I kind of think that either outcome isn't a bad thing. Not that I want a civil war or something but if it does happen it will allow for the purging of the radical/authoritarian left and bring the US back to a sense of normality.

I meanits a way of burning excess

The extreme views will die out.

But you can expect the people in the middle to become more extreme.

Well, more in comparison, not actually extreme

Radical centrists lel.

Talking like, I didnt care abotu free speech before, now Im aware and support it

It's not going to be a left vs right thing. It will be crazies vs non crazies.

Thing is everything is so tribal now

Well yeah that's the two party system for you.

That even mild difference in opinion results in all out anger

Society is too complex for 2 parties.

But people are too simple to think beyond yes and no

Nobody wants to sit through hours of tests to see which party they will agree with

Alot of people agree with trump policies but hate it because of the name behind it

I'm actually in camp #2. We know humor tends to get attention and I think the kinds of people in the camps is actually shifting.

I actually was thinking of the Social Justice stuff when I posted this. In the case of Social Justice, you're not aiming for votes. You're aiming for minds. Rather, I think it's too easy for the Social Justice types to hide, shame and intimidate.

I love the idea of mocking them to force them to show themselves for the fools they are. Much harder for them to hit people that way and forces them to really overplay their hands.

I do have this feeling that social justice crazies are alot like the fundamentalist religious right. I suspect they probably don't understand irony very well either.

It works on keeping the group together

Trump knows that by creating all those nicknames

And trumpers have nicknames for each other and their own injokes

Im talking shit like coats, bricks, the trump train

You need both really

You need to make fun of high-profile people, to show them they're not indomitable, and to show the people that you can win

And you need to shitpost, to push back against their poor argumenting and showing how bad the people are, and gather people who agree

Just make sure it looks like you are having more fun than the other side

Leftie memes are bad because theres alot of stuff thats not allowed to be made fun of

true, Milo for all his fakeness got that part right,

Leftists can't stand Laughter, it is the best power

^ This is why I get reminded so much of the Religious Right. I still remember the crusades against Harry Potter and Pokemon.

because you're not allowed to laugh

The Left are the new puritans.

i must thank the far left. they made me realize that religion is a symptom, not a source.

Can we upload images here?

No

That is a violation of my 1A rights

Took my crap to the firearms chat in protest

You can at rank 10

Aye someone said so at the fake-news room but you can never trust the fake-stream media

But still you can't upload images in this text channel

Read the description

reading is for nerds

tru

Lol

I really enjoy Tim's work and am watching the backlog. The narrative he keeps pushing about the SCOTUS cake decision and that you should just "bake the cake" is wrong. The gay couple specifically targeted that baker because of his religions beliefs and the baker was willing to sell them a generic cake off the shelf, he just did not want to support their wedding message. Naturally this couple made a stink of it as was their goal and got a court case out of it. Freedom of association should be preserved and the government does not have a right to order a business to do service. If the public finds a business is discriminating, they are free to send their own message by not doing business there and causing its destruction.

Whether you agree with my conclusion or not the fact is the issue was far more complex than "just bake a cake bigot" and the fact that Tim brings this up over and over again so simply is really annoying.

I think there's a difference between 'baking the cake' and 'selling the cake'.

And that's part of what came up in that decision, if I'm not mistaken.

The bakery had no issue selling one to them

So this is going to sound *really* conspiratorial. But based on the wiki page, Quinn was deeply in favor of encryption. Jeong gave a talk in which she came out in favor of SJW media censorship ("we must silence some to give others the chance to speak").

Is it possible that the *real* motive here is ideological? The media establishment has been waging war on open exchange online; is it possible the editorial board is trying to build up a collection of people to really start going after unrestricted speech?

Not out of the realm of possiblity but I'm going to have to see some evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6IlQ7UYeEM

@Dan V Yeah, I got nothing to show it's actually happening. Only a couple spots on what the people in question think.

ehhhhh does sound conspiracyish but not soo out there that id say its possible

tryin to collect enough cards for a mono sjw pure aggro deck

not sure i t can beat out the hybrid conservative/centre left controll deck we got runnin this season

BELIEVE IN THE HEART OF THE CARDS

so this is it huh

with infowars now gone and nobody willing to adopt an alternative platform, do we just accpet defeat and adapt the regressive mindset?

I never followed infowars, and i'm doing quite alright 😛

you will for now yes

i barely even followed their content or like ever

but the deplatforming of him across the entire internet is just mass censorship

I agree, it sets a very bad precident 😦

this is just step 1

but i don't follow alex jones, and never cared for his news cuz it seemed like lunatic conspiracies most of the time

you mean all the time

he is a joke and you know it

anyways, this is phase 1 of deplatforming people that doesnt align with their ideology

well some of it ended up being correct, if you removed the ranting madness around it 😛

im afraid of what phase 2 would be

phase 2 would prolly be removing any non-left opinion

i had a feeling that was the plan

>how much of the market needs to be covered to be considered a monopoly? i mean, no 1 government has a monopoly of the world

not the whole world, but some have just called dibs on an entire continent

okay but some dont

the problem is that they dont have what is considered legitimate ownership of the land according to homesteading principles

please define what you believe the homesteading principle is

you need to perform an act of original appropriation, like putting it to use or joining it to acquired property, or marking it as owned

you cant just plant a flag, write a constitution and pretend everyone agrees

okay, how long does something need to be unclaimed for there to be no claim?

i'm not sure, it's something we've been discussing in ancap discords

old lady, no kids, no siblings, dies. no will, who gets the house? how long before someone can move in to make a claim?

what would we be waiting for?

make sure there is no one that was family to make a claim

or a friend or something

i think you would have that in mind if you go homesteading a house with dead people in it. you could take a chance and just go for it, but someone might come later and reassert their claim

and if you don't know if its true, it goes into arbitration, someone gets it

correct?

yeah

who pays for arbitration?

the ones who finds it valuable to do so

it can be paid for by anyone in any way except taxation

i want the same systems we have today, but without the taxes and state monopoly bs

so you mean, just as bad

the person with the most money wins most of the time

because why side with the person with less wealth, except in places of strong character and a defined set of right and wrong

both parties need to agree on a judge. if the judge always sides with the rich, there would be no point for the poor to consult that judge.

everyone has a track record

and no rich person would want a judge who wasn't going to side with them

particularly if they want the property

so, we have an impasse

we have a giant arbitration industry right now that a lot of people prefer to go to rather than the state. this seems like a basic old problem that the arbitration industry has solved long time ago.

worst case scenario the partisan judges would just have to choose an arbitrator they both agree on

we have an impasse. i mean, there is no state. so it easy to have this be a local thing