STEVE SMITH HERE TO GIVE LINKS AGAIN. WHILE NOT AS FUN AS CHASING DOWN AND RAPING HIKERS, STEVE SMITH LIKES GIVING FUNNY PEOPLE HERE SOMETHING TO READ AND SAY FUNNY THINGS ABOUT. SOMETIMES STEVE SMITH REMEMBERS FUNNY THINGS SAID HERE, WHILE CHASING A MOUNTAIN BIKER OR HIKER ACROSS A TRAIL. EXTRA LOOK OF TERROR THEY GET WHILE STEVE SMITH LAUGHS, MAKES FOR MORE FUN.
SO HERE ARE LINKS:
- STEVE SMITH NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK OF CROWDS CHEERING JUDGE AND LAWYER?
- FUNNY GLIBS WHO LIKE FOOT SPORT, AND SILLY TABLOIDS…BE HAPPY.
- STEVE SMITH STILL NO LIKE AMATEURS.
- IF GUILTY, STEVE SMITH OFFER TO HELP PUNISH. AND BY PUNISH, MEAN RAPE.
STEVE SMITH SAY, HAVE A RAPETASTIC NIGHT!
he’s afraid of commitment
Clickthrough rate on your links dropping below critical threshold?
Never change HM, you are my second favourite quadroon.
I’m a fan of Jennifer Beals as well.
You have good taste.
Hot as the fires of hell, even now.
“During the mating season, lionesses have sex up to 50 times a day for four days and nights in a row with as many as five males – but each bout lasts only ten seconds.”
http://qi.com/infocloud/lions
Now I know what she meant when she called me a lion in bed.
*opera applause*
I STEVE SMITH, AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.
I don’t ge….
Ohhhhh.
/Edith Bunker.
I don’t know where you find this stuff.
I’m not certain I want to know.
Russ Bridges Mercury Press.
Says so right under the picture.
See?
/points.
The fact they were not killed in the subsequent drunk-driving incident feels like a disappointment
I’d love to hear their cover of Wonderwall. It’d remind me that I’m not listening to Oasis. That’s always a good thing.
Worst band in the world, and I admit to a certain predilection for certain Lily Allen tunes. Does that make me a bad man?
no, she was cute, they were never cute
Her facial expression says, “i aint saying sorry if thats what you waiting on”
I WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE NO LINKS TONIGHT
I believe you were told there would be no AFTERNOON links.
THIS THANKS STEVE SMITH GET?
I’m sorry…. please don’t rape me…
I would be really careful near any woods…
That’s almost not even a euphemism.
or near any woulds. Just being in proximity can be dangerous.
Still, there’s no need to be a weeping willow about it.
The Onion: Peaceful Protest Interrupted By Swarm Of Aggressive Black-Clad Militants
Yes, a hurricane, we’re saved! We’re winning now!
What even in the fuck… This must be what it looks like when you’ve went past the point of desperation into complete lunacy.
the prospect of the federal govt urgently spending shitloads of money with zero concern for its actual utility or long-term benefit will always make the NYT squee with joy
And that’s not even the most pathetic part. They think this is some sort of long term victory for them and Democrats. I mean when fake Russians didn’t get the job done, what else can you long for, but a hurricane? Somehow, the image of a bunch of pompous NYT editors popping champagne corks while watching hurricane coverage on the weather channel, is quite pathetic.
That’s pathetic. That’s what happens when you let politics dictate everything in your life.
The Sociology-to-Economics Phrasebook
the best of course is
“Exploitation” (Sociology) = “Contract” (Economics)
Excellent!
You guys…I have internet again! I’m so happy!
Aside from masturbating, masturbating, and masturbating, I don’t know what to do next!
I hear you can look at naked chicks on the internet.
Found one!
Poor thing looks cold and two months away from tasty.
That’s not thicc dude, you need a new search engine.
Seriously?!!!
See ya tomorrow!
Now if only Playa can get his internet back.
Keg swilling dudebros hardest hit.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-plans-making-90-percent-cut-obamacare/story?id=49551071
Why not a 100% cut?
^ what this guy said
You totally beat me to it.
My (very nice and friendly) hippy neighbor was over last week and made a comment about his daughter soon turning 26 and hoping O-care would still be around. The thought going through my head was “if you had actually prepared her for adulthood, she wouldn’t be a part-time yoga instructor bumming insurance and a bedroom off mommy and daddy.” I exercised all of my restraint and kept my mouth shut.
I lose any pretense of civility when people praise O-care in my presence. After being STEVE SMITHed by O-care while my wife was pregnant this year, I have zero patience for people who want to talk up the benefits.
You guys missed the boat on the single-pay. Canada did during the delirium of the depression and a looming war.
Yeah. My son was born in 2012. Even with my decent insurance it cost me about 10 grand for prenatal and delivery on a healthy pregnancy and standard delivery.
I know for a fact that people I worked with with the same insurance as me had payed somewhere in the 500 to 1000 dollar range for the same thing pre O care.
Even with my decent insurance it cost me about 10 grand for prenatal and delivery on a healthy pregnancy and standard delivery
Yup. We may not have hit $10k, but we blew the $7500 deductible out of the water. We’re still getting bills drifting in on a weekly basis. $50 here, $100 there. I hope we hit the out-of-pocket threshold soon.
“We’re still getting bills drifting in on a weekly basis. $50 here, $100 there.”
I was getting bills like that amd paying what I could for a long time. When I got my income tax return in 2013, I called the hospital and asked exactly how much I still owed them, because I couldn’t figure it out. They gave me a number, 1500 or so, amd I wrote them a check that day to pay off the balance. About a month later, I got another one of those 50 or 100 dollar bills. I called back to the hospital and ended up getting pretty shitty with who I was talking to. She apologized amd I never got another bill. My theory is that as long as you keep paying, they will keep sending them.
Thankfully, the hospital was a single bill, and we never heard from them again. It’s the OB that keeps sending bill after bill. I thought we had settled up prior to the birth, but the entire process was fucked up (we had 3 different insurance policies in a 3 month span, including an O-care plan that covered exactly $0 for 2 of those 3 months and obviously didn’t count toward my deductible on my employer’s plan. We also moved, so we had to find a new OB at 26 weeks. There was also a fuck up by my employer, meaning that the insurance company was rejecting claims in my daughter’s name for a while)
Anyway, I finally figured out that the “settling up” was only pre-birth. We’re on a pay-per-visit plan until we hit the out-of-pocket limit. Thankfully, the bills have been throttling down over the past month, as we get further out from the expensive stuff.
I had to get a work physical a few years ago. The physical required the whole thing. Blood tests, lung x-rays as well as the knock on the knee cap and turn your head and cough. To do the x-rays and blood work I had to go to the hospital. As I left, I said to the lady at the window behind the sign that said, “payment is required at time of service” what do I owe you? She said $50. I said that sounds way cheap. Are you sure that is the bill? She said we have never had anyone pay at the window. I said why the hell you have the sign then? She then said no it is $(something I don’t remember) I then received bills for that visit for the next three months from several billing agencies. I wonder why healthcare is so expensive.
