It's a fascist movement. And to make an incredibly long explanation short, the petite bourgeoisie use reactionary movements to try and claw back wealth and power they have lost to the true owners of capital. He has promised them that those "elites" that have consolidated massive wealth and turned the US into a corporate oligarchy will be dismantled and a mythical US past where they think they held the dominant position be reclaimed. This is both cultural and economic.

The petite bourgeoisie do not have near the numbers on their own, so the movement is a mishmash of free market, low tax small business rhetoric and economic populism to incorporate alienated working class members that have also been shafted in the current system. Their class interests don't align, so they are unified by cultural messaging and the creation of a white christian volk that constitutes the "real" Americans. This volk is embodied in the leader Trump via a cult of personality. They are disappointed in their lives and alienated both socially and from their labor, so they give themselves to the movement, and as such belong to something greater. They are special, part of a world a historical force with a destiny to reclaim America.

From whom who may ask? Well this framing requires enemies. The rest of us and any institution that could offer a source of authority not controlled by the movement. Journalists, academics, scientists, courts, atheists, leftists, liberals, and of course the LGBTQ community. This serves the double function of unifying the movement and waging an apocalyptic war against those that would stand against the movement.

The movement is self-consuming and nihilistic. The goal is power. The reason they do not care about lies, corruption, hypocrisy, immorality, and sadism is because it is proof that Trump wields ultimate power. American government should definitionally be made to serve true Americans, and it does this by only applying laws to those outside the volk. Any time the government punishes Trump it shows that the government itself is traitorous to the idea of America. When Trump gets away with things, breaks the law, cheats, lies, and steals, it is how things ought to be. It is the ultimate expression of power, of the American system serving the volk it exists to represent. Reality itself bends to the will of the leader(note the famous Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will"). They can express their own sadism, their own malice, and their own vengeance, in the actions of the leader because they are all embodied by him.

They aren't dumb. They know he is lying, even is subconsciously. It is a mark of fealty to also change reality. To impose the reality of the movement on the world is their own expression of power. It signifies belonging when talking to one another, and the more one lies and parrots Trump the more ones belongs.

This is what liberals do not understand fundamentally. They are mystified that his followers still are loyal when they have pointed out so many transgressions. Because they aren't playing a game of liberal democracies. The rules for fascism are different and are not concerned with winning debates. The histrionics of liberals and instutions is proof to them that MAGA is winning. Any attack on the movement is self reinforcing. The liberals are playing tennis and going " these idiots don't even see Trump can't fucking play, he doesn't have a racket, he can't serve!" All the while MAGA is gleefully steamrolling the court

Goddammit this got long anyways, sorry. But it is worth noting that they are of course all of them deceived. Fascism involves using the government to support friendly capital and give massive government investment as well as state sanctioned monopolies to big business. So capitalists buy into fascist systems readily with the promise of shitloads of money. Trump's largest policy win was a massive tax cut for the super rich, and recently offered oil companies control of government regulation in exchange for a billion dollars. The populism is just rhetoric to gain power, and the super rich are still in charge and make off like bandits.

It's called Feudalism. And we ain't the dukes.

"I know who I am, I'm just a fun loving kid, I love hanging out with my friends, going penguin sledding, and goofing around", Aang reported solemnly, forlornly, with the sort of world-weary gravitas generally reserved for a world leader reporting battlefield casualties to his beleaguered citizenry.

Excerpt from the Netflix Avatar: The Last Airbender screenplay

I asked chatty boy:

David Bowie, a complex and often controversial figure in popular culture, did experience a period in the mid-1970s where he made comments and exhibited behaviors that were interpreted by some as sympathetic to fascism. However, it is crucial to view these actions and statements in the context of his personal struggles and the personas he adopted during his career.

During the mid-1970s, particularly around the time he lived in Los Angeles and then moved to Berlin, Bowie was struggling with severe drug addiction, particularly cocaine, and was reportedly in a precarious mental state. It was during this time that he made several disturbing statements:

1. Nazi Salute Allegation: Bowie was photographed in what appeared to be a Nazi salute when he arrived at Victoria Station in London in 1976. Bowie later claimed that this was a misinterpretation of a wave.
2. Controversial Interviews: In interviews with Playboy and other publications, Bowie made comments that could be interpreted as endorsing authoritarian regimes. For example, he was quoted saying that Britain could benefit from a fascist leader.

Bowie later disavowed these statements and actions, attributing them to his mental state and drug problems at the time. He expressed regret and made clear his actual political leanings:

• Regrets: Bowie described his mid-70s persona and statements as a product of his drug addiction and a character he played, distancing his true self from those remarks.
• Political Views: In later years, Bowie explicitly supported more inclusive and humanitarian causes and was known for his support of various charity works, including AIDS research and famine relief.

David Bowie's engagement with controversial themes and imagery was often theatrical and influenced by the personas he adopted as part of his artistic expression. While he did explore and sometimes embody dark and disturbing characters and ideas, his later clarifications and consistent support for humanitarian causes suggest that his true views were not supportive of fascism or authoritarian regimes.

It's important to consider the entirety of Bowie's career and his personal growth over the years, recognizing the complex interplay between his public personas and his personal convictions.

And to add on about The Labyrinth:

No, David Bowie did not claim to have slept with Jennifer Connelly. Jennifer Connelly starred alongside David Bowie in the 1986 film "Labyrinth," directed by Jim Henson. During the filming of "Labyrinth," Connelly was only 14 or 15 years old, and there are no credible reports or claims from either Bowie or Connelly suggesting any inappropriate behavior.

The relationship between Bowie and Connelly in the context of "Labyrinth" was strictly professional. Connelly has spoken about her experience working with Bowie in positive terms, noting his kindness and professionalism during the production of the film.

It's important to approach such topics with care and rely on verified information to avoid spreading misinformation or unfounded rumors.

Recent Behind The Bastards episode about how the Sexual Liberation movement in Germany was co-opted by pedophiles. They convinced the Berlin(I think, sorry) government to give orphan boys to pedophiles that were feeding them for sex because they were "the only ones that would care for them". This went on, in the open, with known pedophiles in good community standing convincing people it was another sexual orientation, until the 90's.

The guest said it best when she said roughly "If my politics ever lead me to think this was okay, at no point would I accept the conclusion, I would just assume my politics was wrong".

Also there was a period post May '68 in France where a who's who's of Post-Structuralist and Existentialist philosophers were openly promoting the sexual liberation of children and their ability to consent with adults.

In the pissing contest of posturing as "the most liberated from contemporary mores" in the 20th century post-modern Continental radical circles it was more of a fopaux to deny aspects of "liberation" than to promote literal pedophilia. No. Some mores are there for a fucking reason you goddamn imbeciles. Shut the fuck up Foucault, I was already sick of your shit when I had to read Madness and Civilization.

It's not about improving teaching. It is about everyone having flashy shit to point to to justify their job. It is a giant shell game of a superstructure of admin, salesmen, ed. companies, politicians, professors, and researchers all trying to show how innovative they are. Actually improving things in the current system is impossible because it would require doing banal, unsexy things that make the current measures of success go down, in particular grad rates and pass rates.

Goodhart's Law is "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Everyone should've realized it was far easier for schools to graduate kids that had no business graduating than fixing their entire system, especially when there are realistically kids that will never be willing to do the work. So the final weeks of the school year my school was in a mad dash pushing seniors through self run online classes they can finish in a matter of hours to fill the requirements of years worth of classes.

I think 4 years is a stretch. I would say until the buildup to the Iraq invasion, so about a year or two. I actually think our sort of patriotic unity is a cautionary tale. The Bush administration used its popularity to massively scale up US interventionism and the scale of the surveillance state with Homeland Security, the Patriot Act and ICE. We got two disastrous wars and the standing of the US globally irreparably damaged.

For me it was just the basic question of "what do I want to do in a Harry Potter game?" Well I love chess so Wizards Chess has to be there... Uhhh... Quidditch of course needs to have a great minigame... Explore cool, unkown locations like other schools and magical places....Oh oh read all the books, it's based on a beloved book franchise and would be amazing if JK Rowling wrote new lore to put in books in the restricted section because she is involved!... Hanging out with centaurs would be great, maybe choose whether you want to help them or the Ministry... Beloved friends like Ron and Hermione that explore with you and aid you in quests with possible squad based combat. Maybe they can specialize in different combat trees...And lots of world interactions where I can really feel like I'm affecting it.. And of course wacky characters and side quests like you said!"

