Right. BLM had largely unspecified and incoherent goals; those that were outlined were many and difficult to quantify. BLM's violence targeted victims and locations untied to their nebulous demands.
Patriots stormed a location of an activity they were protesting, with specific, quantifiable demands: auditing of and judicial oversight for elections in specific locations.
Extremely different.
Part of that problem is we don't all quite share the same values; we just share enough of them. Some view pro-life as huge; some are pro-choice but figure we have bigger fish to fry right now (none of his SCOTUS picks seem like they're going to put their foot down on RvW, so not a big deal). Some view penalty tariffs on China and such as great, some are more libertarian but are happy enough with being pulled out of deals to spent money that they're okay with it. Some love Trump's pacifism; others would honestly be just fine turning the middle east to glass, but are fine as long as, at the very least, we're pulling out and it's not our problem anymore.
I went to a Catholic school with a religious reference as our mascot; sacrilige, maybe, but definitely meant as "this thing is fucking GREAT." A friend went to a Catholic School whose team was called The Crusaders.
You don't name your football team after something you don't see as absurdly cool and powerful.
If I didn't personally know and like a lot of blacks and Asians way cooler, smarter and more capable than me, I'd be be a White Supremacist just to spite them.
That's how radicalization happens. Think about the people who haven't met many minorities, or only meet them in the worst circumstances (99% of the blacks I've met are wortlhess because I worked in social services for years and thus got the welfare crowds--because 99% of the welfare crowd is useless, regardless of race).
Without a specific and personal counter-example they hold dear and in esteem, why wouldn't people embrace an ideology they've been accused of having for their entire lives?
They're basically only interested in shunting you off to counselors and therapists in your zip code off of a list they have. Those counselors and therapists are only interested in urging you to adapt prevailing values and norms with no regard for the individual's own goals or desires. Get in the round hole, accept your feminine side and check your privilege.
The left and other forums seem to have difficulty comprehending that me saying "Shut up, Q-tard" or "I think BLM is preaching hateful, racist rhetoric" do not mean "I want the government to do anything about it."
It just means 'I want this dude to shut up' and 'I think what you're saying is dangerous.'
(I actually do want the government to do something about Twitter, since they get government subsidies and because other companies are subject to trust busting giving them a non-freemarket advantage, but that's a nuanced take and those aren't allowed.)
I hate how antisemitism has become ingrained in the right wing movement. We're pro-free speech and the accusation of 'racism' alone isn't enough to spook us, we are willing to look at whether maybe here are some inconvenient truths to racial claims. So those who are racist against Jews and have been pushed into the corner ally with us. "The enemy of my enemy."
Still annoying that every Bitchute video I watch and every forum gets inundated with talk of ((them)) no matter what the topic.
I am already gay for Elon Musk. I don't know if I can get any gayer.
Seriously. I care about global warming and environmentalist issues, I am just of the strong opinion that any steps to change it will require individual choice, not government regulation, just like how our carbon emissions went down WITHOUT the Paris Accord. Forcing people to care is not the way. You give them a good choice and make it socially attractive (Tesla's a status symbol, and, I've heard, a very enjoyable toy if you have the money).
I know this sounds like dooming, but every time I try to think of something to do (such as run for office, research or support candidates) I come up against the wall of the fact that votes don't matter. I don't even feel that one thousand, or even ten thousand coordinated with information can do much. I'm only of middling intelligence and have no leadership; yet trustworthy leadership is hard to come by.
I don't feel betrayed by Trump, by any means. He's done more than any politician since T. Roosevelt. I don't feel he owes us greater directives. But storming the capitol strikes me as the right action to have taken, and backing down and leaving the capitol seemed to render it purely symbolic, to waste our momentum for a lack of any idea of what to do with it. And he condemned it. He is finished leading us, it seems. Of course I understand practical reasons why, and don't begrudge him those, just as I don't begrudge the mods for not allowing calls to violence on this forum of theirs.
I suspect many others have the passion, have at least some middling skill, but nothing to do with it, lawful or otherwise. And most would prefer lawful means, strongly, strongly prefer lawful means, but also see those as the most demonstrably futile. And so we shitpost and wallow in angst for lack of any more directed outlet.
I had misgivings about her history too. I was in Gamergate. But she is (and was) young and her views changed. People hold stupid political ideas, especially as kids who've never experienced the real world. She was young and zealous and then saw the left eat their own when she failed some purity tests.