Price transparency would do so much good to bring down the price of health care. It’s impossible at the moment since there are so many different entities doing the paying. I want single payer. But in my version the single part means you.
The fact she could not even tell me what the actual price was was incredible. She had no idea. Every swinging dick in the hospital had a different billing agency and she did not know their prices. They just knew some insurance agency would pay once the bill was sent. I was paying cash and it threw them off. Actually letting a person know what something costs would most likely make people look for a deal. We can’t have that now can we.
I just started a new job that actually has awesome health insurance, but it doesn’t start until 21 days after the first pay period on the seventh odd-numbered week following the first full moon or whatever the fuck. Basically, it won’t start until October 1st.
Anyway, the health insurance from my old job has already ended, so I need coverage for the month of September. I now have to pay $195 for one month of coverage to avoid the $695 penaltax. Thanks, Obama!
Also, while perusing that shitshow Healthcare.gov, I see this little gem: “If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment.” Whoa whoa whoa, what’s this about a “fee”? I thought it was a tax! Which is it?
I was under the impression that Trump had EOed the IRS to not enforce the tax/penalty/robbery/ransom/whatever you want to call it.
Anyway, the health insurance from my old job has already ended, so I need coverage for the month of September. I now have to pay $195 for one month of coverage to avoid the $695 penaltax. Thanks, Obama!
The fun part is that O-care works on a 2-week turnaround, but employer/group plans work immediately. I had my school insurance end on January 15th. Not knowing about the 2-week turnaround, I tried to get O-care insurance on December 19th to start on January 16th. Nope, you can only get insurance starting on February 1st when you sign up on December 19th.
Ok, no big deal. There’s short-term insurance exactly for that purpose. Well, except that O-care is phasing it out, and it’s illegal to offer short-term insurance to pregnant women.
So I go to sign up for the O-care insurance for February in Virginia. Except, you have to have a valid address in the state for them to issue you insurance, and I haven’t closed on a house there yet. So I’m stuck getting Texas insurance. Turns out that going to an OB in Virginia isn’t covered by my Texas O-care plan. That was quite expensive.
By the time I learned about our worthless plan, it was past the date for changing the March insurance to Virginia, but at least I could immediately cancel the O-care plan once my employer plan was in place, right? Of course not. The two week turnaround bit us again. Ended up paying for a duplicate and entirely worthless coverage from March 13th to April 6th.
Sure, I made a mistake or two in the process, but the once simple process of covering a gap between group insurance plans while moving across the country has become an absolute nightmare. Fuck O-care and fuck anybody who has anything nice to say abut it. We’re going to be paying off this mess for another 6 months.
Oh trsh. I have said before here. I didn’t pay off my son until he was 2. Those where more reasonable times though.
*were
That thumbnail for these links on the front page, Steve Smith has a girlfriend?
More like next rape victim.
I’m trying to look on the bright side. I’m watching the “Camp 14” documentary Tarran linked in the other thread and I’m still working.
Walls said he suspected the request was part of a strategy to “impress the jurors” with Menendez’s importance,
IANAL, but that seems like it would be a stupid strategy.
“See this crooked mothefucker? He’s better than you.”
lol
its still not quite as good as the Bike-Lock-Antifa’s lawyer, who’s strategy was literally, “He wasn’t there, and even if he was, the people he hit were dicks“
That black cat had it coming to him! I could feel it in my bones!
After WWI, being very concerned with US small arms being inferior to English and German arms, the US Army set Julian Hatcher to study the problem and find a solution. He was successful early on in his study but decided to use the opportunity, staff, facilities and materials to make a more in-depth study. I am sure that the study taking place on Florida beaches had nothing to do with his staying on but we are fortunate that he did. His thoroughness of study and articulate style gave us one of the best bodies of work in ballistics in history.
If you are a gun nut it is a must-read. Even if you aren’t the easy flowing style and succinctness of his writing will give you more knowledge of physics and specifically of ballistics than you ever knew you wanted. Personally I found it impossible to put down once I started reading and I was only 12 years old.
For those who were asking earlier ( Vhyrus and DEG ) here is a free PDF download.
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=439-Hatcher-s-Notebook-%28by-Julian-S.-Hatcher%29
Thanks, looks fun
Thanks!
This is awesome, I read it years ago, but I need to read it again.
Tomorrow morning starts a week of vacation for me. It’s my first one since last september. I look forward to it. Tomorrow morning is also opening day of dove season. My pasture is disked and seed has been spread. Tomorrow should be a good day.
Have you ever calculated the price of dove meat in shotgun shells?
I know, I know. Wrapped in bacon and foil and done on a grill…but still. It’s more expensive than bacon which is about 25 bucks/ lb.
I know it’s not economical. OTOH, where else are you going to get dove. Also, there is no way to price enjoyment.
*Looks in mirror*
Yeah, that came from a guy who spends a fortune on shells and clays to spend all day banging away at inedibles.
I have been thinking about buying a clay throwing machine for a long time. I’d like one that can be operated by the shooter since I often shoot alone. Any suggestions? I don’t mind to spend money, but if I do, I like for what I buy to be a quality piece of equipment.
I gave up on those years ago. The ones I have had experience with are clumsy and sometimes dangerous. There may be better ones out there now. I usually shoot with my brother/son/nephews and we use hand throwers.
Trap ’em.
A handful of cracked corn is cheaper than a couple of field load shells.
Also, there is no way to price enjoyment.
Every time I hear the nanny-staters talk about the quality of life, I think that they never consider the value of being left the fuck alone.
You know, you can just buy Dove bars at the supermarket. You don’t have to hunt them.
Today is opening day of bear season in Colorado. Can’t get up in the high country until tomorrow, though.
Excuse me? Whaa?
Ben says everything that needs to be said about white privilege. Argument over. I don’t want to hear another word about that disgusting idea.
The two of us need look no more.
Pretty spot on
Ben is alright but he should go back to the ritalin before he blows a gasket.
ReasonTV sucks, you guys
Drink?
Response videos have to be taken with a grain of salt, but poor Zach. If you’re going to attack, you better make better arguments.
He all but said that America was never great. There are two ways you get there:
#1) Everything that America achieved as a nation in the past was more than negated because racism/sexism/homophobia
#2) America does not need to be great again because it has never been better.
My answers to each are: 1) America was not uniquely racist or sexist. In an world where racist and sexist nations were (still are?) the norm, America became the premier superpower in the world. 2) Depends on what you value. I think America today is disappointingly less free than it used to be, and the internet and smartphones seem to fool some people into thinking otherwise
What makes america great is the freedom of its citizens. We are less free. I will than we were previously. In order to make American great again, we need to make its citizens free again.
