Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 13 2025 22:23 Timebon3s wrote: Gonna need some sources on that bro
it is common sense. But, if you require google to hand feed you this stuff... here you go.
The primary stimulus for muscle growth, or hypertrophy, is a combination of mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle damage, all of which are effectively triggered by resistance exercise. A well-designed resistance training program, sufficient volume, high intensity, and progressive overload, along with proper nutrition, is crucial for stimulating muscle growth.
Without mechanical tension muscles atrophy. Straight from google. the body needs a REASON to devote limited resources towards luxury items like muscles. the major organs come first. muscles are a luxury.
we can have a complete discussion about this topic in the health thread if you like.
On April 13 2025 21:47 Vivax wrote: Personally I like lighting up my brain with Italian cheese these days.
is Italian cheese a processed food? i don't use processed food to light up my brain. i light up my brain coding language compilers and playing games like foosball, and pinball with my cousins' and in laws' teenaged kids.
I couldn't disagree more with his take. Being civil with fascists is what got us into this mess.
Debating with them about 3rd (or infinite) terms, snatching people off the street and disappearing them, whether trans athletes are destroying civilization when there's more rape charges in the White House than there are trans athletes, starting a trade war with the whole world unprepared and using 4th grade maths, etc. - all this does is legitimize their ideas. It gives 3rd parties/weathervanes that aren't into politics and don't pay much attention to the details the impression that these are debatable issues, that the two engaged in such a debate are having a valid philosophical disagreement and either could be correct and they might decide who is correct based on some trivial bullshit like who is more confident or which "idea" appears to have more support on social media.
But it's not a legitimate debate, none of this is normal, all their actions break the social contract and we're failing to enforce it. And failing to enforce the social contract has disastrous consequences. The only way to deal with fascists is to punch them and call them out. "Owning" them in arguments doesn't do anything, they're immune to reason, shame, guilt or hypocrisy, they bounce back like nothing. Being kind to them does nothing, it doesn't change them or stop them from pushing towards the cliff.
It’s interesting in the sense that if Maher is to be believed, Trump is capable of behaving well, like a normal human in private settings.
Which, if anything is that not worse? At least ‘Trump gonna Trump’ is consistent, that’s who he is and he behaves accordingly. If that’s not the case and it’s part persona for his own benefit, that’s… better? :S
I broadly agree with your post aye. I think there’s a case to be made for more civility amongst the wider populace for those who are obviously not Fascists, it can alienate folks in the wrong direction. I remember some person accusing me of being a Nazi because I said I liked some black metal band (one of my least favourite metal-subgenres anyway). For the uninitiated, black metal vocals are basically incomprehensible, I’m sure some veterans learn the skill to decode the lyrics, I don’t have it. Anyway, the person was correct, but equally refused to believe ‘dude I didn’t know that, now I am aware I’m scrubbing this band from my library’. Anyway just a silly anecdote but you get the point.
And perhaps, at least some issues, don’t neglect them entirely or sidestep of course.
However, don’t do the ‘civil debate’ thing, because it’s often not reciprocal, you’re just platforming somebody else’s framing.
I don’t consume much of said content anymore, I did listen to the first (I think) Gavin Newsom podcast Blackjack linked where he’s making a point to extend the olive branch to non-liberals. Anyway the guest was Charlie Kirk.
All very civil and friendly, Newsom gave him a lot of rope and room for Kirk to say his pieces and crit the Dems at large. The second he got proper pushback, that conviviality turned very quickly to defensiveness and deflection and other such disingenuous methods of debate.
This isn’t atypical, hence why my ‘I don’t consume much of said content anymore’. You don’t just legitimise your opposition, you also make your side look weak, especially to the uninitiated.
Look, I’m sure the average USPol poster has enough knowledge to hand to go ‘hm, wait a minute’ in such chats, but that’s not everyone. Some will just judge based on what they’re watching, just because they don’t have a ton of background to couch it in.
The pattern is usually ‘yeah you guys have some legit points, we’ve neglected x issue and we’ve made some mistakes’, which would be fine for a dialogue if the other participant also did this. They usually don’t. So you end up with the left leaning person effectively handing the floor to the right-leaning one, with all that entails
On April 13 2025 22:23 Timebon3s wrote: Gonna need some sources on that bro
He‘s right, it just doesn‘t have anything to do with the original point.
you it does you said "steroids AND lack of movement". movement is the primary stimulus required to "get jacked". without the movement ... the steroids do not matter. Again though, we can discuss the dynamics and mechanisms behind muscle growth in the health thread if you like.
On April 13 2025 21:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The USA sweatshop factory memes are hilarious. The obese workers are no joke. 40% of American adults are obese. Despite what the 'body positivity' experts want obese people to feel about their bodies.... Obesity is a massive health risk. Obesity is a big impediment to a happy life.
China had an obesity rate of 3.1% in 2004. It is now 16.1%.
Many food scientists dedicate their research lives to creating hyper processed foods that light up the human brain more than cocaine.
On April 13 2025 22:23 Timebon3s wrote: Gonna need some sources on that bro
He‘s right, it just doesn‘t have anything to do with the original point.
you it does you said "steroids AND lack of movement". movement is the primary stimulus required to "get jacked". without the movement ... the steroids do not matter. Again though, we can discuss the dynamics and mechanisms behind muscle growth in the health thread if you like.
I meant the steroids in animals that are eaten by people that don‘t exercise enough as a partial cause of obesity.
Or are you concerned with the cattle being obese in the US? Maybe I misunderstood you.
On April 13 2025 21:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The USA sweatshop factory memes are hilarious. The obese workers are no joke. 40% of American adults are obese. Despite what the 'body positivity' experts want obese people to feel about their bodies.... Obesity is a massive health risk. Obesity is a big impediment to a happy life.
China had an obesity rate of 3.1% in 2004. It is now 16.1%.
Many food scientists dedicate their research lives to creating hyper processed foods that light up the human brain more than cocaine.
They changed it to a stack of US quarters. They've since created a couple of dozen different covers and never went back to the giant factory. These Rand objectivists are a bunch of sell outs!
All this said, it seems that one can compete very successfully against a bunch of high myopic, obese, low attention span, impulsive, lack of emotional control North American people. This requires a clear vision of a goal , some careful planning, and will power.
The economic opportunities in NA are not what they were 40 years ago. However, the competition is much weaker as well.
