MaeBorowski [she/her]

Not to defend the pathetic little shitstain or anything, but more just an fyi, it is possible to block an instance now.

He might legit die in 12 to 18 months of just being fucking old

He might legit die in the 5 months before the election! I hope he lives long enough (and remains just cognizant enough) to lose and know he’s the loser.

all throughout Obama’s 8 years, anytime someone brought up a failed promise, the eternal wars, or the deportations or anything, what we were told was, “Bush would have made it worse.”

We were? I mean, that’s not what I remember being told. Not because libs were above that (obviously), but rather it doesn’t make any sense. Bush got his 2 terms. Bush already succeeded in being the greater evil and was out of the picture regardless of who took the reins in the white house in 2008. I know what you’re saying doesn’t necessarily mean this, but a few times now I’ve seen hexbears talk as though Bush was voted out in favor of Obama. This is not what happened. Bush was never voted out, and Obama never ran against Bush. John McCain was the Republican nominee (and a big argument of the libs at the time was that he was unfit for office because he was too old and frail, lmao, the irony right?). And after McCain lost to Obama, the liberal response still wasn’t even that McCain would have been worse. You really only see that kind of talk (at least in my experience) directed at potential future threats, which obviously Bush no longer was after he won his 2nd term in 2004. It was simply taken as a given that Bush had been worse because it was his fault that poor Obama had to clean up his mess.

No, the way the liberals, especially Democrats defended against people pointing out the reality that Obama’s increased drone strikes, continued use of torture, and especially the neverending wars, was not to say Bush would have been worse but simply to say “Well Bush started it, which was unjust, but now that we’re in it, we have to win it.” There wasn’t even a pretense at “Bush would have been worse” because all they had to do was blame it all on Bush to begin with. “Obama inherited a terrible situation, a quagmire we’re in thanks to Bush. But what are we supposed to do now, just give Afghanistan to the Taliban? What, do you side with the terrorists?”

And about drone strikes, the defense I remember seeing all the time, was that they were more humane than what Bush did. “Drone strikes don’t risk American troops the way Bush did, and really they’re so much more effective at getting the baddies who never even see them coming! It’s ‘unfortunate’ that there has been innocent children hit, but that’s just ‘collateral damage.’” It was shocking (to me, being more naive at the time) how freely and without reflection the Democrats took up the exact same rhetoric that they had correctly railed against when the Republicans used it. The Republican neocons having practically invented “collateral damage” as a popular euphemism was embraced by the Democrats immediately after they came to power.

a lib president could admit to dropping a biological weapon on china that specifically targets children and every paper would declare him the greatest and most loving humanitarian since Jesus.

Totally. Remember that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize after ramping up so many of Bush’s warcrimes.

lol you’re right. It’s all cope and deflection. They’re not even on par with fucking CNN in recognizing that their beloved savior just crashed and burned.

Edit:

Ok, nevermind. If we look in the discussion threads, they actually are seeing it for what it is. It’s funny either way, and a crack up that it looks like they’re still trying to spin it as a win for Biden if you just go by the post topics.

ah, I’ve never watched a CinemaSins video. it sounds like something I can safely avoid

It is not just something that can be safely avoided, it is something that you should avoid if you value having braincells. That said, you would definitely be missing out if you didn’t sample some of Shaun’s (leftist skull boy) videos exhibiting just how bad CinemaSins really is.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB8NXe_on1cV3bJvw_FA1FX-FI7PGZnV_ Same playlist and videos, but invidious frontend: https://invidious.fdn.fr/playlist?list=PLB8NXe_on1cV3bJvw_FA1FX-FI7PGZnV_

For those who don’t already know Shaun, I’d also recommend his more serious work on topics like the US dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians in Japan, The racist and ableist origins and continued racist/ableist use of The Bell Curve, his series on BBC’s Transphobia, etc.

people like to think that maybe dubya was voted out over iraq, but that absolutely is not true, his problem was the economy (stupid).

Dubya wasn’t voted out. He got 2 terms. Or am I misunderstanding what you were getting at there?

Yeah, it’s in the code of conduct: Any pictures of food containing animal products, including but not limited to meat, cheese, or egg, must be tagged nsfw along with food discussion content warnings (CW: Food).

