Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

I draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism,. It's a matter of degree and objective. The same applies to race. There's a distinction between being a proud black man wanting to advance his interests and accomplishments and one declaring racial superiority and wanting to crush those unlike himself.

MAGA is a Trump battle cry, imbued with so much crazy idiosyncracy it's hard to identify it as a meaningful political movement.

To the extent a MAGA hat is a subtle klan hood, I agree with your concerns. To the extent it represents an attempt to increase American productivity and success, I see less concern. To the extent it's a trademark for a megalomaniac, I'd hope all true patriots would want it to disappear.

I am glad that the Doors crept in, especially as Jim Morrison was inspired by Nietzsche. — Jack Cummins

The line quoted by @180 Proof ("I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn") could be considered anti-Christian (and therefore Nietzschean) in its focus on the worldly and not the heavens, but I'd deny that it's anti-religious generally. Asceticism and the denial of the significance of worldly events is not a common element respected in all religions as a virtue. I point that out because I read the Morrison quote as being very positive and very optimistic and not at all critical of religion generally and actually consistent with the religion of my youth.

Their biases long observed in experiments. Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow) got the Nobel in 2011 for his work with the late Amos Tversky on the prevalence of cognitive biases and how they adversely impact decision-making & judgment. — 180 Proof

For a more objective study on the advantages of a positivity bias, see: https://www.chabad.org/generic_cdo/aid/4382048/jewish/Positivity-Bias.htm

unny thing about "positive outcomes" is all of the frozen corpses on the slopes of Mt. Everest were once optimists. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Nothing is ever for certain, but the question is which is the better strategy? How many pessimists made it to the top of the mountain?

Which is better, to die trying or to rest in the safety of your bedroom eating your Twinkies?

Pessimism, yes – Assume the worst, plan and proceed accordingly; and whether or not the worst happens, roll with those anticipated punches when they fall and keep moving forward, or as Winston Churchill purportedly quipped, "When you're going through hell keep going." The pessimistic stance, which Does Not Entail 'miserabilism' 'cynicism' or 'futilism', cultivates courage – sing the blues and dance! – at the expense of hope (to wit: “There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka); only optimism repeatedly disappointed, or under duress & traumatized, loses hope and 'falls' into despair. — 180 Proof

This presumes that optimistic thoughts don't dictate positive outcomes and that pessimistic ones don't dictate negative ones.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and, of course, let us not forget that we have the mystical power to dictate outcomes from our thoughts. Tracht gut vet zein gut.

Let's assume we begin from a neutral standpoint. What advantage is there in being pessimistic versus optimistic? Pessimism is inherently restrictive, optimism is inherently open-ended. Pessimism assumes that something bad is going to happen and can't be avoided. Optimism assumes that something good could happen. — Pantagruel

This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point, but that neutrality is. You then use the neutral perspective to determine that optimism is better than pessimism, but you fail to explain why neutrality is best.

A cursory glance at wikipedia shows that though both Genesis & Exodus were compiled and "canonized" in 6th - 5th centuries BCE during the Babylonian Exile, both consist of much older traditional stories which biblical scholars & archeologists attribute as follows: — 180 Proof

I'm showing Genesis having been written in the 14th century BCE. https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-old-is-the-bible . Exodus was written around the 6th. The compilation and canonization dates aren't evidence of the age of the story, but only sets out the date when it was compiled and then recognized as sacred. I also recognize that the bible isn't a single work, but is something pieced together and edited over time

Regardless, the Moses story had to come well after Noah. The world was wiped out and then started over and Moses came along much later.

(a) "Moses" lived & died during the 13th century BCE (thus, roughly the time-frame of reception (establishing) the ten commandments Mt Sinai); — 180 Proof

I'm not committed to there being an actual Moses or that there's any historical accuracy to the Bible. The question isn't when Moses lived or died, but which came first, a belief in a creator or an ethical code. The point of this discussion is to decipher whether the metaphysical inquiry preceded the ethical inquiry.

so there aren't any grounds for the claim that Mosaic Law was preceded by the "Noahide laws" and thereby not the beginning of a "divinely commanded" ethical system for the ancient Hebrews. — 180 Proof

So Adam is man #1, he eats from the tree of good and evil, and then he recognizes being naked isn't right and proper, so he drapes himself with a fig leaf so all the world won't see his junk. That came way before Moses traipsed up the mountain and was provided a far more encompassing set of laws.

