prev <-> next
[2025-12-01 15:17:27] - a: Honestly, given everything else going on, I don't know if that would rank top 10. So much else to worry about. -Paul
[2025-12-01 15:16:54] - a: "please tell me we're on the same page, here, yes?" I'm unfamiliar with military law. It sounds like this might be legal? Seems like a bit of an issue in terms of balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, but Congress has already abdicated so much of it's power anyway.... -Paul
[2025-12-01 15:11:22] - a: "does someone want to describe the current x/twitter drama regarding outing tons of people's countries of origin?" You want to facts behind it or my opinion? I think it's the double edged sword of anonymity. I think it's important to allow it on X, but it can cause all sorts of problems too. -Paul
[2025-12-01 15:09:51] - a: Which, granted, seems like an odd nit to pick, but that's likely always going to be the case when making the "well, teeeeeeechnically that person isn't a pedophile" argument. -Paul
[2025-12-01 15:08:12] - a: "but i wouldn't back her so quick" I wasn't trying to back her. Like I said: "I am completely ignorant of any spats involving Megyn Kelly". The very limited things I've seen have been about the semantic issue of if he was a pedophile. -Paul
[2025-12-01 14:59:52] - a: "there are hundreds of non-hypothetical-unforgivable things that trump has done. you agree, right?" But weren't we talking specifically about links to Epstein? Literally four messages before I said: "He's awful regardless of if he is completely innocent with Epstein" -Paul
[2025-11-24 21:53:13] - the news depresses me, guys. pentagon says it’s investigating sen. mark kelly over video urging troops to defy 'illegal orders' please tell me we're on the same page, here, yes? ~a
[2025-11-24 13:55:00] - does someone want to describe the current x/twitter drama regarding outing tons of people's countries of origin? i've seen a lot of the aftermath, but i had wondered about your take. ~a
[2025-11-24 13:54:16] - mig: is this a strawman? has anyone been calling it fake news? if i were to guess, it would be that it's small potatoes compared to non christian persecution. is 250 small potatoes compared to non christian persecution? ~a
[2025-11-24 04:56:39] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/africa/50-students-escape-abduction-nigeria-intl christian persecution in nigeria is fake news y’all. - mig
[2025-11-23 04:12:27] - mig: it's true. i did say usually. if clinton had a position of power during the me too movement, i assume that things would not have gone well for him. ~a
[2025-11-22 20:34:16] - a: there really hasn't been much accountability for Bill Clinton. - mig
[2025-11-22 19:44:37] - paul: she's going for epstein is terrible: but also suggesting that raping a 15 year old is ~nbd. like, what is her point exactly? that we shouldn't prosecute 15-yo-rape? that we shouldn't prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law? that what epstein did was somehow borderline? 15 is not "barely legal". right? not jumping down her throat without the facts is one thing. but i wouldn't back her so quick. ~a
[2025-11-22 19:40:34] - paul: "that's something I'm a little sympathetic to" maybe listen to what she has said before you get her back. cnn.com has some of the context. it also isn't the full clip, but yeah she's saying "15" is "barely legal". i have a hard time generously interpreting her words. ~a
[2025-11-22 19:25:01] - paul: "a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump" what? no. there are hundreds of non-hypothetical-unforgivable things that trump has done. you agree, right? ~a
[2025-11-22 19:23:33] - paul: "depends on the issue" yes but i was more specific. i said "rape". ~a
[2025-11-22 17:38:42] - a: Because honestly, that's something I'm a little sympathetic to. I feel like words have meaning and it's important to use the right words and if we start referring to sex with a 15 year old as pedophilia then we diminish how awful true pedophilia is. -Paul
[2025-11-22 17:37:37] - a: "did you hear megyn kelly's take on this?" No. I am completely ignorant of any spats involving Megyn Kelly. Was she making the differentiation between pedophilia and what Epstein did? -Paul
[2025-11-22 17:33:18] - a: Either way, it's not like I want to try to defend Trump on anything. He's awful regardless of if he is completely innocent with Epstein. -Paul
[2025-11-22 17:32:31] - a: "fantasy and reality are different" Very true, but so is actively doing something vs... just staying quiet about something? Also I think nobody disagrees that Jones did what he did but I think a lot of this is still hypothetical about Trump. -Paul
[2025-11-22 17:31:06] - a: "Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape" I think the records are mixed and depends on the issue. For example, Democrats seem to have been largely silent about the antisemitism in their ranks lately whereas Republicans seem to be having a civil war over it. -Paul
[2025-11-20 14:09:36] - mig: directing bondi to open an investigation seems the perfect way to do that. now you can redact whatever you want and use the "active / ongoing prosecution" as the excuse. ~a
[2025-11-20 13:51:19] - mig: yes i agree. except that's not what bondi told trump a few months ago. she told him that he was very much all over the files. other congressional republicans said the same. i assume it's not just that one bj joke? it now feels likely they plan to release redacted shit, and call it done. ~a
[2025-11-19 00:48:47] - a: i dunno maybe the most embarrassing thing in there was the blowing bubba stuff and thats why he’s 180’d on releasing them. - mig
[2025-11-18 16:59:34] - agreed. especially since the whitehouse has had a full year to get their ducks in a row. ~a
[2025-11-18 16:48:57] - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/17/larry-summers-steps-back-from-public-commitments-deeply-ashamed-by-epstein-revelations-00655712 I’m going to guess the epstein files will probably have more dire consequences for people not named Trump than Trump himself. - mig
[2025-11-17 21:43:49] - paul: "I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party" did you hear megyn kelly's take on this? "barely legal type" = "15-year-old"? "there's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, you know". "i was under 10" "i was under 14"? kinda disgusting, if you hear the full quote. she's like "maybe it's a distinction without a difference", but her guest is like "no". ~a
[2025-11-17 16:21:49] - seems like a pretty typical "rules for thee"
~a[2025-11-17 15:57:57] - (i mean i see it now obviously, but i had to search for it, and it seems like quite the footnote in articles i've found.) ~a
[2025-11-17 15:53:24] - paul: "hours spend on his campaign was 'community service'". i didn't see mention of this in the press. ~a
[2025-11-17 12:15:57] - paul: fantasy and reality are different, paul. he didn't cover up any dead (or molested in the case of jeffrey epstein) kids. the speeding ticket on the other hand, that is fucked. ~a
[2025-11-17 12:12:44] - paul: no I don't think that is right. Democrats are usually willing to take out their own trash when it comes to rape. see the "me too" movement for tons of examples. based on that alone, I think if pizzagate had been real, then Ds would have taken it very seriously. ~a
[2025-11-17 12:08:17] - a: Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems pretty relevant: We just saw a huge percentage of Democrats be willing to overlook a candidate for attorney general weasel out of a speeding ticket, claim hours spend on his campaign was "community service", and, oh, fantasize about killing people's children. -Paul
