"too disruptive" meaning "he shouldn't have been allowed to attend" is obviously not the universal opinion, that's what we're talking about. try reading.
23.02.2026 21:51
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
"too disruptive" meaning "he shouldn't have been allowed to attend" is obviously not the universal opinion, that's what we're talking about. try reading.
if you think his tics are too disruptive for a controlled and extremely safe environment like an awards show, surely they’re more disruptive/dangerous on the street with strangers, right? i don’t see how this logic can stop short of the people on the other site saying he should wear a muzzle
presumably there was no response here because people are uncomfortable doubling down on"people with neurological conditions get the padded cells"
i mean i don’t really understand people who thought it was real? the Atlantic publishes tons of essays and fiction, and it would never have been in second person if it was a real story?
who was he supposed to endorse instead of Hochul? Delgado, the dual threat of “more opportunist than progressive“ and “the most DOA a political campaign has ever been”?
like i get a lot of the criticisms but i’ve never seen how endorsing a guy everyone knew was gonna lose would produce leverage
yep. manufacturing peaks in the 50s, well before anybody's paying attention to China, because productivity goes up and up and up forever and people can only buy so many cars and toasters
the problem is that everyone else knows GTA 6 is coming too, so the performance baseline is (should be, at least) priced into the current price. buying Take-Two stock isn't betting on whether GTA 6 will outsell the Bible, it's betting on whether it'll make a gazillion dollars or two gazillion.
people absolutely are treated as disposable in sudden mass movements because the personal connections/‘hard work of organizing’ do not exist with 99% of people, and leaders don’t have time to meet every one of 20k people. people got chased out of occupy, chased out of Tahrir square, and so on.
I think you’re viewing this through a lens of conventional activism that obscures things.
“no one is disposable in anti-carceral spaces” because manpower - people you know, people who show up - is very scarce. that’s a very different dynamic from 1000s of people you don’t know in signal chats
Kingdom of God - industrialization breeding Boxer-esque peasant rebel societies, idol-smashing bands of iconoclastic artisans, and other weird and fascinating strands of religious revolutionary in a society with a very distinct social/class structure.
forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/king...
like don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anybody’s got the right to write off the admins running this incredible thing as ‘wreckers’ because they’re upset about one decision, but this sort of thing is obviously gonna be litigated in public because that’s the main upward-flowing forum that exists.
decentralized doesn’t mean leaderless, just means there aren’t formal ties between a guy like Stancil and leadership IMO. Twin Cities RR is clearly a very sophisticated operation run by very committed people - and it’s unlikely Stancil has a direct line of communication/relationship with any of them
i mean this is a semi-spontaneous mass mobilization, not a unified campaign. not everyone is set up for internal dialogue because there’s not much of a centralized ’internal structure’ to begin with. not everyone’s subscribed to the SPP or any set of principles. there’s gonna be arguing in public.
(last one)
and Southerners struggled to understand their anger because, coming from a place as violently repressive as the antebellum South, it all seemed natural to them. of course anti-slavery dissent could get you murdered! who ever said there was a right to oppose slavery?
the average Free Stater was not a diehard New England abolitionist but a more neutral Midwesterner who nonetheless saw his elections stolen by Missourians, local and territorial government weaponized against him, violent thugs harassing him, until he snapped and went “1776 will commence again”
best general overview is probably (still) ‘Bleeding Kansas’ by Etcheson, though I disagree with its characterization of John Brown as a terrorist. its argument is basically that the core of the Free State cause wasn’t abstract anti-slavery but a (true) belief that *their* rights were being trampled
been thinking about Bleeding Kansas recently.
what isn’t usually mentioned is how few jayhawkers came to Kansas looking for a fight. mostly ordinary, peaceful free soil men who saw a fraction of the South’s violent repression turned on them and became abolitionist guerrillas in an instant.
even John Brown - always depicted as the mad holy warrior - basically always described himself as a peaceful man by nature who was pushed to act by extreme circumstances, who never would have picked up arms in the first place if it hadn’t been necessary self-defense
halfdan skulltaker, favored of khorne: “we have been reforged in the heat of spilt blood. we will wash over your puny fortifications like the ocean torrent, leaving nothing but ash and corpses.”
Linus, a clerk from Nuln:
“there is zero chance a democrat will be inaugurated” is an absurd conclusion to draw from “they have a rickety-but-workable legal framework to do a coup” because the coup could just fail, in the face of military or civil resistance! that’s the part that actually matters?
but the article is not simply arguing “they’re going to do a coup”, it’s explaining how SCOTUS or Congress pulling off some legal maneuver willmake it impossible for any Democrat to be inaugurated.
that’s empty legal formalism!
which doesn’t excuse dems voting yes, for the record, that’s still cowardly and wrong, but it simply is not correct framing to say that Dems could have actually voted this bill down in the house.
the actual thing here isn’t massie but the fact that there were Republican absences - every one of these “if they’d all voted as bloc they would’ve blocked the bill” thing ignores that Johnson simply would’ve waited until the whole caucus was present and passed the bill
one of the craziest stories of WW2 IMO is how the Italian surrender went down in their zone of Yugoslavia.
since there weren’t as many Germans around, it was a flat out race to see who could reach them first, with entire Italian formations just joining the partisans for the duration
As a red stater i am certainly used to early polls that’re “48% dem, 45% R, 7% undecided” with the undecideds entirely breaking for the Republican, but only needing 5% of the undecideds to break your way in a state where Dems regularly chalk statewide wins seems solid!
Really funny thing about the Politico UATX story was all the people who were like “Bari was the big mover and shaker here, so many of us believed in the university because we believed in her.”
really? that makes you look even more like clowns!
i wouldn’t count on it. ultimately these guys are more generally racist than they are specifically nationalist. the point of their “western civilization” fetish is to provide an anchor for transnational nationalism. they might understand that voters dislike Trump, but they still want to be Americans
absolutely valid to disagree with the sentiment that people should not be bringing guns but i think it is pretty obviously a valid discussion of tactics to have
the reason this excerpt starts with “but it is not enough” is that it immediately follows a statement that he believes rioting is counter-productive. MLK did in fact also say “arming yourself and seeking violent confrontation is tactically foolish“ publicly
> introduction commentary
did you not make it deeper than that or did you just not want to do your own textual analysis? Are you pretending that I’m defending Stalin here? the Soviet Union could be hellish, but it’s personal betrayals of the people who fight for it are never equated to THIS: