Rudy Giuliani

They are going to put a legit demon in there. Some absolute grindset freak. They are not going to squander one of the most important offices of the executive.

Most Americans think communism is when everybody earns exactly the same wage and everything belongs to the government.

They never said which axis to flatten...

We've got wildfires burning in November. I had to pull out my duct taped box fan air filter contraption. Fortunately, rain should be coming in a few hours.

Show

https://www.nj.com/news/2024/11/massive-nj-wildfire-grows-to-2500-acres-none-contained-yet-other-blazes-burning-too.html

Just soldered together a replacement throttle for my co-worker's e-bike. I hope I got it right.

People are asking for some transparency on how this decision was made, so here's my perspective.

Due to the racist origin of the term "The Dunk Tank," the decision was made that the community absolutely needs to be replaced by something which doesn't trace back to a carnival game titled "Hit the Coon."

Since we were re-naming / replacing the community, It was also considered a good time to reconsider the purpose of it. It served as an outlet for catharsis, but also has a misanthropic element to it, which, unchecked, leads to a smug self-satisfied "everyone is stupid but me" mindset.

The arguments seemed reasonable to me. I didn't make much input. I didn't find much to object to. I was under the understanding that c/gossip would be more-or-less the replacement, but that would focus more on significant public figures instead of the absolute bottom feeders of Twitter and Reddit. This was more or less the consensus among people in the discussion, so I don't think it is fair to lay everything at the feet of CARCOSA

So this was basically me:

Show

I still think the changes were reasonably justified. I think they probably could have been communicated better. I also think we would be in a better place if the discussion thread remained constructive, rather than spiraling into a tornado of accusations and innuendo. That discussion was a fiasco. Decisions at the administration / moderation level could have been more transparent, but instead of discussing that we went straight to assuming everyone had an ulterior motive.

In particular, it seems like sometimes the argument being made is "democracy is good and worthwhile, but Western countries aren't really democratic", and other times the argument is "actually democracy is an illusion and not worth aspiring to in the first place".

The first is pretty much it. The second is not something I have ever heard in abstract (only, perhaps, that specific "pro-democracy" movements do not have a liberatory foundation). The main problem is that Democracy means different things to different people. In practice, it is pretty much a meaningless term unless it is carefully defined in context.

To the Bourgeoisie, democracy means the freedom to enter markets. To the Liberal, democracy means a subset of society (citizens without a criminal record, for instance) get to vote for representatives, and a greater or lesser degree of civil liberties exist to engage in electioneering. To the US Founders, democracy was a framework for landowners and speculators to organize society without organizing the state around a bloodline. To the Marxist, democracy only exists to the extent that workers are able to decide how society is organized - what work shall be done, who is going to do it, how is it going to be done, to what degree, for what reasons, etc. Democracy itself literally translates as "rule of the people." The means by which the people rule (which of the "four boxes," for instance) is not included in the definition. The statement "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun," will make a Liberal's stomach churn, but it is not a fundamentally anti-democratic principle. The question is, who's holding those guns? Who are they being pointed at?

In the United States, we conflate electoralism with democracy. We're "democratic" because we have elections. The fact that we have two parties to choose from makes us more "democratic" than countries with a single party political system (ignoring the fact that Congressional approval routinely sits between 10-20%, while many one-party systems enjoy much higher public approval). The fact that we are a largely technocratic society where any decisions not being made by the administration are being made through bureaucracy or in the board rooms of private firms, rather than by the public, is irrelevant.

Very important to note that all the motherfuckers playing the identity politics card about Bernie and his campaign in 2020 are the FIRST to throw trans people and latinos under the bus. First in line to blame Kamala's loss on her being a woman.

Please see the announcement: https://hexbear.net/post/3856299?scrollToComments=false

Lesser evilism should be applied along the lines of critical support. This "lesser" evil must actually be an indispensable bulwark against a greater evil. It is absolutely not something you should exhaust yourself on. There is a big difference between critical support and evangelism.

