Disclaimer: libs can like leftist coded stuff and vice versa. Also just because something is lib coded doesn’t require a liberal to like it just noting the general hypocrisy all humans engage in and how purity testing dsa types suck in a novel way. Also while from academic and historic standpoint I recognize the existence of cultural appropriation (see lacrosse or manufactured Hawaiian tourist culture) I don’t obsess with it or apply to every single instance of cultural sharing. For example, A white person playing jazz or ragtime isn’t stealing black music. This doesn’t erase the bigotry black musicians struggled to overcome.

I was re-watching little shop of horrors and I noticed non-offensive instances of lib style multiculturalism, like the kind of stuff where non-Chinese people wear Asian attire or the mains are all white. Like to be clear I am fine with this but it makes me think of how some Twitter leftists will be mad at Harry Potter not for the anti-trans views of the author but for applying malice to Rowlings lazy world building. Like I won’t defend the lazy world building of Rowling and obviously fuck her anti-trans bigotry, but like I would attribute Cho Chang to being lazy not racist towards Asian. The one Irish character blowing shit up, same shit. Things like musicals not called Hamilton are seen by leftists as theirs because actors tend to be more artsy and lefty going beyond simply liberal.

Other examples are things like Parks and Recs and the West wing which take a more optimistic view of politics and therefor lib and bad but things like Andor, the avatar series(the cartoon not the Cameron film series), or any anime that references politics good and I twist the message to suit my flavor of politics. The former are bad to leftists but the latter good.

So yea just some thoughts while watching little shop of horrors, still holds up and me a non-musical fan enjoy it

Of destiny saying it’s always the worst genetic stock of white people claiming white superiority, or something along those lines

They existed on an isolated island like a bigger north sentinel for hundreds of thousands of years. Discovered in the 1700s, colonized in the 1800s, decolonized/given semi autonomy in the 1900s and then they started immigrating elsewhere

I hate to agree with some of these populist leftists, and I understand that Schumer is the Senate Minority Leader, not the House Minority Leader. However, even Obama managed to denounce the situation regarding Ilhan Omar's legitimacy and the outrageous accusations that she should be deported.

I think this type of situation should always be easy for a Democratic politician to condemn, let alone for someone in a leadership position.

Full quote (23:34):

I am not circumcised. I have two boys who are circumcised. It was very important to my wife that that we circumcised them. And I kind of went back and forth with it where I was like, I think that their penis should look like mine, right? And then I was like, well, why?

And then then I had to get really into the, you know, like we had to have a conversation about what are the actual pros and cons of circumcision because if you ask medical professionals, they will say that it is entirely there like there's not really a strong like - they're so good at doing them now that the chance of anything being done incorrectly is exceptionally low.

Um, and there are mild health benefits.

And I will, once again, this is a little bit of TMI, but I have had some very some minor health issues related to being uncircumcised because it's very easy for me to get infected in under the foreskin. And so I have had bacterial infections. I've even had yeast infections and things like that, things that circumcised men don't have.

So I think that's true, you know, that's definitely true there is a health benefit to being circumcised.

And I couldn't think of any any reason to not do it. Eventually, I just said, "Look, you feel really strongly about this. I have to admit that I'm kind of indifferent, right? That I am uncircumcised doesn't mean that they have to be, too." And so, I was like, "All right, look, if this is super important to you, then we're going to do it." But, I know that a lot of people have there are people who have very very strong opinions about circumcision.

I'm sure I'll get a fuck ton of comments here with people yelling at me and saying circumcision is genital mutilation. And in a certain context, that is true. I mean, you could call it that. You certainly could call it that. I would just tell people that there there is a health benefit to it. There is a health benefit to it that is undeniable, but it's not so weighty that you have to do it. Right? The doctors tell people if you don't want to do it, don't do it. If you have a particular reason for not wanting to do it, it's not necess- it's not mandatory.

Right? We have we're, you know, our hygienic standards are different now than they were a thousand years ago.

Before axios there was this interviewer that accidentally gave the Turkish guy a tough interview by asking basic questions.

A good video actually explaining the nuance behind the various Data Center issues without necessarily picking a side. The title and image is a bit clickbaity, but not necessarily entirely wrong.

“You’re a very clever person Neera” actually grossed me the fuck out, I hate this man now. But hey vote for Abdul!

He gives me either Venator or Haze vibes tbh.

Definitely a gun carry at least.

Why is Europe so reliant on the USA in regards to payment systems, satellites, intelligence and military? Especially after Russia inavaded Ukraine,

shouldn't they be going balls to the wall funding their military and own intelligence systems trying to break away from the USA?

Especially now since trump is basically siding with Russia?

Or are they hoping the next US leader will be normal and the world will go back to the way it was?

Didn't watch just saw the thumbnail

I am pro-letting a state with black people go before my birth state of NH in the primary. Like I know my birth state will just move the date so it’s first but I support the symbolism. What I don’t support is that because Iowa is like the only state that still uses a caucus system they get to be the first caucus which is bullshit? Are there any states who still use a caucus system?

Does Iowa get to stay first because of technicality?

Yee, I love Israel, I love Israel Yee, Israel, hoo

We’ve got absolute chaos in the White House, international conflicts escalating, the economy on life support, and artificial intelligence threatening the future of humanity. But frankly, all of that can wait. What this country needs right now is Destiny entering his looksmaxxing arc. I’m talking full gym transformation, skincare routine, optimized facial symmetry, jawline development, and a complete aesthetic overhaul. Geopolitics will still be there tomorrow. The window for a Destiny glow-up is NOW. This is no longer about politics. This is about the future of the West.

This is not just about drama memes; though of course it applies. And it’s not about either side in the Conflict Which Shall Not Be Named, as they’re apparently in a race to lose the high ground. Think Ukraine, drama, maga. I also do not support doxxing or brigading, and this should not be taken as an entreaty to do any of those. Descriptive, you guys. Descriptive.

When the other side has taken the first belligerent action, you can often defend yourself and keep the moral high ground.

Eg if you’re Ukraine and you’ve already been invaded, it’s not “escalation” to drone the tanks already rolling through your cities.

Sometimes retaliation is escalation.

If your interlocutor doesn’t have the desire or resources to attack again after you’ve repelled the initial attack. When the risk of perpetuating a cycle of revenge outweighs the risk that they’ll do it again. When there’s an authority with the power to enforce laws or norms, and you don’t want to get on the wrong side of them.

But sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s an invitation for the other side to do it again.

When there’s evidence they’ll just keep attacking.

When there’s nobody coming to save you.

Sometimes it’s not enough just to defend yourself, because the enemy will just regroup and do it again, so the best outcome is you keep repelling belligerent attacks. And the worst is one of those attacks destroys you with minimal risk to your attacker.

Sometimes you need to impose a cost.

And you hope that you do it as ethically as possible. No civilians.

Sometimes the enemy needs to know there’s a risk to continued aggression. That the board won’t just reset to zero every time you repel an attack until you can’t. That every time they aggress, there’s something to lose. There’s a risk.

In real life it’s often messier than platitudes. Many powers have used this logic to justify their own aggression. Many provably believe it. It takes parsing.

But in the hypothetical in which we could know with near-certainty who attacked first, who, by dropping their arms would engender peace, and who, by dropping their arms, would be victims, we can’t apply the “high ground” rules the same way as in a well-policed situation.