On April 13 2025 22:23 Timebon3s wrote: Gonna need some sources on that bro
He‘s right, it just doesn‘t have anything to do with the original point.
you it does you said "steroids AND lack of movement". movement is the primary stimulus required to "get jacked". without the movement ... the steroids do not matter. Again though, we can discuss the dynamics and mechanisms behind muscle growth in the health thread if you like.
I meant the steroids in animals that are eaten by people that don‘t exercise enough as a partial cause of obesity.
Or are you concerned with the cattle being obese in the US? Maybe I misunderstood you.
in your quote it seems like you are saying the cattle are not moving because you mention cattle in the sentence. but , i get what you are saying now. the people eating the cattle are not moving and the cattle they eat are on 'roids.
What is the law worth when Trump just pardons people who side with him or run darknet market operations because it makes people buy crypto ?
Try besieging the Austrian parliament and breaking stuff in it and see who pardons you.
Vandalize the seat of US power = pardon Burn cars = Terrorism
It‘s comical how the US is currently run. It already was on his first term but it wasn‘t as obvious.
Dude has a Russian visum in the drawer.
I have to exercise a lot of restraint on the daily to not take a fat crap over the situation.
Case in point.
Maybe mass burning cars that are targeted based on the politics of the head of the company to induce fear would best be classified a youthful mistake? A tragic accident? Protected political speech? Mere hooliganism?
Burning a couple of cars is small potatoes compared to getting into Congress looking to hang politicians. Just saying.
yes. is it good that property is damaged or destroyed? no. but there are laws on the docket already, going full gung ho on "tesla burners", categorizing them as terrorists does not even muster comical. it's farcical.
people are pissed, and addressing the underlying reasons is key for lasting peace and good governance.
having the richest person on the planet destroying government programs ordinary people rely on... to survive... is so far beyond the pale. mind bending stuff.
doge and their leader then lied about massive fraud in the federal government, while being asked about it could not substantiate/verify anything.
and to top it off mr. ketamine/elmo then has the gall to act like the cringelord he is at CPAC with his chainsawbrother + Show Spoiler +
and some wanna tell me people being pissed at that are the problem?
I heard it once said that the "US is a developing nation with a gucci belt". how it is being run kinda fits the bill.
and for what exactly? what was achieved or is in the process of being achieved by the best people to ever lead, being led by the leader of leaders? if those are the collateral costs?
"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
elaborate if you were so kind.
in case you are debate lording which seems a high probability... I'll bite.
how is it the definitions fault that the richest man on the planet is also allowed to make decisions on the highest level of US politics. checks and balances are there for a reason, people not understanding it is unfortunate though not unexpected given the trajectory of libraries closing and tiktok stars rising.
Tesla Vehicles’ Manual Release Mechanisms: Not Intuitive
Tesla vehicles are equipped with manual release mechanisms for emergencies, but their functionality and accessibility vary significantly across different models. In most Tesla models, including the Model S, Model 3, and Model Y, manual door release levers are located near the door handles or within the door panels. For the front doors, these levers are generally easy to access; for instance, the Model 3 and Model Y feature mechanical release levers on the front doors, allowing occupants to manually unlock the doors if the electronic systems fail.
However, the rear doors present more challenges. In some Model Y vehicles, for example, the manual release mechanism requires users to remove a floor mat and access a hidden release tab, a procedure that may not be intuitive or practical during high-pressure situations like a fire. Such a design complicates escape for rear passengers who might be unfamiliar with the mechanism’s location, especially when time is critical.
Despite efforts by Tesla to educate owners through manuals and emergency response guides, the placement and design of these manual releases remain points of concern. Occupants who are unfamiliar with their vehicle’s safety features may struggle to locate or operate these mechanisms during emergencies. Critics argue that while Tesla has included these safety measures, their complexity and inconsistent placement across models could hinder effective escape in a crisis.
For instance, the Model 3 only has manual release mechanisms for the front doors, making it impossible for rear-seat passengers to exit manually if power fails. In the Model X, the rear door manual release requires users to remove a speaker grille, making it even less accessible during emergencies. These limitations have led to reports of individuals being trapped in Tesla vehicles during power failures or accidents.
Critics suggest that Tesla should redesign these features to enhance accessibility or provide clearer, more visible guidance for owners and passengers. Although Tesla emphasizes that these manual releases are meant only for situations when electronic systems fail, many believe that the current setup may still not meet optimal safety standards. While the company has made efforts to inform users through manuals, the onus often falls on owners to familiarize themselves with these features to prevent potentially dangerous situations.
The manual release mechanisms in Tesla’s Model Y, as shown in the images, reveal potential safety issues during emergencies, especially when the vehicle catches fire. While Tesla has designed these features as a safety measure, their complexity and location raise concerns about their usability in high-stress scenarios.
or losing their lives having faith in FDS which has been around the corner since... well who even knows at this point. couple years even before the pandemic.
Elon going into politics is exactly because of the above - literally. he gutted consumer protection agencies and the NHTSA which has been investigating him and his car's faults - which verifiably tend to crash more often and in return cost people lives. wasn't there also something with the SEC which got stopped in its tracks?
regulatory capture done right you might say. and I am not even mentioning SpaceX/Starlink where he sucks on the government's teats for the longest time and the foreseeable future. the most secure revenue stream known to mankind.
how are people supposed to react at this point?
people are like the current. seeking the path of least resistance. for elmo it is giving 250+mio. to get the influence he craves because he simply has such an amount in his sock drawer. and making Twitter unusable as the algorithm is way more skewed than it has ever been. instead of facing the music and improving his cars.
in ordinary people's case it is hitting him in the swasticar, boycotting and... well going overboard burning them. though hopefully keeping it civil and protesting the sad state of affairs for the most part.
There is not much to elaborate. "Tesla burners" are terrorists. Thats why I put definitions there. Using violence to achieve political goal is literally what they do. Saying that categorizing them as terrorists is "comical, farcical" is either blatant lie, or pure ignorance.
Rest of your post have nothing to do with whether they are terrorists, or not. Do some people have grievances against Musk? yeah probably (I mean you have entire thread here). Does it change anything? Not at all.
Someone vandalized my fence while drunk because he didn‘t like my political opinion from our last discussion at the pub.
Must have been a terrorist then.
I‘m going to ask the chancellor to declare martial law.
Musks mistake is trying to be a businessman and a politician at the same time.
Sure burning his cars is wrong, he only did a sieg heil on tv after all, but it‘s still vandalism.
bolded - That doesnt work with either of the definition.
