Bones
Discord ID: 122633029196709888
116 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next
!agree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X9RUOEOoNQ
my favorite alex jones video
So what does everyone think about that senate committee hearing today. I've been following posts on reddit about it since this morning and found loooots of people insinuating that anything less than a withdrawn nomination would be a "failure for women" before any testimony had started. Personally having a hard time forming an honest opinion considering all the partisanship I've seen surrounding the whole thing.
Yeah I agree there, it doesn't set good precedent to withdraw the nomination without investigation
I'd be really interested in hearing more details about the democrats on the committee apparently refusing to participate in the judiciary investigation
Putting the semantics aside of whether or not Antifa is an organization or not, you can't really argue that they as a collection of groups believe and engage in violence for political ends
I just mean to say, different Antifa groups have share ideological underpinnings that are fundamentally terroristic
I would bet it has to do with the standards for what aiding and abetting is and "beyond a reasonable doubt". You could reasonably argue that you participate in black bloc to protect your identity for political reasons and that you didn't intend to actively aid in the escape of someone committing a crime.
I wish an FBI investigation would've launched the moment accusations were made so this could be done with by now and this side-show of a committee hearing could've been avoided
The idea of concluding that everyone on there is spreading "conservative to far-right wing ideology" and including names like Destiny is like the punchline to a sick joke
Destiny is a nut but he's far from right wing lmao
Even if all the data used in that DataSociety report was correct and that those people interacted together, what would it prove anyway? The whole thing smacks of trying to rationalize preconceived notions of "guilt by association" just the same as scientific racism.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
Anyone else see this article Vox is running where they included a chart of every question Kavanaugh apparently didn't answer?
I looked through a lot of the marked statements for both testimonies and I feel like (unsurprisingly) there are some uneven standards being applied to make things look much worse than they are
The article says the methodology was they marked questions where no answer or an answer that didnt address the qestion were marked in red
Right, or the constant badgering of "do you support an FBI investigation directed at yourself"
"What do you consider too many beers"
"I don't know - whatever the chart says"
marked as not answering the question
```
MITCHELL: Did you ever tell โ did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didnโt remember during a time that you had been drinking?
KAVANAUGH: No, the โ the โ we drank beer, and you know, so โ so did, I think, the vast majority of โ of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and โ and still do. So whatever, you know.
```
Marked as not answered. The first word in his response is literally the answer
Or marked as no answer when he's providing context to Mark Judge's book and saying "you'd have to ask him" whether or not referenced kavanaugh was in fact him
Alternatively you have stuff like this marked as answering the question from Fords testimony
```
MITCHELL: OK. Between the letter date, July 30th and August the 7th, did you speak with any other person about your allegations?
FORD: Could you say the dates again?
MITCHELL: Between the letter date of July 30 and August 7 โ so, while you were still in Delaware โ did you speak with any other person about your allegations?
FORD: Iโm just trying to remember what dates that.
```
I mean that's being nitpicky honestly but the uneven standard and the way each testimony is presented using this "data" is obnoxiously biased
Not to mention it ignores the types of questions being posed to each person (primarily yes/no vs. open ended)
@Knights Armament I'm going to mostly agree and add that if you're looking for a specific early example of Leftist identity politics causing divide, look no further than the Atheism+ movement that started back in 2012. The insertion of ideas that feminism and intersectionality are key aspects of being a proper skeptic caused a huge rift in the Atheist community, and even back then you had things similar to the more modern #metoo movement with that one lady who claimed to be sexually assaulted in an elevator by some prominent member of the Atheist community. Caused huge schisms along the same lines we see today (believe victims vs. innocent until proven guilty). The only difference is these politics have become much more visible in the mainstream now especially with them becoming increasingly dominant in institutions like Academia and Journalism. Trumps election is absolutely a symptom of the problem but his pushback also fuels the divide. Whether or not you can call that his fault is an entirely different discussion that I would be conflicted on, although I learn towards it mostly not being his fault.
Yeah I mean, there's no real way to answer that and come out the other end unscathed
Sorry let me correct that, she wasn't sexually assaulted in an elevator. A man said at an elevator that he found her attractive and asked to come up for coffee which she took exception to in a video and a slate article. Dawkins weighed in that complaining about that is basically being whiny esp considering the guy left her alone after that and never layed a finger on her.
The one from the elevator yes, but she doesn't accuse Dawkins of sexually harassing/assaulting her
No, I initially said she accused a prominent member of the Atheist community of sexually assaulting her in an elevator. Risotto brought up Dawkins. My details of the story were wrong so I wanted to clarify that it wasn't a prominent member and it was claims of harassment.
