|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11465 Posts
On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed.
But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo.
|
United States43758 Posts
It’s the official position of the US President that the greatest experts at the Pentagon were completely caught off guard by Iran’s publicly communicated deterrence strategy that Iran had specifically told them about. Absolute clown show. How utterly humiliating for the Pentagon, thrown under the bus to protect the dear leader. If only someone at the Pentagon had told him that hydrocarbons were flammable he never would have set fire to the region, but none of them knew.
On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:
But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo.
Trump is a living former president with a history of making weird phone calls pretending to be someone close to him. Maybe Barron (the fake name Trump used to use when calling up journalists to tell them how much pussy Trump got and spread rumours that he was friends with celebrities) has made a reappearance.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1233 Posts
On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo.
He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality.
I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality.
|
Northern Ireland26470 Posts
On March 19 2026 09:36 KwarK wrote:It’s the official position of the US President that the greatest experts at the Pentagon were completely caught off guard by Iran’s publicly communicated deterrence strategy that Iran had specifically told them about. Absolute clown show. How utterly humiliating for the Pentagon, thrown under the bus to protect the dear leader. If only someone at the Pentagon had told him that hydrocarbons were flammable he never would have set fire to the region, but none of them knew. Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:
But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. Trump is a living former president with a history of making weird phone calls pretending to be someone close to him. Maybe Barron (the fake name Trump used to use when calling up journalists to tell them how much pussy Trump got and spread rumours that he was friends with celebrities) has made a reappearance.
It’s genuinely just preposterous stuff. It’s such an almighty clusterfuck. Fucking hell
Iraq was bad, but the Coalition of the Willing did crush that state pretty easily, and as per stretch goals the debate was generally about morals, or the advisability of even attempting ‘nation-building’ if one even believed the latter was in the equation.
This? I mean I don’t have the words. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to keep track of the shifting rationales.
If ever there’s a good argument for the ‘Deep State’, this is probably it.
|
On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality.
Narcissist's just have a really weird relationship with the truth. Some studies even indicate they actually change the memories to make themselves correct.
Here is a famous poem and review.
The Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
The Narcissist's Prayer (author unknown) beautifully illustrates one aspect of the inner workings of the narcissistic mind. Denial, gaslighting, minimising poor behaviour, blameshifting and shamedumping all feature in this one simple verse. It is clear that 'truth' is not seen by the narcissistically disordered person as a finite, fixed entity, but as being malleable - as being whatever the narcissist says it is, at the time they say it. It seems that the truth is simply whatever serves the narcissist at that particular time.
A more in depth look at the reasoning.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/understanding-narcissism/202007/why-narcissists-twist-the-truth
|
Northern Ireland26470 Posts
On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality.
He’s not Kim Jong Un. It’d be a miracle if that guy turned out well-adjusted IMO. I don’t see how you could being anointed in such a society.
Trump has some psychological problem, or he’s a flagrant liar for his own benefit, I don’t really see an alternative explanation. There’s plenty of equivalently, or indeed more wealthy folks who were brought up with silver spoons who don’t behave similarly.
If he believes in what he is saying it conflicts all the time with other things he’s said. He’s not some consistent iconoclastic type
I mean we live in a world where many people will doubt the testimony of a singular (usually) woman in an abusive relationship because ‘he’s obviously an asshole, why don’t they just leave?’ but be completely blind to the exact same hooks if they’re applied at some macro level.
I mean this is basically the relationship many have with Trump. It’s less particularly principled and more enabling an abusive partner.
|
United States43758 Posts
Related, 35% of Republicans surveyed said that they approved of US intervention in Iran. Then Trump announced that they were doing it and that number jumped to 80%. They don’t have beliefs, they just support Trump and whatever truth he’s currently selling. When he changes his mind so does the truth.
|
Northern Ireland26470 Posts
On March 19 2026 10:51 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality. Narcissist's just have a really weird relationship with the truth. Some studies even indicate they actually change the memories to make themselves correct. Here is a famous poem and review. Show nested quote +The Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
The Narcissist's Prayer (author unknown) beautifully illustrates one aspect of the inner workings of the narcissistic mind. Denial, gaslighting, minimising poor behaviour, blameshifting and shamedumping all feature in this one simple verse. It is clear that 'truth' is not seen by the narcissistically disordered person as a finite, fixed entity, but as being malleable - as being whatever the narcissist says it is, at the time they say it. It seems that the truth is simply whatever serves the narcissist at that particular time. A more in depth look at the reasoning. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/understanding-narcissism/202007/why-narcissists-twist-the-truth
Indeed, they are arseholes to deal with. Albeit I do have sympathy, it’s not intentional maliciousness necessarily, they just process things that way. Just how they’re wired, and to my understanding it’s prohibitively difficult to rewire that. Some actively don’t want their mind to work in such a manner, assuming they concede there’s a problem.