[2025-11-17 12:06:58] - a: "that seems completely batshit crazy to me" Oh, I 100% agree. But I guess I'm pretty willing to believe people will overlook anything when it comes to their own party. -Paul
[2025-11-16 22:42:33] - mig: yeah. thanks for your thoughts on this. i bet he had some super incriminating info, on a bunch of people, probably trump included, but nothing that would stand up in court: and/or that evidence wouldn't have helped him get out of jail ever. those people set up a situation where he had a chance to kill himself and he took it (or they had him killed, honestly i'm not sure which). ~a
[2025-11-15 16:52:07] - a: more importantly, why didn’t epstein himself volunteer such information, the emails being released certainly show that he intensely disliked Trump in recent years. - mig
[2025-11-15 04:05:04] - mig: "If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this" yes i agree with this logic. i can think of tons of reasons it wouldn't be leaked. but yeah you're right. ~a
[2025-11-15 04:02:58] - paul: ok covvvering up child rape, is easy to dismiss and excuse away? that seems completely batshit crazy to me. i guess it's all a hypothetical. still, crazy. this is literally pizzagate. just as hypothetical. but like, pizzagate? ~a
[2025-11-15 00:07:32] - This is just getting really fucking dumb. - mig
[2025-11-15 00:06:56] - people are wishcasting super hard on whats out there now. There’s been an already debunked claim that Trump and Epstein spent thanksgiving together in 2017, and that a remark about Trump blwoing bubba means he gave Putin a bj? - mig
[2025-11-14 22:07:25] - that being said my guess there will be some tangentially embarrassing stuff for Trump in these files but I don’t think we’re going to get the jackpot some people are hoping for. If Epstein had something truly damning about Trump it probably would leaked well before this. - mig
[2025-11-14 21:59:43] - a: if he actually participated he should be impeached and it would be an absolute disgrace if he wasn’t. - mig
[2025-11-14 20:55:04] - a: Just knowing about it... I guess that's easier to dismiss and excuse away? -Paul
[2025-11-14 20:54:41] - a: Is this about the Epstein theories? I mean, one would think participation in the sexual abuse of minors would be a bridge too far for congressional Republicans but... who knows? -Paul
[2025-11-12 19:45:59] - paul/mig: if it turns out that, 100% for sure, trump knew about (or participated in) sexual abuse of minors (or adults): then what? what would you suggest we / republicans in congress do next? anything at all? ~a
[2025-11-11 16:31:03] - mig: i agree. that's a strategy. but it seems like a "oh shit we're fucked, what do we do" strategy to me. literally everybody is saying that the democrats caved. even middle-of-the-road or borderline-pro-liberal news outlets are painting this a terrible for the democrats. ~a
[2025-11-11 16:29:04] - a: how was it not a strategy? Even the caving was strategic! The exact amount of democrats needed to pass the CR crossed and none of those democrats are up for re-election in 2026. That’s not a coincindence. - mig
[2025-11-10 17:56:51] - mig: you're suggesting this was a strategy decided on by the democrats, when i don't see it that way. there were many individuals here: and a majority was unable to come together to make a budget, that's sorta how a budget works. and is why a shutdown can even happen. if you want a government, you need to fund it. one or both sides had to concede to something eventually. republicans refused to budge even an inch and the dems caved. ~a
[2025-11-10 16:51:25] - a: was that ever a realistic outcome? Threatening a shutdown to try and get what you want seems like a poor strategy. Didn’t work for Trump in 2018 or Cruz in 2013. Not sure why it would work here. - mig
[2025-11-10 16:29:45] - mig: "for fucking nothing". i mean yeah, that's exactly how i feel too, obviously. but, i assume they were hoping to get private aca health insurance plans funded. and failed. (i agree, it all seems for nothing: but worse: now this will happen again.) ~a
[2025-11-10 16:15:54] - a: yes it was a cave. if they were going to cave why not cave earlier instead of upending everyone’s lives for fucking nothing? - mig
[2025-11-10 15:00:39] - mig: they caved? this is caving. they were trying to keep the private aca health insurance plans funded, but caved. ~a
[2025-11-10 14:16:23] - https://x.com/mkraju/status/1987679515850485822 assuming this is deal that will end the shutdown what in the fucking fuck where democrats holding out for? The promise of a aca vote was offered pretty early on, and democrats aren’t getting any of their initial demands. what-the-fuck - mig
[2025-11-09 20:13:32] - a: "neither of them are evil" Also fair, although I do think Jones is about as close as you can get through speech alone. Fantasizing about killing somebody is one thing, but extending it to their children... that's pretty dark. -Paul
[2025-11-09 20:07:20] - a: "i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils" Fair, which is why I hadn't brought it up before now. Just thought it was amusing given what people normally chastise me for. -Paul
[2025-11-08 12:48:11] - paul: i've *never* told you to vote for the lesser of two evils. also, in this case miyares is not the lesser of two evils. also, i know we're speaking rhetorically, but neither of them are evil. jones did an evil thing once, and miyares is allowing an autocrat to autocrat. ~a
[2025-11-08 01:35:33] - ok. ~a
[2025-11-07 20:45:21] - a: But here, where there WASN'T a non-evil option to vote for (unless you count a write-in), I decided to vote for the lesser of two evils (which I think Miyares clearly is in this case) and I'm being told: "No, don't vote for the lesser of two evils in THIS case" -Paul
[2025-11-07 20:44:12] - a: And I don't know what Miyares has to do with this. The ironic thing is that for like 20+ years people on the left have been screaming at me to vote for the lesser of two evils and I've largely refused because there was a non-evil option to vote for. -Paul
[2025-11-07 20:43:09] - a: "maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares" I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're saying I should've argued that fantasizing about killing people who disagree with you is bad earlier? I'm being 100% serious: I thought that was obvious. -Paul
[2025-11-07 20:41:49] - a: And I don't know of anybody (including Jay Jones) disputing the contents of the call afterwards. -Paul
[2025-11-07 20:40:35] - a: "I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest" I think it's fair to be skeptical, but as near as I can tell the person making those claims wasn't really enthusiastic about coming out with this info and did it in response to the texts leaking. -Paul
[2025-11-07 19:47:28] - I did initially think demanding he drop out felt maybe too much but after repeated “I’ve taken accountability” without really specifying how and his subsequent alleged statements of thinking cops dying was “good” had put me in the “its disqualifying” camp. - mig
[2025-11-07 19:44:21] - a: I did add “I’m sorry also doesn’t feel like enough”. - mig
[2025-11-07 18:40:01] - i was elected 6 weeks ago. speaker mike johnson refuses to swear me in. ~a
[2025-11-07 17:37:14] - mig: ah yes thank you, i had forgotten. "expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also" i do vaguely remember this. you didn't think he should drop out? if you didn't think he should drop out, that kinda says something, right? paul: you, obviously, do think jones should have dropped out over this? ~a
[2025-11-07 14:15:24] - a: i *did* actually bring this up around when the revelations happened. - mig
[2025-11-07 05:06:53] - mig/paul: maybe, make this argument, like, a week ago? and make it without miyares. ~a
[2025-11-07 05:06:43] - paul: I didn't question the veracity of the texts. only the rest. ~a
