothing horrible happened for you. You have to remember other people exist.

 

[BrawlMan]

Kyle Rittenhouse brutally mocked for Special Ops training

Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in 2021 for killing two people and injuring a third during racial justice protests in 2020.

www.newsweek.com

Good.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If you think that's equivalent to the exceptional high prevalence of discrimination in the Metropolitan police, and the far-right, you're deluded or deflecting or both.



Dude, defund the police has no presence as a policy in the Democratic Party, and has no meaningful presence even as an idea.



In theory. Yet the US Supreme Court justices are very much political appointees, who will skew decisions in the direction of their political inclinations.



Nothing horrible happened for you. You have to remember other people exist.

Again, I didn't read the article, I'm talking about generally, you'll always have institutional racism. I bet if I went to an Asian country that's like 90+% Asian, I'd run into institutional racism even though I doubt people were genuinely racist. The far-right doesn't cause institutional racism, it's a normal human tendency. Thus, some place with institutional racism isn't because of the far-right.

It almost passed in Minnesota and it wasn't people on the right voting for it.

As long as it's not unlawful and a valid interpretation.

What horrible things happened to other people under Trump? More people were directly affected by Biden's decisions than Trump.

 

[Seanchaidh]

"In short order" meaning... twenty electoral cycles? Thirty? A hundred and fifty years of increasing Republican dominance?

much faster than that. are you drunk?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oklahoma banning furries in schools. But "engage in anthropomorphic behavior", isn't that walking on two legs?

 

[Ag3ma]

The far-right doesn't cause institutional racism, it's a normal human tendency.

Whether or not, the far right is extremely bad news in terms of institutional racism. Not least because it will encourage individuals in organisations to be more racist, and institutional racism derives in very large part from personal racism of individuals within the institution.

 

[Asita]

Confiscated meaning it will be seized for months on end. It's the IT version of SWATing but it doesn't put your life at risk. My question is why the UK police would have such a reactive measure to this when they could just lookup the person's internet footprint.

...And? The duration of the confiscation has no bearing on the fact that the reason for that confiscation was much more reasonable than implied. Yeah, it sucks for the OP and his wife, but what's described sounds like S.O.P. for investigating alleged illegal material. Are they likely guilty of such? It doesn't sound like it, but that would put the fault squarely on the 'friend' and the report he filed, not on the police for taking normal steps in investigating the allegation. Criticizing the UK government for this is misplaced blame.

As for the question of why they wouldn't "just lookup the person's internet footprint"...Presumably that might have something to do with the fact that the internet footprint is irrelevant to the question of the material allegedly present on the laptop. The probable cause that they're investigating would be present on the machine, and combing through that is a lot easier than trying to comb through the internet history of an indeterminate period of time that may or may not actually be the source of the illegal content that is allegedly present on the laptop.

Analogy: If you were to tell the police that you found bags of money stolen from the bank at my house, it would be nonsensical to ask why the police would have 'such a reactive measure' as to lock down and search my house for that money rather than 'just' scour my credit card history for any strange purchases that might indicate a sudden windfall at an unknown point in time. When the tip is that the stolen money is in the house, the investigation starts with searching the house. Similarly, when the tip is that the content was found on a laptop, it makes sense to start by verifying its presence on that laptop.

Never mind the question of preserving the chain of custody and ensuring that - in the event that it exists - any evidence on the machine corroborating the allegation remains intact in the event that a prosecution would need it in the future.