True, and I indeed should have said “reflex” instead.
True, and I indeed should have said “reflex” instead.
I actually started early with gamepads, dating all the way back to the Gravis and the original Logitech Wingman, but it might be relevant that I still primarily use a mouse and keyboard, and especially for anything that requires precise aiming.
I use a gamepad for emulated console games, since they’re designed for a pad, and for things that require free and flowing movement, so respond well to a stick or a d-pad - racing games primarily, and many platformers and similar action games. But for things that combine separate movement and aiming - first person shooters and RPGs and the like - I just think a mouse and keyboard is better than dual sticks ever could be.
I have no more right to interfere in someone else’s life than they have to interfere in mine.
Avoid people who don’t share that view.
People are almost more susceptible to simpler charts with race and IQ than they are to the really complicated stuff
Ironically enough, that’s because they’re stupid.
It amuses the hell out of me every time the conservatives whine about their brazen disinformation getting censored, since whenenver and wherever they get an opportunity (including, especially ironically, Facebook), they reveal themselves to be the most cowardly censorious people on the planet.
Everywhere, without exception, where conservatives have control, anything that even hints at undermining their comforting delusions is instantly censored.
But if anybody dares to censor anything they might want to say, including overt and deliberate lies, they wail and cry like the spoiled children they are.
I guarantee that the explanation for this would become very obvious if one were to simply, as the cliche has it, “follow the money.”
So the unspoken bit about RFK Jr. is that he’s a tweaker, right?
I mean, the details are all in the context of politically entitled progeny, but the underlying vibe I get from the stories about him is very reminiscent of the tweakers I’ve known over the years.
As intended. The wealthy few don’t buy Supreme Court justices for no reason.
The decisions aren’t just about undermining climate policies - they’re more broadly about eliminating any impediments to the wealthy and empowered few raping and pillaging to their hearts’ content, entirely free of any threat of consequences. But that’s ncessarily largely about climate, since that’s one of the most notable areas in which the wealthy few are causing significant direct and measurable harm and thus are most eager to avoid the consequences they so richly deserve.
Should they be? Yes.
Will they be? No.
It really doesn’t matter what should happen, because the simple fact of the matter is that the fossil fuel companies own enough corrupt politicians to successfully avoid the wholly deserved consequences for their overtly malicious acts.
And a billionaire singer who’s already such a common target for AI deepfakes that she’s quite likely the one person on the planet most ready, willing and able to sue someone’s ass off over them.
Wow - that was quite possibly the dumbest thing he’s done yet.
Of course it does.
The broad point of Project 2025 is to eliminate anything and everything that provides any measurable benefit to the common people and/or in any way impedes the wealthy and the corporations doing absolutely whatever they want to do, no matter how much harm it might cause to people. That’s the exact reason that so much of it focuses on eliminating or at least neutering government agencies - the goal is to make it so that corporations and the wealthy few face no constraints and no consequences - so that they have free rein to rob and pillage and rape and destroy.
And it’s not only the playbook Trimp will follow, but the reason that billionaires like Musk and Thiel are backing Trump. They aren’t really backing Trump per se - they’re backing Project 2025.
He doesn’t need to do it this time - he has a veritable army of fascists, a brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court and a squad of billionaire plutocrats to do it all on his behalf, and not coincidentally they have a detailed blueprint in Project 2025 that tells them exactly what to do, step by step, to transform the US into a christofascist/plutocratic autocracy.
All Trump has to do this time around is just carry on being Trump, while all those other people do all the dirty work.
To “win?” No - not really.
But I don’t think that matters much.
Honestly, I think that Trump and the overt fascists and plutocrats who are backing him fully intend to get him into office or destroy the country trying - that if he doesn’t win legitimately, he’ll “win” through fraud, or through the machinations of the brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court, or through violent revolution.
His backers - the Heritage Foundation and the rest of the fascists and Musk and Thiel and the rest of the plutocrats and so on - don’t just want to try to get him into office - they want to destroy American liberty and democracy. It’s not even so much about him specifically - he’s just the right combination of charismatic and shallow that they see him as their opportunity to impose the autocracy they want. And I don’t think they’re going to let anything stand in their way. So whether or not he actually wins the election isn’t even really relevant, other than to the degree that that will determine what other strategies they might have to, and will, implement.
Mmm…no
It’s “some random guy with a working moral framework, the ability to feel empathy, and some measure of respect for the rights of other humans and simple human decency calling a bunch of murderous xenophobic psychopaths murderous xenophobic psychopaths.” So it’s in fact nothing like that.
Right, nor did I expect a rating based an on individual article - sorry if that’s the way I made it sound.
It’s simply that the rating of high credibility accompanying an article that was so obviously little more than a barrage of loaded language cast the problem into such sharp relief that I went from being unimpressed by MBFC to actively not wanting to see it.
All I see here is someone whose ego relies on a steady diet of derision hurled in the general direction of strangers on the internet.
I haven’t seen any evidence that it does that, and quite the contrary, evidence that it does not - examples from publications ranging from Israel Times to New York Times to Slate in which it accompanied an article with clearly loaded language with an assessment of high credibility.
It’s possible that it’s improved of late - I don’t know, since I blocked it weeks ago, after a particularly egregious example of that accompanied a technically factually accurate but brazenly biased Israel Times article.
If you’re not going to answer then I’ll just default to the obvious: you think you’re special and that everyone else is an idiot/sheeple/etc.
Right - you’ll just assume that I see it as some sort of competition that I’m winning.
There was likely a time when “incel” just meant “involuntarily celibate,” without all of the baggage, but then two things happened together.
First, a significant number of “incels,” most notably on 4chan, fell into a specific set of essentially misogynistic coping behaviors - primarily blaming the supposed hypocrisy and shallowness of women for their own problems.
And second, a significant number of smugly self-righteous bigots saw an opportunity to hurl self-affirming hatred at an undifferentiated mass of people without suffering the backlash they’d get if it was directed at a group that essentially enjoys protected status, and leaped at the opportunity.
So now the popular conception is that all involuntarily celibate men are “incels,” with all that that implies - that they’re not just involuntarily celibate, but shallow, hateful, misogynistic losers and assholes.
It could potentially help if involuntarily celibate men who don’t share the misogyny of the “incels” had their own label, but honestly I don’t think it would make much of a difference in the long run, because there are now enough asshole bigots reveling in their hatred of “incels” that they’d refuse to let anyone get away. Just like all other more traditional bigots, they’d cling to their self-affirming conception that the mere fact that an individual is of a specific
racegendersexual orientationrelationship status means that they’re necessarily foul and loathsome, so their hatred of them is justified.