… what?

I read the WSJ article and she is absolutely infuriating. Her reasoning contains several fallacies:

False Cause:

“It was absolute fearmongering at its worst”

She blames political messaging instead of considering that vague legal language created legitimate professional uncertainty.

Straw Man:

“There will be some comments like, ‘Well, thank God we have abortion services,’ even though what I went through wasn’t an abortion”

This is particularly frustrating. Advocates aren’t celebrating her needing an “abortion”, they’re pointing out her experience is exactly what they predicted: doctors hesitating due to legal uncertainty. She had to argue with staff, pull up laws on her phone, and call the governor’s office during a medical emergency. That’s the system breakdown advocates warned about, not a misunderstanding of medical definitions.

False Dilemma:

“We have turned the conversation about women’s healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It’s either breast cancer or abortion.”

This drastically oversimplifies complex healthcare policy into just two opposing sides and the irony is staggering. It’s like a company ignoring safety advocates’ warnings about a confusing manual, then when accidents happen, blaming those advocates for ‘scaring’ workers instead of fixing the manual.

She lived the very scenario abortion rights advocates had been warning about all along, yet somehow, in her mind, the problem isn’t the law, it’s the people who tried to stop it from hurting her in the first place.

I’ve said this for a while now. You want to make a dent? You go after the ego.

Picture this: an endless stream of totally “realistic” phone-recorded AI videos of Trump playing golf. He lines up the putt—misses. Tries again—air ball. It’s literally an inch away now—misses again. Doesn’t blink, just traps it in, smirks, walks off like he nailed it. Over and over.

The key is subtlety. These can’t look staged or flashy—make them feel like someone’s nephew filmed it from the cart. Make it look like he’s genuinely terrible but thinks he’s crushing it.

Then blast them everywhere. Flood the algorithm. Turn his “I’m the best at golf” schtick into a punchline.

This is how you use AI to actually take Trump down—with a thousand tiny ego papercuts.

Don’t worry. Trump is gonna remove taxes on tips. That’s like, so much money! /s

Also, it’s a terrible idea.

Why would they discuss classified military plans on an app where outsiders could just “add themselves”. That argument isn’t helping their case…

Nevermind. I need to stop thinking about things. The sheer stupidity hurts my brain.

Everytime I see this guy, this is all I can think of.

Oh, how I wish that were true. I wish Republicans had the moral fortitude to throw him out. But sadly, they cheered for Trump—the literal king of inappropriate behavior—as he waved his hand to dismiss the only Democrat who had the guts to stand up to every lie he was spewing.

I’m working on transitioning to using They/Them pronouns for everyone since they’re completely neutral and fit every context. If your preference is Xe/Xem, I respect that—but unfortunately, my brain just doesn’t have the bandwidth to keep track of multiple pronouns consistently. You get They/Them.

Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.

An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.

The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?

I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.

You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn’t. In fact, they think they are very smart.

The man sent a literal mob to attack the capital, has been convicted of multiple crimes, and openly admitted to more. Teflon Don doesn’t care about dirt.

When the shitters clogged, you call the Mario Brothers to clean the pipes.

While frustration with the status quo is understandable, abandoning the mechanisms of government only cedes power to those who are already disproportionately influencing it—special interests and billionaires. The government, flawed as it may be, is still the primary tool, and often the only tool, for enacting systemic change. By participating—through voting, organizing, and holding leaders accountable—citizens can challenge the status quo and push for reforms that better reflect the collective will.

Change doesn’t come from disengagement; it comes from working within and improving the systems that already exist. To give up on these mechanisms is to forfeit the opportunity to make meaningful progress.

Go listen to Mitch McConnell’s speech on Jan 7th. McConnell is now considered a RINO by maga standards. It’s unreal how far the Overton window has shifted to the right.

Talk radio is essentially a person telling you what to think and feel. It can’t even be classified as learning because it’s being done to you when you listen. It’s a confirmation bias circle jerk. Democrats tend to be educated and educated people usually are repelled by the format.

I think Kelly was the best political pick for sure. But Kelly is sure to win again in AZ. They need his vote in the Senate.

Chairs are one of those things that you need to drop serious money on if you sit more than a few hours a day. Focus on chairs for office work and expect to pay over $1k.

What? Are you talking about a potato ricer?

Totally valid. That said, it’s unreal that the question is even being asked. It was never a question before Trump. The fact that he is actually the GOP nominee when this is a question before SCOTUS because of him blows my mind.

It always has been.

We might be tempted to think that our Democratic heritage automatically protects us from such threats. This is a misguided reflex. In fact, the precedent set by the founders demand that we examine history to understand the deep sources of tyranny and consider the proper responses to it. - On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder (Chapter 1, Page 13)