Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
258
-
175
-
111
-
83
-
82
-
49
-
39
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
30
-
30
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
"must be really bad" Nah, it's not. Covid levels are low (92nd in the world for past-7-days per-capita new infections), restrictions are light (everything open), mood not great but ok.
Bad points: Vaccine passports reqd for plane and train travel, restaurants except outdoor sections, larger indoor gatherings like concerts, a couple of other spots. Vaccine mandates for many govt jobs, some jobs in govt-regulated sectors, and numerous large companies. Some vital services losing some staff to mandates but not many, as vaccination coverage is high (90% of over-11s).
Anyone who says it's a nightmare or as bad as Australia has a screw loose. Govts trying to steer a middle course as people on both sides are yelling at them (and each other).
Crime up somewhat (e.g. murders in Toronto (pop. 3m) 74 vs. 61 last year (early-Nov. both years). For comparison, LA (pop. 4m) 325 vs. 277, late-Oct. both years).
Vaccination coverage higher than US (79% vs. 67%; doses per 100 people 156 vs. 129). New infections per million, past week: Ontario 230, Canada 447, Calif. 1,071, US 1,518.
Peterson is justified in railing against the difficulty of leaving the country if unvaccinated, but then international borders are always more of a hassle than the rest of life. To me the big problem is that authoritarians have had the upper hand at times, damaging the customs surrounding individual adult choice. The media are consistently more authoritarian in spirit than the people, but that spirit has simmered down across the board whenever spread has.
I feel disappointed in many ways but reassured in many others. Canada didn't lose its head. Yes, authoritarians feel emboldened and that's a serious danger, but on the other hand consciousness of individual rights is far higher too.
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It's like when you were a little kid and your parents wouldn't let you watch certain movies. They let on (not in so many words) that they were basically bad and that's why you couldn't watch them. Then you found out that they were the ones they considered the most serious, interesting, enjoyable, funny, best-acted, best-made, and all the rest.
When I was about eleven they (accurately) deemed that I was ready, rather swiftly began to relent, and I got to see what all the fuss was about.
Once you've seen all those great movies from the great directors of the 1967-75 era, the ones my parents loved, the ones that dealt with every imaginable subject, that left nothing or next to nothing out, there's no going back. I never again fully believed anything any authorities told me, except rarely.
(The whole time since has essentially been an attempt to find my own ways of confirming or disproving what others just swallow whole when it's passed to them.)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
 @worldpeace8299 Haha, hilarious. Why on earth not "react to" your screen name? (As if I'm ridiculing the one you were born with! You chose it. )
So you're not only a childish senior citizen, you sound like a Marxist to boot. Nothing matters but exploitation! No such thing as talent, effort, likability, or conscientiousness. No way for people to mess up their lives by way of stupidity or slacking off. Even luck doesn't exist, just cutthroat exploitation resulting in mass victimhood.
Like Marx himself, Marxists are simply personality cases, themselves victims of psychological projection. He exploited everyone he could, even screwing his maid under his wife's nose, then denying paternity of the resulting child. Things like that were why he pointed fingers at others. "Everyone is out to exploit the weak," he would say, "except me." 'Right, I like the sound of that. Except me! Brilliant!' said you when you heard it.
In fact, countless social and legal rules moderate people's inborn instincts to take mean advantage of one another. If it were not so, you'd have no right to stand up and chatter your nonsense about universal exploitation. The powerful would simply shut you up and you'd disappear.
Funny, though, the systems of governance where things like that actually happen on an industrial scale are any based on Marx's teachings and those of his disciples. That's where the real meatpackers set up shop. Psychological projection again: 'I'd love nothing more than to dominate ruthlessly, so let's round up people and kill them, and say it's in order to make abuse a thing of the past.'
Thanks, but no. A number of countries set a workable example of freedom within a framework of moderate regulation sufficient to restrain pirates, and taxes enough to level the playing field within reason. I agree those things should be supported.