What we got was a beautiful game that obviously a lot of people poured love into that is just... Mehhh. How they have a library where you can read nothing, book cases all over the place, JK Rowling involved and everyone thought "Reading is for nerds, this is a video game!" Dragon Age Inquisition is 10 years old and has tons of reading for lore expansion. Skyrim you can read every book and it is like 15 years old. Reading wizard history and world building was honestly one of the things I was most excited about. Discovering the beautif library and running around looking for books only to realize I could read none of them soured me on the game. I guarantee they left chess and Quidditch out for DLC, which is worse for me than just leaving it out. Iirc you even play someone in chess and they just....skip it...? How they made a HP game with all this work and just have you exploring identical hamlets where you cannot interact with anything and you just do identical puzzles and quests is beyond me.

In that case why not make it like Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age, where you go to various open world locations that are drastically different? I never even finished it.

They are low level felonies meaning class E, the same class as DUIs. He'll be sentenced concurrently if he is found guilty, and people are just in general rarely sent to jail for falsifying business records as first time offenders. Considering how Trump has been given immeasurable deference by the legal system the idea that a judge would go against the norm, even if Trump deserves it, and sentence jail time while he running for president is laughable.

Well not for his first white collar, low level offense. Zero chance he goes to jail for this.

Do you think it is just apathy, or are their unaddressed underlying issues that are being expressed via disrespect? Did her mom just dip? If she grew up with just her and her dad does she view you as an interloper? Is she distancing herself from you so that she doesn't become attached and get abandoned again? Does she do things her dad asks her to do? Is she equally disrespectful to you, teachers, strangers, and her father? Has she spoken to a professional about what sounds like a difficult upbringing? Do you and her dad fight? Is there screaming in the house? Do you get any support from her dad in holding the line? Are there consequences for disrespect that are consistently enforced by both parents? If her dad coddles her and you have to be the disciplinarian then you are just being set up to look like the cruel stepmother interrupting her life. That sort of inconsistency signals that the issue is you, not her behavior, and your authority is negotiable.

Also, a lot times kids act out because they do not feel secure, their actions bring inconsistent, chaotic results. Which is what happens if her actions bring differing results based on who is present. They are craving predictability, reliability, and structure-especially if she feels like you may leave because her mother did- so that they can feel safe, and so they know what is acceptable behavior. In that vein, are y'all planning on marriage? If you are certain you aren't breaking up, have you told her that? That you will always be there for her and she can trust you to be there? Routines are a big help. Familiarity and rituals bring kids order. Remember the world is scary and she is relying on y'all to give her a sense of control over her life. Give her choices when possible. "Hey, you want to take out the garbage or do the dishes? I'll do the other one". Make it clear you are all trying to build a good home together and she has agency in how she contributes.

If her father is not on board with 1) earnestly addressing any emotional issues from her upbringing and 2) working with you on discipline, structure, care, safety, and consistent consequences, then you are in a beyond hopeless situation. The yoeman's work has to be his, without it you are Sisyphus. If he is not willing to do this then you are gonna need to have some hard conversations if you are commited to both the relationship and a change in the dynamic.

Sorry, that was a lot. Best of luck.

Edit: sorry, for some reason I thought yall were still dating and not married

Take an ostensibly "neutral" source like Reuters or NPR. What we mean by "neutral" is presenting the information in a way that is seen as factually accurate by the most people in relevant groups. God isn't sitting there telling us what the Objectively True Presentation is. So how does NPR present the stock market on a normal day? They'll talk about the DOW and S&P, major company mergers etc. All fine and agreeable if you are in the mainstream politically and economically. The fancy word for this sort of agreement on the state of things by the majority of power brokers is subjective objectivity. This is what Steve Bannon and Steven Miller are explicitly trying to change, making more people question our communal truths to make thier beliefs a faction trying to control, and ultimately dominating by force, our national subjective objectivity in the shittiest way.

A Marxist would say this is incredibly ideological. The professional class supporting capital in a capitalist system They would claim any time you mention the stock market without mentioning the massive crime of worker exploitation that makes it possible and the continuing hegemony of the bourgeoisie making money without contributing anything, then you are spewing propaganda. To the extent of the most extreme Soviet propaganda. That the very act of claiming this is what "neutral" is, is making a public universal claim about your own personal beliefs being "objectively true".

