And boys suck even when they are trying their best

the comments were much the same "I'm going to tell my kids the same" and "we need to tell our girls this more often" that kind of shit

So counterproductive

Focus on actions and results

@uncephalized check picture links

i slept 23 hours yesterday, I've been awake for maybe 3 hours today and already ready for bed again, being sick suuucks

Drink water you'll be fine.

What the hell 😭 there was a meetup in Raleigh and no one pinged me

Michael you meanie

Whoever you are

Is there a place to see when one is planned?

As far as I know you just put your info down on the spread sheet and either wait to be contacted, or make it happen yourself.

I guess I should have put more contact info in my entry in the spreadsheet. Didn't put phone number or email address, just Discord handle

So that's a bummer. I was really looking forward to when there were enough Raleigh-area people to organize a meetup, and now I missed the one that just happened!

It'll probably happen again if it happened now and was successful

Yeah but the issue is whether or not I'll find out in time (i.e. not after the fact when I listen to the Sunday show)

Stupid question, where is the spread sheet?

I requested June 30th to July 6th off so if there is a meet up in the portland oregon area around that time I could go.

Normally its in Matt's video. It might be in this chat, but you will need to scroll up a bit. @dottypurrs

@Shadows thank you very much 😁

Sure thing.

Huh. I just checked the spreadsheet and it looks like the guy who hosted the Raleigh meetup isn't in there *at all*, so I can't contact him to request an invite if he decides to do another one

but wow, over 1400 entries now

Yes

Lots.

None close to me though.

Well, within 50 miles that is

So more than an after the pub stumble then?

Way more than that.

I don't really want to be the one to initiate contact with people, but I might have to

But I'm certainly not going to until I have time to coordinate all of that

I can't help but chuckle at the irony of Tim Pool ragging on the death penalty, about how it's one if his most important issues, while also being pro choice.

Abortion and the death penalty are nearly identical in practice.

They overlap in the fact that neither a unborn child or criminal is wanted. They overlap in the death of that person.

Where they differ is who decides to bare the burden of sustaining them, and how much potential the individual has to contribute to society.

Unborn children = Unknown potential for good or bad
Criminal = In most cases only has potential for harming society.

Death penalty = State deciding someone's right to life
Abortion = An individual deciding someone's right to life.

While you can argue for either position, they aren't the same. So equating them doesn't really help you.

Yeah I would consider pro choice + anti death penalty = hypocrisy to be on par with pro life + pro death penalty = hypocrisy
Which is to say I don't consider either statement valid

Of course there are differences between them, but conceptually you're taking the life of someone you don't want to care for.

The primary differences being who's deciding to do the killing, and the innocence/potential of that life.

You're just selecting the components of both that you personally want to equate and then attributing that to your opposition

You can't argue for the sanctity of life while also arguing that killing unborn babies is acceptable.

Then it's a good thing that the death penalty debate doesnt hinge on sanctity of life isn't it?

What grounds can a pro choice activist stand on that isn't contradictory to being against the death penalty?

If someone is put up for a death penalty, it was because of Their actions. Of them not valuing the sanctity of other life. And while you can argue that if you care about all life, then you should also care about the persons life on the line of a death sentence. It does not follow to the argument of weather or not we can define when life begins.

@DJ_Anuz I agree. I'm against both

I'm a big supporter of consistent life ethic

As am I.

I guess if the argument is that an unborn child is not a life then they aren't comparable in that instance.

Except by every objective metric the second an egg is fertilized it is a new unique human life. Undeveloped, but still a human life nontheless.

I'm not arguing when a life begins or not, i'm telling you those are 2 different arguments.

One is retribution one is convenience, I don't see them as the same at all

But they're not the only arguments, lots of people I meet who are pro choice agree with me that a unborn child is still a human life. My point is more that it's worse to kill an unborn child than it is to kill a murderer, but most people you meet who are against the death penalty are likely also pro choice.

It's outrageous

I think they would generally say it isn't a baby

They are also likely the same people who would steep a $150k fine for breaking a turtle or eagle egg.

I'm only for the death penalty in mass murder situations where the perpetrator was essentially caught in the act more as a burden of proof issue

Yeah, criminals and babies aren't the same. Though Democrats are generally incoherent, they at least acknowledge people should pay a price for crime

Not everyone who gets charged is the actual perpetrator. You can come back from being jailed (usually) but not from being killed

There's also the "when human life starts" debate, and not all pro choice people are hippies

The Libertarians that act like killing someone as retribution for murder is the same as killing an innocent person and therefore is hypocritical annoy me so much I don't want to agree with them

You are arguing a great many things. Both are worth consideration, so its good to keep talking about them. But try not to conflate the 2 is all. @DJ_Anuz
It is possible for a human to have contradicting ideas in their lives, it happens all the time (some do it more then others). Whats important, is how we justice our own beliefs and how well they work out in reality.