I don’t know who wrote that piece for him or if he did it himself, but he certainly didn’t address the arguments being made by Molyneux and Southern in any sort of substantial manner. The alt right/identitarians/ethno staters are not making the “N***rs are bad!” arguments that the KKK of the past were making. They are wrong, but they have come up with a much more thought out philosophy that will actually feed on the hackey denounciations like the one Zach just made.
I think America today is disappointingly less free than it used to be, and the internet and smartphones seem to fool some people into thinking otherwise
You can measure freedom in two (and possibly more) ways. One way is maximum achievable freedom: what is the most freedom somebody can possibly achieve. The second way is average actual freedom.
I think America today is still doing pretty well on the average actual freedom, because progress in certain social issues has offset some of the general erosion of rights. However, the maximum achievable freedom has plummeted.
“I think America today is still doing pretty well on the average actual freedom”
I disagree. Maybe we are getting more free on some social issues, but the government takes 50% of what I earn. I’m basically half enslaved.
I could be convinced to concede the point. I think the average person is significantly less free than ever before in the US. However, I think the historically oppressed groups are more free than ever. The question is whether there are enough of those oppressed groups to make up for the nosedive the average person’s liberty has taken. You may be right that it is a net negative.
seriously. “Look at this chart of immigration” (very badly measured) “It was once high, and there was growth; ergo, more is good”.
Never mind the industrial revolution, rapid urbanization, huge boom in US manufacturing base, etc.
You don’t even need to resort to Lauren’s “BUT THEYS WAS WHITE EUROPEISH IMMIGRANTS” argument to show that Zach’s is stupid and shallow.
She does have a point nevertheless, tho i think her resorting to the race-angle first actually ends up inadvertently validating his scummy implication that the racism she trades in is “covert” (rather than the “overt” racists of charlottesville)
That Zach didn’t even address the “BUT THEYS WAS WHITE EUROPEISH IMMIGRANTS” shows that he’s either being obtuse or dishonest considering that is the whole fucking point of the alt right.
yes, that was pretty much the essence of my complaint over there already. its the fact that he could, if he wanted, have actually addressed the *real* ‘alt-light’ arguments and it wouldn’t actually have been very difficult to make a good case against their xenophobic attitude…. but instead he basically just passive-aggressively asserts that all these bad people are racist in the same racist way, and there’s nothing more to discuss than that.
You see, he’d have to actually touch on some icky facts if he were to get into the nuts and bolts of their arguments. They’re wrong, so let’s just leave it at that and preserve our image. *High fives homeless dude*
I don’t know what the good argument against that is besides “racist!”
That European countries keep coming up richer and more free seems like a pretty solid case that a country comprised of those immigrants has a better chance of coming out richer and more free.
You’d argue that it was ideas and not genetics that caused the prosperity and freedom.
the world needs ditch diggers too?
thank you for providing a good, less funny answer
It is a mistake to get suckered into playing their game. The instant you start arguing identity politics with a pinko, you’ve lost.
Shut up , you Shitlord!
I’m so glad this site is here. TSTSNBN deserves to wither and die on the vine.
I’ve found my place. I used to lurk at the other site and spew my coffee outta my nose from time to time but I feel this one is home, signed Tulpa.
Holy shit. He attacked Molyneux? I don’t agree with everything he says but at least he PRESENTS AN ARGUMENT. How about you offer a rebuttal Zach?
That’s kind of been the essence of my complaint against Reason since they first got Robby writing for them. Its not that they’re necessarily *wrong* in all their criticisms of the “Alt-light” or the so-called ‘cultural libertarians’.…
….its that they use such shitty rhetorical tactics against them. For people who seem to believe that ‘the marketplace of ideas’ is what produces the best product, they’re complete cowards who don’t even bother to treat their cultural/political interlocutors seriously and debate them on their points. They’ve literally written 10,000 words about Milo Y, for instance… and i don’t think they’ve ever so much as linked to a single unedited speech, or article he’s written, or quoted him for longer than a single, partial sentence.
or in the above piece by ENB…. when you’re claiming to write about “cultural libertarians”, does it really makes sense to solicit the extended ruminations from the C4SS? or share tweets from Cathy Reisenwitz saying nothing more ‘yeah those dudes are a bunch of dicks’…as the core of your *evidence*?
Again, its not even that she’s necessarily wrong in her critique (skipping past the cheap-shots): its that the method is so intellectually dishonest and lazy.
They’re becoming…progressives.
in method, yes. that’s a pretty good way of putting it.
Even if they’re still mostly sticking to a 70%/30& “Libertarian vs sjw”-mix of content?
their method has turned into 80/20 “weak-ass proggy rhetorical appeal vs attempt to actually make a rational argument”
Wow, I missed the whole “cultural libertarian” thing
If ENB stands by that post then she has to believe the late Heather Heyer was just an asshole. I wouldn’t necessarily agree for quite the same reason but props to Ms. Brown if she’s consistent.
Really? Why is that? i know nothing about the late heather so i’m not sure what the reference is to.
Ms. Heyer showed up at a “private event” to “throw shade” on Nazis.
Are you saying the rally in C-ville was a ‘private event’, or was there some other example i’m unaware of?
I just got through it. Zach seemed to make the claim that the West isn’t at war with Jihadists. Is he out of his mind? That somehow it’s all in the minds of the ‘alt-right’?
And Molyneux does a fair job of laying out Western values and philosophy so I still don’t get why Reason went after him.
(cute reply) “Maybe that’s exactly why?”
(actual reply) I don’t watch his shit (i’ve seen a few of his rants, 3 or so a year for a couple of years back), but the impression i’ve gotten from other people is that, while he’s not himself an “Identitarian”, he takes the identitarian arguments seriously, and treats them with respect, and even borrows from some of their more-obvious arguments from time to time
(e.g. Bell Curve-esque IQ distribution, the fact that there’s so much black crime, the voting patterns of hispanics etc)
basically, he’s not a baddy, but he *tolerates* the baddies, ergo we need to throw him in the pile and unperson him.
which i think is funny, in some ways, because its exactly what the MSM would do with Reason.com if they were the first people to interview James Damore. They’d be slammed as ‘far right’, and i’m sure someone would point out that they published a holocaust denier years ago, etc.
Nick Gillespie used to pal around with Richard Spencer. NEVER FORGET
say what? @ Ron Paul events?
The libertarian powers-that-be (well Cato) seem to be trying to purge the memory of Ron Paul, fwiw. I think Sarwark got into the action too recently, basically saying that Paul-ism was an unfortunate side-effect of LP evolution and he was never truly ‘one of us’.
Reason DC HQ, I believe. At a Koch-funded cocktail party no less.
oh, right. Nick mentioned that anecdote in something he wrote disavowing… well, that’s pretty much the last dozen pieces.
