

Calling it now; 3 middle-schoolers are gonna beat the shit out of him and steal the medal, and that’s how the bill of rights will be repealed.
Calling it now; 3 middle-schoolers are gonna beat the shit out of him and steal the medal, and that’s how the bill of rights will be repealed.
I’m sure some of them will believe whatever the narrative is, but some of them have been on this train since the early QAnon days. They’ve been promised arrests, public executions, and a, “great awakening,” where their conspiracy theories about the deep-state pedophile cabal is exposed and their children call them and apologize for uninviting them to Thanksgiving. Trump created a very big fracture with those people a few weeks ago when he told them to shut up and stop talking about Epstien, and his damage control has been very poor. Maybe he can get ahold of the narrative again, but he’ll need to do more than have a human trafficker say he did nothing wrong.
Depends what you mean by, “catch on.” Are they going to understand that their quality of life is declining because late stage capitalism is extracting what little wealth they have left, and that neither the neoliberal center-left offering milquetoast concessions from ruling class or the far-right fascists scapegoating immigrants and minorities can fix the fundamental, underlying rot within our society? No, probably not. But I think some of the MAGA chuds might figure out Trump is a pedophile.
We’ll see. He spent the last 6 years stirring up this Santanic-panic pedophile shit, I don’t think it’s going to be that easy to put down. Besides that, he’s about to throw us into a massive recession with huge inflation. I’ve never been one of those, “Trump is finished! There’s no way he’s coming back from this!” guys, but this really seems like a perfect storm of events that will hurt his most loyal followers.
I really don’t think that Trump giving a human trafficker special treatment to say that he isn’t a pedophile is gonna play out as well with his base as he thinks it will.
I would have labeled you guys, “Frasier.”
Yeah, seriously. At least call us, “Revolutionary War Reenactors,” or, “Cold NYC.” I’d even take, “Southern Quebec.” But lumping us in with Montana and the Dakotas? That’s some bullshit.
This is literally the opposite of one of the plans to lower global temperatures.
Do you mean one and two? Two and three are clearly different, as three has no pattern other than disenfranchisement. I agree that one and two are both valid ways to divide the squares visually, but the text is stating that one is, “perfect,” and two is, “compact but unfair,” implying that the goal should be getting each political group some representation. That is still allowing politicians to pick their constituents, and even if it’s more fair than three, it still built to serve the candidates, not the voters. Compact (i.e. a system that divides districts entirely by geography and population, without consideration towards demographics or political alignment) should be the actual desired outcome.
I don’t use A.I. because I’ve had nothing but negative interactions with A.I. Customer service bots that fail to give adequate responses, unhelpful and incorrect search result summaries, and, “art,” that looks like shit hasn’t made me want to sign up for ChatGPT or Gemini. For most people, this isn’t a moral stance, it’s just that the product isn’t worth paying for. Stop framing people that don’t use A.I. as luddites with an ax to grind just because tech bros spent billions on a product that isn’t good yet.
Everyone’s been doing either one or three for decades, the fascists are just more effective at it. What’s changed is that they’re doing it in a non-census year with the explicit goal of changing the outcome of the 2026 midterms. The only states with have unbiased districts are the places where people have passed ballot measures against partisan districting, but Democrats have been just as happy as Republicans to pull this shit.
Number 2 is the actual ideal, not number 1. Number 1 represents, “good,” gerrymandering that politicians argue for, but it really only serves them. They get to keep highly partisan electorate that will reelect them no matter what, which means they can be less responsive to the will of their voters. They only have to worry about primary challengers, which aren’t very common, and can mostly ignore their electorate without issue.
It’s also important to note that this diagram is an oversimplification that can’t express the nuances of an actual electorate. While a red and blue binary might be helpful for this example, a plurality of voters identify as independents, and while most of them have preferences towards the right or left, they are movable. The point is that actual voters are more nuanced and less static than this representation.
Number 2 is how distracting would work in an ideal world; it doesn’t take into account political alignment at all, but instead just groups people together by proximity. A red victory is unlikely, but still possible if the blue candidate doesn’t deliver for his constituents and winds up with low voter turnout. It also steers politicians away from partisan extremism, as they may need to appeal to a non-partisan plurality. That being said, when literal fascists are attempting number 3, we’ll have to respond in kind if we want any chance of maintaining our democracy, but in the long term, the solution is no gerrymandering, not, “perfect representation,” gerrymandering.
Bird names are all either, “red-breasted blackbird,” or, “deep-throated cum-tit.” There’s no in-between.
Yeah, it’s true. I just went to get my son’s inhaler, and the pharmacy paid me 14 times what I normally pay them for it. Thank you, Mr. President.
I think the public domain would be fair game as well, and the fact that AI companies don’t limit themselves to those works really gives away the game. An LMM that can write in the style of Shakespeare or Dickens is impressive, but people will pay for an LLM that will write their White Lotus fan fiction for them.
Yeah, it definitely looks like the tray was hastily slapped together in photoshop, but I think the tub and woman are AI. I could be wrong, but the perspective on the tub doesn’t seem right, and she looks uncanny.
More like, “The AI program we used to generate this slop has no idea what a women do in the bathtub, or that humans don’t drink wine and lattes simultaneously, and it can’t even maintain a consistent perspective around the edge of the tub.”
Yeah, for sure. Also, I should be clear that I’m not certain how much I believe in the male loneliness epidemic. I think a lot of it can be explained as people who were conditioned to view themselves as the primary earners having to cope with the conditions of late stage capitalism. But I think that representing the male loneliness epidemic as, “men aren’t getting laid,” is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument, and ironically, what the original commenter thought of when they first heard of male loneliness is a much more accurate description than what they think, “people really meant by it.”
OK, but…no? That’s not what people are talking about with the male loneliness epidemic. They’re talking about how an inability to connect with their peers on a more than superficial level, coupled with a lack of older male role models, are causing Gen Z and Millennial men to report extremely high levels of loneliness.
It’s tangentially related to, “getting laid,” as many of these men are driven towards misogynistic monosphere influencers who make sexual conquest a measure of self-worth, but that’s a symptom of the problem, not the totality of it. Also, some people debate the existence of the loneliness epidemic altogether, but no one defines it as, “men aren’t getting laid.”
Is, “influenced by billionaires,” a euphemism for, “she let her uber executive brother-in-law talk her into gutting any economic populism from her campaign in favor of tepid centrist policies that cost her the election and ushered in a new era of American fascism?”