Wiki - he disliked your political opinion, not tried to achieve a political goal.
Britannica - are you sure that singular event of vandalising your fence going to "create a general climate of fear in a population"?
Italic - you mean like Bloomberg? Schwarzenegger?
Bolded 2 - Are you serious? I never seen so many Nazi symbols, as at those protest (side of war movies) It is very nice of the protestors that they express their conviction on people cars. On the offside, it kinda help spread their ideology (do you still can get paid by having ads on your car?). It is somewhat telling how those protestors love drawing svastikas.
On April 13 2025 10:37 Doublemint wrote:
On April 13 2025 08:48 Razyda wrote:
On April 12 2025 20:13 Doublemint wrote:
On April 12 2025 09:11 Razyda wrote:
On April 11 2025 19:16 Doublemint wrote:
On April 11 2025 14:49 EnDeR_ wrote:
On April 11 2025 14:11 oBlade wrote:
On April 11 2025 05:31 Vivax wrote: [quote]
What is the law worth when Trump just pardons people who side with him or run darknet market operations because it makes people buy crypto ?
Try besieging the Austrian parliament and breaking stuff in it and see who pardons you.
Vandalize the seat of US power = pardon Burn cars = Terrorism
It‘s comical how the US is currently run. It already was on his first term but it wasn‘t as obvious.
Dude has a Russian visum in the drawer.
I have to exercise a lot of restraint on the daily to not take a fat crap over the situation.
Case in point.
Maybe mass burning cars that are targeted based on the politics of the head of the company to induce fear would best be classified a youthful mistake? A tragic accident? Protected political speech? Mere hooliganism?
Burning a couple of cars is small potatoes compared to getting into Congress looking to hang politicians. Just saying.
yes. is it good that property is damaged or destroyed? no. but there are laws on the docket already, going full gung ho on "tesla burners", categorizing them as terrorists does not even muster comical. it's farcical.
people are pissed, and addressing the underlying reasons is key for lasting peace and good governance.
having the richest person on the planet destroying government programs ordinary people rely on... to survive... is so far beyond the pale. mind bending stuff.
doge and their leader then lied about massive fraud in the federal government, while being asked about it could not substantiate/verify anything.
and to top it off mr. ketamine/elmo then has the gall to act like the cringelord he is at CPAC with his chainsawbrother + Show Spoiler +
and some wanna tell me people being pissed at that are the problem?
I heard it once said that the "US is a developing nation with a gucci belt". how it is being run kinda fits the bill.
and for what exactly? what was achieved or is in the process of being achieved by the best people to ever lead, being led by the leader of leaders? if those are the collateral costs?
"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
elaborate if you were so kind.
in case you are debate lording which seems a high probability... I'll bite.
how is it the definitions fault that the richest man on the planet is also allowed to make decisions on the highest level of US politics. checks and balances are there for a reason, people not understanding it is unfortunate though not unexpected given the trajectory of libraries closing and tiktok stars rising.
Tesla Vehicles’ Manual Release Mechanisms: Not Intuitive
Tesla vehicles are equipped with manual release mechanisms for emergencies, but their functionality and accessibility vary significantly across different models. In most Tesla models, including the Model S, Model 3, and Model Y, manual door release levers are located near the door handles or within the door panels. For the front doors, these levers are generally easy to access; for instance, the Model 3 and Model Y feature mechanical release levers on the front doors, allowing occupants to manually unlock the doors if the electronic systems fail.
However, the rear doors present more challenges. In some Model Y vehicles, for example, the manual release mechanism requires users to remove a floor mat and access a hidden release tab, a procedure that may not be intuitive or practical during high-pressure situations like a fire. Such a design complicates escape for rear passengers who might be unfamiliar with the mechanism’s location, especially when time is critical.
Despite efforts by Tesla to educate owners through manuals and emergency response guides, the placement and design of these manual releases remain points of concern. Occupants who are unfamiliar with their vehicle’s safety features may struggle to locate or operate these mechanisms during emergencies. Critics argue that while Tesla has included these safety measures, their complexity and inconsistent placement across models could hinder effective escape in a crisis.
For instance, the Model 3 only has manual release mechanisms for the front doors, making it impossible for rear-seat passengers to exit manually if power fails. In the Model X, the rear door manual release requires users to remove a speaker grille, making it even less accessible during emergencies. These limitations have led to reports of individuals being trapped in Tesla vehicles during power failures or accidents.
Critics suggest that Tesla should redesign these features to enhance accessibility or provide clearer, more visible guidance for owners and passengers. Although Tesla emphasizes that these manual releases are meant only for situations when electronic systems fail, many believe that the current setup may still not meet optimal safety standards. While the company has made efforts to inform users through manuals, the onus often falls on owners to familiarize themselves with these features to prevent potentially dangerous situations.
The manual release mechanisms in Tesla’s Model Y, as shown in the images, reveal potential safety issues during emergencies, especially when the vehicle catches fire. While Tesla has designed these features as a safety measure, their complexity and location raise concerns about their usability in high-stress scenarios.
or losing their lives having faith in FDS which has been around the corner since... well who even knows at this point. couple years even before the pandemic.
Elon going into politics is exactly because of the above - literally. he gutted consumer protection agencies and the NHTSA which has been investigating him and his car's faults - which verifiably tend to crash more often and in return cost people lives. wasn't there also something with the SEC which got stopped in its tracks?
regulatory capture done right you might say. and I am not even mentioning SpaceX/Starlink where he sucks on the government's teats for the longest time and the foreseeable future. the most secure revenue stream known to mankind.
how are people supposed to react at this point?
people are like the current. seeking the path of least resistance. for elmo it is giving 250+mio. to get the influence he craves because he simply has such an amount in his sock drawer. and making Twitter unusable as the algorithm is way more skewed than it has ever been. instead of facing the music and improving his cars.
in ordinary people's case it is hitting him in the swasticar, boycotting and... well going overboard burning them. though hopefully keeping it civil and protesting the sad state of affairs for the most part.
There is not much to elaborate. "Tesla burners" are terrorists. Thats why I put definitions there. Using violence to achieve political goal is literally what they do. Saying that categorizing them as terrorists is "comical, farcical" is either blatant lie, or pure ignorance.