Am I wrong in thinking that both Zach and Lauren’s arguments are equally facile?
no, they mostly are. but the difference is that Reason isn’t even bothering with her/milo/etc.’s arguments at all. he basically goes, “these people are bad” and then moves on to his idiotic attempt to claim that Cosmotarianism is the true heir to Voltaire and John Locke (waves meaningless charts)
Also, I don’t hold a “reaction video” to the same standards as a scripted ReasonTV video. Lauren Southern is out there in many formats where she argues more and less cogently. The “reaction video” is on the less cogent side of things.
I’m neutral on her. She’s good at cutting through media BS, but she has a tendency to emote through issues just as much as the people she criticizes. She’s bred to be a talking head, and she’s only slightly less vapid than the blathering idiots on [insert idiotic MSM news opinion show here]
I’m less-than-neutral. I actively don’t like her or much of the alt-lite shtick. insofar as its “anti-progressive” its amusing, but when it comes to their attempt to defend any idea like free-speech (sort of) or free-trade (they don’t) they’re mostly useless-to-counterpurposive.
they’re (the alt-lights) more like progs than dislike them. My ire is far more ‘disgust with the people i’ve come to expect better from’ (reason) than it is actually siding with her or milo or (far far less) stephan m., who i’ve never liked.
what drives me fucking nuts is that Reason should have actually embraced at least the spirit of these youtube-alt-righty types and tried to shape their own, BETTER version of that sort of ‘grassroots’ outreach. Don’t make them the enemy, make them allies that you disagree with = and disagree with them heartily and openly. Debate the issues.
Instead they sided with the progs and basically go, “these people are worthless” and tried to ignore them. And they basically sacrificed thousands and thousands of potential Libertarians to the alt-meme-jihadis. and the impression most people have of “libertarianism” is basically something between Bill Weld and Nick Gillespie: old, retarded, lame, incapable of actually engaging either the ‘enemy’ (the left) or younger people.
Instead they sided with the progs and basically go, “these people are worthless” and tried to ignore them. And they basically sacrificed thousands and thousands of potential Libertarians to the alt-meme-jihadis. and the impression most people have of “libertarianism” is basically something between Bill Weld and Nick Gillespie: old, retarded, lame, incapable of actually engaging either the ‘enemy’ (the left) or younger people.
This. Culturally, libertarians are 45-year-old guys in frat-bro clothes hitting on co-eds at the college watering hole. Gillespie and his ilk are this.
Who you calling fat? I weigh 145lbs and can swiftly dodge like the Pillsbury Doughman averting a fat finger destined for his stomach!
I know. It’s the best I can come up with fighting this nasty migraine.
Who do you have a better chance at converting, alt left or alt right people? Seriously, I don’t know, but it seems absurd to write off of the alt right as a lost cause while make all the correct protestations to the alt left.
exactly my argument.
I don’t think either are wholly convertible. but if you’re going to look for fertile fields to explore for potential converts, you’re not going to find it on the left.
Not only is the left not where the action is, growth-wise* (milo rightly pointed out that if you want to be ‘counter-cultural’ in the modern day, you’re going to be right-wing, because the left dominates culture)… its a place where literally every established institution is dedicated to opposing your most basic beliefs.
Of course neither are beyond conversion. They’re both composed of humans and humans are capable of wonderful accomplishments and nasty shit. If Reason wants to add its tiny influence to the bonfire that is burning the witches on the alt right, have fun. That sure as hell isnt my version of libertarianism and humanity.
i didn’t mean ‘beyond conversion’ when i said ‘neither is wholly-convertible’
what i meant was that if you’re going to move the needle in the direction of liberty, you would make a lot more progress moving alt-righties in your direction than you would with lefties.
iow, Its easier to get right-wingers to agree with at least more parts of the libertarian program; the left, where they currently agree with it, do so for entirely antithetical reasons. Even if you get no actual ‘converts’, you make more net progress w/ the former, if you see what i mean.
Indeed, for an outfit like Reason to be harping on about a Libertarian Moment for a few years to not grasp what was happening and how they could have gotten a good deal more people on the liberty train they botched it massively. The LP is the same deal. This site is a perfect example of what the response should be. I think the only way of getting a more sizable amount of people down with a libertarian way of seeing things is to change the culture.
Costa Rica 2—USA 0, in New York just now. Not so good. US is basically playing for third place in the Hexagonal Concacaf qualifier for the World Cup of Metric Football. Top 3 automatically make it in, so that’s not so bad, but 4th place means an elimination here and there with the Asian Football federation’s third place squad.
Not looking good for the 2018 tournament if you can’t score on Costa Rica here in the US.
AFC’s fifth-place team, actually.
Costa Rica plays that stingy 11-man game. Hard to break them down. Reminds me of Paraguay at the 2002 WC.
The World Cup with an asterisk I might add.
Fucken Moreno.
The asterisk is because Thorsten Frings wasn’t red-carded, right?
Sure, why not?
But man were Italy and Spain jobbed.
South Korea a semi-finalist my ass.
That game was uninspired bullshit. They looked awful.
There’s at least a 50% chance the AFC/CONCACAF playoff will be Australia vs. US. I would like to avoid that conflict of interest.
That would be unfortunate for both.
http://5newsonline.com/2017/09/01/men-accused-of-trying-to-hold-up-bar-during-police-retirement-party/
We really didn’t think this through.
Reason writers not libertarians? Wha…?
https://youtu.be/r2Q87dI0H5s
Doh!
Her outrage wouldn’t ring so hollow if the comment section to her video weren’t filled with people screaming “KIKES!” at the top of their lungs.
As I said last night, I don’t know much about this Southern chick, but so far, color me unimpressed.
Yeah, I noticed that.
I’m not Southern fan myself, but that video by Zach was terrible. “But if we delve deep into the mind of Steve Bannon…”. Literally mind reading.
I’m sure he painted with an overly-broad brush for those concerned about the fine distinctions between the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea. I just have a very low tolerance for the Snarky Millennial Talks Back to Things genre of Youtube. She could have been protesting against the vivisection of newborns and I still would have wanted to punch her in the face 3 minutes and 24 seconds in.
Besides, those newborns had it coming.
To be fair, newborns are dicks.
Oh come on now, HM! She’s purty!
Would it be cliché of me to state that The Pholosopher has her beat on all accounts?
Threesome is the correct answer.
I like watching Lauren because I agree with 75% of what she says and she reminds me of my High School girlfriend. Brittany is just the cherry on the sundae.
^^^ This guy gets it
Dammit! DEG, though Festus makes a good point.
Festus makes a good point vs a great set of tits. Hmmm. I am gonna have to think about this for a while. I’ll get back to you.