Even so, as I've pointed, morality is constitutive of our eusociality as a species, an adaptive by-product of natural selection. I can't think of a single long-sustained human society or culture, whether religious or not – whether Abrahamic or not – in recorded history that lacks some level of burden-sharing (i.e. help-more-than-harm normative reciprocity) that discourages-excludes free ridering ... morality; can you? — 180 Proof

I can't think of any semi-advanced animal that doesn't have some sort of social structure that prescribes mating rituals, hunting and gathering systems, infant rearing systems, hierarchies, resource sharing, home building, etc. The social organization of animals is innate, but I don't equate that to an ethical system which decrees certain acts right and wrong from an ought/should perspective.

At some point in the history of man, the rules went from the unwritten, unspoken, and unarticulated law of the jungle to an actual written or uttered law. That is when, I'd submit, ethics entered the picture is some real way. Prior to that, it was just instinct. I still don't see why that ethical code must precede a people's recognition of a creator.

Anthropological examples please. Of it not, a reasonable speculation on how it is even possible for a cultus of 'divine permissions & prohibitions' to precede normative moral judgments & conduct (which is like saying 'languages came before, or generated, speech' or 'minds came before, or generated, bodies' ...) — 180 Proof

I really don't know how to approach this question from either an anthropological perspective or upon speculation. We seem to be referring to some sort of primordial man, right? Is this a single bacteria beginning to replicate in an unusual way or are we referring to whatever emerged from the sea to later grow legs, or however the story goes.

But let us assume we have a man who has the mental capacity of a dog, something I know a little about, having 4 dogs running about my house right now. If early man was dog like, I would expect it would engage in all sorts of community behavior designed for its survival. There would be norms within the dog group, but not norms formed around any ethical theory, but probably just formed around Darwinism. Whether these emerging dog men would first ask themselves the source of their emerging ethical awareness of whether they'd first wonder and opine about the source of the rain that keeps falling on their head, I don't know. I don't think, though, that you can simply look at the behaviors of these dog men and declare them cognizant of an innate ethical system just because they don't kill one another than can you do the same for ant, spiders, or lizards. That is to say, it is obvious that all sorts of organisms engage in survival seeking behavior that have no mental capacity whatsoever and no concept of ethics. I think it's reasonable to assume therefore that they might engage in behaviors that are socially acceptable within the group but not recognized as being morally anything.

Does Pretzel think it's unethical for Fred to get 2 treats to his 1?

Even Exodus depicts the ancient Hebrew tribes "wandering in the wilderness for 40 years" before they reach Mt. Sinai as "a people" (i.e. customary socio-cultural group). — 180 Proof

I might be misreading the point of this reference. The ancient Hebrews were a people prior to reaching Mt. Sinai. Yahweh demanded to Pharaoh to "let my people go" which is what landed them in that great big desert in the first place. The giving of the commandments was not the beginning of the ethical system either, as that began with the Noahide laws, which occurs after the heavens were separated from earth, or however that story goes.

Thus, morality, however primitive and parochial, must have (long) predated cults or religions, and developed along side, or in spite of, them. — 180 Proof

I don't follow this. Whether religion predated morality is an empirical question, and since our history books don't go back that far, the best you can do is guess. I don't think you can logically deduce the history of human ethical and intellectual development.

It seems just as reasonable to assert that humans became interested in the source of their existence and the cause of everything (metaphysics) prior to their interest in right and wrong (ethics) and therefore God was inserted at that earlier stage. At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Chapter 1, verse 1 begins with a description of Creation, with ethical directives coming after that.

The chooks are laying at half-speed. So I've started eating more cereal, and also cut back on coffee consumption. Wife has settled on a combination oats, dates and dried mulberries, which has an excellent aroma. — Banno

I'm about to move and will have room for chickens. How hard are they to keep? We have coyotes, hawks, and owls and probably there are foxes and raccoons nearby. How hard is it to keep them safe?

my underaged daughter of whom I still have responsibility gives birth in your house, who does the baby belong to?" — scientia de summis

There's some equivocation here.

Parental and guardian rights are very different from the rights one has to chattel, like eggs. People don't (rightly) own people. So, when you say a baby belongs to its parent versus saying a car belongs to its owner, you're using the term "belongs" very differently.

This really is a legal question, not a thought experiment. It is answered by looking at the laws in the jurisdiction where the issue has arisen.