[2025-11-07 05:02:14] - paul: "Does an apology matter?" "is it meaningless to apologize?" "never..." "i'm so sorry" ~a
[2025-11-07 02:42:13] - I don’t believe he’s sorry for his actions, but sorry that they became public. - mig
[2025-11-07 02:41:07] - I’ve seen comparisons to the Trump 5th avenue comment, but they aren’t anywhere near the same league. Trump’s statement obviously a joke and wasn’t singling out specific people to be targets of violence. Jones did target specific people, including children and did so from a place of malice. - mig
[2025-11-06 20:38:50] - a: Also... how is it a defense to say that this guy fantasizes about some guy's children dying because he disagrees with their father's political positions? -Paul
[2025-11-06 20:38:03] - a: "it was a fantasy, i do not believe he thinks these things" But why are you giving him the benefit of the doubt here? And would you give the same (pretty tremendous) leeway to a non-Democrat? Hypothetical: Text messages leak from JD Vance saying he wanted to lynch Obama. He apologizes. All is fine? He doesn't believe it? Just a fantasy? No. I think it's a really damning insight into their mind. -Paul
[2025-11-06 20:35:53] - a: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/04/virginia-elections-jay-jones-texts-00594261 Is politico better? You can choose your preferred news source (except apparently Washington Post). I don't think his comments about wishing the kids dead is disputed. Does an apology matter? Maybe in terms of forgiveness, but I don't think it changes my opinion on his fitness for office. If Trump apologized for his comment would it matter to you? -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:33:55] - paul: if jones had shot one of gilbert's kids i feel like we would be having a different conversation, no? ~a
[2025-11-06 19:32:43] - paul: "national review" is a bit far-fetched of a source, i'm pretty worried about that honestly, but pushing past THAT. does it matter that jones apologized for fantasizing about wanting an opponent's (only technically?! your article stated he was not running for anything) children to die? i really think that matters not at all really. it was a fantasy, i do not believe he thinks these things and i AM comparing them to trump jokes. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:28:55] - a: And I know the texts were before recent violence, but the fact that voters were willing to dismiss this after things like Charlie Kirk and the United Healthcare CEO and Trump assassination attempts.... I dunno, it looks really bad to me. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:27:36] - a: Trump is a bad person. We both agree on this. I have never, and will never vote for him. Miyares is not Trump. He is not remotely my ideal candidate. In almost any other election I would not vote for him. But in an election between a normally bad candidate and one with a scandal like this? Yeah, I'll go with normally bad. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:26:02] - a: Miyares is one degree removed from Trump and his bad statements. Jones is the person who made the bad statements, and sorry, I think wanting a political opponent and his children to die is slightly worse than bragging that you can sexually assault somebody. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:22:50] - paul: "you can't just say 'this person agrees with trump on stuff!' and automatically dismiss him as the worst possible choice" i didn't do this. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:22:08] - https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5541374-jay-jones-text-scandal/ "National Review also reported that in a follow-up conversation with Coyner, Jones suggested he wished Gilbert’s wife could see her children die so her husband would reconsider his political views on gun violence." -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:19:53] - a: I 100% do not regret my vote. You can't just say "this person agrees with Trump on stuff!" and automatically dismiss him as the worst possible choice. Do I agree with Miyares on everything or even most things? No. But I like that there is no evidence he wants his political opponents dead. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:18:56] - paul: "I think he wants his political opponents (and their children!) to die". woof, i guess that's an opinion. but i've seen no evidence of that. i've read the texts, but i don't think i've heard from coyner. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:17:51] - paul: "Coyner said in the phone call after" nope sorry. what did coyner say? ~a
[2025-11-06 19:17:37] - a: "i'm not following this part" You're saying it's a joke. I'm saying it's not. My evidence is that even Jay Jones didn't try to claim it was a joke. I think this was his honest belief. Will he actually shoot somebody? Probably not. But I think he wants his political opponents (and their children!) to die. I do believe that. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:17:01] - paul: if you regret voting for trump-lacky maybe i can regret voting for jones. maybe we cancel each-other out. (i'll be donna and you can be jack. they ended up being coworkers later in the show). "it's an honor thing, right?" ~a
[2025-11-06 19:14:57] - a: Again, he was texting a Republican who kept telling him to stop and he kept doubling down. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:14:02] - a: "you don't see that as an (in poor taste) joke?" No. Did you read the texts and what Coyner said in the phone call after? "Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy" -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:13:52] - paul: no joke texts push the envelope to me wanting to vote for a trump-lackey in 2025-q4. voting for nobody or voting a write-in maybe paul. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:11:09] - paul: "What about if a Republican was caught joking about lynching somebody? Would it be waved off as some harmless fantasy too?" YES i already brought up the fifth avenue joke and the grab them by the pussy joke. both jokes, terrible, in poor taste. he apologized for NEITHER of them. he doesn't give two shits about women. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:10:04] - paul: "his apology didn't claim it was a joke" i'm not following this part. "reading back those words made me sick to my stomach. i am embarrassed, ashamed, and sorry". did it need to claim it was a joke for it to be a joke? he is sick to his stomach? it was fucked, and he regrets . . . that his obvious joke made it into the public, but, like, oops? ~a
[2025-11-06 19:09:37] - a: I think you're giving him too much benefit of the doubt because he's on the right team. What about if a Republican was caught joking about lynching somebody? Would it be waved off as some harmless fantasy too? -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:07:47] - paul: you don't see that as an (in poor taste) joke? you think he's serious? trump never apologized for the "grab them by the pussy" (joke) which is far more "real" than literally killing a man and his children on fifth street? ~a
[2025-11-06 19:07:23] - a: I think it's giving him a huge benefit of the doubt there considering the person he texted has said that "Jones later tried to justify his words through calls and additional texts". He followed up to a Republican to explain how he was justified! And his apology didn't claim it was a joke. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:06:14] - paul: so, he's kinda dumb. i could have reconsidered and voted for nobody. but he's no trump lackey: voting for miyares would have been far worse in my eyes. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:04:48] - a: And then talked about how his children should die too. -Paul