Thank ya.

I hate to be “that” person, but could you please put a content warning on this for the meat?

Masks still aren’t a moot point, asshole. Cloth masks were never very effective, they didn’t suddenly just stop. That doesn’t change the fact that N95s were and continue to be effective and it’s nonsense that they weren’t worn correctly by “nearly anyone.”

Maybe, but there are hordes of bougsie wine cave warriors in that area and a fuckton of tourists giving that place a plenty of real business.

Not pictured, but next door to this is a wine-tasting bar.

But… snake’s buttholes aren’t at the end of their tails. They’re like 1/3 of the entire snake-length up from the tail’s end!
💩

It wasn’t totally without benefits, yeah. But something else now possible that (for the most part) couldn’t be done then is just hit pause when you want a break. That way you don’t have to worry about having to either set the gameboy back down to watch when the commercials end or miss some of the show because you’re about to beat the level and can’t just stop playing. Like, commercials were good for a piss break and grabbing some snacks too, but if you were too long in the other room and you came back you’d have no idea how that mini-cliff-hanger resolved.

Our music was better, yes, but or TV shows absolutely were just breaks between Pharma ads. As a kid in the 90s I remember despising having to wait through seemingly endless obnoxious fucking commercials (never understood why no one else around me really seemed to mind that much). And every single show would make like a mini cliff hanger for the very purpose of cutting to ads at that moment. God that pissed me off, totally destroyed any tension that they might have built. But now, since the advent of adblockers, I haven’t watched media interrupted by commercials (at least of the non-diagetic kind) in well over a decade. Maybe the commercials and time lengths are worse now, but I wouldn’t know because I can simply choose not see them. A godsend.

Nah. Even if other people were inhaling an infected person’s cough, that doesn’t mean that the virus itself can replicate in another human. Yet. It still has to evolve that ability. But the more this sort of thing happens, the more likely that becomes.

And oil companies re climate change.

And the oil companies re leaded gasoline poisoning.

And chemical companies re DDT, then again re glyphosate.

And “food” companies re fats vs sugars.

Also other examples I’m not thinking of at the moment, not to mention all the shit that is undoubtedly going on right now we don’t even know about yet and may never know about.

It’s almost as if we can’t rely on corporations (or the governments that “regulate” them) not to literally poison everyone and destroy the biosphere for the sake of their short term profit. Strange.

Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:

If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.

As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.

A journalist kept bugging Assad about his thoughts on Trump and he kept repeating that he doesn’t care because the American agenda remains the same whether a clown or no-nonsense politician is president.

Didn’t Putin also say the same thing, almost word for word, in the Putin interview? It’s possible I’m remembering wrong, but I thought that was his answer after Tucker the chicken fucker kept pestering Putin for an answer on Trump.

How can a biological male, who was never a female, know the feeling he feels is that of a woman?

How can a biological male who was never a different individual biological male, know the feeling that he feels is that of another man? He can’t! He’s never been another man, only the individual that he is. So he can never know that the way he feels “as a man” is anything at all like how another man might feel “as a man.” However, since as a social species we have empathy we can make reasonable assumptions about how other people feel, in part based on what they say they feel, and no less so because they have different bits between their legs than if they have a different color of hair.

None of us can unambiguously know what it is like to be another person. This is an obvious truism. The way you’re trying to use it to draw this arbitrary line between what people can know about their own feelings, but only as determined by what kind of genitalia they were born with… it’s gross. And whether intended or not, bigoted. People of any and all genders can have empathy for anyone else of any and all genders. We can also know how we feel internally when society around us sees us as we feel we are, versus how we feel internally when society around us sees as as what we feel we are not. The former is good and affirming. The latter is painful and dejecting.

Their biological mechanisms have also been studied and partially understood by science. “Gender feelings”, not so much

Btw, there has been scientific research on transgender issues. Famously, there was a great trove of it that was burned by the Nazis in Germany. You know those infamous book burnings? Yeah, that was transgender scientific research. Fortunately, there has been a lot of other valid scientific studies done since then, too. All of it confirming the things people in this thread have been trying to tell you, even when you call it “fickle” or insist that your society isn’t empathetic enough to ever accept (which I categorically reject.)