We may hate it, but that is where the front line battles are taking place. Personal interactions with coworkers and friends are being molded by people that we don’t want molding a brick of cheese. As shallow as those pieces are, compare them to Twitter or FB. Pretty soon, we’re going to be screaming single syllable words at each other and thinking we had a debate.
“G’Way! Bating!”
GRAGHAGH!
zach basically said in the opening of his piece “Actual neo-nazi racists … people who are opposed to immigration…. same thing, really”
I think that’s a finer distinction than you’re allowing. And its exactly that sort of handwaving that i think is more disgusting than the intellectual vapidity of people like Southern (she is)
sorry, that should be been “not nearly the fine-distinction you’re pretending”… or something like that. iow, its pretty bloody different.
It’s the same stuff Sarwark pulled on Woods last week. You may not be a Nazi, oh, and I don’t think you are, but the stuff you say is appealing to them. Why do you want to convert Nazis from their Nazi ways?
Oh, and it will protect the brand, this time. But then will come the next time Beltway Libertarians toss out a trial balloon in tentative defense of liberty, inflated by feeble puffs of To Be Sures, and once again their betters will warn them of their strong resemblance to Third Reichers. At that point, Gillespie and company will disavow, or clarify, or whatever the hell kind of spin it will take to get them to believe We Didn’t Mean It!. To prove their commitment to the right side of history, Reason will offer up a few more sacrificial deplorables, and the brand will be protected once again.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
which raises the question in my mind: what, if anything, is the magazine’s goal(s), really?
its not policy-promotion; there are plenty of wonks@Cato + elsewhere doing that.
is it “outreach”? if so…. well, i noticed that they took a strong shift in 2014 or so to try to appeal to “millenials”, and get more youthful audiences. (matt even took robby on a donor roadshow and bragged about how his stuff was getting better clicks w/ younger demos)
but i gotta wonder whether the ‘gains’ haven’t been entirely offset by greater losses in donations, overall readership, cites by other media… whatever stats they use.
basically, i can’t imagine their strategies have been paying off.
You’re assuming the payoff they want is more converts. Revealed preferences reveal.
Did he? Assuming that your summary is accurate, from the point of view in that they both advocate the use of force against peaceable individuals, they are the same, no?
As I stated in my last article, I really don’t care about the current internecine warfare going on between various factions in the liberty movement. Does one reason from the NAP or not? That’s all I care about. The rest is angels on a pinhead silliness.
Why fight “the enemy” when you can punch a familiar face that you’ve always felt comme ci comme ca about? I’d wager that most of these people (judging by their physical actions) don’t even know how to fight. Pathetic.
No, i don’t think Neo-Nazis, and people who simply disagree with pure-open-borders theories of immigration are the same. And i think saying so is silly, even if you could make some argument that the NAP makes no distinction between a pickpocket and the IRS.
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that taxation is theft.
no one disagreed that taxation is theft, you’re claiming there’s only 1 kind of theft and any further distinctions are irrelevant, when the distinctions are exactly the subject in question.
i just think “nothing-but-the-NAP-0arguments about everything tend to result in stupid, reductive, philosophical debates which end up erasing huge swaths of what’s actually being discussed”
I’m not interested in holding “Everyone in the country” to some NAP purity test because that’s not how THEY reason. And i’m not throwing everyone in the country in the same bag with Neo-Nazis simply because neither they nor the Nazis follow NAP logic.
The question is = whether its fair to lump “immigration restrictionists”
(who don’t like muslims and would rather the US stopped importing them for at least a while, and want a wall to control the importing of mexicans) …
…into the same exact category as “NeoNazis”,
(who believe that only the racially pure are genetically equal and all others should be driven out of the West to enable a truly free society for whites)
there’s no reason to even involve the NAP. its a question of definitions. and my criticism isn’t even about some intellectual argument being made – its simply a shitty, cheap rhetorical attempt to throw everyone who isn’t open borders under the bus.
In my personal view (which isn’t relevant to the above point, but which i’ll throw in) libertarian arguments don’t really have any bearing at all on ‘border policy’. You can be equally libertarian and have a wide range of views on how a nation manages its territorial boundaries. What you can’t disagree about is that free movement of labor is the desired outcome.
We don’t like in a world of perfectly-free-trade. yes we seem to think that “less unfree” would be better and desirable. we don’t demand 100% free-trade, or nothing!
yet that is exactly the posture many seem to take re: border control/immigration. as tho there are no alternatives other than 100% free, or else you’re a Nazi.
This is stupid, in my opinion. Welch actually summed up this same point in a 5th column podcasrt a while back, and more or less stated ‘open borders, from a policy pov, is impossible’.
In my personal view (which isn’t relevant to the above point, but which i’ll throw in) libertarian arguments don’t really have any bearing at all on ‘border policy’. You can be equally libertarian and have a wide range of views on how a nation manages its territorial boundaries.
This is something I was thinking about writing about in one of my Socratic method articles. Just because people may be unjustly imposed on as citizens of a nation doesn’t mean that the collective group of citizens (aka the nation) can’t act as a voluntary group when interacting with third parties.
I’ll fully admit that I haven’t spend the time to think about what the realm of principled libertarian immigration positions would be, but I think that we libertarians sometimes shortcut to “individual’s interests over all else” without thinking through the potential conflicts and contradictions that crop up when applied in the immigration sphere.
Jesus Christ, Gilmore! No, I didn’t. In the very sentence you quote, I wrote “from the point of view…”, which implies the subject is seen from various perspectives.
And, yes, we all know that you are a Very Serious Man(TM), who is only interested in real-life, pragmatic solutions. You have no time for us academics in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land with our “thought experiments” and our “principles”, like the initiation of force. So to point out that the both subsidizing or prohibiting immigration involves the threat of deadly force by a state against peaceful individuals means nothing. Libertarianism is merely just what works at a particular time.
And while you can stamp your feet and throw a hissy-fit, it still doesn’t refute the fact that both groups of people share a common view concerning the legitimacy of state power in controlling the free movement of people. That doesn’t mean your average immigration restrictionist is equal to a Neo-Nazi anymore than you are equal to a Neo-Nazi if a point out that both of you have two ears, eyes, a nose, and a mouth.
@trshmnstr
Reification is a sub-species of the informal fallacy of equivocation.
How about: The state shall neither subsidize nor prohibit the free movement of peaceful individuals across its borders?
no, i just didn’t think it was relevant to distinguishing between Neo-Nazis and ‘everyone who differ from doctrinaire open-borders’ ideas. (which is basically everyone)
Which is basically another way of saying, “Not libertarians”…
…and what do we learn through that observation? that lots of people are not libertarians.
This is news to no one.
the question in the first place was not, “Whether the entire world shares this very narrow conceptions of libertarianism”,
(even more shocking – not even most libertarians)
There are lots of non-libertarians. They are not all Nazis. The implication made in the bullshit conflation that aroused everyone’s anger in the first place, was that they were.