[2025-11-06 19:04:35] - paul: regarding the "kill" thing i meant the "bullets". if you wanna talk about urination: that, like you said, was fantasy. so not literal. ~a
[2025-11-06 19:02:50] - a: "he wanted to kill them himself in front of the world" What? No, I mean the texts "in which he fantasized about urinating on the graves of political opponents and shooting then–House Speaker Todd Gilbert" (of note, he said two bullets so he could spare I believe Hitler and Pol Pot). -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:54:43] - the fifth avenue thing was a joke, i mean, obviously. he's an idiot, and again, they might have literally let him shoot someone on fifth, but i didn't think he was like literally planning where to get the gun and where on fifth to stand. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:53:53] - paul: wait, you think jones wanted to literally shoot someone? like not as a joke, he wanted to kill them himself in front of the world. like on fifth avenue? ~a
[2025-11-06 18:53:31] - a: Which, okay, maybe he can be forgiven, but that still makes him pretty damned unqualified to be the attorney general in my mind. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:52:45] - a: I don't even think his apology claimed they were jokes, instead he tried to justify them as angry statements that he was ashamed of. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:50:09] - a: I disagree it was a joke. That's what makes it so damning to me. According to the person he texted, he called them after he was asked to stop and "continued to try to justify his initial statements" -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:50:04] - paul: well, if we focus on the texts, what jay jones did was pretty minor. what miyares did, being a trump lacky, is NOT minor. if you wanna get me behind not voting for jones because of the driving, though, that's a pretty bigger deal. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:45:22] - a: Sure. I can 100% agree that I would rather not having a Trump ally as attorney general of VA. The reason I said "I didn't vote for Jay Jones" is because that's how I saw my vote: As against Jay Jones. It wasn't a vote FOR Miyares. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:42:46] - paul: "Asking people to double their charitable giving isn't really reasonable IMHO" double != non-zero-sum. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:41:36] - paul: "reckless driving conviction" yeah jfc take away this man's drivers license. but i don't think you need a driver's license to assume an oath of office. being regularly driven to and from richmond might get expensive, but i'll donate to that fund. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:39:57] - paul: "We require vaccination for lots of things" as we should? that doesn't mean you don't have the right to not vaccinate, you just gotta balance that with everything else that you want from life. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:39:02] - paul: "I voted for Miyares" miyares was a pro-trump-incumbent atourney general who was 100% ok with going forward with whatever trump wanted. i really didn't want that at all. some (terrible horrible) obvious joke messages aside, that he apologized for (!!!), i didn't think jones would be a pro-trump tourney general so i voted for him (again maybe regrettably). ~a
[2025-11-06 18:38:05] - paul: "I don't know why it matters who I voted for" really? i wanted to respond correctly based on who you voted for. if you voted write-in or didn't vote for that area, then maybe i agree with you 100%. jones's shit was bad and voting for nobody or write-in might have been a bridge we could build (could have built) together. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:34:11] - a: "charities usually try to fight climate change OR malaria" Is that true? I honestly don't know. I assumed it was stuff like Greenpeace or The Gates Foundation dispensing money. Either way, it doesn't change my point. Asking people to double their charitable giving isn't really reasonable IMHO. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:33:10] - paul: i say "rarely" but the bill and malinda gates foundation was a great example of an (maybe) overly-broad charity trying to solve all of the world's ills. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:32:42] - a: "like seriously, you thought you didn't?" *Shrug* A lot of Democrats wanted vaccine passports. We require vaccination for lots of things (although that's nuanced since they are often more established vaccines). -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:32:39] - paul: "We want to spend twice the money on things so we can fight malaria and climate change so everybody has to double their donations" the what-now? your example is crazy. charities usually try to fight climate change OR malaria. and people decide how to spend their non-zero-sum money on those (say) two charities. very rarely will a charity specialize in "both" (unless, again, you want to lump in malnutrition). ~a
[2025-11-06 18:31:15] - https://wjla.com/news/local/prosecutor-investigates-jay-jones-community-service-after-reckless-driving-conviction-new-kent-county-commonwealths-attorney-virgini If you didn't hear about it. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:31:07] - a: I don't know why it matters who I voted for, but yes, I voted for Miyares because I felt like he was significantly better than Jones and I desperately didn't want somebody like Jones to hold power. This isn't even touching upon another somewhat disqualifying scandal around his reckless driving conviction! -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:30:29] - paul: "The right to not inject yourself with an experimental new vaccine?" you. have. that. right. like seriously, you thought you didn't? "The right to enter into a consensual contract to work for a certain amount of money?" ok, maybe you got me here honestly. the power dynamics are so unbalanced that you're stretching the definition of "consentual" really hard, but otherwise i think you're technically correct here. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:28:15] - paul: "Won't let me read it without signing in" that's right. once you log in you can use the "gift link" to read the content. you have to sign in, there's no way around that. what am i saying, there are tons of ways around that. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:27:55] - a: But charities can't just be like: "We want to spend twice the money on things so we can fight malaria and climate change so everybody has to double their donations". -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:25:26] - a: "it's not that simple" The right to not inject yourself with an experimental new vaccine? The right to enter into a consensual contract to work for a certain amount of money? I'm sure you have reasons why all of those "rights" are different but it basically comes down to which you agree with and which you don't. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:17:42] - paul: "I didn't vote for Jones" that is not very specific. who did you vote for? i'm not sure how to respond otherwise. "There was a write-in option as well" oooops, right. i didn't consider that until after voting. did you choose the write-in option? i also didn't consider the not-voting option. oops again. i probably should have done one of those to be totally frank with you. yikes. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:15:38] - paul: "People have finite time and money" yes, but that time can be donated to malaria, OR donated to combating climate-change-and-malnutrition, OR it can be spent on a new bicycle. like, how non-zero-sum can you get than that? ~a