Rest of your post have nothing to do with whether they are terrorists, or not. Do some people have grievances against Musk? yeah probably (I mean you have entire thread here). Does it change anything? Not at all.
okey, agree to disagree then if clinging to definitions is the be-all and end-all.
depending where you stand however, one's freedom fighter is another one's terrorist.
might want to think especially about January 6th 21'. the ramifications of the event itself, aftermath, commission and its findings... and the subsequent pardons.
bolded - Fair enough.
Italic - absolutely correct. (Edited in: You do not seem to extend this to January 6 folks however?)
Bolded 2 - hate repeating myself so:
On April 12 2025 09:20 Razyda wrote:
On April 12 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote:
On April 12 2025 09:11 Razyda wrote:
On April 11 2025 19:16 Doublemint wrote:
On April 11 2025 14:49 EnDeR_ wrote:
On April 11 2025 14:11 oBlade wrote:
On April 11 2025 05:31 Vivax wrote:
On April 11 2025 04:13 oBlade wrote: [quote] I am more concerned with people who skirt the rules to line their own pockets, destroy small businesses to build transnational untouchable conglomerates whose #1 concerns are cheap exploitable labor and dependent consumer classes, than the facial expressions of people who enforce the law against brazen and systemic trampling of it.
What is the law worth when Trump just pardons people who side with him or run darknet market operations because it makes people buy crypto ?
Try besieging the Austrian parliament and breaking stuff in it and see who pardons you.
Vandalize the seat of US power = pardon Burn cars = Terrorism
It‘s comical how the US is currently run. It already was on his first term but it wasn‘t as obvious.
Dude has a Russian visum in the drawer.
I have to exercise a lot of restraint on the daily to not take a fat crap over the situation.
Case in point.
Maybe mass burning cars that are targeted based on the politics of the head of the company to induce fear would best be classified a youthful mistake? A tragic accident? Protected political speech? Mere hooliganism?
Burning a couple of cars is small potatoes compared to getting into Congress looking to hang politicians. Just saying.
yes. is it good that property is damaged or destroyed? no. but there are laws on the docket already, going full gung ho on "tesla burners", categorizing them as terrorists does not even muster comical. it's farcical.
people are pissed, and addressing the underlying reasons is key for lasting peace and good governance.
having the richest person on the planet destroying government programs ordinary people rely on... to survive... is so far beyond the pale. mind bending stuff.
doge and their leader then lied about massive fraud in the federal government, while being asked about it could not substantiate/verify anything.
and to top it off mr. ketamine/elmo then has the gall to act like the cringelord he is at CPAC with his chainsawbrother + Show Spoiler +
and some wanna tell me people being pissed at that are the problem?
I heard it once said that the "US is a developing nation with a gucci belt". how it is being run kinda fits the bill.
and for what exactly? what was achieved or is in the process of being achieved by the best people to ever lead, being led by the leader of leaders? if those are the collateral costs?
"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
Insert Generic January 6 comparison here.
bolded - Agree on "generic"
All of it - Democrats I believe will be free to pardon them for everything from 1862 till 2145. (once they get president elected)
I dont think pardon game is the one where you have standing. Biden pardoned what 8k+ people? I think both Hunter and Fauci got pardoned since 2014? with latter not even being accused of anything?
Edit: italic
again, using the terrorist descriptor for criminals burning cars this inflationary in one case, while pardoning criminals where that description fits better as they actually stormed the capital to reach a political goal is just way too inconsistent.
hypothetically, what happens to Tesla burners from the EU? Tesla gets massively boycotted here too, maybe something gets out of hand and a protestor burns one. is this person then a terrorist in the eyes of the US government? on a no flight list, in danger of getting droned during his/her commute or while grocery shopping?
Terrorism is a broad category that includes statutes for crimes and sentencing in domestic terrorism, but it also involves the military/intelligence state's global war on international terror. In the case of EU people burning EU Teslas the US wouldn't intervene except maybe apply State dep't pressure if insane leaders were really actively encouraging it, the way it's now floated when the EU threatens to interfere with the speech of US citizens. Otherwise that would be better handled by deradicalization programs than droning.
All the other disputes you have with Musk either are not issues, or have other methods of redress, and a foundation of society is people can't just burn shit when things don't go their way. For example, there's no law against being rich and advising the president. Nor should there be. The redress is vote in 4 years not burn the country down.
Every car kills people. As long as you have different cars, some of them will kill more and some will kill less, and of those there will be one that kills the most people. If you ban that car, the 2nd car in the list will now be the one that kills the most people. The issue is not that the car exists, but whether the specific killing is too much or not. There will never be a perfect car, perfect roads, or perfect law enforcement, or perfect anything. If people think it's too much, they can sue multiple entities. Truthfully, Teslas are rated highly in crash safety, which means people crashing and dying is: 1) risk compensation - since you know it's safer you let your guard down as you know you can crash more and still survive more than in something else 2) false/over-reliance on FSD Why do people over rely on FSD and end up crashing? Because people are retarded. This is the same root cause that results in people torching Tesla dealerships. You can't fix human nature. People who drive any cars crash and die more than pedestrians crash and die into each other.
SpaceX is a customer of the US government. You can argue the US government shouldn't spend money on space. But as long as they are, they should spend it most efficiently. Which before SpaceX it was going to a partnership called ULA, who are responsible for the Starliner, but their reliance on the government teat was spoken against and due to open competition the better performing company is now viewed favorably.
On April 11 2025 02:40 Dan HH wrote: I'm less concerned with corpo shitbags trying to make numbers go up no matter the circumstances, than I am with all the videos of gleeful smirking ICE agents that look like they were all just itching for someone to give them permission to act on their intrusive thoughts. They're not just following orders, this is like Chrismas for sociopaths.
I am more concerned with people who skirt the rules to line their own pockets, destroy small businesses to build transnational untouchable conglomerates whose #1 concerns are cheap exploitable labor and dependent consumer classes, than the facial expressions of people who enforce the law against brazen and systemic trampling of it.
What is the law worth when Trump just pardons people who side with him or run darknet market operations because it makes people buy crypto ?
Try besieging the Austrian parliament and breaking stuff in it and see who pardons you.
Vandalize the seat of US power = pardon Burn cars = Terrorism
It‘s comical how the US is currently run. It already was on his first term but it wasn‘t as obvious.
Dude has a Russian visum in the drawer.
I have to exercise a lot of restraint on the daily to not take a fat crap over the situation.
Case in point.
Maybe mass burning cars that are targeted based on the politics of the head of the company to induce fear would best be classified a youthful mistake? A tragic accident? Protected political speech? Mere hooliganism?