Suggesting that the NAP provides a perfectly reasonable basis for calling everyone not an open-border libertarian “no different than a nazi”….
no that doesnt really seem all that interesting or enlightening to me, and i don’t think im saying that because i’m some anti-intellectual who hates Real Principled Thinkers.
Well, getting back to the point raised an hour ago, I do think its relevant in a discussion concerning what ties together the various groups lumped, fairly or unfairly, together under the rubric of “right-wing populism”. Particularly when the larger discussions of the day revolve around libertarianism’s relationship with what Thomas Knapp presciently called Peckerwood Populism back in 2009.
It’s not a conflation to observe that two groups share a similar view concerning the use of force in a certain context. Nor does that observation imply that one similarity means the groups are similar in other ways. And this is, again, assuming your paraphrase of Zach’s argument is accurate.
The state shall neither subsidize nor prohibit the free movement of peaceful individuals across its borders?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems that you have to hold two contradictory positions in order to say that.
1) The state legitimately owns property with borders
2) The state cannot assert ownership of its property by restricting access
Either the state can assert the fundamental characteristics of property ownership, including restricting access, or the state does not rightfully own the property. If the state does not rightfully own the property (or if the state is merely an abstraction), then it is aiding and abetting trespass on property that is rightfully somebody else’s by allowing any immigration at all.
You can’t peel the rights and characteristics of property ownership away from the ownership itself. The only way that open borders becomes a core libertarian principle is at the sacrifice of the fundamental rights associated with property ownership.
Well, yes, on my AnCap side, the missing corollary is that the state shall not exist, but as that disturbs the squares, let’s go with my Minarchist side. I would argue that a minarchist would not agree with premise 1 as necessary. A night watchman state would have no ownership of the property it was contracted to guard by the collective citizenry anymore than a security guard owns the factory he was hired to protect by a company’s board of directors.
I would also add that non-action does not equal aid. The owner of port A could not allow any immigration but the owner of port B could. The state should have no say into the operations of the port anymore than it should dictate to bakers whom they should serve.
Well, yes, on my AnCap side, the missing corollary is that the state shall not exist, but as that disturbs the squares, let’s go with my Minarchist side. I would argue that a minarchist would not agree with premise 1 as necessary.
I want to make a quick distinction. There’s a huge difference between open borders and no borders. Consequently, there’s a huge difference between saying “The state shall neither subsidize nor prohibit the free movement of peaceful individuals across its borders” and saying “the transit of individuals across a nation’s border shall be controlled by the owners of the properties that make up the border.”
“Should”
Yet you are no different than a nazi for differing with the (entirely theoretical posture of) Reason.com on the former policy area…
….yet on the latter… well, see its a subject requiring nuance. we shouldn’t judge people based on, you know, little things like pointing a gun at someone and dictating who/what they sell, and how.
amazing, how when these philosophical ideals actually get down to where the rubber meets the road, fashionably high-minded ones suddenly discover that there are necessary concessions to be made.
which is basically why i don’t take that sort of thing very seriously.
for example – on the question of “free speech”:
would i rather have someone like Robby Soave on my team – who is a very nice, well spoken boy, who behaves nicely and draws the
rightapproved conclusions on paper and is rated one of the hottest 30-under-30 in DC(!)……or some foul mouthed, amoral, self-promoting shitheel like Milo, who probably has no philosophical beliefs at all, and wants nothing more than to achieve some minor celebrity and its associated easy-money… but who forces leftists to SET FIRE TO THE BUILDING HE’S IN because they’re so upset about his insistence in not shutting up.
Just a thought-experiment, there.
That’s about as good a summary as i can manage at the moment why i think throwing the “alt-lighties” under the bus, en masse, is stupid, even if it sort-of helps protect the libertarian brand from association with quasi-racists.
i realize that there’s some glaring contradiction between the immediately above, and then something i said earlier, which was
i’ll keep it, with emphasis on the “mostly”, and just say that they’re not all entirely useless, and that we’d be better off using the few that can help, rather than desperately disavowing anyone given the evil-eye by the MSM.
I am not a Laura fan either. She seems a bit “all Muslims must never touch foot on the sacred soil” to me and that is just idiotic. The Reason video is just as idiotic with a different flavor and some outright bullshit though.
No comment section screams “KIKES!” more than the one at ZeroHedge. I don’t judge the posts or the other comments by it.
That said, the Canuck cooze could’ve crafted a much better Reason-takedown.
Counter-point: Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?
Counter-counter-point: The comment section on Glibertarians.com
I don’t get the appeal either.
I don’t like this argument, because you could watch some random music video by some teenybopper on Youtube and you WILL STILL FIND PEOPLE SCREAMING “KIKES” AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS. because that’s what assholes in youtube comments do. We’ve discussed before how many are like serious and how many are just trolls, and i tend to fall on the ‘suspicious that more are serious than not’ side, but i still think its a terrible argument to say, “person has shitty racist fans in the comment section” ergo they should be treated like they are shitty racists themselves and what they say should be ignored.
the fact is that as the political territory narrows, and fewer and fewer people are actually sincerely advocating for things like ‘Free Speech’, you are going to find yourself cheek-to-jowel next to raging racist scumbags.
and frankly, that used to exist @ H+R long before the alt-right was a thing, and no one accused Reason of harboring secret racist impulses.
Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t make that argument!
What I’m saying is that her “I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!” schitck at the beginning would have been more effective to the casual observer (e.g., me) had the comment section not been a cesspool. Again, she may have several videos directed at those guys where she’s basically like “you’re not helping!”, but if you aren’t already familiar with her, her outrage at being associated with certain people and who her supporters seem to be makes her seem either naive or disingenuous. I’m just stating my honest first impression of her. I am more than willing to admit that I could be wrong.
And as far as ironic hipster racism and antisemitism, I fully subscribe to the Popehat Goat-Fuckers Axiom.
well maybe i misstated it, but both above and right here you basically say “what she says is irreparably damaged by the comments”
which is to conflate her own comments with that of her audience. I just think that’s a weak-ass argument to make esp w/ internet media. people can’t control who/what litters their comments. And as i said = we had a remarkable share of batshit in the comments over @ H+R over the years… don’t you remember people routinely making exactly that association? that the magazine must have something wrong with it if “these sorts of people” are the ones who do all the yakking in the comments?
as i say above, i’m not a fan of hers, and i know her faux-outrage-is-faux… but Reason is basically giving her the sort of treatment Milo has gotten over the past 2 years: where people will simply go, “Here’s Racist-Alt-Right Leader Milo Y” in their headlines. Sans any actual evidence of those claims.
Milo doesn’t have to be a good guy, and i don’t have to agree with any of his arguments to consider that sort of thing incredibly dishonest and cheapening of the publication, and worthy of a response which basically calls them low-rent hack whores.