[2025-11-06 18:14:34] - paul: it's not that simple. giving total-complete-weapons-of-war-rights-for-all typically take away rights of others! giving marriage rights to the gays doesn't take away rights of others. ~a
[2025-11-06 18:13:26] - a: Actually, that link is also blocked for me. Won't let me read it without signing in. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:12:31] - a: Oh, hah! And now I read your next post. Sorry. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:11:50] - a: (Article is pay-walled for me). I didn't vote for Jones. There was a write-in option as well. Can you explain your reasons for voting for a candidate for attorney general who earnestly believes his political opponents and their families should be killed? -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:08:52] - a: Disagree on zero-sum. Charities have budgets. People have finite time and money. Every dollar spent combating climate change is a dollar NOT spent fighting malaria. You can't just wave your hand and say charities should have budgets which are twice as big or people should donate twice as much to charity. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:05:56] - a: "in one of them we're in favor of giving people equal rights, and the other we're in favor of infringing on rights" But can we be honest? The real difference is one you support and one you don't, because we can use an example like gun control which I used before which grants rights. -Paul
[2025-11-06 18:04:31] - a: The 10% I was referring to was the (totally pulled out of my butt) estimate on what percentage of Mozilla customers might've been offended by Eich as CEO. Honestly, my guess is that it was lower. -Paul
[2025-11-06 11:55:56] - is affecting the outcome of a local election in this way illegal? im seriously asking, i googled around and couldn't find anything. mamdani wants to hire 200 more lawyers so maybe we'll find out? ~a
[2025-11-06 11:28:56] - mig: you voted? ~a
[2025-11-05 21:08:27] - mig: weeeee. ~a
[2025-11-05 19:11:56] - paul: adding to that the upcoming redistricting wars (looking forward to my vote mattering less in VA), its a sad race down into the gutter. - mig
[2025-11-05 17:40:09] - (if that link is paywalled, this is the "gift link" that should let you view it, lmk) ~a
[2025-11-05 17:34:58] - paul: i voted for jay jones. i read this article before. (i voted after, but not because of, if you follow my latin). miyares was the only other one on the ballot. you voted for miyares? ~a
[2025-11-05 17:30:57] - paul: "and whatnot" you left this one out this time. it was malnutrition. (malnutrition is being caused by and) malnutrition will be caused by climate change. "it's also zero sum" no it's really not. people can choose to buy a new car every few years, or keep around your old car a bit longer, and donate to charity. or save. but, also how people donate your time isn't zero sum either. also, "people" is a non-zero-sum construct. ~a
[2025-11-05 17:23:59] - paul: "Maybe you say yes if they're agitating in favor of gay marriage but what if it was for being pro-life?" these examples are not equivalent: in one of them we're in favor of giving people equal rights, and the other we're in favor of infringing on rights. "Is there a significant difference?" yes! save money and skip voting altogether? "we've established that showing support is a fire-able offense" no that's not what i said. ~a
[2025-11-05 17:23:50] - paul: "10% of people to be dictating employment decisions" 48%. prop 8 came down to 52 / 48. so we should use the number since we know it. my guess is mozilla's workers and users and management were also all MUCH higher than 48% against. but that number we don't know. seriously all three of them had to be much higher than 50% against, each, though. ~a
[2025-11-05 16:50:32] - And for him to win that either means voters were unaware (despite it being pretty big news) or just not caring. For once, I'm really hoping it's ignorance. -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:49:50] - And to see that candidate win. I dunno, it kind of makes me sick. At that point I don't really care what his political stances are. That's just too ugly and hateful for me to remotely consider supporting. -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:48:58] - But in an environment of rising political violence and increasing polarization, to see a candidate for attorney general have texts where he so strongly discusses wanting to see a political rivals get shot (multiple times) AND want to see his family killed.... -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:46:57] - Slight topic change, but I'm a little bummed about the election results. More so than usual. I'm used to seeing terrible (IMHO) candidates win and my guys get absolutely drubbed. That's nothing new... -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:45:13] - a: "you can donate to / support multiple things at once" Kind of, but it's also zero sum. If you've got $100 to donate to charity, then every dollar spent on climate change death prevention is one that cannot be spent on malaria prevention. -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:43:53] - a: "you're measuring the past instead of the future" Agreed, but that's also what we're doing with climate change deaths. You kind of have to assume a massive increase in future deaths (which it sounds like even Bill Gates is starting to rule out) to think it overtakes malaria and whatnot. -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:41:59] - a: "you have equated voting with donating" So? Is there a significant difference? Both are expressing support for a cause or issue. Maybe one shows stronger support but if we've established that showing support is a fire-able offense, then should it matter how strong that support is? -Paul
[2025-11-05 16:39:50] - a: "It just needs to be enough" Sure, but what's enough? Is it good for a noisy 10% of people to be dictating employment decisions? Maybe you say yes if they're agitating in favor of gay marriage but what if it was for being pro-life? -Paul
[2025-11-04 16:59:27] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/03/us/dearborn-fbi-raid-terror-attack-skepticism jfc you can tell from the article url that this has been stealth edited. - mig
[2025-11-04 16:57:12] - https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1985421631561371707 I did a 2x take on this today because I did read the original article and was confused when I saw the revised one. - mig
[2025-11-01 13:47:32] - paul: "As many as malaria? Or malnutrition?". two problems. 1. you're measuring the past instead of the future. roughly predicting the future is hard, of course, but only looking at the past is worthless. 2. you can donate to / support multiple things at once. it doesn't need to be all or nothing. ex, my personal charitable donations have been malaria/malnutrition adjacent and none of them have been (directly) related to climate change. ~a
[2025-11-01 13:39:58] - "you would be fine with over half the people in one of our most liberal states being disqualified for being CEO based solely on a political opinion". what a terrible point paul, you have equated voting with donating. ~a
[2025-11-01 13:37:39] - paul: "that's in the eye of the beholder, right" I agree with you. I do. but to a point. restricting peoples gun rights is a big deal I know. but it's not who you are, it's not the color of your skin, not what you're born with, it's a right that affects the rights of others (gun deaths). and something something "ends where my nose begins". there's only one "nose begins" with gay marriage. ~a
