deleted by creator

To be fair, that grey tree trunk looked a lot like a road

If he yells “free Palestine” while doing it, that means he’s associating himself with others who support a free Palestine. And that means other people won’t want to associate themselves with them.

I feel like this is very obvious but people seem unwilling to acknowledge it. Because they view this guy as on their side. But he’s on the side of narcissists, not people who are effective at saving Palestinian lives. He didn’t think at all about whether this will save or cost Palestinian lives.

I feel like the free Palestine movement in particular needs to understand this: if you want to save Palestinian lives, you need to convince people. And you don’t convince people by shooting at them, or by justifying people who shoot at them. Think about it: do you see Coke murdering Pepsi supporters as part of a marketing campaign? No. Because the people they hire for marketing are paid a lot of money to actually succeed. Instead they associate coke with positive things, by bringing in celebrities, and generally portraying coke drinkers as cool people.

You should try being more like coke. Sorry if this sounds belittling, but I feel like it needs to be said because free Palestine people seem to think the best strategy is to piss off the people you’re trying to convince. And that has never worked once in the history of mankind.

Killing is only justified if it saves lives. Anyone can see this act will cost lives on both sides. And 1000x as many on the Palestinian side.

Let’s be real, this guy wanted to be a badass and get praise and attention. And he doesn’t care how many die because of that.

It’s not that no one cares, it’s that people who do care don’t want to be associated with others who care like this guy.

Just as the tide of public opinion was turning against Israel. That guy probably got a few hundred thousand Palestinians killed.

The left is shockingly asleep about how bad this is. X still is the single most important platform for driving narratives about the news and politics. And it’s still important in part because Democrats and the left as a whole have been lethargic in leaving it. The fact that it’s blatantly being used to tilt the national political discussion in whatever direction Elon wants was probably one of many keys to getting Trump elected in 2024, and should be regarded as an ongoing emergency for Democrats and the left.

Charlize is cool.

People create content knowing others are going to get filthy rich off it and they’ll get nothing in return. Except total loss of privacy.

I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.

“Of course I know what due process is. A lot of my friends are due process experts, and they’re always telling me ‘Donald, you do so much process. Nobody does process as brilliantly as you.’”

Many things are impeachable offenses; but nothing is convictable.

It would be hilarious if instead of asking this, the reporter asked him to define “due process”

The strategy they’ve been floating for years is: have two other candidates run while he runs for the house. Trump gets chosen as house speaker, meanwhile the President and VP resign, making Trump president. Then they argue this is technically constitutional since he didn’t win an election to become president.

That’s why it’s essential that after 2026, there is a push to eliminate this loophole. It may take a constitutional change, but first it’s going to take absolute annihilation of Republicans in the midterms.

I’m against violence, but I’m not sure urinating and/or defecating on anyone wearing this hat counts as violence

Later this year: “I was right, but I actually meant to say ‘into’ instead of ‘to’ and ‘someone’s’ instead of ‘your’”

My main criteria is can we fix it.

If a Democrat wins in 2028, we can hypothetically fix immigration policy, tariffs, and all the rest with enough popular support. In fact now that the far right has shown themselves to be a clown show, maybe that phase of America’s maturation may finally be ending. We might even bring Abrego Garcia himself back.

But if we deport citizens - who can vote and participate in democracy - that puts the thumb on the scale. It makes permanent fascism like in Russia more likely. And it’s worth dying to avoid that permanent fate. But if it’s temporary, it just doesn’t rise to that level.

I’m gonna guess this sort of thing is more the rule than the exception. The goal isn’t to deport actual gang members, it’s to signal a tough-on-illegal-immigration policy without the challenge that comes with actually deporting people who aren’t trying to be found. So they just deport law abiding people who are easier to find because the reality doesn’t matter.

I would never ask someone else to risk their lives for me. I think we all need to figure out where our red line is - for me it would be a successful attempt to keep serving in a third term, or actually successfully deporting/imprisoning US citizens without due process. Merely trying or talking about it isn’t enough because if the constitutional process stops him, that means it’s still working.

Maybe you should blame yourselves for failing to convince the American people to vote for candidates who would cut off aid to Israel. Maybe, just maybe, camping in people’s public spaces, spraypainting people’s neighborhoods with “FUCK ISRAEL”, and oh yeah, helping get a fascist dictator elected wasn’t the best way to make those people want to side with you.

I mean I sympathize with actual Palestinians. Nobody should have to suffer what they’ve suffered. But let’s be honest - Israel gets away with it for a reason. And that reason is globally, no one wants to side with Hamas (which by the way, actually films themselves murdering children. Brilliant.), and in the US, no one wants to side with edgelord protesters who just piss everyone off.

Israel may kill kids, but they actually try not to get it on video, and they spend millions on PR that portrays them as the victim rather than the aggressor (as opposed to being as visibly aggressive as possible like Palestine protesters). Maybe that has something to do with why they keep winning and you keep losing.

Maybe it’s unfair for me to paint all Palestine protesters with a broad brush. I remember one had a sign listing all her dozens of family in Gaza who had been killed. That’s moving - you need more of that, less attacking the people you want to support you.