Funny events in anti-woke world

[Seanchaidh]

I want to think that's all this is, but this is the same administration that has deemed anti-Charlie Kirk speech to be worthy of visa revocation, so they really might be that thin-skinned to think that critiquing the government is a security risk.

perhaps. in any case, no credit where no credit is due.

 

[Silvanus]

You're just ignoring the existence of Donald Trump and every Republican bending over backwards to glaze him, aren't you?

? I think you've misunderstood what Gergar was writing. He was talking about Trump and criticising how his behaviour gets overlooked or excused.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Seeing two lifelong hollow grifters, Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, try to have a conversation for the camera is a unique feeling, in what is assumedly an attempt to look human enough for a wider audience to not completely reject their talking points, it ends up instead a vibe vacuum equivalent of an endothermic reaction, sapping life force, emotion and willpower from the unlucky few who stray too close



Carl Schmidt mention, kinda more important contribution to today's state of politics than most are aware it would seem, I was certainly surprised how many of today's politician/pundits have expressed reverence at least

Robert walks Blake Wexler through the life and times of Carl Schmitt, a legal scholar born in Imperial Germany who would come to create the blueprint for how fascist movements could destroy liberal democracy from within.

In this episode we follow Carl Schmitt through the disillusionment of WW1, and breaking up with his con artist wife, to his creation of the Death Star of liberal democracy.

Then there's Lee Atwater (the nixon aid who I been meaning to share here at some point so why not now

(Will these fit into this one post?)

Robert sits down with Garrison Davis to discuss the life and times of Lee Atwater, the arch inventor of Republican dirty tricks politics.

Lee Atwater graduates high school after a brief stint in an insane fraternity then becomes a college Republican leader and starts his career as a dirty tricks expert for political campaigns.

Robert concludes the story of Lee Atwater by discussing his greatest success and then his sickness and fall from power and influence. We also talk about the Grammy nominated album he made with Isaac Hayes.

all this to say perhaps in vain that trump is not an isolated or even unexpected or new phenomenon. he is just a very unsubtle culmination of generations of ratfucked skullduggery allowed to fester as they toil unsporting machinations to hoard resources and raw power by any means the wealthy can bend into reality. if anyone tries telling you his removal from power will automatically make thing better, or if they preclude that by saying he must be a Russian asset cos "only Russia could be this fucking insufferable and corrupt" then they are either speaking from a dangerous level of ignorance or are straight up lying to you.

It will take much more, much more coalition building, patience, tactical/forward thinking, praxis, community strengthening/building, political media literacy, engaging with politics at the local level and primaries, not falling prey to purity testing, but also to be vigilant of fuckery that history has shown consistently from state authorities like CIA/feds (and whatever your own country's equivalent of those may be) to destabilise leftist movements across the world. Though that last point tbh is a bit tricky to me still, am not sure what best advice is around that other than being acutely wary of anyone trying to talk you or others into escalating to violence or whatever. Is currently an issue am in process of trying to learn more on, so any pointers for material would be greatly appreciated.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Yikes they even doing songs about how to do lynching now, that's a noticeable lowering of an already low bar. this is why you can't ever be culture and have to brute force yourself into it

(Not by the person in thumbnail, I should add as it would probably imply)

 

[bluegate]

? I think you've misunderstood what Gergar was writing. He was talking about Trump and criticising how his behaviour gets overlooked or excused.

Whoops, totally misread their post... Thanks!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

First: Deflection, pure and simple. You were trying to make a point about mask mechanics, and so the most pertinent response was always going to use a model to illustrate those mechanics. Bluntly, your response makes me strongly suspect that you don't understand the paper and were just looking for an excuse to dismiss it, and in the process you belied an unfamiliarity with how models are widely used across disciplines, epidemiology included.