Beyond that, improving the world starts with a long look in the mirror. If you abuse the man you see there, no one cares, so have a go.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
 @Skygrey2943 The world is going to have security services the same as it's going to have earthquakes and glaciers. So one has to choose which ones to hope do their job better (or turn one's eyes away from the world entirely, but I can't). And I choose the ones Palantir works for, leaning towards the belief that, aided by Karp and company, their success will make the world less scary, not more.
Likewise I cheer on Starlink because it's at the service of Ukraine, not Russia. Likewise Lockheed, because it serves the US government, not the CCP. I left childish things like Utopian hopes and dreams behind when I left childhood. A couple of years before that, actually.
So instead of sanctimony and pearl-clutching and groaning, I have the mental energy left over to proofread what I write. It ain't much, but it's something rather than nothing.
You've done well so far, I'm pretty sure, and I congratulate you on that. I also wish you the best on the rest of your journey. Thanks for your reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
â @hl5910 Ok, but it's not anything blatant. The N.'s never showed much if any genuine socialistic tendencies, policies or actions. The "S" in the party name was more of a ruse than anything else. It's fairer to say that fascism and socialism share some things in common. I'm fine with that, with listing them, and with delving into all the meaningful similarities, but really it's the differences which are more major.
Mostly the N.'s were just capitalizing on the spirit of the times, because people were pretty mad about the poor economic conditions, the inflation, the drop in the standard of living, the global depression, etc., while the rich were still doing fine. Many people (unfortunately) believed socialism was the answer, so it was helpful to a radical new party to claim socialist leanings. Really, however, the N.'s were all about (1) ethnic nationalism and (2) the supremacy of the state over the people, commerce, churches and everything else. They did believe in private property, which isn't something socialism really stands for, but their economic vision beyond that was pretty unfocused.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Fair take. Views collected with scientifically methodical scrupulosity have greater value in an important sense.
But there's value in other ways too. Video of students walking around tearing down posters of hostages, e.g., tells us things that a well-conducted survey cannot. (Not to imply you said anything directly contrary to this view of mine.)
Speaking of surveys, consider that Pew Research found that Democrats and Democratic leaners aged 18-30 sympathize far more with the Palestinians than the Is rae lis â 47% vs. 7%. (Survey results published April 2, 2024.)
Views on elite college campuses â where people are younger than the 18-30 group as a whole, and lean politically farther left â are likely even more lopsided.
While absence of sympathy for Isr. does not equate to endorsement of H.s., we can safely assume that among the callow & sanctimonious on elite college campuses, there is some relation between the two. In my view, any relation greater than zero is disturbing, wrong, harmful, and deserves to be publicized.
Anyway, thanks for making a fair point in a measured way.
EDIT: Note the multiple blank spaces above, inserted not by me but by the omniscient algo overlord at the moment of posting. Experience has taught me that they indicate that disapproval of my views which always precedes a period of shadow-you-know-what-ing. So dark, so very 2024.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good lord that is....well, I'm not going to say the word. But suffice it to say that you're implying Elon has an IQ of 5.
Obviously she is a refugee from WEF-ism and wokeism. Fn obviously, dude. It stands to reason that she was dying inside, but really had nowhere else to go and continue work at the one thing she knows, hustling ads. When she started 30 years ago it wasn't like it is now.
Ok, she was somewhat too conformist, I guess, but give her a break. There's a hundred million other people in the country who don't like what's going on either, but want to keep their jobs. They're not all p.o.s.'s. They have kids to support. They're up against something vastly larger than them.
So praise the heroes openly fighting it; try to forgive those who haven't gotten there yet because they'd be jobless, cancelled, or both. Hero is a big word because heroes aren't that common, so just salute her for what she's now done: by which I mean turning her back on the whole world of woke garbage. That's really all we need everybody to do, and we could breathe again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @ryananderson5202 You wrote that the boomers have to get out of the way. I get how tempting that idea is, I really, really do. But it's no solution. You would quickly find their replacements more appalling yet.
The civilization is in a long down-cycle of an even longer decline. No respite is on the horizon, despite what a few like you in the generations that followed the boomers ardently hope are possibilities their cohort can reverse it. I'm not sure you realize you are even more rare in your generationâit pains me to say it but you're far, far, far more rareâ than your worthy counterparts were in theirs, back in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc. when they took over. They couldn't contain the landslide, so you and your skeleton crew, no matter how sharp-eyed and determined, have absolutely no chance at all.
