Fire them all into the sun.
I don’t know, I remember dumpster diving for empty beer bottles a lot growing up and having fun. It was a great way to find porn before the internet. We met a couple who showed us how to scuba dive in the local apt complex and do some archery in the woods behind the complex.
I have no idea how we didn’t end up murdered.
1 Like
Ha. In Michigan we got 10 cents a bottle. So very true to dumpster dive and find porn- presume the wife/gf made the guy toss the mags.
3 Likes
Nope! Weird this take keeps showing up in the same rag.
https://x.com/nytopinion/status/1697371700818505906?s=46&t=XGja5BtSraUljl_WWUrIUg
It’s safe to ignore any opinion that conflates respect for workers with unconditionally respecting someone’s faith and ignoring their intolerance.
Hay guise is this the thread where we engage with greenwald and tucker fans in good faith?
2 Likes
NYT casually showing its own ass by assuming the working class are dumb backwoods racists, as always.
No.
I posted this elsewhere, which has since led to being followed around and trolled about everything I post (even the memes thread, lol), so I’ll just put it here and maybe we can have a real convo about it.
And maybe we can comment on the poor media outlet facet of this instead of rehashing 2020.
Current Affairs doubled down by reposting Nair’s take on gay marriage and why its bad, actually, after this blew up in their face.
(yes, I was admittedly angry when this first came out and went to the place where I knew there’d be people who actually read this shit and believe it and took it out on them)
5 Likes
I feel like it’s a good social media choice by me that every person I’ve seen reference this article has been dunking on it.
2 Likes
CA has turned off replies and literally every post they make that relates in any way is getting ratioed now.
The schadenfreude is real.
There is a homophobia (and racism) problem in the super-online “dirtbag” left, and they hate being called out on it.
*the use of the term “dirtbag” is not mine. It’s what the online slightly less left has dubbed them.
1 Like
It’s unbelievable how people that say this stuff in private think it’s ok to say in public to the people they are talking about. And it seems like every editorial board in the country lets them get away with it.
3 Likes
Not sure in what context you’re presenting this, but I think this is a good media outlet review of a poor media outlet author’s book:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man in possession of a zealous ideological conviction will find confirmation of his worldview somewhere online. The most wrongheaded stance you can think of was tweeted with soppy sincerity by someone with 45 followers in 2011; the most embarrassing phrase you can imagine was deployed on a now-defunct blog in the early aughts. The internet is a veritable museum of fringe opinions, all of them ripe for misrepresentation. If a teenager on Tumblr dares to joke that she identifies as a planet, an assistant producer at Fox is sure to spend the next decade sniffing out her confession with the single-minded fervor of a truffle pig, all in the hopes of presenting a one-time oddity as a culture-defining tic.
Controversial blogger, bracing commentator and heretical leftist Fredrik DeBoer is fond of scouring both the internet and the annals of personal experience for similarly dubious delicacies. “How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement,” his new critique of contemporary leftist strategy, eschews the rigors of social science, relying instead on the approachable yet deceptive consolations of anecdote.
It may seem that the foibles of American coeds, a group not famed for maturity or even sobriety, have little to do with the finer points of national policy. Yet DeBoer follows a long line of pundits in suggesting, without much justification, that elite campuses are reliable microcosms of wider societal trends.
I can picture Michael Hobbes doing 
to this. The quote posted in that tweet is presented somewhat misleadingly (not sure if intended or not); the word “seem” is italicized in the original, and the followup makes it clear that the author is noting an argument DeBoer makes that the author thinks is bad:
It seems to me that if someone wanted to randomly write a takedown piece on the Buttigieg family in 2023, they could do so without hiding it in a “book review.” It also seems to me that if someone wanted to randomly write a takedown piece on the Buttigieg family in 2023, well, they should probably see a therapist about their obsession.
There’s definitely a healthy dose of homophobia in there, but the whole premise doesn’t make sense to me from the little I read of it. Like, the fact that Pete’s wanted to be president since he was kid is automatically a bad thing? I mean, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I’m gonna need more than the names of his pets to conclude it’s a bad thing.
And bringing their kids into it is repulsive, but also makes no sense. Like, if he was perfectly curating his personal life to become president, right down to shopping for his kids in a catalog, would he really have come out openly? Surely it’s still easier to be president as a straight white man than any other combination, so I’m pretty sure he’s living his personal life true to himself.
I’m not the biggest Pete fan, primarily over his attacks on single payer healthcare, but this is obviously a bad look by the outlet and the writer and anyone who is using it to try to attack Buttigieg. By the way, they’re probably only doing him a favor electorally. Like, he’s pretty far down the list of likely nominees even if Biden keels over tomorrow. Putting his name out there to be discussed more is only making him more prominent at the moment.
4 Likes
I missed this when it was published, but the NYT published yet another both-sidesing story about trans kids (specifically the care center at Wash U in St. Louis that has been written about a lot) a couple weeks ago that does not, in fact, have two equal and opposite sides. Parents who talked with the NYT reporter who wrote it feel completely burned by what she ended up writing:
Basically all you need to know about it is that its headline is a big photo of Jesse Singal’s favorite “whistleblower” in the patented NYT “brave person under siege” pose. (for anyone like “what the fuck are you talking about goofy”, more background on that story in this post/thread)
It’s obvious dogwhistles. They can’t say “I hate Pete because he’s a preppy homo,” but they can talk about how he’s a “striver” and how silly his hospital photo looks.
I incidentally googled this Nate J Robinson guy and he looks exactly like I expected.