Pro choice libertarians annoy me the most like lmao

@Shadows Fair enough.

I'm not 100% sure where i stand on the death penalty. It would be an easier choice for me if we didn't put to death the wrongfully accused. But such is life, full of difficult choices.

Yeah, I struggle with it

I used to be staunchly opposed to it because of the whole not being 100% sure of guilt thing.

Now I struggle with it too.

I might lean towards against.... But its hard to say.

Kind of oddly I was more against it when I was a hardline atheist because I was so convinced death was the absolute end.

Now I am more inclined to spirituality and think it might be less final than that.

I still think it might be wrong to kill except in defense though so...

I'm not sure how good it is to judge someone based on what may or may not happen after life, but to each their own. :)

It's not a justification exactly. Just a removal of one of the stronger reasons to be staunchly against.

I still come down mostly anti.

Lol as a Christian I guess you could say I should be against based on what I think will happen to them after they die

I think murderers are in their own personal hell on Earth.

So you're saying it would be humane to end their suffering @DJ_Anuz? XD

In some instances. Maybe.

Like if I got bone cancer in my skull I would immediately seek euthanasia.

Course that's a little different

From mental hell.

@uncephalized I know, but to me i just thought of.
We shouldn't put this person to death because nothing after life exist.
We should put this person to death because life after death happens.
Or vise-versa, seems odd to me in in all versions of this, because what if anyone/everyone is wrong.
I'd rather deal with what is know when judging these things. But i guess others can do it differently heh.

So aren't, I don't know that Charles Manson minded his life in prison necessarily

Well I definitely believe in letting people choose death over imprisonment @DJ_Anuz

Actually framing it against euthanasia is probably a better comparison

@Shadows yeah your reasoning is sound. It's just an emotional/outlook shift on my part that I find interesting.

@micamike45 I was thinking about framing it vs killing off old people before they become to much of a burden lol.

@micamike45 equivalent to putting down a rabid or vicious dog?

Because I'm anti euthanasia so you COULD say it isn't right to only let people out if they've committed a heinous crime

@uncephalized Yep, its always good to revisit your personal beliefs.

I am 100% in support of voluntary euthanasia

Had a friend go through bone cancer in his head. I would literally rather chop of my dick and bleed out than go through that.

Its something that i think we should allow for, people shouldn't have to suffer if we can no longer do anything for them.

What kind of pain qualifies though? What's the point where you can tell a doctor who's sworn to do no harm to kill you?

That's just a motto (and a good one), doctors very much do a lot of harm (mostly in an effort to heal you). But, like i said before these are all tough decisions.

Any kind of pain qualifies in my book. If you truly would rather die than go through a certain amount of pain that should be your choice. Doctor's don't need to be doing the killing. Just give you the tools.

I wouldn't go so far as to say any kind of pain.... but that's me.

That doesn't sound like it would be good for the depressed

Indeed.

I also have a problem with the potential corruption of euthanasia in people who aren't mentally capable

Yep, that brings up other concerns.

The societies where taking the easy way out is heavily discouraged seem to do better historically

Its ok everyone, i will soon start my plan to end all life on this planet before i head off to another world.

Of sound mind is often the requirement for such things

I think there should always be social stigma against offing yourself, but I think it's better to be euthanized than hanging or some other method

Yeah, but I've personally seen where whether or not someone is of sound mind is...hard to say. Kind of like with the death penalty the potential consequence of a mistake is too high to me

At least with physical illnesses. Like, in my extreme example, bone cancer in the skull. (Unless it's treatable)

Well that's quite the walking back from any pain

What about terrorist?

I'm willing to compromise.

The Christchurch shooters, or the New Years Truck Driver

shooter*

I think i would just leave it to terminal illnesses. @micamike45

I think the government should not be able in the business of preventing people to harm or kill themselves. But I do see how a society that fosters acceptance of suicide would have a lot of issues.

Can anyone help me understand why the Jussie smollet thing wasn't a giant hit job on Jussie?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/26/detectives-on-smollett-case-have-troubling-backgrounds-2/

Because it isn't a hit job if you broadcast to the world that they need to find someone to punch and that person ends up being you

According to the article Jussie never changed his story but the immigrants did multiple times. Suspicious no?

@TailsFromTheIntellectualDarkWeb Its not bad to look at the police who investigate these things, but that article was really bad. It took into account the cops past, while never looking at Jussies..... Just painting him as a beacon of light.