In the US, wildlife does not belong to anyone. A deer on your land is not your deer. If you own a bird, it's not wildlife, so its moving about from place to place doesn't change your ownership interest. Should I sit on your couch, my pants don't belong to you, my dog doesn't rapidly change owners as it runs through the neighborhood, and my car doesn't belong to you while it sits in your driveway. Location doesn't determine ownership interests as a general principle.

If your pecan tree sheds pecans onto my land, those pecans are mine as would be a sapling pecan tree should a pecan from your tree take root and grow on my land. My remedy to alleviate the pecans falling in my yard would be to cut the branches over the property line where it extends into mine because those branches are mine. The rule related to plants is not the rule that applies to animals running about.

As to the egg, should your chickens free range onto my land and lay their eggs, the chickens do not become mine, nor would their eggs become mine. I see no meaningful distinction between a chicken that leaves behind her egg, a dog that leaves behind her collar, or a person who leaves behind his cell phone.

People maintain all sorts of delusions. One delusion: I could be rich, too. Another delusion: People get rich by their own efforts; work hard, get rich. Rich people deserve what they have. Yes, Mark, Jeff, and Bill earned every cent!

Do I have a choice about severe inequality? Do you? No. It's deeply, systemically embedded and protected by laws and courts. — Bitter Crank

We'd likely be deluded if we thought we could be billionaires, but I don't think it's a delusion to think we could be richer than we are, if we so desired. All sorts of things are decided for us, like where we were born, who we were born to, what sorts of parents we had, the schooling available to us, our race, our gender, and on and on. Those things no doubt matter. There are things we can choose, like how hard we wish to try in school, what sorts of subjects we migrate to, whether we want to work at the non-profit or go to law school, and all sorts of stuff. I'm not willing to say every cent received is well earned, but I can't say the opposite either. Hard work and good decisions do pay off, but, sure, there are those undeserving of their riches and of their poverty, but more or less, the system does generally predictably reward and punish those who engage in certain behaviors.

I also don't see inequality as a bad thing. The concern should be over inequity, not inequality.

I'm a pretty active player online.

I looked through the games you played with @Outlander. It's clear he's very much a beginner, so your games weren't really close.

Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, any pretty damn stupid argument. — counterpunch

You need to think this through. The argument submitted is not disingenuous nor stupid. It goes to the heart of your belief that you want to protect free speech. You're openly admitting that it's completely proper to deny a professor the right to freely state the earth is flat. Upon what principle can a professor deny the earth is flat with impunity, but he can't deny climate change is occurring, that vaccines don't work, that masks don't stop covid, that the 2020 US election was stolen by the Democrats, that life begins at conception, or that there is an organization of rich liberal pedophiles running the world?

That is to say, if you're going to deny the right to free speech to those claims you find outlandish, how are you going to define what is outlandish? And how are you going to do this without allowing a political agenda to creep in?

I think you're mistaken. The effects are somewhere between difficult and impossible to quantify, but look into the case of Lindsay Shepard. How can you claim there's academic freedom under those conditions? — counterpunch

The law, at least in the US, is that the government cannot suppress one's speech. That's really as far as I'd go with that. The question then becomes who is a government actor and who's not. If the county sheriff locks me up for calling the mayor a mother fucker, then that seems a clear violation of my right to free speech, even if the mayor has not once fucked his mother.

How much these universities are government controlled in your example, I don't know, but I'm not completely comfortable with the government telling the provost of the privately funded Moron University that he cannot limit his professors from professing moronic viewpoints. Fundamentally, folks get to spend their hard earned money how they see fit, even if it's for something stupid.

But should we posit that State University is truly controlled by the state, then there should be some protection for students and I suppose teachers, who on their free time wish to pontificate their various viewpoints without government interference. That being said, the university need not abandon its mission to spread accurate knowledge just so it can be sure the sacred right to free speech be protected. I personally would be relieved to know that professors not be permitted to profess idiocy if those in charge of the university tell them not to, and I'd think the market would favor non-idiotic universities over idiotic ones and the former would be sought out and favored and would win this Darwinian contest.

I would not be relieved to know, however, that inaccuracy be permitted over the objection of the university administration because the good representative from the 10th district got pissed off and decided he needed a committee to decree how the professors at the university ought be instructed to profess. That is not how I wish curriculum be decided at any university, public or private.

I will also go back to what I said initially, and that is I find it highly doubtful that any professor or any student is actually not saying whatever he wants. It's just a matter of where he gets to say it.