This is only reinforced by your second point in which you quote "When the masks were placed in the manner in which the product is commonly worn, however, significantly higher numbers of particles were recovered" as a gotcha, when in fact that's contextually a critique of improper usage. To conclude from that that "masks don't work" is as false as saying "contraception being greatly reduced when people don't wear condoms correctly shows that condoms aren't an effective contraceptive" or that "improper use of seatbelts greatly reduces their efficacy in saving lives in car crashes", when in fact it says precisely the opposite: That the mechanism is quite effective, but that effectiveness is predicated on proper usage.

You might as well be pointing at a student who sleeps through class, doesn't study, and then fails the final to claim that the curriculum was 'obviously' deficient. Human error does not impugn the efficacy of the mechanism, and it's the mechanism is explicitly what you are disputing when you say that "there's no evidence that masks do anything."

And to your "I don’t really care about finding the data again"? Wow. Just wow. I just handed you the very study you were citing, not paywalled, the one you and Silvanus were arguing about not having access to...and your response was "I don't care"? Setting aside that you clearly either don't remember or never knew it's contents, what a thing to say that you don't care about having ready access to the very source you were actively discussing! You're functionally declaring that you don't care about referencing or verifying your claims, because you've already reached your conclusion and refuse to question it!

And then we get your "best mask studies". No, they really weren't. For goodness sake, the very source you claim to be deferring to doesn't even focus on "mask studies" but rather studies about the efficacy of interventions encouraging people to wear masks and, by its own account, had too many methodological errors to draw reliable conclusions from.

Bluntly, the way you responded and are treating my explanation of their own findings and conclusions as if they were instead my own criticisms makes me doubt that you even read the thing. You clearly aren't trying to understand them, you're just looking for an excuse to say that it doesn't matter and therefore they cannot even make you question your presumptions.

Let me reemphasize: Your evidence for your claim was that Cochrane said "there is no evidence that masks do anything". And not only does the study you're citing clearly not say that, Cochrane itself has publicly clarified that their review does not support the claim that masks don’t work. If your position relies on that misreading, it's built on a false foundation.

And to be direct, your conclusion is rather explicitly that no study can be trusted unless it already supports your view, that you don't care to even check your sources, and have shown that you will fight against their own clarifications and admitted limitations tooth and nail to maintain the conclusion that you are invoking them to support. You're all but bragging about your argument being nothing more than confirmation bias.

Firstly, I want real world randomized studies to show masks actually work in the real world. Secondly, you're now bullshitting me because the paper isn't about proper/improper use of masks as literally the previous line is "For two popularly used face masks taped to a facial moulage, recovery of the tracer particle by an in vitro system was very low." Nobody fucking tapes masks to their face as "proper" use so quit the bullshit.

I already been through that discussion with Silvanus and he doesn't fucking care about the data... I know that data is real and so does he.

Cochrane only uses studies that are randomized and those are the only studies that were... And plus, it just builds on from previous randomized studies from before covid as well.

Wow, you guys can't fucking read what I said. I did NOT say Cochrane said/shows masks don't work. I said there's no concrete evidence of masks working, which is what Cochrane's review says. If you (or Silvanus or anyone) want to say masks work, then fucking prove it. It's not on me to disprove your stance, it's on you to prove it.

Give me randomized/cluster-randomized trials in the real world. Don't give me modeling bullshit studies that don't correlate to the real world. You all had the perfect scenario to do these studies and they weren't done, that's not my fault.

*little or no difference was conclusively shown in one context.

But this doesn't matter: saying X probably doesn't do Y isn't the same as saying there's no evidence X does Y anyway. They are different statements. I don't care about your interpretation of their statements, because i don't respect your opinion. I care more about what they said. And they didn't say what you said.



K. So to be clear, you haven't actually seen any data to substantiate the claim they have the best mortality in Europe, and you can't provide it here?

There is no evidence that masks conclusively work...

We've had this discussion like 2 years ago...

 

[Silvanus]

There is no evidence that masks conclusively work...

Third time: I don't care what your opinion on this is. You said Cochrane said that. They didn't.