[2025-11-01 13:30:36] - paul: "Do you think the majority of Firefox users even knew about the controversy?" Why does it need to be a majority. Some, any, customers, and, some, any, employees. Some, or any, of management. It just needs to be enough. ~a
[2025-11-01 03:44:58] - a: "so many people are dying from the outcome of climate change" As many as malaria? Or malnutrition? Or other more preventable causes? -Paul
[2025-11-01 03:42:32] - a: Reminder that the proposition passed in liberal California at the time. So basically you would be fine with over half the people in one of our most liberal states being disqualified for being CEO based solely on a political opinion? -Paul
[2025-11-01 03:40:28] - a: You say you're fine with it if they are "donating to oppress people", but you can obviously see how that's in the eye of the beholder, right? Being against gay marriage is oppression to you the same way gun control is oppressive for somebody else. -paul
[2025-11-01 03:37:35] - a: I know the company didn't fire him. Was it the customers, though? Do you think the majority of Firefox users even knew about the controversy? Either way, my point was that I'm not sure how comfortable I am with normalizing punishing CEOs for political donations (especially for propositions which had popular support). -Paul
[2025-10-31 17:35:36] - mig: do you think people who voted for or otherwise support biden are evil? ~a
[2025-10-31 16:45:54] - mig: no. ~a
[2025-10-31 15:46:53] - a: quick tangential question: do you think people who voted or otherwise support Trump are evil? - mig
[2025-10-30 15:50:27] - paul: "then we can probably weigh it with other initiatives in terms of dollars spent per life saved (or improved), right" yes. but climate change will continue dominate the discussion. so many people are dying from the outcome of climate change. and so many that aren't dying are suffering. and the cumulative changes will become an exponential problem quickly especially in certain parts of the world. ~a
[2025-10-30 15:47:32] - paul: you think it's bad if someone leaves (or is fired) for things that they do that are political on their free time. and i agree only if either: 1. they're a line worker (so don't represent the company). or 2. they aren't donating to oppress people. if you're doing neither of those things, i think your customers and coworkers might have something to say about it. ~a
[2025-10-30 15:44:09] - paul: "You think he just voluntarily decided to resign independent of the controversy?" no i think it wasn't the company that fired him. (technically or otherwise) it was the "people" that fired him. it was the other mozilla workers that fired him. it was the customers that fired him. as it should be? he wasn't just donating to trump's campaign. he wasn't a line-worker. his move was bad for those two reasons (importantly both). ~a
[2025-10-29 17:54:56] - a: If climate change won't lead to humanity's demise, then we can probably weigh it with other initiatives in terms of dollars spent per life saved (or improved), right? That's what Bjorn Lomborg was saying and when you do that I think we find that combating climate change is way over funded compared to other things. -Paul
[2025-10-29 17:49:43] - a: a: "i'm not sure how serious of a politician he'll end up being" What constitutes a "serious" politician and why does being aligned with other (former) heads of state impact that? For reference, the link is about how his party had a surprisingly good outcome in recent elections. -Paul
[2025-10-29 17:44:34] - a: "do you base this on anything?" I base it off of all the information around it? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You think he just voluntarily decided to resign independent of the controversy? -Paul
[2025-10-29 14:54:20] - paul: i agree prioritizing how to decrease human suffering is hard. but "although climate change will have serious consequences, particularly for people in the poorest countries, it will not lead to humanity’s demise" is a nuanced, but ultimately bad way of looking at it. so what if it won't lead to huminaitie's demise. decrease human suffering in the most efficient way possible: that will likely include some of multiple paths. ~a
[2025-10-29 14:50:15] - paul: i can't read your ft link, but milei aligns himself with bolsonaro, so i'm not sure how serious of a politician he'll end up being. i think we'll see how things look a bit closer to 2027, most of the numbers we were looking at don't move much on such a short time-scale. ~a
[2025-10-29 14:40:25] - paul: "Is a political donation sufficient for cause" depends on what the donation. but regardless, if you're the official spokesperson or the ceo, yes. ~a
[2025-10-29 14:39:35] - paul: "I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration" great analogy. if the president's values don't align with the public, you won't/shouldn't really care much about what the press secretary thinks about gay marriage. "He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall" do you base this on anything? i think they offered him his old job in the company? *he* decided that wasn't gonna work for him? ~a
[2025-10-28 19:09:06] - I feel like that is what Bjorn Lomborg has been saying for years? Decades? And largely been mocked for it. -Paul
[2025-10-28 19:08:33] - https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/bill-gates-climate-change "Although climate change will have serious consequences [...] it will not lead to humanity’s demise. This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries." -Paul
[2025-10-27 18:02:14] - a: https://www.ft.com/content/af4472e0-c0a3-4dca-bb29-bab4f969b624 Sounds like Milei's reforms will continue. How are you feeling about our non-bet so far? -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:16:23] - a: Regardless, my whole point wasn't that companies aren't legally allowed to fire people for cancel culture reasons. It was more about if that's how things should work. I'm not super excited about the prospect of a future where we need to be posting voting histories on resumes and having political donations brought up on PIPs. -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:14:14] - a: Yes, he technically resigned, but does that distinction matter when it comes to cancel culture? He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall, not because he didn't want to be CEO anymore. Also, that technicality seems contradicted by your next statement: "but even if they did want to fire him they had cause" Is a political donation sufficient for cause? -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:08:56] - a: A CEO technically does represent your company too, but I think they typically are hired for other skillsets which make them harder to replace. -Paul
[2025-10-27 02:08:20] - a: "your ceo is gonna represent you in the market" That's a fair way to look at it, but I think of it a bit differently. A spokesperson's sole job is to represent the company, and in theory it can be pretty easy to replace one. I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration or maybe Jared from Subway. -Paul
[2025-10-27 00:41:40] - paul: regardless, the whole thing is atypical. ceos very rarely resign after donating to make gay marriage straight up illegal. ~a
[2025-10-27 00:19:07] - paul: he wasn't fired. he resigned. they even offered him another job in the company. but even if they did want to fire him they had cause. As you yourself said, "The appointment triggered widespread criticism": it wasn't the donation of a line-worker. it was a value-misalignment of a ceo. it was the appointment that started it all. ~a