What they are saying is if NPR does not know they are presenting the news from a broadly liberal position of free markets, democracy and human rights being desirous, then they are far more ideological in their neutrality than an anarchist would be that is clear eyed about their beliefs. And the fact they are claiming neutrality is a propaganda technique to gain trust This is because their beliefs would be so deeply ingrained that they literally do not even know they are beliefs; rather, they think it is literally just universal truths about the world. Think of the people in the Matrix that do not know they are there. They fight for and uphold a system that they just think is reality.

So we are all ideological, and recognizing that fact is an important step in being able to critique and analyze one's ideology, as well ad recognize the ideological positions of others. It males one more free and massively increases agency. This won't ever get rid of ideology, but it makes one more aware and able to change ideologies that aren't great.

Hence there is no neutral news, and anyone claiming they are truly neutral is telling you they are either dishonest or unaware of their ideological priors.

Making fake nudes of your friends to make them a sex object for you to jerk off to as you fantasize about fucking them and cum to those thoughts is humiliating, degrading, selfish, and cruel, and for those those reasons is of fucking course a huge breach of their trust. No offense, but I am confused how this is even up for debate lol?

So, this might surprise you, but I have actually spoken to human women before, and literally nothing you have said rings true even slightly. I have also read feminist philosophy, talk to feminists, all my female friends identify as feminists, and even slept with my fair share of feminists. I am like a 6, definitely not in the 1% of men, and not to brag, but a lot of those women were real good looking.

How did I do it? Well, nothing special about me. I was in social situations where I was talking to women. I was nice and treated them like people, took an interest in their lives, and genuinely enjoyed talking to them.

As for patriarchy, it is not a conspiracy theory. It generally holds none of the positions you have posited to it. It argues systemically society was created by men and with men in mind, and as such favors men in many ways. It does not hold that all men are "oppressing women 24/7". It does not not men "collectively hold power". It does hold that men have certain privileges in society not afforded to women, but not in the "men have no issues" way to sem to suggest.

The important part of the critique I think you miss with how you've consumed it is the issues you are angry about are addressed by feminism. It does not argue that this is the only system of oppression(many feminists were abolitionists and later civil rights advocates), and does not try and hand wave the harm done to men by our society. It actually argues that patriarchy is also harmful to men in ways that lead to the position you are in.

The term "toxic masculinity" has been widely misunderstood, and honestly I'm not a huge fan of it either as it is a moral attack rather than a systemic critique. But what it is trying to get at is the harmful traits expected of men in patriarchy. Men are expected to be breadwinners, to be reserved and stoic, to not be vulnerable, to not be emotional, to not seek help for mental health issues, to never show weakness, to be dominant in their relationships, to overwork themselves, to be selfless to the point of harm, and to be isolated. When men are expected to behave as such it makes it difficult to form social bonds and open up to people, thus making it harder to meet women. This is literally the patriarchy they are attacking. You are condemning the people arguing for your well being.

When this is coupled with class critique, as many feminists do, of course they are not arguing that working class people are not also exploited regardless of sex. The suicide rate for men, their isolation, their anger, their frustrations at being financially fucked, are not due to some dumb bitches, they're due to exploitation in capitalism and its assertion of a masculinity that makes capitalists shitloads of money. The rulers have stripped the world of communal bonds and public spaces, have made us live lives where all we can do after work is look at reddit until we have to go back, have underpaid us in meaningless jobs with no prospect of betterment, and have isolated and alienated us in our little internet bubbles where we are lucky to feel kinship with a small group of friends. They have then reformulated social dynamics like dating, bonding, community engagement, personal fulfillment and societal critique into forms that can be commodified. This has taken a Hellish new form of stripping any semblance of a private life divorced from markets with social media internet takeover. To the point where our very epistemic reality is commidifed and manipulated. This includes tinder, ai girlfriends and OF. Their use is a symptom of alienation, not of feminism. It unfortunately also includes the grifters that have been lying to you, making you angry, and giving you an enemy, so you will buy their books and watch their videos. You are blaming other victims of oppression rather than trying to find solidarity, and in turn supported the people trying to commidify your consciousness, your emotional state, your very being. Capitalism is so robust because the needs created by its deficiencies can be met in a host of ways that serve the system itself.

Best of luck man. I really feel for you. I know you're angry. Just please try and entertain the possibility that there are other, more plausible, explanations for the issues affecting men.