While I have some sympathy there, equally I don’t want a partner to have those tendencies. Hell, even just close friends.
Never mind the leader of the bloody free world
|
United States43758 Posts
Pentagon requesting an extra $200b for Iran but that’s likely lowballing because they still don’t seem to realize that absent any sudden collapse there will need to be an occupation.
|
On March 18 2026 17:13 Uldridge wrote:
I think what you're missing is the seed to radicalisation that is partly embedded in (social) media. It's not just "lol this guy made a joke, chill". It's every ripple it causes and where it reaches and who picks it up.
You are able to get into the echo chamber without it ever letting you leave (but you won't notice that). It'll reinforce your beliefs until you've become unwilling to compromise. I have a feeling many people think of it this way without having hard data to point to that these kinds of "jokes" are contributing to this.
I'm all in favor of free speech, but I'm against precursors to radicalisation. I think the dumbass should know better than to make a video of his dog raising his paw when hearing heil Hitler and I think news outlets shouldn't give this kind of bullshit the light of day after what police/court decide what to do with it.
I hope you can at least see how slowly eroding certain aspects of respect for thy neighbor can lead to tribalisation in the long run.
Real question is: how do you determine what constitutes as harmful speech, or what contributes to reinforcing cerain beliefs? When does a collection of sandgrains become a pile? It's fuzzy at best and the threshold is different for everyone.
Waht I do know is how this story will play out with Nazi sympathizers and how they'll use it to recruit more people into their club.
I strongly disagree that there is any seed of radicalization in the nazi pug video.
You could argue that somebody like Nick Fuentes or Hassan indeed sow radicalization (not that I'd agree to censor them), but the pug video? no way in hell, its edgy comedy nothing more.
No you are not in favor of free speech at all, when you are talking not just about censorship but censorship of comedy then you aren't dancing in the line or what is and isnt permissible you are absolutely aaaaaaaall the way into the authoritarian side.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1233 Posts
On March 19 2026 10:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality. He’s not Kim Jong Un. It’d be a miracle if that guy turned out well-adjusted IMO. I don’t see how you could being anointed in such a society. Trump has some psychological problem, or he’s a flagrant liar for his own benefit, I don’t really see an alternative explanation. There’s plenty of equivalently, or indeed more wealthy folks who were brought up with silver spoons who don’t behave similarly. If he believes in what he is saying it conflicts all the time with other things he’s said. He’s not some consistent iconoclastic type I mean we live in a world where many people will doubt the testimony of a singular (usually) woman in an abusive relationship because ‘he’s obviously an asshole, why don’t they just leave?’ but be completely blind to the exact same hooks if they’re applied at some macro level. I mean this is basically the relationship many have with Trump. It’s less particularly principled and more enabling an abusive partner.
I don't think we are in disagreement, I'm not saying all rich people have trouble with physical reality.
Just that if you are someone who does have trouble with reality, it helps to be rich and never have to do 'menial' work that usually interacts heavily with physical reality.
Those who have this problem and don't have that luxury, I would assume, would have through the process of coping with... being alive and existing in society... found ways to cope with this problem.
Being good at promising things and gauging sentiment, but not having to be the person that actually deliver on those promises tends to be the sorts of jobs that might allow you to never properly develope coping strategies.
On March 19 2026 11:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 10:51 Billyboy wrote:On March 19 2026 10:05 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:On March 19 2026 08:03 KwarK wrote:Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit – they were – I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years. - Donald Trump On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
They're going to deliberately be the most antisocial neighbour they can be so that countries look back on the situation last week and ask why the US had to go and fuck with that. Last week you could run a refinery on the Gulf, now you can't. Countries know Iran isn't going to stop and they know the US isn't going to deploy ground forces to make them stop and so the only country to exert pressure on here is the US, not Iran.