Go ahead and try, though. Trying delays the total collapse a little bit, so it's worth it. It will also hasten the onset of a minor counter-cycle if there is indeed even one of those left before the end. (Rome, as you may know, had several whilst remaining stuck on its course of total doom, but then its threats from outside were pretty manageable, so I'm wary of hoping too much.)
Even if there is a bit of a counter-cycle on its way, I doubt you'll live to see it, as I would say our current momentum precludes it. I suspect you're Gen-X, and if so there's not enough time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Somehow in the past six to 12 months The Rubin Report, already a great show, has just blossomed into something at a new level. I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems like something to do with focus, intensity, clarity and depth of insight. Great guests, messages, presentation, great hilarity from Dave. Was it life changes behind it, the move to Florida, new staff? All those and more? Anyway, it's been fantastic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
â @williamwalter4992 Sure. Whenever the US chooses right-wingers over left-wing meatpackers it's somehow the wrong thing to do. Like favouring Taiwan over China today? US business is much better of with Taiwan and its 60% share of global chipmaking, as you know.
The one thing you got right is that Russia is paranoid. You know this, yet you swallow its narrative on 2014, ignoring the legitimate desires of the Ukrainian people. And if Ukraine joining NATO is somehow an 'existential' issue for Russia, how does stopping it do anything about the 'existential' threat of NATO along Russia's eastern border? The Baltic states are considerably closer to Moscow than Ukraine, and so is Finland, whose accession to NATO Putin himself in recent months pronounced a matter of indifference.
All these arguments of yours fall apart in the slightest breeze. It's time for you to admit that Putin constitutes an enormous ongoing and mounting threat to global security, including US national security, and absolutely must be opposed with an iron will until his threat vastly diminishes or ends altogether.
That is all to say nothing about the imperative of supporting Ukraine militarily for moral reasons. Mass murder, mass rape, mass torture, mass destruction, mass theft, not to mention a mountain of hateful liesâif you're fine not opposing those things with force you are morally bankrupt.
Have a nice day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
â @JS-es5ep The American writer Susan Sontag, born about the time your European friend was, and though not everybody's idea of a great sage (that's me in dry understatement mode), was right when she said around 25 years ago that, while in the 1950s it made sense for people to relax a little, people took it way too far, and that by that time (the second half of the 90s) it was well past time they started getting much more serious again.
I think some people did begin trying around that time (some, of course, were always appropriately sober-minded) but it was too late. A 'laid-back' cluelessness was by then entrenched and couldn't be stopped. People's commitment to letting their personalities run wild, just to see where they ended up, was too strong.
People thought things like order, prosperity, and freedom were bulletproof, were just 'there' like the sun and the moon. Any necessary adjustments to the 60s-rebellion let-the-kids-rule program could be handled in the far-off future.
But the future has a strong tendency to show up early, and here we are.
Thanks for that reply, which I read with interest and sympathy.
I'm surprise these posts aren't being truncated, as mine often are if they are long and have a low Positivity and Cheerfulness Quotientâas measured by the electronic overlord minding our conversations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(1) Pinfold's Dictum: Two wrongs don't make a right. They make a leftist.
(2) Tedros Adhanom, head of the WHO, is in fact a politician, the first non-physician to hold that position.
A former health researcher, he showed his dedication to the field of health by abandoning it entirely from 2012 to 2016 in order to hold a job as Ethiopian foreign minister.
The government was at that time headed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. (!)
According to the World Bank, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (now dissolved since its electoral loss in 2019) stood for âclose co-operation with China on economic and trade policiesâ.