Everything you are blaming on some nebulous concept of women is the fault of capitalism. It is called alienation my man, people been talking about this shit for a hundred and fifty years. Watch some Mark Fischer YouTube videos. Your anger is justified but misplaced.

Bombing civilian populations generally galvanizes the people in support of the war effort. It would politicize the population in the exact wrong direction.

An Android for a teenager is currently a Mark of Caine

Alright, I am going to try and explain the general harm I think this is emblematic of, sorry it's gonna take a sec, feel free not to read it. I know it's not exactly what you asked but it is why I have absolute open contempt for this type of media in all forms:

I am concerned the incentive structure of social media(along with the general culture of capitalism) is making people hedonistic, distracted, emotional children, as their moral and psychological reality becomes the final frontier of commodification. The media are vapid, shallow, and overly sentimental because this gives an immediate hit of emotions that makes them immensely popular. These producers are creating torrents of videos I view as actively harmful in this medium for profit.

The type of people wrought from this and the social control it entails is the central critique of Brave New World. The characters live pleasant lives as they sing commercial jingles as songs, have quick, emotionless relationships, and live lives of empty leisure that disgust the main character, who lived a hard life while taking comfort and finding strength and moral instruction in Shakespeare.These videos are like the narrative equivalent of a milkshake, and offer quick reward with no understanding, nuance or growth. If you read a Dostoyevsky novel you are confronted with moral ambiguity, psychological depth and full, conflicted characters you hate, love, sympathize with and condemn all in the course of a paragraph. But it is hard, and the immense reward is long in coming and harder to recognize. But it contains a level of profundity completely absent in social media, the thing largely replacing novels.

The best explicit critique of this was written 50 years ago ago called One Dimensional Man by Marcus. It outlines the way capitalism narrows the public's ability to critically think and exist fully into a totalitarian state a la Brave New World. Consumer culture is what we want to focus on, where he writes "The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness that is immune against its falsehood". When commodities like these are peddled they are narrowing our ability to think of alternative ways of existing. We think of liberty as consumption and an electoral oligarchy as democracy because that is how it is seamlessly, incessantly, sold to us. We think of thought and rationality as productivity, technical expertise and positivism(in both senses) because these are efficiency and business-oriented (The characters in Brave New World have trashy romance novels and technical manuals as their only books). We think of emotions as quick hits of simplistic feelings.

The data on social media being uncovered is that it shortens our attention-span, makes us unable to focus, and unable to think deeply. For an incredibly farsighted book on the actual neurological changes the internet affects(it was pre social media even!) I highly recommend The Shallows. They claim the shift is more profound than anything since the public became largely literate.

Public intellectuals like JP are well recieved in this system because they are slick, outrageous, and bombastic, mixing it with boiler-plate self help that offers simplistic answers to questions like ennui and alienation. Capitalism selling the treatment to the problems it causes; control is built into the very logic and structure of the system, alleviating instability in the very psyches of the disaffected before it becomes a challenge. Do we imagine a new world, do we organuze and create mutual aid networks, do we blame the systems of domination that control us?! No! That is impractical utopianism fleeing your problems. Your problems are concrete and only an issue of personal psychology, work ethic, productivity and lack of buy in to the world as is. Thoughts of a different society become a laughable, impractical fancy that signify decadance and indolence. Clean your room and be normal! Marcus says "The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment." The command is "Human identity is consumer preferences", what does your car say about your freedom and wander-lust, "you love watching heckin wholesome videos of doggos, you sure are empathetic?!" Markets not only fulfill needs, they create needs by altering our epistimic reality to control us and keep us in our invisible cages.

Now our personal lives become the producers of commodities of sentimental content, and the means of production is controlled by grifters and billionaire platform owners. Pop music has gone from Stevie Wonder and Elliott Smith to short, catchy, simple, vapid tik toks not far from jingles to hedonism. We control each other by constant refrains of "gatekeeping", "hating", " pretentiousness", "GASLIGHTING". All art is personal preference, just enjoy what you like! High and low art distinctions is classism! In the name of empathy, equity and democratization we are enforcing the strictures of the system. We live lives of perpetual alienation, ennui and dread caused by our domination and economic exploitation that we drown out with an amusement park of trite media that reinforces the inevitably of the system. "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".

Do most schools not have a standardized plan for write ups? Like 1=work detail 3=ISS 4=OSS etc.? I honestly don't know. I work at a title 1 school but am lucky enough to have generally good admins.