Again, what I wrote is that a specific thing she said, not everything she said, was damaged by the comments. As I pointed out to SIV, it’s an example of the “Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?” gambit. She knows damn well that her comment section is filled with /pol/ edgelords. Instead of feigning ignorance, she should have made the same exact argument you just made above. Instead of swooning to her fainting couch over Zack identifying her as an Anime Nazi, she could have said “Yes, my comment section is full of retarded neckbeards, but their views are not necessarily representative of mine.”
Also, you seem to be forgetting that I wrote this defense of Milo back in the day. (Has it been so long? It seems like the Exodus happened only yesterday.)
(shrug) Ok. I still think that demanding their relevance at all is just a watered-down-version of what i’m objecting to. I admit i haven’t even watched the entirety of her response, and i wasn’t even that interested in the specifics of her counterpoint, so much as just feeling that an angry reply was justified.
Which is basically a version of the same argument that Sarwark made earlier today.
1) he accuses people of being nazis.
2) when they get mad about being called nazis, he said,
3) “Oh, look at you pulling the victim card. I’m really just saying you PANDER to Nazis.”
coincidentally, i wrote something for the Glib site early today about this, which seems to have vanished in the ether (or maybe will go up tomorrow or the next day or never, who knows)
she could have said “Yes, my comment section is full of retarded neckbeards, but their views are not necessarily representative of mine.”
I don’t get the whole “denounce the followers” trend. It always ends up being one-sided and is used to bludgeon people for things they didn’t say or do.
I’m not sure about whom you’re talking about here – Zach or me? Because I haven’t accused anyone of being a Nazi or pandering to Nazis. All I’ve done is observe that rhetorical devices, particularly appeal to ethos, are a thing.
Struggle sessions, libertarian style.
@trshmnstr
I didn’t know you worked for CAIR.
I didn’t know you worked for CAIR.
The next time I see Nazis blowing up markets in the name of Lauren Southern, I’ll stand right next to you and ask her to denounce the Nazis.
exactly what i’m saying about pretending that someone should have to answer or apologize for their ‘commenters’, as though they’re responsible for them.
of course she doesn’t have to say, “Their views are not representative of mine”. because only “my (her) views are representative of mine (her)”.
She also doesn’t have to act befuddled as to why someone might think that was the case. And, in fact, in this particular context, it’s a good rhetorical strategy to do the former. I don’t see why this observation is controversial.
#3 in the sarwark example above
Not when, as we both agreed earlier, it was faux-befuddlement and outrage.
“Drink Driving”? I’m a firm proponent of the Queen’s English but this is silly. It’s been a bone in my craw for a mite.
Just finished “The Final Countdown” on netflix BR. That was some sweet, sweet HD Navy porn….I thought they got rid of the mega facial hair before 1980, but I guess I was wrong.
Final Countdown
Final Showndow
It’s a shame that it’s from before the Hornet went into service. Tomcats are uggo.
well this is just a bald faced lie, tomcats look fantastic with the wings swept
It’s interesting since they have a pretty broad selection of featured aircraft including the Corsairs and *I think* the A6 Intruder.
Paging straffinrun:
https://qz.com/357606/think-your-week-was-hard-tokyo-salary-mans-insane-work-diary-goes-viral/
Also, bang any 30-something divorcees lately?
That guy is not living right if he’s working that much and eating the shit he’s eating/living in the shithole he’s living in. Saving money is one thing, but you don’t need to spend a lot to live reasonably in Tokyo.
“78 hours of work, 35 hours of sleep”
My plant shuts down for two weeks every may for repairs. We do an enormous amount of work in a very short period of time. Every year I work 12+ hours a day for 14 to 18 days straight during this period. Add a 45 minute commute each way amd that adds up to 90+ hours a week.
TW: Nut punch of the day
RE: the nurse arrested for refusing to allow the cops take a blood sample of an unconscious patient. it is my understanding that the Cops were there because of a Fatal accident the involving the Cops, a suspect (the fatality) and a third party (the unconscious patient). The cops wanted to take the blood sample to pin the crash on the third party so as to protect themselves from blame in the death of the suspect.
Jesus what a bunch of pieces of shits. That nurse is a hero and I hope it wall works out for her and the cops get what they have coming.
“the cops get what they have coming.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *sob* HAHAHAHA! *cough* oh shit Rufus, don’t make jokes like that
I know.
But I dream.
Brian Wilson did eventually finish ‘Smile’ no?
If that’s the motivation, it’s doubly fucked up.
If true, each and every police officer involved should be hanged from the nearest lamppost.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Drawn, hanged and quartered. I know it’s all in fun but sometimes I wonder what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
Glad to see I’m not alone in my advocacy for extra-judicial retributive violence as a social good.
I was wearing this shirt yesterday.
Of course they want to shift blame. That’s what being a cop is all about.
Not just unconscious but an unconscious burn victim. And performing a medically unnecessary procedure where such an act could cause more harm or death.
https://youtu.be/c5fts7bj-so
But if the cops were at fault for the accident, they might have been suspended with pay for a week or so. More harm or death for some civilian pales in comparison to that. Why do you hate our heroes in blue?
Hey look I’m busy but logged in just to say Fuck Wisconsin thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6V0dZ3o8gk
If only someone had proposed selling them over the counter…
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/free-birth-control-third-party-trap/
My old health insurance plan covered condoms, I just had to mail in or fax the receipt and they’d cut me a check. It usually wasn’t really worth the hassle, since condoms aren’t that expensive, and a check for $5 usually wasn’t worth the hassle unless I had other business at the bank anyways. But it was covered under our health plan.
Since it’s Friday night on a holiday weekend, here are some bonus callipygian and bathykolpian beauties.
http://archive.is/i2mPR
Orgy.
You have to say that in a six year-old’s voice. Like when we found our Dad’s Sex-to-Sexty magazines. ORGEE. The g is hard.
I’m definitely a breast man, but some of those girls make reconsider that stance.
Never had a “type”. I used to like them pretty and available. Red-heads were able to make me trip over my own feet for some reason.
Yo dawg, I heard you like breasts.
Sweet Jesus. Does she have a face? I can’t seem to look up.
113000 follows, I’m sure that’s because of her real estate talent.
When I was a stoned kid I walked right into a pillar at the mall when some chick made eye contact with me. I felt little shame. I just wanted to play “Defender”.
I’m tempted to overlook the fact that she voted for Hillary Clinton.
You probably should have linked to this one.
Am I the only one who got distracted by the weird kiwi-kale smoothie?
Fuck. I’m old, so it’s basically museum pieces now. Usedtas.
I’m definitely a breast man
We don’t want to see your moobs.
Damn
When I was in high school I had a talent for dating the largest future lower back problem girls. Maybe (maybe) they had some secret code that would negate the mashers. I dunno, It just seems sorta weird, looking back. I probably liked big tits.