A gloss of the âclose co-operationâ may be found on Wikipedia, part of which reads:
âBetween 2000 and 2014, China provided over $12 billion in loan finance (usually tied to infrastructure projects undertaken by Chinese firms). [...] The Chinese appear to be interested in Ethiopia for political reasons (among African countries, its governance and developmental orientation is closest to that of China, and it hosts the African Union headquarters).â
And let me point out that all this didn't come to an end in 2014. That was merely the year up to which this statement covers. Ethiopia-China relations have remained close. And I want to stress that Adanom was the foreign minister, Ethiopia's point man for its deep ties to China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Satoshi is not only anonymous but indistinguishable from fiction. Who says there was any Satoshi? Who says he isn't a fabrication of the government, who foresaw no normal way to gain control of every penny of all the US dollars in the world, aside from converting it all to crypto? What public wouldn't receive such a plan with outrage?
And so one can easily imagine Satoshi was really a government team who launched it as a math and programming thing, only to soon seed it in the public mind as a freedom thing.
Then, after it caught on sufficiently, the government could say, as they now have, "This is very dangerous. Crypto is good, but it must be government crypto." Presto, the end of paper money and the least bit of un-traceability. Guess where we'll be when we have only the Internet, the 5G cell networks, and crypto?Â
Landlines, gone. The post office, closed. Physical money, gone. No need for the Big Brother tele-screen in every home. You won't be able to spend a cent nor communicate with anyone except the person beside you anymore, without the government observing and recording every detail. Whether the government invented Bitcoin or not, I would say the ante in this game for the future of human dignity is being upped massively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm one of Musk's strong admirers, but I find him misguided here and I have an idea of perhaps why.
Numerous publications (Bloomberg, Newsweek, The Independent, The New Yorker, etc.) attribute some credibility to reports, denied by Musk, that around the time of the invasion he talked by phone with Putin, who told him he was willing to use nukes if thwarted in his aims in Ukraine. I bet that's what did it.
(Musk went ahead and provided Starlink service to Ukraine anywayâfree for the better part of a year, and at a discount since thenâwhich I think was an exemplary move. Without his help it's likely Russia would've annexed most of Ukraine in short order, reducing it to a rump state with Lvov as its capital.)
 So I'm saying that Musk is seriously spooked about standing up to the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis. He thinks they totally mean business and will escalate with few to no limits. War terrifies him. Of course, Putin is very, very good at issuing threats and having them taken seriously, and for this reason I can't really blame Musk. Even the US government and NATO are clearly somewhat intimidated.
For my part, I too think the authoritarian axis means business. I think they likely are indeed willing to start wars all over the place. I am close to saying eagerly intent on.
But I differ with Musk nonetheless. Standing up to them isn't optional. If the US and the other democratic countries don't, then we'll be finished in relatively short order: China, Russia and Iran will basically start running the world. Thinking resistance extremely dangerous, the vast majority of lesser powers will quickly submit to the turning tide.
The West will be thus isolated, marginalized, rapidly impoverished and soon under direct threat itself. And fewer than ten years might suffice for all this to materialize. For these reasons, I see this as not only the best but probably the only time to stand up for ourselves and for a world where people can for the most part breathe free. Before very long it would likely be too late. We have everything to lose, so the choice right now is to oppose or capitulate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I feel like at some point we're going to be told on some flimsy pretext that we have to get on trains and go somewhere "for our safety," that we have to leave everything behind, that because of some "emergency," elections are temporarily suspended, i.e. indefinitely. The news will be news as they knew it in Germany in WWII, there'll be no more travel, no more decent food, no more ability to speak up at all, countless things all of a sudden against the law. Total powerlessness.
You know that notorious motto "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"? It'll have other de facto ones to go with it: "You'll have no idea what's going on and you'll be happy," "You'll have no idea what's going to happen to you and you'll be happy," "You'll be silent and you'll be happy"....
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @hnhl2770 Sure, I understood it. Then, finding it inane, I contradicted it. Is that a first for you or something?
And I never said anything about preventing AI, any more than I would've said anything about preventing future war by putting the UN Security Council in charge of the world. (That last part is an analogy for the hopelessness of your bold plan.)
"Decentralized and free" AI is the unlikeliest thing I've ever heard of. And even if it were to come to pass, the best result it could generate would be AGI wars, to which humans would be mere spectators, and which would devastate the world with breathtaking speed.