[2025-10-27 00:15:09] - paul: you just implied that the bar for an "official spokesperson" is higher (or maybe that the bar for firing an "official spokesperson" is lower) right? who's more of an official spokesperson than a ceo? your ceo is gonna represent you in the market so usually your cut them off if they have a past that doesn't align with your (mozilla's) values as a company. that happened here, so he resigned. ~a
[2025-10-26 01:37:50] - a: And I know he wasn't a software engineer (my example was kind of a mash-up of James Damore and Brendan Eich). That's why I asked which part seemed.... untypical? -Paul
[2025-10-26 01:36:18] - a: "brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier" Really? Why did he lose it, then? From wikipedia: "The appointment triggered widespread criticism due to Eich's past political donations – specifically, a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8" -Paul
[2025-10-26 00:06:54] - paul: no i didn't call it implausible. i said it was not typical or common, and brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier, and brendan eich wasn't a software engineer. ~a
[2025-10-25 21:28:17] - a: "i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign" Which part seems implausible? Because Brendan Eich lost his job because of a political donation from 6 years earlier. -Paul
[2025-10-24 19:18:32] - this seems akin to a much smaller version of refusing to leave the whitehouse on inauguration day. ~a
[2025-10-24 19:17:11] - is it legal to completely refuse to seat someone? she was duly elected in . . . september? can you just wait indefinitely? why not just refuse to seat everybody who is of a different party? ~a
[2025-10-24 19:12:40] - paul: i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign. ~a
[2025-10-24 19:11:43] - paul: "embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives" i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here, and i don't think his killer cares much about who is or isn't a trad-wife. ~a
[2025-10-22 15:11:44] - a: But should a software engineer lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to Trump's campaign or maybe were caught on video singing a rap song that contained a racial slur? Maybe not? -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:09:54] - a: It's a messy grey area, though, because obviously it's fine for there to be consequences for especially repugnant speech. Does a company want it's official spokesperson openly being homophobic or racist on social media? No... -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:08:08] - a: If you might lose your job for expressing a political opinion, I think that has a chilling effect on free speech. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:07:29] - a: "cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech" I would disagree. They might have nothing to do with the first amendment, but I think they are very related to a culture of free speech. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:06:30] - a: "i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice." 100% The right has never been great on the issue and Trump specifically is uniquely awful. I did not intend any of this to be a defense of the right: "For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it" -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:04:47] - a: Is it inconsistent? Maybe. Most people's views on most things are. The limited stuff I've seen indicates a fairly consistent Christian based worldview that embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives. -Paul
[2025-10-22 15:03:19] - a: I don't know nearly enough about Kirk to give you an educated answer on his thoughts on traditional family values or whatnot. I'm literally just learning snippets based on videos I'm watching during research into points you've made. -Paul
[2025-10-12 17:03:11] - in other news this has been live for almost 24 hours and still hasn't been deleted. ~a
[2025-10-11 11:49:45] - do we? paul, do you think what carr did was bad? worse than what we saw from the Biden administration and google/twitter after trump's COVID? worse than cancel culture? worse than micro aggressions? worse than the aclu measuring harm when deciding who to defend? ~a
[2025-10-11 04:32:40] - a: bringing up kimmel at the time would not have been interesting discussion. we all agree it was bad! - mig
[2025-10-11 02:55:33] - mig/paul: jawboning isn't illegal. it sucks. but it's not illegal. the many things carr posted to twitter, though were not legal. you get upset by the legal things the ACLU does and the legal jawboning Biden does but when it comes to the illegal twitter posts carr makes related to kimmel strangely enough, it's crickets. ~a
[2025-10-10 17:23:13] - I took a quick look at the ACLU press releases to see if they had anything to say about the google jawboning but strangely enough its crickets. Plenty to say about Jimmy Kimmel though. - mig
[2025-10-10 17:16:47] - attempts to justify it (lives need to be saved!) - mig
[2025-10-10 17:16:20] - And while cancel culture, micro-aggressions, and the like are not about government restrictions on speech I do believe it did start to change the attitudes of the democratic party and progressives at large. As paul noted, the ACLU suddenly decided some free speech wasn’t worth speaking up for. And we get a revelation about the Biden admin suppressing speech and the general reaction from democrats is either crickets or …
[2025-10-10 17:11:30] - a: I would argue that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we not be tolerant of the government jawboning to suppress speech. The Covid era essentially provided a sort of blasphemy policy - Thou shall mot question our approved “experts”. - mig
[2025-10-10 15:38:48] - paul: cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech. maybe you also assume the freedom of speech grants you the freedom of consequences to your speech? i'd personally say that the supreme court uses the first amendment to go too far, but i think the first amendment is fine as written: specifically the first amendment is fucking bastardized to force tax breaks for churches. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:32:13] - paul: "do you disagree that that has changed?" yes, i do. miguel's reason link has great examples of biden jawboning, so i'm a bit on the fence at times. but then, at other times i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice. and the intent is relevant: trump jawboning is about making his legacy seem great. and biden jawbones because seven million people were dying. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:25:01] - paul: but, i should take the time to thank you for finding those words. at least it wasn't all bullshit. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:24:28] - paul: "at the very least it's nuanced" i wouldn't use the word nuanced. i'd use the word inconsistent. his views in that moment were very nuanced: i agree 100%. not progressive, but at least nuanced. but his views in many other moments lacked nuance: in conclusion he was inconsistent. ~a
[2025-10-10 15:21:44] - paul: "Is it the most modern thinking?" dude i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here. nobody is. kirk was not killed because he thought some women should voluntarily be homemakers. do you guys seriously think that i think women shouldn't be allowed to become homemakers? ~a
[2025-10-10 12:26:39] - https://reason.com/2025/09/24/google-says-biden-admin-pressured-company-to-remove-content feels relevant. also w-e-i-r-d the lack of mainstream reporting on this revelation, given all the handwringing over Jimmy Kimmel, since this seems far more consequential. - mig