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse. Yeah, he's either lying or suffering memory loss or both. John Bolton is talking about how they ran through those scenarios through with Trump in his first term. Closing the "Straight" of Hormuz and targeting oil infrastructure were all difficulties that were discussed. But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. He might just have a really... relativist relationship with the truth. He comes from money and his primary skills seem to be reading the room on public sentiment and promising things (which i guess is an element of salesmanship). I guess he has been shielded from the negative effects most people experience if they don't have a good grasp of verifiable, empirical reality. I wouldn't be suprised if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Even in normal people we find that our memory of past events are very unreliable. I can't imagine what it might be for someone who might just not have that much practice dealing with physical 'objective' reality. Narcissist's just have a really weird relationship with the truth. Some studies even indicate they actually change the memories to make themselves correct. Here is a famous poem and review. The Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
The Narcissist's Prayer (author unknown) beautifully illustrates one aspect of the inner workings of the narcissistic mind. Denial, gaslighting, minimising poor behaviour, blameshifting and shamedumping all feature in this one simple verse. It is clear that 'truth' is not seen by the narcissistically disordered person as a finite, fixed entity, but as being malleable - as being whatever the narcissist says it is, at the time they say it. It seems that the truth is simply whatever serves the narcissist at that particular time. A more in depth look at the reasoning. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/understanding-narcissism/202007/why-narcissists-twist-the-truth Indeed, they are arseholes to deal with. Albeit I do have sympathy, it’s not intentional maliciousness necessarily, they just process things that way. Just how they’re wired, and to my understanding it’s prohibitively difficult to rewire that. Some actively don’t want their mind to work in such a manner, assuming they concede there’s a problem. While I have some sympathy there, equally I don’t want a partner to have those tendencies. Hell, even just close friends. Never mind the leader of the bloody free world
Well yeah, being in touch with empirical reality, so much as a normal person can be is generally a valuable asset for people in all sorts of positions. Noone is suggesting difficulty with the truth is a desirable trait for the POTUS to have, just that he might not necessarily be an intentional serial liar.
|
Northern Ireland26470 Posts
On March 19 2026 11:06 KwarK wrote:
Related, 35% of Republicans surveyed said that they approved of US intervention in Iran. Then Trump announced that they were doing it and that number jumped to 80%. They don’t have beliefs, they just support Trump and whatever truth he’s currently selling. When he changes his mind so does the truth.
It’s almost like it’s a cult or something.
This is one I actually checked as I thought you might be either being hyperbolic or misremembering the prior number because it seemed too extreme a swing, even with my low expectations
Nope. I mean that basically is the swing, least in the ballpark.
I don’t personally have especially high expectations but that is genuinely insane to me.
It’s also not like it’s prefaced with a whole bunch of anti-Iran propaganda to shift the ground the last few months, it literally is just ‘Trump did it so good’
Like it’s just profoundly pathetic, not only do you have no concrete principles, but the guy you bend with the wind for is Donald Trump of all people? Really?
But yes we have to respect these people and indulge in cordial, good-faith debate or it’s unfair or something. Give me a fucking break
|
On March 19 2026 01:49 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. Fucking thank you. It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber. It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith. I am unsure in what way I gaslit you by reading about the person you indicated had been sent to prison for having the wrong opinion. I am also not sure what the bad faith was on my end. I read the times article and the house of lords statement and provided my analysis and understanding on what I read. It feels, from my end, that it is you who is not holding up their side of the bargain.
I dont know if it was you, I'm replying to a lot of ppl hard to keep track of who is who but an example of gaslighting in this case would be insisting that the case has nothing to do with anonymity because the video was public.
That is bad faith gaslighting because the argument is: [/b]anonymity is needed because many governments are censorious even civil ones ones like the UK, look what they did to this guy for a joke[/b]
That is the point, if you can't make nazi pug jokes without being arrested then clearly anonymity is needed.
|
On March 19 2026 04:35 Falling wrote:Show nested quote + Much like how when Twitter published where all the accounts were from most of the Alberta "freedom" and separatist accounts were not even Canadian. I don't like getting rid of anonymity on the internet, but I do think for public square spaces like Twitter knowing the country of origin (where it was created and where they are posting from, etc) is extremely important. Because while people had started suspecting it, once twitter made the change it was definitively proven that democracies were getting gaslit by foreign actors posing as movements within. I don't really need to know the true name of user CanadianPATRIOT2000truenorth who is constantly posting about Alberta separatism and joining the US and red pill tips to pick up chicks... but it sure is helpful context to know the poster hails from India or Russia or wherever.