No, our best hope is something like the race, which the United States won, to build nuclear weapons during the Second World War â except that this time the US had better make sure some fiend nation or other fiend entity doesn't build its own shortly afterwards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Assuming you mean 'publicly,' sorry but that wouldn't be smart. She took a job working for Musk, the guy who publicly said "If we can't get rid of the woke mind-virus, nothing else matters," and that tells you all you need to know. There's no need for us to imitate the wokesters themselves and start demanding public declarations of repentance. That's commie crap, and we don't want it becoming cemented in as a lasting part of our culture.
The crucial fact right now is that she has a job to do at X, namely attracting advertisers. That's her job, that's what she's good at. She was good at it at Comcast and she's perhaps not very good at anything else. So if she grandstands about the evils of wokeness (which she was presumable sick to death of at Comcast) she's bound to fail, thus harming the company she and Elon are trying to turn around and build. It would be the least smart and most totally pointless thing she could possibly do.
It's usâElon, you, me and as many hundreds of millions of X users as possibleâwho should be the ones speaking out against wokeism. Literally everyone else in the world, but not her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3 points: (1) Mika Brzezinski actually has a great political bloodline. Her dad Zbigniew was the highly-respected National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter throughout his term (1977-81). Alas, as the case of Justin Trudeau attests, children of distinguished statesmen may well turn out to be total duds.
(2) I finally figured out why Biden chose Kringela Harris. It was specially for her total awfulness, in order that when at last he became truly, completely, undeniably, functionally incapacitated (as he clearly is now) it would never occur to a soul to remove him and put her in his place.
Think about it: if his VP were even halfway competent-seeming, Democrat calls for his removal on grounds of mental degeneration â indeed, the calls of Republicans and the entire nation â would have by now resulted in his replacement by that VP. But no, the Biden the strategy has worked. She is so deeply unpalatable that Biden will remain in the Oval Office until January 2025, unless he dies or sinks into a literal coma.
(3) October/November 2023 is when Dave Rubin absolutely caught fire. I always liked you, Dave, but I can say now what I wouldn't have said four years ago, that you have blossomed into a political and social pundit of the top tier.đđ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
â @markmuller8829 That sounds rather like an argument against freedom of expression as dangerous and in need of policing by authorities with the power to decide what is an opinion, what's a fact, what is valid data, which studies are valid, what are 'reputable sources' (!). Chilling.
It's half a step or less from 'We need truth police to combat this danger. Your public expression will be evaluated for truth by me and my group or those we appoint. We'll determine whether it constitutes a lie. Freedom is tyranny. Censorship is freedom.'
Don't you realize that is simply a return to the pre-democracy era, to the stranglehold of absolute monarchs, to theocracies, to the totalitarian horrors of the 20th century, to the China and North Korea and Iran of today?
Who on earth taught you that freedom of expression is a deadly poison? Yes it can cause harm, but only in the same sense that any human faculty can. Far more poisonous and destructive are attempts to restrict it beyond bare necessity, i.e. the prohibition of incitement to crime, libel, slander, revealing of state or military secrets. That's about it. Want to do battle against lies? Your weapon is the truth, not force.
If freedom of expression is so bad, how did two centuries of it produce anything so wonderful as you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @simonr-vp4if You didn't realize anything. You only internalized false teaching.
If only 8% of firefighters are women, that is not tantamount to the starvation of women. Your inflamed rhetoric of mere analogizing amounts to rampant and inexcusable category inflation, like an adolescent likening her wise parents to Nat's Ease. ("You're the worst parents ever!")
You're forgetting, in your show-off self-flagellating recollection of youth, that 9 out of 10 people (if not 19 out of 20) were all eating well at the same cluster of tables in a warm and convivial dining hall.
Thanks to the vision you've bought unthinkingly off the shelf like consumer packaged goods, they've now been taught that they're enemies, that they should be snatching at the food on each other's plates, that they should clutch their knives in readiness. And all too many of them have taken that teaching to heart, utterly ruining the charm which formerly belonged to dining together as one.
As a vision it's an extremely backwards-moving embrace â no, a celebration â of baseless resentment, baseless division and baseless conflict, under a false mantle of Utopianism. Check, please!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1