[2025-10-09 03:45:55] - https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees More Democrats than Republicans believe "that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:44:02] - a: Hate speech and micro-aggressions started on the left. Pressure on social media companies did too. Cancel culture. Rock and roll, the cola wars, I can't take it anymore! -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:41:41] - a: But at the same time it seemed like we could count on the left to be reliably pro-freedom of speech. Do you disagree that that has changed? The ACLU now weighs the potential harm of speech in terms of whether it will defend it... -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:39:27] - a: For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it. Traditionally, the right has been the side to want to ban Harry Potter and flag burning and whatnot... -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:33:07] - a: Again, not exactly progressive, but if anything it sounds like in his vision of the family the happiness of the family generally comes at the expense of the men. At the very least it's nuanced. -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:32:05] - And a quote from Charlie: "You do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances, period. That is your job. Your wife gets whatever she wants, whatever she wants. The kids get whatever they want..." -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:31:10] - One quote that was pulled out from his wife was: "He is the head of the house household and I am not a servant, I am not a slave to the master, I am his helpmate. I am the guardian of the home—that is my domain." -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:30:26] - a: Is it the most modern thinking? No. But it also seems pretty far from any kind of "women are inferior and should just be slaves to men" kind of thing. I asked AI this question and it directed me to a video called "The Keys to a Thriving Marriage And Meaningful Life" -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:28:38] - a: All the stuff seems to be relatively mundane "traditional family values" stuff like how men should work and provide food and shelter and whatnot and the woman should be helping raise the kids and supporting the family. -Paul
[2025-10-09 03:26:49] - a: "do you have an example of this too?" Citations needed?
For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul[2025-10-06 14:58:46] - https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context. So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also… - mig
[2025-10-04 23:31:17] - paul: "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. Seems like that's worth being concerned about" here we agree. i don't like that kirk was killed. and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there. and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates. ~a
[2025-10-04 23:13:23] - paul: "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position" do you have an example of this too? other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump). not anti-maga. ~a
[2025-10-04 23:11:52] - paul: "he's a believer in traditional family roles" do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear? every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women? ~a
[2025-10-03 16:49:49] - a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:49:16] - a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:45:55] - a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:44:43] - a: I mean, his wife doesn't seem to fit the mold. The first line in Wikipedia calls her "an American businesswoman and podcaster who is the CEO of the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA)" -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:43:54] - a: I haven't listened through everything he's said, obviously, but the things I've seen (extremely limited) seem to indicate he's a believer in traditional family roles and not that women need to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. -Paul
[2025-10-03 16:41:19] - a: "I'm a little surprised that you think that was kirks position" I'm learning on the job. I knew next to nothing of Charlie Kirk's (I almost wrote James Kirk) positions before his murder. I've been reading up on them as you mention them to me. -Paul
[2025-10-01 20:00:20] - mig: why should we leave aside abortion? ~a
[2025-10-01 19:58:51] - mig: how do you get from: women are ugly, angry and bitter, and not in charge to "Children are better off with having both parents around"? He's advocating that women are not in charge and so therefore he's not advocating that they could voluntary not use their rights. ~a
[2025-09-29 02:33:05] - I mean there’s a large difference between saying “Children are better off with having both parents around” and “Single parenthood should be outlawed.” - mig
[2025-09-29 02:31:58] - ‘s no advocacy of using force. Kirk is clearly opinionated on how people should live their lives but there’s no taking away of rights if some people decide he’s right and choose to live that way. - mig
[2025-09-29 02:30:29] - I can’t really reconcile this “no rights” argument when there
[2025-09-28 22:50:49] - a: leaving aside abortion for the moment what are these “many” situations were women have lost or have no rights? - mig
[2025-09-28 12:32:16] - xpovos: "I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment". no I think the 21st definitely had a repeal section and a new addition section. you can have both in one amendment, and that is what we did in 1933. ~a
[2025-09-28 12:28:12] - "He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license". he was suggesting emphatically that she didn't have the freedoms, rights, or licence. and in many situations, in the united states, he is correct. ~a
[2025-09-27 16:07:37] - Obviously, SCOTUS has gone back and forth on that. It isn't likely to change any time soon, but it could. Took us 40+ years to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it can be done. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 16:07:04] - a: I think the point you're working at is that "a well-regulated militia, being essential..." The purpose of well-regulated, implying some level of organization--that must inherently be by the state(?), at least one of the 13 (now 50)? Against a federal overreach; not an individual against the state (any of the 51, and more). -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 16:05:13] - a: I don't think we've ever tried to change the language on an amendment. It would probably be a repeal, and then some kind of pinky promise to enact a new one. It's one of the reasons I was so curious, because it seems so weird and hard. I do think a straight up repeal, which you're correct, I wouldn't prefer, despite not being a gun right activist, isn't likely. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 14:19:03] - xpovos: you are right, sorry I'm mostly being nonspecific because I don't know what I want, or what a new 2nd amendment would look like. It would probably be bad for gun rights activists though: most gun rights activists would not like to live in a (much safer by the numbers) oecd country. the pendant in me wants to point out that the 21st amendment is indeed an amendment even though it mostly just repeals another amendment. ~a
[2025-09-27 14:16:16] - "you're not in charge." Maybe harsh, but no one is. This is the fundamental flaw of license. At the end of the day the raw violence chooses. I have the license to walk in front of a bus, but if I do, my rights are less potent than the laws of physics and momentum. We're not in charge. We live in a physical world which restricts us. We live in a society, too. -- Xpovos
[2025-09-27 14:14:33] - Kirk wasn't taking her freedoms, rights or license away. He was suggesting emphatically that she give up some select freedoms, rights and license to enjoy (in his philosophy) a better and happier life. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next