We've had this discussion like 2 years ago...

Indeed, and here you are recycling the same long-debunked drivel.

 

[Asita]

Firstly, I want real world randomized studies to show masks actually work in the real world. Secondly, you're now bullshitting me because the paper isn't about proper/improper use of masks as literally the previous line is "For two popularly used face masks taped to a facial moulage, recovery of the tracer particle by an in vitro system was very low." Nobody fucking tapes masks to their face as "proper" use so quit the bullshit.

First, you're right in that I did get that part wrong. Given the lack of context, I'd hastily assumed you'd been talking about a segment contrasting "the manner in which the product is commonly worn" with proper application, not helped by the fact that your takeaway of "complete shocker that it doesn't work in the real world" is almost a 1:1 echo of criticizing condoms as ineffective based on improper usage.

Having said that, remember how I said that "your response makes me strongly suspect that you don't understand the paper and were just looking for an excuse to dismiss it"? You just unambiguously and unequivocally proved my point.

You aren't even making the most token of efforts to understand either what I'm telling you or what the papers says. You're brazenly just looking for an excuse to dismiss them, focusing solely on the abstract of the second paper. Said paper is focused on peripheral marginal leakage, which is to say that its point is not that "masks don't work", but that a mask with a complete seal blocks more than than the same mask without a seal. That's saying that a mask with a complete seal is better, not that masks without such a seal don't work. And you do so to the exclusion of the first paper which comprehensively explains the actual mechanics and impact of masks on respiratory droplets, such as carry infectious diseases.

I already been through that discussion with Silvanus and he doesn't fucking care about the data... I know that data is real and so does he.

That you don't care about the data is obvious from the simple fact that even after repeated correction and explanation you still don't actually know what it even says and instead continue to blindly presume that it must match your preconceptions, even vehemently arguing against its own acknowledged limitations, intended conclusion and the authors' own clarifications that directly contradict your claims.

You are not engaging with the data. All you are doing is incorrectly attributing your own conclusion to it.

Cochrane only uses studies that are randomized and those are the only studies that were... And plus, it just builds on from previous randomized studies from before covid as well.

Wow, you guys can't fucking read what I said. I did NOT say Cochrane said/shows masks don't work. I said there's no concrete evidence of masks working, which is what Cochrane's review says. If you (or Silvanus or anyone) want to say masks work, then fucking prove it. It's not on me to disprove your stance, it's on you to prove it.

And by its own account the methodological issues severely compromised their ability to draw conclusions, and as the authors themselves directly stated it does not even remotely champion the same conclusion you are attributing to it.

This has been explained to you repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Chimpzy]

'Optical illusion' swastika flags distributed to multiple congressional offices prompt investigation: sources

Sources say the swastika flag in Republican Rep. Dave Taylor's office was part of mysterious deliveries to congressional offices, with the hate symbol hidden until captured on camera.

www.foxnews.com

Pssh, shameful. Be proud of your beliefs. Say them with your chest. They are the future.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Alex Jones

The only thing I want to hear Alex Jones say is "please, mister, I'll clean your windshield for a nickel!" So that I can spit on him.

'Optical illusion' swastika flags distributed to multiple congressional offices prompt investigation: sources

Sources say the swastika flag in Republican Rep. Dave Taylor's office was part of mysterious deliveries to congressional offices, with the hate symbol hidden until captured on camera.

www.foxnews.com

What an utter load of bullshit. They knew what it was and they hung it up proudly because they thought there wouldn't be consequences.

 

[bluegate]

Comey getting its reward. Another line crossed. What's next tho? My bet is on Bolton.

Reddit - The heart of the internet

www.reddit.com

Looks like you won yourself a cookie.

Different link;

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/16/politics/john-bolton-grand-jury-maryland

 

[Gergar12]

You're just ignoring the existence of Donald Trump and every Republican bending over backwards to glaze him, aren't you?