How can any university worth the name - presumably for fear of offence, restrict freedom of speech, and so restrict freedom of conscience, opinion, academic enquiry, and scientific investigation? — counterpunch

The universities do not believe they are stifling free speech, so they are objecting to having a government oversight committee formed to regulate them. It'd be like if we formed a committee to be certain you did not lie, your objection would be that it's unnecessary because you don't lie, and there's a certain amount of insult in suggesting you do. That at least explains why they would not welcome such an oversight committee.

Obviously though the government disagrees and thinks the problem has risen to a level that it needs to be corrected.

My own view is that everything anyone wants to say seems to get said, even if certain forums close their doors to certain opinions. I'm not dismissing the significance of those instances when a university suppresses certain forms of speech, but let's not pretend that that suppression has the actual effect of keeping people from speaking. The net result of that suppression seems to be exactly as you've said, which is that it makes universities look bad for trying to control speech they don't want to hear. Ultimately though, they control nothing and the speakers speak, and then there's added speech about how the universities suck.

...perhaps there are no strict laws explaining mental events - anomalous monism. — Banno

The question then becomes why that's the case. If a scientist uses a different explanatory system to explain mental events than non-mental events, then the scientist at some point needs to explain why that's the case. If the scientist cannot offer a physical explanation for the distinction, you will forever have substance dualists proclaiming there must be a non-physical explanation, invoking a fundamental metaphysical distinction.

Even your explanation demands a form of dualism. There are two types of physical events in the world: normally explainable ones and then those pesky anomalies.

I don't believe in dualism - b/c of the interaction problem. That's the point of my question - who would still be a dualist in 2021? Unless you believe in other intangible undetectable things like God.

Or...are you saying that the statement "some things are explained by science and some things aren't" is dualism. How so? — GLEN willows

I'm saying that you divided the world into two types of events: those explainable by science and those not. You have clearly placed mental events into a separate category. Since we have two categories here, we have a form of dualism. The question then becomes whether there is something about the underlying structure of mental events that causes this category distinction. From your OP, you reject that idea and state that mental events and non-mental events must all be composed of the same underlying substance. You therefore reject substance dualism, but that doesn't close the door on property dualism. Property dualism seems to say what you're saying: There are two types of events in the world (the mental and non-mental), both being composed of matter, but each being distinct enough to require differing ways to describe and explain them.

Isn't this still hopeless dualism, and our primitive tendency to believe in spirits, souls etc.? — GLEN willows

If you believe that mental activity is a phenomenon that is special in some sort of way due to the fact that science is incapable of explaining it, you are a dualist. You've divided the world into two distinct phenomena: (1) those phenomena scientifically explainable and (2) those phenomena not scientifically explainable.

Where in your own dualism (as I've identified it) do you commit to the existence of spirits? Are you not just asking the distinction between property and substance dualism in your OP?

Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? — TiredThinker

There are few better ways to determine what women want than to ask a bunch of men on a philosophy website, so I want to first commend you on your decision to bring your concerns here.

To impart my wisdom, which I must assume you have been waiting for, is to let you know that what I have found is, that above all else, women want to have sex, and they are willing to go to great lengths to get it, regardless of the intelligence of their partner. There is the possibility that I am projecting my own thoughts upon others, particularly women, but I'm generally dismissive of the thought that my instincts are wrong, so I'm committed to this observation. Your being slow should therefore not deter you, so long as you're ultimately willing to give them what they want, even should it be awkwardly and quickly.

To offer you a further observation, when I think historically about the men who have mastered the art of seduction, like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever or perhaps Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing, I notice a strong correlation between dance and romantic success. My point being that you need to abandon all this bookish talk and psychoanalysis and put on your dance shoes.

I hope this helps.

What about toxic femininity, toxic transsexuality, toxic oldness, toxic youngness, etc? It seems the bad word here is "toxic," so the moral is that you shouldn't do things that are poison or whatever toxic means.

I didn't have anything to do with the decision to lock the thread, but I do see Street's reasoning here. The OP asks why able bodied men are mistreated in academia, yet he provides no evidence that they actually are. It would seem the way to unlock the thread has been laid out for you, which is to provide the evidence the OP takes for granted but does not provide. What is the argument for not providing proof for what is assumed in the OP? That everyone should have the right to say whatever they want and not be required to offer some amount of factual support for it? Why would a forum that allows unsupportable factual assertions be better than one that doesn't?

I don't ask these questions rhetorically, but if I'm being asked to build a better forum, I can't see how allowing a free for all of unsupportable factual claims will benefit anyone, especially after the person making the claims has been given a chance to provide the factual support needed and then ignored it.