@Shadows I mean it mentioned his work in the community and charity. And most saliently to me his criticism of the CPD
Which could be a motive for this potential hit job

Yeah, they gave up the story to get off. Accomplices do that a lot, not really unusual

Maybe but the police could have also coerced the story they wanted out of them because they already didn't like Jussie

Doesn't explain why they would be able to find him on his way back from Subway at 2am in -20 weather and get him to call 2 very dark individuals white or pale skinned

That's the story Jussie told on his own

That would be an elaborate conspiracy

Maybe it wasn't those immigrants
Maybe it was 2 other ppl (who were white)but these immigrants got caught up and said what the police wanted so they could stay out of trouble

Innocent ppl plead all the time...

Besides critics of the Chicago Police are a dime a dozen, why pick a b list actor to frame?

Opportunity?

That article was doing a lot of guessing, it didn't say anything of substance. We won't really know anything unless the FBI looks at this and tells us, or the other people investigating the matter tell us.

Sounds like a pretty tough opportunity to set up

No the opportunity presented itself

Its a big stretch.....

These suspect detectives took the case when they saw it come up
And basically said f*** him(to Jussie)

They do have shady histories

That's what you believe, not what we know.

True

Except the shady histories

That we seem to know

Jussie's story made no sense to begin with. Two guys jump him and he fights them, but barely gets bruised, doesn't even lose his Subway sandwich, while somehow they manage to get a clothesline 'noose' around his neck before running off yelling 'this MAGA country Bitch!'

That is just not a plausible account of a beating

😮

Many cops are bad, but also many cops get So many accusations on them that are false or unproven, its hard to look at a cops history and know which is which.

And then he doesn't even take the 'noose' off but waits with it dangling on his neck for 45 minutes until the detectives arrive

NOT REAL

that is not how humans behave

What if the white guys that did it him we're the detectives investigating the case????

Maybe he was traumatized?

Why do you need to invent an elaborate theory to protect his honor?

Is it elaborate?

Anymore than the elaborate hoax Jussie was supposed to have committed?

We could all be here playing the What If game till the cow farts kill us.

Lol

#GreenNewDeal

@Shadows to be fair that is like, 12 years away tops

heh

TIPPY TOPS

Tails, if we are impugning the backgrounds of characters instead of going by the evidence in the Smollet case, that article was written by an intersectional feminist.

So it's invalid.

But, if the police force did abuse this event, that will most likely also be looked at and at some point we "might" know either way.

(this side of the story does not seem likely tho)

@uncephalized I would have gone with a BlackLivesMatter writer, but they are both as bad so it works lol.

Let's also not forget the fact that even the DA's office that dropped the charges have stated the evidence was sufficient to prove him guilty.

Or at least some higher up at the office have.

That's because the police preemptively poisoned the public's perception of the case by constantly commenting on it before it even went to court.
Apparently police don't normally talk about an ongoing investigation.
They did constantly here.
Isn't that suspicious?
Why didn't they follow the norm and wait to comment until after the trial?

Probably because Jussie was talking about it VERY LOUDLY himself

Even if he was
Does that mean the police should do the same?
Isn't that unethical if not illegal?

The police were very on his side at the beginning though

Listen... Right now the amount of circumstancial and hard evidence against Jussie greatly outweighs the amount of evidence going in his favor.

You're free to distrust the police all you like, but when you have left wing personalities admitting that someone from their tribe done goofed, they probably done goofed.

Sure, I'm not arguing that CPD is a bunch of standup guys

But what he said ^

This still would be a conspiracy from the whole city government to silence someone who would be much less worth silencing than many others in the most elaborate, unlikely, and yet risky way

Yeah but the left wing personalities saying this are part of Chicago's corrupt system.
And if those shady investigators are the one perpetrating the hoax the top brass might be as Hoodwinked as the rest of us.
Tho given what happened with laquan MacDonald clearly ppl like Rahm Emmanuel are perfectly content supporting the police even when they are in the wrong especially for political convenience

The conspiracy doesn't have to go beyond the investigating officers but it could include the police chief and or the mayor without too much trouble.
Chicago PD is notorious for protecting their own.
But it wouldn't have to be the whole government.
It could just be a handful of ppl

I see we are still Mooing.

I don't see how framing Jussie benefits the Chicago PD. Even if he were charged and sent to jail no one's opinion of them would change, and it's not like Jussie was any threat to the police. Well I guess it's technically possible, but so is Jussie actually being Jesus Christ incarnate.