Agreed, the geo-location thing is very useful to discredit grifters and propaganda without jeopardizing anonymity and putting people in danger.
|
On March 19 2026 11:30 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 01:49 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. Fucking thank you. It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber. It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith. I am unsure in what way I gaslit you by reading about the person you indicated had been sent to prison for having the wrong opinion. I am also not sure what the bad faith was on my end. I read the times article and the house of lords statement and provided my analysis and understanding on what I read. It feels, from my end, that it is you who is not holding up their side of the bargain. I dont know if it was you, I'm replying to a lot of ppl hard to keep track of who is who but an example of gaslighting in this case would be insisting that the case has nothing to do with anonymity because the video was public. That is bad faith gaslighting because the argument is: anonymity is needed because many governments are censorious even civil ones ones like the UK, look what they did to this guy for a joke That is the point, if you can't make nazi pug jokes without being arrested then clearly anonymity is needed. [/b][/b]
He made it, and got way more famous because of the notoriety. He likely broke the rules on purpose so he could take the slap on the wrist and claim victim to all those who eat that shit up, because they too feel like victims. It is funny how fast the guys complaining about snow flakes became ultra snowflakes.
|
On March 19 2026 09:36 KwarK wrote:It’s the official position of the US President that the greatest experts at the Pentagon were completely caught off guard by Iran’s publicly communicated deterrence strategy that Iran had specifically told them about. Absolute clown show. How utterly humiliating for the Pentagon, thrown under the bus to protect the dear leader. If only someone at the Pentagon had told him that hydrocarbons were flammable he never would have set fire to the region, but none of them knew. Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 09:15 Falling wrote:
But, hey, Trump is also claiming that secretly one of the past presidents (he won't say who) has called him up just to say how badly they wished they could have taken on Iran like Trump is... the four living past presidents have all said it wasn't them, sooooo. Trump is a living former president with a history of making weird phone calls pretending to be someone close to him. Maybe Barron (the fake name Trump used to use when calling up journalists to tell them how much pussy Trump got and spread rumours that he was friends with celebrities) has made a reappearance.
Who could possibly see that having a concept of a plan, it being both a war and operation, that they have already won but not won enough, and that he will know when to stop when he feels it in his bones, style of leadership wouldn't end up working out that well. Perhaps the fake tough guy they hired from fox news to run the military will figure it out...
|
On March 19 2026 04:40 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:45 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. Fucking thank you. It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber. It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith. what you are actually saying here is that it's hard to have a discussion because you're not in an echo chamber and some people disagree with you. got it
Lol buddy this forum leans left hard, I'm absolutely comfortable debating which is already rarely productive but for some reason many posters in here discuss in bad faith which makes any exchange useless.
|
On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you? Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid. I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time. I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive. 
It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea.
Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS.
I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty
|
On March 19 2026 05:30 Vivax wrote:
Someone named Ramp Capital on twitter could also be referring to my mom's skydiving accident. I could be offended, but I can't prove it.
Gonna have to wait for the GDI Ion cannon to hit the village while they think of new ways to milk me.
Kinda fits into US pol too cause imo there's been something from the US influencing them. Something radical.
6 years of 'special operations' in your neighbourhood kinda destroys you mentally.
They also destroy themselves in the process, kinda. So w/e.
In case you're wondering where we are on the fascism meter globally. They get free sponsorships in other countries and on socials.
Even Zucks stuff can‘t hide that he‘s just as bad as the rest.
Strong squizo shit posting game
|
United States43758 Posts
On March 19 2026 11:49 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 05:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 19 2026 02:07 dyhb wrote:On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid. So it's just you with this opinion, since the rest are currently being dismissed as fringe hypocrites. Do you have any thoughts on why it's just you? Wombat also stated that he thought it was stupid. I think many posters argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs and I think this is negative. I believe the thread would be better if people did less of this. I think I stay clear of this because I've clearly expressed my opinion on many different issues and I think people know that I am significantly more critical of Trump's freedom of speech infringements than I am of count dankula being fined, even if I also think the latter was stupid. Meanwhile Introvert and Oblade generally tend to be a bit vague in their criticisms of Trump (not saying they're both always supportive) but much more explicit in their critique of 'the other', and with how difficult it can be to get a straight answer out of either, a hostile culture has developed over time. I like baal but he's a bit old school and can be abrasive. It feels very tribal and anybody with a different idea is going to get jumped with dirty tactics instead of engaging with the idea. Somebody discussing in good faith would say something like you did "The Count Dankula thing was wrong" or they can say they agree instead we get 3 pages of people saying "it has nothing to do with anonymity" or "We dont know the case deeply enough to rule" FFS. I also like you, you've always been reasonable despise being a lefty
Okay but you literally didn’t know the case well enough to have an opinion on it. For some reason you’re taking that as a good thing. That unlike all those people who think you shouldn’t second guess a court ruling based on some shit you heard you alone were brave enough to die on the hill that he shouldn’t go to prison for something his dog did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