Burning a couple of cars is small potatoes compared to getting into Congress looking to hang politicians. Just saying.
yes. is it good that property is damaged or destroyed? no. but there are laws on the docket already, going full gung ho on "tesla burners", categorizing them as terrorists does not even muster comical. it's farcical.
people are pissed, and addressing the underlying reasons is key for lasting peace and good governance.
having the richest person on the planet destroying government programs ordinary people rely on... to survive... is so far beyond the pale. mind bending stuff.
doge and their leader then lied about massive fraud in the federal government, while being asked about it could not substantiate/verify anything.
and to top it off mr. ketamine/elmo then has the gall to act like the cringelord he is at CPAC with his chainsawbrother + Show Spoiler +
and some wanna tell me people being pissed at that are the problem?
I heard it once said that the "US is a developing nation with a gucci belt". how it is being run kinda fits the bill.
and for what exactly? what was achieved or is in the process of being achieved by the best people to ever lead, being led by the leader of leaders? if those are the collateral costs?
"terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective."
elaborate if you were so kind.
in case you are debate lording which seems a high probability... I'll bite.
how is it the definitions fault that the richest man on the planet is also allowed to make decisions on the highest level of US politics. checks and balances are there for a reason, people not understanding it is unfortunate though not unexpected given the trajectory of libraries closing and tiktok stars rising.
Tesla Vehicles’ Manual Release Mechanisms: Not Intuitive
Tesla vehicles are equipped with manual release mechanisms for emergencies, but their functionality and accessibility vary significantly across different models. In most Tesla models, including the Model S, Model 3, and Model Y, manual door release levers are located near the door handles or within the door panels. For the front doors, these levers are generally easy to access; for instance, the Model 3 and Model Y feature mechanical release levers on the front doors, allowing occupants to manually unlock the doors if the electronic systems fail.
However, the rear doors present more challenges. In some Model Y vehicles, for example, the manual release mechanism requires users to remove a floor mat and access a hidden release tab, a procedure that may not be intuitive or practical during high-pressure situations like a fire. Such a design complicates escape for rear passengers who might be unfamiliar with the mechanism’s location, especially when time is critical.
Despite efforts by Tesla to educate owners through manuals and emergency response guides, the placement and design of these manual releases remain points of concern. Occupants who are unfamiliar with their vehicle’s safety features may struggle to locate or operate these mechanisms during emergencies. Critics argue that while Tesla has included these safety measures, their complexity and inconsistent placement across models could hinder effective escape in a crisis.
For instance, the Model 3 only has manual release mechanisms for the front doors, making it impossible for rear-seat passengers to exit manually if power fails. In the Model X, the rear door manual release requires users to remove a speaker grille, making it even less accessible during emergencies. These limitations have led to reports of individuals being trapped in Tesla vehicles during power failures or accidents.
Critics suggest that Tesla should redesign these features to enhance accessibility or provide clearer, more visible guidance for owners and passengers. Although Tesla emphasizes that these manual releases are meant only for situations when electronic systems fail, many believe that the current setup may still not meet optimal safety standards. While the company has made efforts to inform users through manuals, the onus often falls on owners to familiarize themselves with these features to prevent potentially dangerous situations.
The manual release mechanisms in Tesla’s Model Y, as shown in the images, reveal potential safety issues during emergencies, especially when the vehicle catches fire. While Tesla has designed these features as a safety measure, their complexity and location raise concerns about their usability in high-stress scenarios.
or losing their lives having faith in FDS which has been around the corner since... well who even knows at this point. couple years even before the pandemic.
Elon going into politics is exactly because of the above - literally. he gutted consumer protection agencies and the NHTSA which has been investigating him and his car's faults - which verifiably tend to crash more often and in return cost people lives. wasn't there also something with the SEC which got stopped in its tracks?
regulatory capture done right you might say. and I am not even mentioning SpaceX/Starlink where he sucks on the government's teats for the longest time and the foreseeable future. the most secure revenue stream known to mankind.
how are people supposed to react at this point?
people are like the current. seeking the path of least resistance. for elmo it is giving 250+mio. to get the influence he craves because he simply has such an amount in his sock drawer. and making Twitter unusable as the algorithm is way more skewed than it has ever been. instead of facing the music and improving his cars.
in ordinary people's case it is hitting him in the swasticar, boycotting and... well going overboard burning them. though hopefully keeping it civil and protesting the sad state of affairs for the most part.
There is not much to elaborate. "Tesla burners" are terrorists. Thats why I put definitions there. Using violence to achieve political goal is literally what they do. Saying that categorizing them as terrorists is "comical, farcical" is either blatant lie, or pure ignorance.
Rest of your post have nothing to do with whether they are terrorists, or not. Do some people have grievances against Musk? yeah probably (I mean you have entire thread here). Does it change anything? Not at all.
Someone vandalized my fence while drunk because he didn‘t like my political opinion from our last discussion at the pub.
Must have been a terrorist then.
I‘m going to ask the chancellor to declare martial law.
Musks mistake is trying to be a businessman and a politician at the same time.
Sure burning his cars is wrong, he only did a sieg heil on tv after all, but it‘s still vandalism.
Rayzda might not articulate the exact difference that destroys the analogy.
If you have a dispute with someone, and you attack them or their stuff, that's an argument gone wrong.
That's not what happens with Tesla. They aren't his cars. They are not attacking Musk or his car. They are random people's cars. Random wanton destruction, to cause fear, because of political BS. And bizarrely threaten people to sell their Teslas. As though selling doesn't continue the act of ownership by someone else who will then be subsequently SummerofLoved by these same nutjobs. Of which there is no shortage, like the new guy in Butler who just got arrested for planning to kill Trump.
This is the difference between hating Bill Gates for example because he's a globalist, losing your temper and taking his computer and smashing it, versus smashing every Windows computer you see in public in the world because you can't affect Bill Gates yourself.
You also don't need martial law, there are terrorism statutes in ordinary law. They are on the books.
I couldn't disagree more with his take. Being civil with fascists is what got us into this mess.
Debating with them about 3rd (or infinite) terms, snatching people off the street and disappearing them, whether trans athletes are destroying civilization when there's more rape charges in the White House than there are trans athletes, starting a trade war with the whole world unprepared and using 4th grade maths, etc. - all this does is legitimize their ideas. It gives 3rd parties/weathervanes that aren't into politics and don't pay much attention to the details the impression that these are debatable issues, that the two engaged in such a debate are having a valid philosophical disagreement and either could be correct and they might decide who is correct based on some trivial bullshit like who is more confident or which "idea" appears to have more support on social media.
