This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.
That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.
That’s a limp deflection. Is it really so difficult to not go around mocking people for typing errors like a 13-year-old?
Go back to Reddit
Such a pathetic thing to say. Even if what they were saying was true, why does the show need to be about the election? Isn’t it, like, a political comedy show? Aren’t there other political issues to talk about? idk, I hate South Park anyway, but it seems like a remarkably stupid thing to say.
Oh sure, Owen was mistaken from the outset because his genuinely more-efficient way of running things isn’t going to be as profitable to the owning class, meaning that no amount of advocacy can escape the gravitational pull of the profit motive dragging it down into the mire of human misery. I was just talking about what he did that ruined his career from a practical standpoint by drawing the ire of the bourgeoisie, which was not his company town model alone.
Sorry to spam you with nitpicks, but I do feel obliged to say that while Einstein was certainly a socialist and spoke very well of Lenin and even Stalin, I don’t think we have evidence of him having a specific and cultivated political ideology that fit a label like “Marxism.” I think he was more of a generic humanist who appreciated what his Marxist contemporaries were doing.
Incidentally, how did Marx borrow from Proudhon? I fully only know of Proudhon through Discourse about concerning material he wrote and that quote about, ironically, wishing for a future where he would be executed as a conservative.
I think that what fucked over Owen, according to Engels, was not his coops but his assessment that they were inadequate and more fundamental changes to society were required, concerning marriage, religion, and something else that I forget. For just the coops, he was celebrated in a way that isn’t even that different from the OP, because he didn’t really shatter the existing paradigm, but produce an extremely productive version of it that just happened to be relatively pro-social.
I should clarify that my position is that I use AD/BC in everyday speech, but if I had to actually publish something public facing, I certainly would use the CE/BCE system for the obvious reasons. My objection to you was not that using the system is bad, but that it’s a trivial thing and therefore (by my attempted implication) an annoying and pointless thing to try to “correct” someone on.
So I did actually read the link, and I didn’t know all of the history, but I did have pretty good familiarity with modern Discourse about it as the article outlines. I would say the only compelling addition is this:
Roman Catholic priest and writer on interfaith issues Raimon Panikkar argued that the BCE/CE usage is the less inclusive option since they are still using the Christian calendar numbers and forcing it on other nations. In 1993, the English-language expert Kenneth G. Wilson speculated a slippery slope scenario in his style guide that, “if we do end by casting aside the AD/BC convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system [that is, the method of numbering years] itself, given its Christian basis.”
I’d really like for the numbering system to change, so I suppose that’s an argument in favor of being annoying.
I’m aware of what it is. It’s still literally just the Christian calendar with different terminology.
It’s a silly way to secular-wash a Christian system. If you want a secular calendar, you should have it not oriented around the birth of Christ. Very underrated decision by the dprk to have their calendar based on the founding of the country.
Biden said of the bill, “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”
Jeeesus, what a fucking scoundrel. Literally just a Republican at this point.
They absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.
c/askchapo , depending on the question
Don’t you know that Stalin owned the whole Soviet Union?!? 
And fact is not subjective, opinion is, and you seem to lump them together
You say this about the comment in which I say:
In essence, it is a media consensus machine with some basic reading comprehension thrown in for people who can’t read English well enough to determine if a statement is, for example, an expression of the authors feelings or a statement on facts of the world.
Not to mention that “whether something is a fact or not” or, more commonly, “what is the most likely explanation for what we are seeing,” is typically not something you have practical access to, which is why you are reading about it, so what you are left with is not metaphysical truth, but testimony, which is very corruptible. I don’t just mean this as a hypothetical, I mean that most outlets engage in an aggressive battle over a small minority of mostly-social subjects while operating in complete or near-complete agreement on many important topics.
But even if we want to sidestep the issue of testimony mediating our access to metaphysical truth, there is still the question of which facts to include.
Low-hanging fruit:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-08-21/clinton-dnc-speech-harris-endorsement-joy
ctrl+f “epstein”: 0
ctrl+f “epstein”: 0
Seems like it’s missing important information that it could at least mention in passing about the subject of the piece, but maybe that’s just me. I guess it’s all relative.
And it uses primary sources for information verification, and those tend to be major outlets purely due to their size.
Like I alluded to in mentioning “circular citation”, very often news organizations aren’t doing anything resembling original research in their articles. They are just publishing what other articles already said.
But you are still missing that this is question-begging the correctness of the media, even though they have over and over been shown to be quite willing to work together to push atrocity propaganda and all kinds of nonsense.
I was simply making a joke about the idea that the Russian perspective should be thrown out and we should only listen to Western-Aligned sources because the latter were insisting in the wake of the blast that Russia blew up its own pipeline while Russia said that they obviously weren’t.
A better example might have been the prison full of Azovites that got rocketed, but I was going for something that I was sure anyone who gave a shit about Ukraine/Russia, even from a superficial culture war perspective, would be familiar with.
Russia is objectively the nation who started the war,
The war began 8 years before Russia invaded, it’s just that Russia’s invasion is the only thing most countries cared/care about.
I don’t know how to explain to you that perspective is a problem that can’t be escaped by using machines. It’s like using video in place of vision; yeah, there are obviously plenty of cases where it’s helpful for a specific task, but fundamentally you are going from using a human to using something made by humans.
From what I can glean immediately, this thing gets its idea of the “truth” from what is published on major new sites, like PBS, NYT, and such. As a result, what it can “verify” from circular citation becomes what is “true.” In essence, it is a media consensus machine with some basic reading comprehension thrown in for people who can’t read English well enough to determine if a statement is, for example, an expression of the authors feelings or a statement on facts of the world.
Who blew up that Nordstream pipeline?
You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.