Save one time I kicked a kid out for saying loudly "they must've been faggots", with a venomous emphasis on the word faggot, while I was lecturing on something I don't remember. While he waited for admin by the door he kept talking, saying "I know why you're so upset, you must be gay. That is the only reason you'd get so upset, you gay", continually for several minutes. He was back in my room the next day. Never got suspended, never missed a class, even though I wrote him up for 3 different things for that one incident. The admin wrote me a cover their ass liability apology and nothing else. Pissed me right the fuck off, but I was a new teacher and a week until school was out so I didn't make a stink. Now I would be having a meeting with the entire administration and the superintendent if necessary. Luckily it was a one off and they have been universally great since. Behavior so good in a Title 1 school that I wrote probably 5 detentions this whole year, and all for stuff like talking too much, phones, and being tardy habitually.

1) Steal another person's video 2) put an overly sentimental song over it 3) Profit off labor that wasnt yours by shoveling saccharine shit on people

I am convinced all these videos are the millenial version of Chicken Soup for the Soul

The reason fascists lie so blatantly is because it's an expression of power and solidarity. The entire point is that there is a group that the laws exist to serve and do not apply to. In our instance Christian Nationalists. This is the volk, the blood of the nation(Trump's explicit usage now). MAGA means restoring the power of the volk and punishing the outgroups. To achieve this means the ultimate end is power. Not truth, not justice, not equity. Power and more power.

The volk is embodied in the leader. The leader gaining power is the volk gaining power. They are one, so they abandon their mediocre lives, ravaged by decades of neoliberal rule and inequality- marginalized by the growing cultural and legal status of the outgroups, and live a great life of unchecked power through their merging with the leader in a cult of personality. The loss of power is what they mean when they speak of decadance and decay, why they call themselves "real Americans", and why they mythologize the "golden era" of white male, petite bourgeois and working class ascendence of the 1950's.

In Marxist readings this is a petite bourgeois turn to authoritarianism as a response to the massive growth of the ruling bourgeoisie at the expense of the small business owning petite bourgeoisie. They lose their "independent control" of their small means of production as they are outcompeted and bought up by global corporations.They are not large enough to make this a mass movement so they use false consciousness to convince the white working class to support the movement. Creating cultural, religious, and racial conflict to dupe them into ignoring class and thinking their interests are aligned. Like with Hitler, Trump's fealty to this group is strictly surface level. They are a tool of power. He is of the ruling class and has convinced those rulers that this authoritarian turn will benefit capital through their complete integration into the government. They write the laws, gain monopolistic control of industry, and get massive tax cuts and handouts. Exactly how Hitler bought his capitalists E.g. Trump recently offering oil companies the ability to write their own regulatory policy a la Executive Orders in exchange for one BILLION dollars. And of course the largest tax cut for the upper class in US history, leading to unfathomable wealth gain for upper bourgeoisie capital. They are easily swayed that the movement will benefit them.

So what does all this have to do with the lying? As we established, the goal of the movement is power, truth bends to power. This is why liberals think they are stupid and imbecilic, buying into obviously incorrect stories becuase they see being correct as the win condition for a debate(fascists like MTG do end up drinking their own kool-ade a lot of the time, like Himmler). But most of the time what is "true" means to them what is expedient. I mean, what is a greater expression of power than lying with impunity, refusing to bend to the obvious evidence and outgroup pressure? Lying is a demonstration of Trump and MJT's existence above the established liberal system. Trump is the will to power, outside the rules as the volk believe they should be. Trump embodies them, and his power is their power. The rules should exist to serve them and punish their enemies, the histrionics of liberals at the blatant lying and their impotence to stop it is actually the affirnation that proves this. So they parrot and believe the lies as a demonstration of their inclusion in this volk. It is lies as religious ritual. The proof of fealty is how ardently one repeats the lies, and another's confirmation is their attestation that they are also part of the volk. Like Christian communion or speaking in tongues. We both exist above the rules and are in fellowship as the blood of the nation. We get to lie with impunity and create a reality as an expression of Will to Power just like Trump. Liberals ask "why do none of the loyalists scoff at this bushit, why does he always get away with it?" Because lies demonstrate the movement's power and affirming the lies actually strengthens their belief in the movement. It feels good to be able to assert something untrue because you will its truth, it is your small taste of extralegal power the leader enjoys.

