Let me guess, the same kind of people who get triggered about vaccines and own pickup trucks as fashion accessories? They tend to get triggered a lot, ironically, for people claiming that society became too sensitive.
I am convinced he wanted a full blown insurrection the first time around, and fully planned to enter the capitol as newly coronated emperor. He wanted armed protesters to hang around his rally, and he fully planned to go there. The reason he didn't is that once he got into his car the secret service over ruled his last-minute request (because he knew it would not be approved), and he got MAD. He tried to physically take control of the car, but yeah, apparently the president does not have the authority to put himself in harm's way.
It is actually easier to manipulate people if you're ignorant and over-confident. It is much easier because you don't have to lie and adapt your speech, you just do you.
Yeah I was on a Keto diet for a short while, it is hard to describe but it really feels obvious when you're out of the sugar roller coaster that there is something deeply wrong with it, and that we're all collectively so addicted to sugars that we don't even realize that this is killing us, and that the sensible thing to do is to actually eat what we've been told not to.
It is hard to describe, but it's like living to the full potential of your stored energy for the first time, like having your body go in normal mode instead of feast mode. It does not surprise me that it makes a difference in your sexual life too, it affects pretty much everything, including your brain and sex organs.
Congress has plenty of indirect power over the court, but congress is also the most broken part of the government and the reason why the supreme court feels illegitimate. The system is working as designed, the issue is that people have been voting against their own interest for decades. The fact we have to rely on the supreme court to legislate is the main problem.
You need a sense of high entitlement to become a mass shooter, and they usually target a very specific demographic. I think statically this will end up being right winger targeting minority, but I would need to do more research on this, this is just speculation.
This is kind of a pandora box. They need to prove intent, and probably link them to the coup with hard proofs. Otherwise you're just saying it is Ok for government officials to attack "journalists" (quotes for fox news respectively)
yup, and somehow they found out that it does not matter if you're always wrong publicly while being recorded. All you need to do is to never admit to it, and double down on the next wrong step really hard with extreme confidance. Throw in a few accusations that your oponents did worse, even if this is without merits, and voila. Using this simple trick you could become the most influential person in the world.
haha, yep. It seems to me that we're constantly bombarded by conflicting statements as they move back and forth in the prayer. They usually just regurgitate the argument of least resistance that fits the conversation.
"Jan6 was false flag"
" Free the patriots who did nothing wrong"
"Nothing happened on Jan6"
"This is what you get when you steal elections"
"A coup is no big deal"
This is one weakness of free soecieties. Even in good-natured reporting and arguments, it is very difficult to differentiate between a lie or a statement simply being wrong or different than yours. If you give an institution the power to decide what can be reported, what constitutes lies and such, this could get abused to silence all opposing voice.
This leave us extremely vulnerable to propaganda, since bad actors have access to the same immunity journalists earned over time. It really is hard to differentiate the two legally.
This leave only one way of getting rid of propaganda, and it is to prove intent. Have them admit that they're lying on purpose. I guess 1 strike for fox wasnt enough.
It is all about having a thin veneer of reasoning, no matter how wrong, it always is. So now they can advance to the next wrong thing with this new justification in their toolbox.
I'll say it again, but you can have a look at basically any position held by modern conservatives, anything, and it always end up being very wrong, based on paper-thin arguments. This is how they ended up with their own alternative reality, one very wrong conclusion at a time, wrapped in a thin argument. Conservative don't care to look pas the conclusion, some are in it for themselves, but I think most are just morons.
Some people get caught in their lies year later, I personally had friends who would contradict themselves on a weekly basis, but to do it on this level is truely insane.
and millions are claiming the democrats are radicals, little do they know that the country was more progressive on certain fronts 50 years ago. So they have to resort to blaming gays and trans, because everything else about the current staye of the country is kinda right-wingy to begin with.
Problem is that you need to convince tens of millions of people to grow up. I think this chap here is merely suggesting we give the idiots what they want.
Yeah, it killed my will to participate in the comments. So much of it was those dumb jokes and chains. Originally has left the train a long time ago. I ended up sort of loathing the "humor" on that place.
To me, this felt similar to "clapter comedy", wherein there is no laughter, just applauses. Nothing funny is being actually said, there is no setup, no punchline. It is just people sorta agreeing that something should be funny because they agree with it, and if you're the first yo say it, then all your unfunny friends will give you the thumbs up.
For the record, I am a complete lunatic in real-life who joke about everything and I find almost everything hillarious. It is pretty damn sad that I get no enjoyment from theses.
I think the problem is worded specifically to hide the fact that you're creating two set of doors by picking a door, and that shrinking a set actually make each individual door in that set more likely to have the prize.
Think of it this way : You have 4 doors, 2 blue doors and 2 red doors. I tell you that there is 50% chance of the prize to be in either a blue or a red door. Now I get to remove a red door that is confirmed to not have the prize. If you had to chose, would you pick a blue door or a red door? Seems obvious now that the remaining red door is somehow a safer pick. This is kind of what is happening in the initial problem, but since the second ensemble is bigger to begin with (the two doors you did not pick), it sort of trick you into ignoring the fact that the ensemble shrank and that it made the remaining door more "valuable", since the two ensembles are now of equal size, but only one ensemble shrank, and it was always at 2/3 odds of containing the prize.
Let me guess, the same kind of people who get triggered about vaccines and own pickup trucks as fashion accessories? They tend to get triggered a lot, ironically, for people claiming that society became too sensitive.