Also @Shadows: Moo

It wouldn't have to benefit the whole pd
Just a few ppl.
And the benefit could be as simple as sticking it someone you don't like.
Especially if they thought Jussie would just fold like those Nigerian Brothers instead of sticking to his story the whole time. And taking it all the way to court.
It would explain why they lyched him in the media B4 it even got into the court.

@Shadows
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mXnJqYwebF8
🎥 Doja Cat - "Mooo!" (Official Video) - YouTube

he got fucked over in the media after it became obvious that he was full of shit

Yuuuuup

before then they were all backing him

even when it was absurd to do so given the evidence presented

The media loved him until they realized they would lose what little credibility they had if they didn't turn it around

I think we all need to step back and blame the person who's fault this really was..... Trumps!

ooooooh that awful BLUMPF

Trump probably personally beat up Jussie

That seems equally as likely as the story being spun here

It must be nice to live in a world where you can abdicate personal responsibility and blame all your problems on the orange man in the white house.

we put all our sins on this tanned old man and then we send him out of town while yelling at him

Wouldn't that make Trump the second coming of Christ?

He doesn't even have to be there, he most likely used his Space Force. @micamike45

no, just a scapegoat

Isn't the scapegoat a symbol of Christ?

At least that's how I understood it's usage in Leviticus.

That is correct

Jussie Smollett is Jesus Christ?

No, Trump is.

Jussie is Muhamad.

Actually no, that's not right... I need to write. Closing discord so I don't get distracted.

He's the gay Muhammad!

I needed to write too but I just kind of didn't

Praise Jussie from whom all blessings flow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UD5kk_RMKo

just to clear the air, a video of the police statement on the arrest of smollett. start at 6 minutes

Are blacks underrepresented in film?

I'd say over represented, by Will Smith alone

then you consider Rock makes like 30 movies a year and he's half black so that's like 15

TBH I don't watch movies enough to know. I've just been thinking about it after the minor political battle going on around Jordan Peele's remarks.

Peele's full of shit, acting like he's the first ever black director and no movies have black stars

what can you expect though, he's a hack

20 years ago: First ______ to be ______
10 years ago: First ______ _______ to be _______
Now: First _______ ________ _______ to be __________

the entries can be still the same they ignore anything older than 5 years

Black Panther is the first Marvel super hero movie...as long as you don't count the 3 Blade movies or the 4 MIB movies

I think people typically forget just what a small percentage of the American population that black people represent.

16% or so

lower than whites obviously but lower than Hispanic too but you don't hear half as much shit about Latin representation

they just create a lot of their own stuff

it's almost as much as the Asian population percentage of Australia which is between 11-16%

13%

50% of the crime and like 25% of the actors

Didn't someone do an analysis of awards and determine that, per population distribution, Black actors were overrepresented?

Yes

#oscarssoblack

Same with LGBT rep in media

Small % of the population, visible often in film

LGBT is absurdly overrepresented.

Who cares?

They do

That's what makes it funny

I don’t

I don’t care. It’s funny

I think part of the problem is a lot of the white liberals complaining about this stuff live in cities where the population is more like 40% black and never venture into the suburbs or rural areas where it drops to like 0.5%

Try Netflix “Norseman” series. Funny as fick

Frikkin liberals identity politics to the max

Not my liberals, gickem

Call em what they are and take liberalism back my dude

I don’t need to take it back, I have it. Now I have to side with loonies because worse loonies?
Ffs.... can I have the Spanish civil war back so I can support imperialism over populism?
If I want to kill all of them, what should I (as an example idiot) do???

Hm?

I’m only rabidly any one thing or the other when the balance goes out.
I’m a big fan of balancing acts. Jerry, not gaynor nor corum

If you don’t know the reference, correct that, then argue

That's a bit of a non sequitur m8

No. It’s reactionary. I dont mind that

I trust you do, otherwise you would argue differently?

I'm just for placing things in honest categories. I don't consider that reactionary

Aha. So, if I may be so bold, ontology is better than metaphysics?
This is an honest question, based on the strengths you have shown.

You can’t see my cards yet by the way. The fact that I largely agree with you would ruin my hand

I don't see where metaphysics factors into socialists and social democrats using liberalism as a Trojan horse

the DMT elves

its like everyone forgot about the 70s. Hollywood was churning out all black films because it was a gold mine

the "blacksploitation" film era

While you are right, lots of people wouldn't even know or remember that, its also true that many of these people would just look at that era of films as just mockery, so wouldn't count it as holding any value.

Who is lots?

More then a few.

So they dumb?

that just sounds to me like willfully ignoring history, while citing history of decades OLDER than the 70s

if youre going to bitch about representation and cite the 1930s, how the fuck are you going to ignore the 1970s?