She backs up WHY she has the positions she does now, which I suppose she could fake, but the more popular side is clearly the one she was on before. She could make a lot more money being a well spoken black woman complaining about racism and sexism against herself than she does being on our side and labeled an Uncle Tom.
I hope he pulls through and recovers quickly to health and comfort. I'm glad you have a community you feel you can talk to; don't let everything here stress you out too much, we'll hold down the fort and be here when your dad's stable and well again.
They were furious Trump put a stop to that, especially because it's so publicly unpopular there was no way for them to spin that in a way that'd get even the most brainwashed leftist sheep upset about it. It's why there was no news or celebration of it when he refused to sign its renewal, despite being THE point of bitter agreement between red and blue during and even a good while after the Bush era. Democrats just forgot they hated it when Obama quietly did nothing about it, because it was inconvenient to acknowledge Their Guy didn't fix one of the most well known and widely acknowledged privacy and civil rights violations. Too black pill, so forget it exists and find another crisis to worry about to distract you.
Buy a put. A 'put' is an option written by a stockholder. An 'option' is like a coupon; the two types are a put and a call.
A call is the right to buy shares at a certain price on the expiration date of the coupon. A put is the right to sell shares at a certain price on the expiration date of the coupon.
If you think Amazon will rise in price, you buy a call. You say you will pay $10.00 for the right to buy Amazon at its current price next week. if Amazon raises by more than $10.00, you've made money! If it does not, you do not have to buy the stock, but you did waste your $10.00.
If you think Amazon will fall in price, you pay $10.00 for the right to sell Amazon at its current price next week. if Amazon falls by more than $10.00, you make money. If Amazon rises, you don't have to sell at the lower price, but you did waste your $10.00.
There's an entire market around these calls and puts, even more lively than on the stocks themselves directly. People look at the ratio and prices of calls and puts to try to guess what the market will do. If puts are making a lot more money, that shows low confidence in the stock, it shows public expectation the value will fall, and so more people sell their stock now before it does fall.
Stock manipulation is theoretically possible by a lot of people throwing money into calls or puts to try to manipulate the detlas (numbers signifying the expected movement of the stock price during a period of time). But if it's not very, very large, and very coordinated, it's just people giving free money to the options writers (people who own the actual stock and write the call/put coupons---hoping that they expire worthless because then they just get to keep those $10.00 you wasted because you don't actually use the right to do anything on that stock).
Because nobody wants to disrupt their daily, comfortable lives in a civil war. We're so against disrupting or comfortable daily lives that ceasing to use social media isn't even an option; we need a replacement.
Even while needing a replacement for practical and planning purposes, we have no leadership if we did find the cajones to Blue Igloo; Trump said shut up and go home. But if he were to lead us on that front, he has no real means of communicating as a leader, either.
The problem with messengers is if we don't all pick one, we get too splintered, and each one dies. That's literally all the big ones like Discord, Whatsapp, etc. have going for them are being ones that were the first for a specific purpose and became the default. (Whatsapp for normies who have this weird desire to have their online persona directly tied to their RL one, Discord for gamers/nerd hobbyists, etc.)
I love everything I've seen about Matrix so far... except for the lack of activity there.
Unfortunately, a nuanced position makes it hard to slap into easy bulletpoints.
I think it's a great thing overall, for the same reason nuance is a very good thing to understand in anything reasonably complex.I think it pulls a lot of people to our side if they're willing to stop and really think in ways outside of prescribed talking points.
It's why I changed my mind from libertarian Open Borders to "No, Trump has a point, let's close them down for now while we have a lot of terrorist stuff going on and until we figure all this out."
Now that ISIS is a non-entity thanks to Trump, my position has become more akin to: "actually, there are many other problems with open borders such as election fraud, census issues, and free rider problems which are going to take some time to clean up. I am now willing to be less hard on borders if we can be more hard on voter ID and proof of citizenship for public services. Alternately, I am willing to slow walk public service barriers if we instead enact barriers to illegal entry. I just want to stop free riders, and don't care too strongly which we use to get there."
(I want voter ID yesterday, with or without borders so that's not as nuanced--I do see how proof of citizenship will complicate and make other public services more expensive, I'm more flexible on those. But proof of citizenship to vote is relatively easy and does not complicate a life-saving or daily necessity.)