But it's not a legitimate debate, none of this is normal, all their actions break the social contract and we're failing to enforce it. And failing to enforce the social contract has disastrous consequences. The only way to deal with fascists is to punch them and call them out. "Owning" them in arguments doesn't do anything, they're immune to reason, shame, guilt or hypocrisy, they bounce back like nothing. Being kind to them does nothing, it doesn't change them or stop them from pushing towards the cliff.
My big take away was that Trump tells whoever he is with what he thinks they want to hear. And more that that, he believes it until the next person. I don't think he has "bad" principles, I just believe he has none just self interest, which is of course bad for the US. This is why there is countless stories of people talking to Trump him believing whatever and signing whatever is front of him. It won't matter if it is bill Maher, Laura Loomer, or probably Bernie Sanders if he ever got the face time.
Not that I have some better strategy to deal with him based on it, because he has clearly surrounded himself with people who are ideologically fascist. Just that without even realizing it Maher confirmed how malleable Trump truly is in the short term.
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like undoing what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (in regards to students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
Arguments about terrorism vs protest are always dumb because the reality is all forms of protest are some form of terrorism even if to a small degree. There are obvious exceptions that aren’t worth discussing, but the bulk of protests have some level of terrorism elements to them.
Why? Because both are just words created by humans.
Blocking roads, sitting in lobbies, all of it has some level of threat or disruption or damage attached to it. No one is winning any arguments by saying technically this or that protest has elements that are a part of how terrorism is defined.
Luckily we can assess situations to determine which term fits best and discuss the merits of that distinction rather than pretending we’re dropping truth bombs by pointing as a dictionary
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like undoing what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (in regards to students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
Right now my wife and sister are preparing for a strike vote. Salary is a minor complaint but the major stuff is all working and teaching conditions. Not enough supports, too large or classes, making "inclusive education" work without proper resources is negatively effecting basically all students. One of the big things making it hard to vote for the strike is that they care about their current students and know what closing schools means to them (lots have poor home situations on top of the missing out on education). It is weighing the immediate consequences which are fairly certain vs a whole range of outcomes many which are no better than now and some of them worse.
It would take a seriously arrogant and likely narcissistic teacher to go on a one person (or small number) strike, to expect that there small act of defiance is going to change America in some significant way. And completely ignore the certainty of serious negative impacts on their students, who if they are doing it right, they care deeply about and have relationships with.
Happy cake day. Save yourself some headaches and just don't engage, it is not in good faith and never will be.
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
Probably the same reason as just about everyone else: Because I don't feel like it. I think your other questions are interesting though:
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like undoing what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (in regards to students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
Right now my wife and sister are preparing for a strike vote. Salary is a minor complaint but the major stuff is all working and teaching conditions. Not enough supports, too large or classes, making "inclusive education" work without proper resources is negatively effecting basically all students. One of the big things making it hard to vote for the strike is that they care about their current students and know what closing schools means to them (lots have poor home situations on top of the missing out on education). It is weighing the immediate consequences which are fairly certain vs a whole range of outcomes many which are no better than now and some of them worse.
It would take a seriously arrogant and likely narcissistic teacher to go on a one person (or small number) strike, to expect that there small act of defiance is going to change America in some significant way. And completely ignore the certainty of serious negative impacts on their students, who if they are doing it right, they care deeply about and have relationships with.
Happy cake day. Save yourself some headaches and just don't engage, it is not in good faith and never will be.
Those are really good points, best of luck to your wife and sister (and other involved teachers), and thank you for the happy cake day
On April 12 2025 10:55 Billyboy wrote: Does anyone know the specific demands of the strike? I feel like its a really important part.
I agree that this would be necessary to know beforehand.
Is it? Here is you:
On April 12 2025 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
On April 12 2025 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Donald Trump's Secretary of Education (Linda McMahon) is desperately trying to one-up Trump's other Secretary of Education (Betsy DeVos) in just how uneducated the Secretary of Education can possibly be. Linda McMahon recently thought "A.I." (artificial intelligence) was actually "A1"... like the steak sauce: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6QL0c5BbCR4
The Republican party's vision has always been "If we create a dysfunctional and useless government, then we can convince people that all government is dysfunctional and useless", and that philosophy has been epitomized by Trump's quest to close down the Department of Education by making it implode with disastrous anti-education decisions like appointing DeVos and McMahon to be leaders of the DoE.
The questions posts like these always beg are "What are you going to do about it?" and "What do you want us to do about it?"
AFAICT the answer to both of those is mock and gawk at it along with you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be shown how.
Immediately: Teachers and other people working at public schools could push back against any anti-education policies that are being dictated by Trump/McMahon, just as how other professionals could push back when their profession is being undermined by Trump/Musk/whoever. Those are things that could be done right away / during Trump's term, and non-educators could certainly spread the word and voice their support for better education reform too.
Future: It's also not a terrible idea to compile instances of Trump's crew being against education or against whatever supposedly appeals to potential voters. When it comes time for the next election, tailoring a persuasive argument based on whatever the group claims to be a top issue for them (even if it's not education) includes being able to list reasons why your candidate is pro-that-issue and list reasons why the opposing candidates are anti-that-issue. (Not knowing the difference between artificial intelligence and steak sauce is obviously a far less significant embarrassment, but there is plenty of substantive ammunition one could point to, to make the case that Trump/Republicans are anti-education during the midterm elections, during the next presidential election, etc.)
You seem ready to "push back against any anti-education policies". And you think other professionals could also push back. How do you think you and they should "push back"? Do you think that refusing to work on those anti-education policies is a form of pushing back? Or is that too radical? Is the most pushback you'd support to change your Facebook page (like Kwark is ironically suggesting)? Or should they voice their concern to their superior while collaborating on implementing the, and I repeat, *anti-education* policies these educators are asked to implement? Or is even voicing that concern to your superior too personally risky, and calling for pushback on a gaming forum is about the extent of your rebelliousness?
I already answered those questions in the later post that you didn't respond to: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4922#98428 It depends on multiple factors. For example, it may depend on how harmful the policy is. It may also depend on the individual - how willing/able they are to risk certain consequences (being reprimanded, being fired, being able to find a new job, being able to still support themselves and their family financially, etc.). I had written that "some people may have different approaches (publicly protesting, secretly resisting, doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective, etc.)" and I think that's true too. There probably isn't a perfect way to protest or a universal way to voice your displeasure about a policy that you don't agree with, because of how nuanced these situations can be.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that the pushback against *anti-education* policies that, as an educator, you would personally be willing to commit to is to lay down your work until those policies are reversed.