The secret is to look them in the eyes when you talk to them. Seriously, they’re so used to guys “talking to their chests” that any guy who isn’t just staring at their tits gets their attention.
I was in AP classes so my stoner whiff was maybe held away by the jock factor. I dated three of the the four large breasted girls (the pretty ones, no whales) in my class. I think word got around that I wasn’t a groper. I was a groper.
It’s Ardbeg Uigeadail tonight. F’n expensive but worth every penny.
I’m cheap. I had vodka on the rocks.
No booze for me tonight.
Starting with a Gin & Tonic. Specifically Bombay Sapphire + Q Indian Tonic Water. When I finish this I’ll move on to some Bear Republic Racer 5.
I like this whiskey called (rī)1. It’s the best whiskey I’ve ever tasted.
You lucky fucking bastard.
I’m drinking box wine. I’d wandered into the booze outlet to see what’s on sale, and the answer is: nothing much. So I went looking at scotches just to laugh at myself and my circumstances, and even the cheapest scotch I love is twice as much as the piss I drink to pretend I’m not wasting money on frivolity.
I’ll buy myself Ardbeg when I graduate. Till then, I’ll make do with Smokey Joe on the occasion I feel like spending an extra fifteen bucks on a cheapish hangover.
Weinstein and J. Peterson are on Rogan. So far, it’s an excellent discussion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI
I like Jordan but he’s so sure of himself and christian.
I like a lot of what Peterson has to say as well, but I didn’t like how he misrepresented (knowingly or unknowingly) Pennebaker’s work in one lecture concerning pronouns.
I hear he also misinterpreted Crime and Punishment, which he likes to bring up a lot. I’ve never read it, so I can’t say. But it’s something I’ve heard.
Interesting. Do you remember any specifics? At least for literature, there can be arguments made for different interpretations, but what I’m referring to is the fact that he implied that it’s a linguistic universal that pronouns are a closed class (in which new words are added very rarely). While this is certainly true in English, in other languages, like Japanese or Thai, pronouns are an open class.
I think it was more textual than whatever you’re referring to. A disagreement about his interpretation. Peterson analogizes the modern drive to repudiate Christian moral impetus to the plot of Crime and Punishment. I don’t know how well the comparison holds up.
I see. As both Peterson and Dostoyevsky are Christian mystics, I would actually be more inclined to trust Peterson’s interpretation.
As a fan of Burke, I like the thought that you can’t just remove the constraints built up under the aegis of Christian morality and expect the norms of Western liberalism to prevail nonetheless. But I’m a pillock and a drunkard and I’ll not pretend to be one to argue this point.
I’d like to know what specific reference of Peterson people are objecting to. I just reread CnP and it’s a bear to wrap your mind around the psychological journey Dosty takes you through.
Japanese pronouns carry a lot less weight than they do in English, IMO. With implied subjects and even objects at times, they can avoid most of the problems Peterson is reacting to.
I’m a smart feller but when he starts spouting off about Xtianity he looses it for me. Be smart, asshole!
I’m not an expert, but back when I was studying Japanese it seemed weird that pronouns weren’t used. Like when I was trying to learn Spanish, there was a big focus on when to use formal vs informal. When studying Japanese the teachers were like yeah, it’s pretty much never OK to use pronouns. But I’ve never been to Japan, so I’m not exactly an expert.
I watched him “religiously” and then discovered that he is basically a Jesuit. Ouch.
Rogan isn’t the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, but i appreciate how he summed up the batshit-SJW-campus-crazy as basically being “About power”.
He intuitively gets it in ways ‘smarter’ people don’t. everyone else tries taking the superficial reasons at face value. as though it must have something to do with racism, or inequality, or students wanting some specific policy changed…. when its really just naked power using whatever tools are handy.
I hope the Lord of the Flies reboot gets it correct as well.
Piggy dies in a slap-fight?
Kinda watching Red Heat on the TeeVee. I saw this in the theater first run back in the day but did not realize (or maybe recall) that all the “good guys” use wheel guns while the bad guys are all automatic. (They’re all pistols you pseudo-pedants!)
OT, but checking in from the southern reaches of the Houston area. I survived, as did the cat. House had a few inches of water in it Sunday morning, but not too much. I’ve been busily ripping up flooring, tossing bookshelves (thankfully not too many books!), and cutting 2′ of drywall off the bottom of my walls. Hope no one else got it bad – I know there are a few of y’all down this way.
I’m glad you didn’t suffer too much damage and hope you recover swiftly. I spent a lot of (dryer) time in the affected region.
Thanks! I was fairly fortunate. My parents escaped all flood damage, but I had friends that literally lost their houses and everything in them. I really can’t complain (though I probably will from time to time).
Glad you and your parents are getting through it well. Tough news for your friends, though, that’s awful when you know someone. I had a childhood friend lose everything during Katrina flooding (she now lives in Alaska, because fuck hurricanes) and it’s a horrible situation.
Fuck hurricanes indeed. But I’m not sure the answer is extreme fucking cold in between plagues of super-mosquitoes.
We’ve been warned about the loss of amphibians but I’d rather not see them fall from the sky as some sort of God-like make work project. Fuck off, Yahweh!
well, not for most people, no. And definitely not for me, although her stories can be hilarious about the land up yonder.
And tbh, it was Tulane dicking around that chased her out of New Orleans to find a different position, but that was still because of Katrina, so fuck hurricanes anyway.
Putting my snark aside, I hope that all of my Houston pals get out of this like a duck shakes a tail. You guys are the best and if it weren’t for my dui I’d love to help you out. 1999 and I still can’t cross the border.
I’m drunk and stumbling through youtube.
At least the cops can’t nab you.
This is true. I should probably have some water soom.
A counterpoint.
Awwwyeahhh lets chop cats!
Those cats are obnoxiously loud. If only someone could come up with a way to silence them somehow.
“I’m making a quieter cat.”
this is cool
Freshly shaven head. Who wants to fuck around this time?
“Democratic Former Senator Finally Says What Left Is Thinking: All Republicans Are Nazis“”
I’m sure it’s not just a cheap rhetorical swipe
“”let us finally, finally rip off the veneer that Trump’s affinity for white supremacy is distinct from the Republican agenda of voter suppression, renewed mass incarceration and the expulsion of immigrants.””
Fair points, all.
“Former” tripped me up. I thought fer sure it was Watters but no, it was Feingold. Whatta cunt.
“Governors and state legislatures were so quick to embrace people of color in order to avoid the impression, they too share Trump’s supreme affinity for the white race. But if they don’t stand up for them they are not indirectly, but directly enabling the agenda of those same racists ..””
I feel like I heard some version of this before somewhere…. Pretending that “failure to denounce” = endorsement, and that any overlapping policy interests = racist enabling, but hey, he didn’t call them racists, so it’s ok