This whole thread mocking it and calling it stupidity(which is reddit's response to all of Trump's antics) is fundamentally misunderstanding what is occurring. They are mocking Trump's tennis skills and Trump is bulldozing the court."Look at this idiot! He isn't even holding a racket! How the fuck is he planning on serving without a tennis ball! God these mouth breathers can't even tie their own shoes, and their tennis fans are rooting for the worst player ever!" It is only stupid if you are abiding by pluralistic, democratic rules of engagement in a system that values discourse and rationality.

This is massively underselling the danger, goals, methods, and appeal of a fascistic movement. The promise that your team, which is losing the match, gets to hop on a bulldozer and mow down your opponents.

I just want you to know that 12 years after you wrote this your definition of good art was provoking enough that it sent me down a rabbit hole thinking about aesthetics. What do we mean by "good"? What do we mean by "art"? I have a philosophy degree and this is the first time I remember hearing a definition based on the strength of the response. Is gross porn art then? Beheading videos? I am not asking that mockingly, but earnestly. My first response to your definiton was a visceral "nah that is bullshit". Does that make the comment art? The more I thought about it the more compelled I feel about it. Like even if we don't simply say the resulting art is "good" or "bad", the creation of a concept of Aesthetic Reactivity for art is really useful. So thanks, you from 12 years ago! I hope your life has been grand in the interim!

Some sort of moral about how we affect lives in ways we cannot even know.

To be clear, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the victim. Which is exactly where it ought be for any crime, no matter how heinous. Honestly, it is especially important for accusations of heinous crimes because emotionally everyone definitely wants to just straight murder the defendant.

This is understandably frustrating for victims, and rightfully so. But innocent people are thrown in jail all the time, the system does not have perfect knowledge, and the defendant is at a severe power deficit against the resources of the state; so protecting their rights and trying to balance the interests of the defendant, the victims, and the public is going to lead to dissatisfaction in some aspects.

We have historical examples of what happens when the rights of the defendant are not highly regarded. The one the founders certainly had in mind was Cromwell and the Committee of Public Safety. Long story short, lots of innocent people are killed, tortured, arrested for political and personal reasons, and rot in jail.

That is both an invalid and false argument.

False because you inserted an unknown premise never stated, and invalid because the premise you inserted is the conclusion, which is begging the question/ circular argument.

A) Husband wants to cheat B) Cheating requires meeting a partner C) Meeting partners is easier without a family C) Driving a minivan indicates having a family D) Husband does not want to drive a minivan Therefore: Husband wants to cheat

You have to phrase it thus because the argument with the given data is otherwise obviously a weak inductive argument. Let's hammer it out with the given info:

A) Husband thinks minivans are feminine B) Husband thinks minivans do not have ground clearance C) Husband thinks luxury SUVs afford status/ masculinity D) Husband thinks luxury SUVs have good ground clearance
E) Husband wants to drive cars with ground clearance F) Husband wants to drive cars that afford status/ masculinity Therefore: Husband prefers luxury SUVs over minivans

Fine so far

A) Cheating requires a partner B) Partners prefer people that don't have a family B) Driving a minivan indicates having a family. Therefore: Driving a minivan makes it more difficult to cheat

Ummm... Suspicious but we'll roll with it

A) Husband prefers luxury SUVs over minivans B) Wife wants a minivan (I feel like for the sake of brevity we can assert this since it is self-evident) C) Husband will drive said minivan Therefore: Husband prefers wife get a luxury SUV over a minivan

Alright! Now we're cooking! Let's bring it home!

A) Husband prefers wife get a luxury SUV over a minivan
B) Driving a minivan makes it more difficult to cheat Therefore: Husband wants to cheat

Now this is clearly a case of weak inductive via underdetermination where the premises don't provide the necessary support to reach the conclusion. These premises are far too disjointed from one another, as obviously there is literally no connection demonstrated between them that suggests the conclusion. And what's more, if the question we are trying to answer is "why does the husband not want the minivan?", well we have the answers as given premises".

Of course we are trying to educe the hidden motivation, as all good reddit popcorn sleuths should, but it should be clear by now we really don't have the evidence for it. Unless you want to argue that his desire for masculinity and status implies a desire to cheat. But if we lay that out it is gonna run into the exact same problems of circular reasoning/ weak induction.

Whew that was fun!

No worries