There are some that I would, and there are some that I wouldn't. As I mentioned several times before: it depends.
For example, let's suppose that Donald Trump signed a piece of paper that said "Math teachers need to say that pi equals 3". That's a pretty dumb and obviously anti-education thing for Trump to force onto educators, but there are ways to exploit a trivial loophole and technically check off that "I officially said that pi equals 3" box, without needing to undermine basic math education, or refuse to teach altogether, or completely quit my job. I would, instead, use a different strategy I listed, which would be "doing the bare minimum to cover their own butt from a semantics perspective", and I would try to mold this weird Trump-enforced limitation into learning experiences for my students:
- It would not be hard to say "pi equals 3... after rounding to the nearest whole number", and then we could have a discussion on different sets of numbers (whole numbers vs. integers vs. rationals vs. irrationals vs. reals), and talk about the pros and cons of rounding and estimation.
- It would also not be hard to have students use string, a ruler, and a circle to calculate pi on their own (1. measure the circumference; 2. measure the diameter; 3. divide them), and then ask them "How would you respond to me if I told you: 'pi equals 3'?". See, I just technically said "pi equals 3". They could even confirm a more precise value of pi with a calculator or computer, and we could have a meaningful discussion about ways to compute pi, and how it's not simply based on what one person dictates (whether that's me or Trump or anyone else).
- Or, depending on how sassy I feel, I might transparently tell my students that Trump is forcing me to say "pi equals 3" even though it's incorrect (or maybe I'll just have them read an article that reports that, if I'm not allowed to technically say that to my students), and maybe I'll make it extremely clear, with several eye-winks, that we're now going to call the π symbol "cake" instead of "pie", or perhaps "ice cream" or whatever other dessert a student wants. And, quite frankly, the label itself isn't particularly relevant; the mathematical value of pi doesn't come from its name anyway, and we could probably have a fun, creative discussion evolving from that.
I can still make sure my students learn what they need to learn about pi.
On the other hand, if Trump signed a piece of paper that insisted that female students (or gay students, or students of color, etc.) are no longer allowed to learn any math in math classrooms - that math teachers inside their classrooms can only teach students who are white/male/straight/cis/whatever, and that other demographics aren't allowed - then you'd better believe that we'll be protesting and refusing to teach anyone in the classroom. And then I'd be holding free tutoring sessions over Zoom (or some other platform) where any student can join, and I'd make sure that I educate everyone virtually, since it can't be done properly in the classroom anymore. Not all teachers have the time or financial ability to do that though.
I don't think Trump would try to enforce either of these two anti-education extremes, but these are just to show that not all policies and not all responses are going to be identical. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals.
I understand it does beg questions like what about undocumented immigrants being banned from the classroom? Or what about trans and/or other students just not being safe at school to the point they can't attend, without any specific ban enacted? It would seem to cross your line but also be somewhat already true. Presumably you'd also do this in solidarity with English or Science teachers even if Math was unaffected? While you should answer those questions (for yourself first), the point is to make a mark that you can measure to see if it has been passed and you have to do something radically different than you typically do under electoralism.
Undocumented immigrants being removed from my classroom (although I don't even know if I have any undocumented students): I'd consider a strike. Trans/Other students feeling unsafe: I'd consider a strike if needed, though fortunately our school does a pretty good job of creating a safe and accepting culture (according to my students, including those who are LGBTQ+).
The president illegally kidnapping people and shipping them to foreign prisons, then defending it in court in a way that would mean he could do that to anyone, citizen or not, is more than enough for me. I'd argue it should be more than enough for any reasonable person. Hence correcting it being a "must have" demand for a general strike I'd support.
Would you support a general strike that demanded the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia? What else might it demand?
No. I don’t think that a math teacher refusing to teach can reasonably lead to anything so far removed and irrelevant, like what Trump did to KAAG. On the other hand, I could see how a local teacher strike might have the potential to affect a local school (students being unsafe, students not being taught, etc.).
First, happy cakeday!
Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha.
While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in.
I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country.
I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs.
That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution.
I couldn't disagree more with his take. Being civil with fascists is what got us into this mess.
Debating with them about 3rd (or infinite) terms, snatching people off the street and disappearing them, whether trans athletes are destroying civilization when there's more rape charges in the White House than there are trans athletes, starting a trade war with the whole world unprepared and using 4th grade maths, etc. - all this does is legitimize their ideas. It gives 3rd parties/weathervanes that aren't into politics and don't pay much attention to the details the impression that these are debatable issues, that the two engaged in such a debate are having a valid philosophical disagreement and either could be correct and they might decide who is correct based on some trivial bullshit like who is more confident or which "idea" appears to have more support on social media.
But it's not a legitimate debate, none of this is normal, all their actions break the social contract and we're failing to enforce it. And failing to enforce the social contract has disastrous consequences. The only way to deal with fascists is to punch them and call them out. "Owning" them in arguments doesn't do anything, they're immune to reason, shame, guilt or hypocrisy, they bounce back like nothing. Being kind to them does nothing, it doesn't change them or stop them from pushing towards the cliff.
It’s interesting in the sense that if Maher is to be believed, Trump is capable of behaving well, like a normal human in private settings.
Which, if anything is that not worse? At least ‘Trump gonna Trump’ is consistent, that’s who he is and he behaves accordingly. If that’s not the case and it’s part persona for his own benefit, that’s… better? :S
I broadly agree with your post aye. I think there’s a case to be made for more civility amongst the wider populace for those who are obviously not Fascists, it can alienate folks in the wrong direction. I remember some person accusing me of being a Nazi because I said I liked some black metal band (one of my least favourite metal-subgenres anyway). For the uninitiated, black metal vocals are basically incomprehensible, I’m sure some veterans learn the skill to decode the lyrics, I don’t have it. Anyway, the person was correct, but equally refused to believe ‘dude I didn’t know that, now I am aware I’m scrubbing this band from my library’. Anyway just a silly anecdote but you get the point.
And perhaps, at least some issues, don’t neglect them entirely or sidestep of course.
However, don’t do the ‘civil debate’ thing, because it’s often not reciprocal, you’re just platforming somebody else’s framing.