I was stating how conservatives can rape women and still run for president, and implying Conor McGregor as an example, and yes, that includes Trump. But the moment a leftist Hasan visits a large brothel in Germany or has a shock collar on his dog, everyone tries to cancel him, and will likely succeed. That's my point, I just didn't want it to be too on the nose, but if you want to defend Conor McGregor, you do you.

Also, some conservatives have also killed animals.

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/15/erotica-coming-to-chatgpt-this-year-says-openai-ceo-sam-altman.html

This is just so bullshit. As someone who will consume this stuff(But almost all the time doesn't create/use Sora or AI for this reason), I already feel guilty enough as it is, being part of the reason everyone's electricity bills are so high.

And I know this won't stop at vanilla sex stuff, it will eventually go into rape/non-con role play, BDSM, and incest. Because every dollar a competitor LLM and or company can do a personalized fetish is a dollar Sam Altman won't earn. I still think he's a dynamic CEO, and my point isn't against him; he's a CEO, it's his job to earn profit, and revenue it's against VISA, Mastercard, Paypal, and the elite zeitgeist who wants to restrict you from doing porn, not because it's porn(I am against people against porn too as I like freedom(Minus lolicon, children stuff, and etc.), but because some random person is earning money through a video game mod, Only Fans, Tik Tok, Patreon, etc they can't do porn vs a large organization like a LLM company who can.

TLDR: OpenAI wants to allow AI Porn on ChatGPT, and likely Sora image generator, data centers eat lots of electricity, and this is hypocrisy by the political establishment.

Edit2: Yes, I am against human trafficking and illegal prostitution, which is why I believe they should be legalized and regulated.

 

[Thaluikhain]

One wonders if this might be in part due to lots of weird sexual content that the bots won't mark as such already, and giving up rather than fixing the censors.

 

[thebobmaster]

Forgot to mention this earlier.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I still think he's a dynamic CEO, and my point isn't against him

Sam Altman is not a serious person.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

*jigsaw voice* I want to play a game.


"I think we need to start entertaining the possibility that..."

What does she say next there? If i make it multiple choice answer it may be too obvious, or not, it's hard to know how internet poisoned I am in contrast to others at mo lol



Next!


Who's friend is this?

And what emotion is he currently displaying after a lengthy response to a reporter's question about said friend?

Yet again multiple choice answers may be too obvious, or not I dunno, I'm supposed to be jigsaw this ain't meant to be enjoyed by my victims innit?! Not being able to kidnap you lot is already too generous, austerity affects us all you know! Films ain't paid shit in royalties to me yet

 

[Seanchaidh]

*jigsaw voice* I want to play a game.

Israel killed Charlie Kirk?

Gianmarco Soresi: "He left behind a wife and two kids, which is how we know Israel didn't do it."

Or maybe she has another theory, I don't know. I'm not going to go watch a bunch of Candace Owens things to find out.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Israel killed Charlie Kirk?

Gianmarco Soresi: "He left behind a wife and two kids, which is how we know Israel didn't do it."

Or maybe she has another theory, I don't know. I'm not going to go watch a bunch of Candace Owens things to find out.

A valid and logical attempt considering her recent output. But nope.

It's "...Kanye was right all along"

it was a bit of a curveball lol

(Though I believe she was talking about Charlie Kirk before that so you get some consolation points from the bowl, help yourself!)

Also should've put the disclaimer: watching Candace Owens content is considered self harm under new DSM amendments, we are not liable for any psychic damage incurred and do not recommend watching without appropriate supervision- if you're experiencing suicidal thoughts please contact your local mental health professional

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also should've put the disclaimer: watching Candace Owens content is considered self harm under new DSM amendments, we are not liable for any psychic damage incurred and do not recommend watching without appropriate supervision- if you're experiencing suicidal thoughts please contact your local mental health professional

As an aside, the High Court of Australia has decided not to let Candace Owens into Australia.

(And Kanye West was banned as well, IIRC, but by another body)