That's part of why I liken it to the metoo movement we have now
Yeah. I also remember it still very much being the "wild wild west" kind of internet at the time
So it was very much like "okay some trolls said some dumb shit online" and that doesn't really reflect the atheist movement in general
The only hero movie I've seen recently was Ant Man and that was
idk any of these people <:moon2S:289036583209009152>
I don't watch many movies unless someone else is making me lol
And the ppl that make me watch movies mostly make me join their horror movie marathons during october
I broke my thumb recently and I've been on the path of physical therapy. I got myself a Kalimba which is a little african thumb piano that I can learn to play and use as an excuse to remember to do my thumb exercises
me irl
I'm not esp knowledgeable with routing but I was under the impression broadcasting is handled by the router @ the local subnet. How would 255.255.255.255 be a misconfiguration if that address is supposed to be resolved to that subnets broadcast ip? Or do I just not know what I am talking about here
I'm probably wrong here, just curious and I studied a little bit of routing once upon a time
And with that my knowledge is exhausted. I was under the impression that addresses like 127.0.0.1 and 255.255.255.255 were treated as special addresses that were valid regardless of the mask
Probably true. Could even be that it is configured right and some error in the logic being used to validate the broadcast address is reporting some value wrong causing the log to show up incorrectly
either way, glad I don't work in routing <:moon2S:289036583209009152>
MRA has the word activist in it right there. Believing in equal rights for men does not make you an activist
And anyway, it poses the same problems as the whole "are you a feminist" thing. You can agree with something in name and it's stated goals but still consider yourself not a member of the group. MRAs similarly do not have a monopoly on egalitarianism and perfect evidence of that is the "mens liberation" approach to mens rights.
the whole kavanaugh thing should be a huge lesson in optics. if democrats really cared about the truth and not partisan politics then they shouldve begun investigating as soon as they had allegations instead of waiting as long as possible to run out time on the midterms. they poisoned their own well by allowing a situation to happen where someone could logically and reasonably believe there were ulterior motives
i just wanted to share with u this beautiful art of tim pool assuming his final form
make a part about how knife handles are phallic and knife manufacturers made them that way as a subtle form of intimidation
I won't comment on the other things because I agree they're outright wrong but why bring up the nukes in Japan? Drawing a parallel between the nukes and Nazi germany would have a point if you're only talking in terms of mass murder but actions don't happen in a bubble. Dropping nukes on Japan to end the war is obviously more justifiable than rounding up millions of Jews for a mass genocide unless you accept the premise that Jews did something to deserve negative treatment
The war wasn't started over Jews but if we're talking about statism and the state exercising its monopoly on violence and "how can you justify one type of state violence over another" then yes, bringing up the Nazis and the Jews is a perfectly valid point.
military industrial complex i.e. that the reason many countries continue to war is because the industries that profit to war profit from war and therefore lobby and mingle in international affairs in order to perpetuate wars
The idea that companies that profit from war (arms manufacturers, PMC etc) perpetuate war in order to keep profiting
Ok, do you believe that capitalist societies purposely create an underclass so that the elite can profit from cheap labor?
I've actually seen it argued that those statistics are misleading and that if you remove China then the outcome isn't as good but I haven't actually looked into that ymself
But @grant I'm not asking if capitalists take advantage of cheap labor where it exists like India/China/Etc, I'm asking if you think capitalist societies purposely create such an underclass including in our home countries
The idea that capitalists purposely create an underclass is at least possible, in theory, and would explain parts of why "this is the way this is" like why poverty is the way it is, why we have large income inequality, etc. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true. This same concept applies likewise to other concepts like the MIC or the theory that WWII started because Germany was trying to betray the IBS. Could you come up with a narrative that makes sense? Sure. Does that mean it's true? Not necessarily. Does that mean it's false? Not necessarily either.
Yes I know about the pareto principle. To clarify, I personally don't believe that capitalist societies are creating an underclass. I'm using that example to demonstrate a point that just because a narrative could make sense when you accept certain axioms doesn't mean that narrative is true.
Sure. There are always bad actors and I think that's the case with the MIC too. I just don't think it's a pervasive grand conspiracy.
@Jasse that might just be the grandest conspiracy of them all
On a more serious note, Jews have an average IQ of 115. That puts them at the top 15% of the distribution, it's no wonder they're overrepresented in the media and high caliber professions
how many times do they have to kill the kulaks before we realize it's (((their))) fault
For reference, the Kulaks were the people who were successful farmers that were killed/exiled because they were seen as petite-bourgeoise and replaced with less effective farmers leading to famine
Honest question, if you believe climate change is a hoax then what is the motivation
116 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next