deleted by creator

I wonder if influencers are real. People will make decisions and then gravitate towards something, and others will end up thinking that that something is the cause. But I’ve never seen evidence that an influencer with 1 million followers is anything other than a mustering ground for people already wanting to act out. I guess “influencer” is just shorthand for “we don’t actually know what’s influencing all these people, but we know where they’ve assembled!”

I’ll have to check the leaderboards but this might be the most money ever raised by a convicted president.

…

Yep! Number one!

I’m currently watching the Trump presser the day after, and he’s straight up violating his gag order, spending awhile talking about Cohen, basically saying “I can’t talk about him, but his name rhymes with Mohen, they call him a fixer, and …” The whole thing is nuts but just thought that was a bit special.

Reading the report makes me feel like I’m from a different planet.

It clearly spells out Israel blocking aid to Gaza. It describes what we all would call blocking aid. If someone did what Israel does, to you, you would call it blocking. Israel blocks aid and the report makes it plain.

Just because they have a different definition of “blocking aid” doesn’t mean the report cleared Israel. I don’t get it. Can you really just say whatever you want, end it with “but it’s not what it sounds like” and that’s the takeaway everyone gets?

It’s one thing for a document to have arbitrary restrictions on what it can say. That happens. It’s another for people to take it so literally.

Edit: I don’t even know what definitions they were working with, I just got a “it’s not technically…” vibe. But I do know that the report describes blocking aid.

Maybe I’m hallucinating because I can’t find it, but I swear there was a Nietzsche bit about “It is a weak man who walks around in armor.” In this case it’s literal armor.

Is it just me or does the report state that Israel is blocking aid? The legalese might make a distinction between ‘technically blocking aid’ and ‘doing everything in your power to slow, delay, and otherwise mitigate aid’… but that’s exactly what a layperson would call blocking aid.

They have to choose words carefully lest they accidentally trigger some process. But they did just describe what a smarmy country does to block aid while maintaining plausible (big stretch of the word) deniability.

Craziest thing is that nobody will ever tell you why they want dental hygiene to be illegal. They will say something like, “My favorite series is Harry Potter. I never saw him brush his teeth.” and you’re just thinking, “What does your favorite book have to do with this? Also I’m pretty sure Harry brushes his teeth – did you even read your favorite book??”

It’s an angler fish thing. Sometimes you see the nightmare lurking in the darkness, but usually you get the “some of the nicest people you’ll ever meet!” facade.

What does it mean to visualize a chess position?

I don’t exactly “render” the board or pieces. It’s like when you look at a board, and then make connections and feel whatever you feel, I just recreate those things.

I assume it’s similar to other people, but the phrase “not being able to create images” sounds like people do “render” things in their head.

Yeah it gets much easier after lots of practice. But it’s not 100%, which would be ideal.

Some basic questions to train your media literacy:

How many people, exactly, (or less ideally, roughly,) were doing this? (Article provides no answer.)

How often does this normally occur, esp. when it isn’t a trendy topic? (Article provides no answer.)

Any similar events to provide context, perhaps give us clues about what to expect? (Article provides no answer.)

Was this a critical mass, or majority, of those present? (Article provides no answer.)

If you ask basic, perfectly reasonable questions, and then read the article, and see that it answers nothing an interested individual is curious about, you get suspicious about what you’re reading. “Oh jeez, a thing happened, we have a thing, it involved people.” Very cool, very news.

No transcript and no video? Doesn’t seem like anyone bothered to put it up. I doubt he went on to say two sentences. A bunch of articles all have the same blurb and then have the gall the name the proceeding section: The Context.

I’m just curious to hear what republicans think ought to be done about traitors, election meddlers, etc. considering their leader disgraced former president Trump is traitor №1.

They just went public, aren’t looking too great, and now they want what is essentially attestations of their resemblance to a dumpster fire.