I don’t consume much of said content anymore, I did listen to the first (I think) Gavin Newsom podcast Blackjack linked where he’s making a point to extend the olive branch to non-liberals. Anyway the guest was Charlie Kirk.
All very civil and friendly, Newsom gave him a lot of rope and room for Kirk to say his pieces and crit the Dems at large. The second he got proper pushback, that conviviality turned very quickly to defensiveness and deflection and other such disingenuous methods of debate.
This isn’t atypical, hence why my ‘I don’t consume much of said content anymore’. You don’t just legitimise your opposition, you also make your side look weak, especially to the uninitiated.
Look, I’m sure the average USPol poster has enough knowledge to hand to go ‘hm, wait a minute’ in such chats, but that’s not everyone. Some will just judge based on what they’re watching, just because they don’t have a ton of background to couch it in.
The pattern is usually ‘yeah you guys have some legit points, we’ve neglected x issue and we’ve made some mistakes’, which would be fine for a dialogue if the other participant also did this. They usually don’t. So you end up with the left leaning person effectively handing the floor to the right-leaning one, with all that entails
Newsom and Maher actually talked about this exact thing
I don't think it's a winning strategy to retreat to your own echo chambers and refuse to engage with the other side. It's not like the left rolled over for Trump. They at least tried to ban him from the ballot, imprison him, headshot him. They tried everything besides being appealing enough to win more votes. They didn't try "punching" as Dan HH recommends but I'm not sure if 65kg Bill Maher throwing a punch at Trump would have much success either.
On April 14 2025 01:38 Mohdoo wrote: Arguments about terrorism vs protest are always dumb because the reality is all forms of protest are some form of terrorism even if to a small degree. There are obvious exceptions that aren’t worth discussing, but the bulk of protests have some level of terrorism elements to them.
Why? Because both are just words created by humans.
Blocking roads, sitting in lobbies, all of it has some level of threat or disruption or damage attached to it. No one is winning any arguments by saying technically this or that protest has elements that are a part of how terrorism is defined.
Luckily we can assess situations to determine which term fits best and discuss the merits of that distinction rather than pretending we’re dropping truth bombs by pointing as a dictionary
"Terrorism" is a very problematic word to use. I have never heard anyone define define themselves as "terrorists", even if the acts they do would qualify by every definition. Calling something "terrorism" is a way of gaslighting an enemy, and stripping them of any motivation except creating "terror".
One of the worst things about the current political climate is the way social media enhances the most extreme gaslighting for all of us. Anti-trump propaganda is turning worse and worse, frequently painting MAGA as morons barely deserving to exist. It is sad, and won't solve anything.
I have seen just as terrible things from the right, of course. Extreme points of view are allowed to dominate, and it can end with disaster, like it did in the Spanish Civil War.
If European countries let themselves be extorted in the energy sector, America will prosper. Also through stock manipulation and targeted misinformation campaigns over unregulated social media platforms in the hands of a few moguls.
It really is simply a page off Russias playbook, the oligarchy too.
Vandalizing property doesn‘t help though, I‘ll concede as much. It‘s funny to crack a joke or two about it.
I think that the definition of terrorism encompasses innocent people being hit by violent actions for things they didn‘t decide by themselves.
Its most extreme form I can think of being 9/11 and these van drivers that have been driving through masses of people.
Magnitude of the damage remains relevant.
Remaining without US intel overnight that you were expecting in a warzone is another magnitude.
Terrorism is a broad category that includes statutes for crimes and sentencing in domestic terrorism, but it also involves the military/intelligence state's global war on international terror. In the case of EU people burning EU Teslas the US wouldn't intervene except maybe apply State dep't pressure if insane leaders were really actively encouraging it, the way it's now floated when the EU threatens to interfere with the speech of US citizens. Otherwise that would be better handled by deradicalization programs than droning.
All the other disputes you have with Musk either are not issues, or have other methods of redress, and a foundation of society is people can't just burn shit when things don't go their way. For example, there's no law against being rich and advising the president. Nor should there be. The redress is vote in 4 years not burn the country down.1
Every car kills people. As long as you have different cars, some of them will kill more and some will kill less, and of those there will be one that kills the most people. If you ban that car, the 2nd car in the list will now be the one that kills the most people. The issue is not that the car exists, but whether the specific killing is too much or not. There will never be a perfect car, perfect roads, or perfect law enforcement, or perfect anything. If people think it's too much, they can sue multiple entities. Truthfully, Teslas are rated highly in crash safety, which means people crashing and dying is: 1) risk compensation - since you know it's safer you let your guard down as you know you can crash more and still survive more than in something else 2) false/over-reliance on FSD Why do people over rely on FSD and end up crashing? Because people are retarded. This is the same root cause that results in people torching Tesla dealerships. You can't fix human nature. People who drive any cars crash and die more than pedestrians crash and die into each other.
SpaceX is a customer of the US government. You can argue the US government shouldn't spend money on space. But as long as they are, they should spend it most efficiently. Which before SpaceX it was going to a partnership called ULA, who are responsible for the Starliner, but their reliance on the government teat was spoken against and due to open competition the better performing company is now viewed favorably.
1, that's simply not good enough for most people, as can be gauged from Jan06 till now and everything else that happened before where responsiveness of the rulers was lacking sorely.
there's no law against being rich, thank god. and no law against advising the president either. though that's not what I mentioned, and what is happening in the US government currently in the case of Trump/Elon, is it?
every car kills is quite the starter. no wonder Trump hates Detroit and is trying to destroy the big3 with his tariff nonsense. he wants to save lives probably in the process.
FSD on or off does not matter one bit. or maybe you want to argue Tesla drivers actually are more stupid than your average driver. be my guest, who am I to judge.
you trying to deflect and defend Elon's/Tesla's honor is cute and all, but in this regard pretty futile.
and to the doge/SpaceX part - Elon running the agency that identifies - very poorly one might add - fraud in the Federal government is also a contractor/supplier for the same entity.
who is to say blue origin is not doing it more efficiently? or whoever else trying to win a contract, you know good old fashioned competition and free market? Elon is in the seat already AND he is checking for fraud. do you think he will find it in SpaceX now that... oh wait.
have you ever heard of a conflict of interest? and a more brazen example of one? maybe you need help googling or spelling it out again as you are twisting and turning defending the richest person on the planet. and his privilege to supply you and your government that has been pretty deep in the red for some time now.
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.financialexpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/diya-2025-02-21T074621.571.jpg?w=1024)