Liberals will readily describe their champions as a lesser evil, and use that as a license to evangelize for evil. As long as Hitler is out there somewhere wandering the globe, they are justified. They also often misidentify the greater evil for the lesser evil because idealism is a purely vibe-based ideological framework.

Fuck Pelosi for a thousand different reasons over the course of decades but she was far and away the person most vocally calling for him to step down.

To me, Pelosi's public statements mean very little. Pelosi is not an outside pressure-group begging for the party to take action. She is one of the apex shot-callers in the party, along with Schumer, the Clintons, and Obama. Although she passed the torch of House Speaker to Hakeem Jefferies, she remains a fixture of the House of Representatives, and surely had inside knowledge of Biden's condition.

Here's a vignette chronicled in WSJ (archive.ph) (July 21, 2024)

President Biden had just finished trying to persuade a group of congressional Democrats to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill when Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, took the microphone.

In 30 minutes of remarks on Capitol Hill, Biden had spoken disjointedly and failed to make a concrete ask of lawmakers, according to Democrats in the room. After he left, a visibly frustrated Pelosi told the group she would articulate what Biden had been trying to say, one lawmaker said.

“It was the first time I remember people pretty jarred by what they had seen,” recalled Rep. Dean Phillips (D., Minn.), who would go on to mount an unsuccessful primary challenge against the president.

That was October 2021. That month was the last time Biden met with the House Democratic caucus on the Hill regarding legislation.

They knew the man's brain was toast in 2021. On at least this one occasion, Pelosi was personally involved in performing Biden's duties after he had proven incapable. They waited two more years, until the "primary" was over, to get rid of him. I think this was a deliberate choice. She WOULD have used the 25th amendment process if she needed to, but there is a reason this showdown only came to a head within weeks of the convention. They DID NOT want to give their constituents any opportunity to re-popularize the social democratic policies which dominated the 2020 primary campaign, or turn it into a referendum on Israel. They DID NOT want to risk allowing a charismatic progressive to seize their party apparatus by the reigns the way Sanders almost had in 2020.

When the Democratic Party elects an insider, this is supposed to foreclose the possibility of any change for eight years. This is what would have happened if Kamala won. Like in 2024, there would be no primaries in 2028, because "you don't primary an incumbent." Then the VP is supposed to take over for another eight years. We are absolutely, positively not supposed to have the kind of influence over rhetoric that we had in 2016-2020. This only happens when the party finds itself absolutely leaderless, like it did in 2016 (Obama termed out, Clinton utterly discredited, Biden off being sad somewhere). Nothing gives them more heartburn than having to pretend that they give a shit about our health and well-being. They much prefer to say and promise nothing while they cut deals with the biggest fish in finance.

If your state itemizes write-ins (like, all of them. Not many do), these things read like a message board lmao.

https://www.bergencountyclerk.gov/_Content/pdf/ElectionResult/write-ins%2011_7_24_signed.pdf

100ug is considered an average dose. It is definitely noticeable, though it takes about 45 minutes to an hour to come on. 250ug is pretty strong.

Depending on preparation, dosage can be very hit or miss though. A blotter sheet (perforated square, usually of around 100 squares) might not be evenly distributed. Sugar cubes dosed with a pipette might not be consistent. Contact with chlorinated tap water, among other things, can cause LSD to deteriorate. If it has been sitting in storage for a couple years, it might not work anymore.

If the LSD doesn't work, try the shrooms.

AFAIK there is no proof of this, but it seems obvious to me they deliberately left Biden in to avoid holding a primary election. The man had obvious cognitive issues back in 2020. They knew he was out to lunch the whole time. When you have a competitive primary, candidates actually have to start working with constituencies and organizations, granting concession (or simply making promises) in return for support.

What we saw in this "election" cycle is what happens when a candidate makes it on to the general election ballot with no prior commitments to their constituents whatsoever. Every aspect of the incoming administration was for sale. The entire campaign was targeted at gathering "donations."

Learning that the democrats simply don't give a shit is what set me on my current path.

We're so back.

Welcome back

Yes, but don't worry.