The only counter I see to what I'm saying here is that there might be some value in allowing people who make unsupportable (or false) claims to be kicked around a bit so that their error can be clarified to all who may come here for information. The flip side of that though is that some never allow themselves to be corrected and they keep on saying the same false information, and, as in this case, don't even make an effort to prove their facts are correct.

Let’s say I believe the best way to create a better future is by raising and educating children in ways that make them have as many positive qualities as possible. — Megolomania

Two very different questions. How one ought parent is the first, how to formally educate the second. The Authoritative parenting style is considering best (as opposed to Authorative, Permissive, or uninvolved) https://www.verywellfamily.com/types-of-parenting-styles-1095045.

This isn't to diminish the role of formal education, but it is to suggest that education begins at home and the future of our world depends far greater on the sorts of personalities we produce as opposed to how well we can all do geometry.

Part of the problem, observed for at least the last 60 years by various observers, is that we collectively aren't even sure what education is supposed to be doing. Sorting the good boats out for lifting by the next high tide, and sinking the low quality ones? Regulating the labor pool? Conducting an enlightenment factory? Training people for dead end jobs? Educating people for a society that ceased to exist a long time ago? Giving people basic skills (to do what?) — Bitter Crank

What do you think your education was good for? Any of those things? I really don't, yet I still think it is the most significant thing I possess. I can think of no better way to say it than it allows people to live up to their full potential, to the object of their creation, whatever that might be.

Lutherans believe faith and works go hand in hand, works doing the job of expressing faith. It's just that salvation is a result of faith, not the accompanying works. — frank

Not sure we're disagreeing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

The murderer who accepts Jesus as his savior on his death bed goes to heaven, but the nonbeliever who had led the saintly life sees eternal damnation.

This is Baptists. — frank

This is Protestantism generally. Salvation by faith alone is a central tenant of Martin Luther's protest against Catholicism.

If you look at the charity organizations in your community, like the ones that run thrift shops and soup kitchens, you'll probably find that most of them are Christian organizations. I'm not a Christian, but that 'love your neighbor' actually is a thing. — frank

Charity is a complicated notion in contemporary society. Prior to the secularization of society, charity was mandatory. It was a commandment, not just a recommendation. Once theocracies ended, so did mandatory charitable contributions. What we now have in terms of mandatory contributions are not "charitable" (as that term is currently defined), but they appear in the form of taxation and enforced income redistribution.

When someone suggests that charity is distinct from taxation because charity is from the heart, it is voluntary, and that it arises from a feeling you are to love your neighbor, they are speaking not from a theological perspective, but they are simply identifying an interesting historical development, namely that religious mandates are no longer mandated now that that the state has usurped their historical power.

Theologically speaking, what makes this even more complicated is the Protestant abandonment of good acts for salvation. That leaves Protestants without a specific reason for loving one's neighbor other than it is a trait of Jesus one might wish to emulate. What is clear though is that the eternal reward of heaven is not made any more likely regardless of how much love one expresses for one's neighbor. Salvation is gained through faith alone, despite whatever sort of love or evil you impart on the world.

My point is that you have casted a soup kitchen as being an example of loving one's neighbor, but you don't make the same comment when you see free and reduced lunches at public school. The reason for that I'd suggest is because the former is voluntary, but voluntariness really has no role in determining morality, love, caring, or even in assuring oneself a spot in heaven. Voluntariness simply describes that amount of charity people give beyond what is required by law. If we wish to judge the morality of the charitable, we can either judge them on the basis of how much they actually give or we can judge them on the basis on how much they think ought be required to give.

It is hypocrisy to say that you're going to allow your dog to be natural and free (not neutered) but then restrict his access to females, reprimand him for humping people, pull on his leash whenever he makes a move on a female dog. — Judaka

Dogs and humans evolved together for thousands of years and the way we currently interact together is as natural as anything is.

This case was tried some years ago, with the following outcome:

"That's the most important piece of evidence we've heard yet,' said the King, rubbing his hands; 'so now let the jury - '

'If any one of them can explain it,' said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) 'I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.'

The jury all wrote down on their slates, 'she doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it,' but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any. And yet I don't know,' he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; 'I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. " - said I could not swim - " you can't swim, can you?' he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. 'Do I look like it?' he said. (Which he certainly did not, being made entirely of cardboard.)

'All right, so far,' said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: '"We know it to be true - " that's the jury, of course - "I gave her one, they gave him two - " why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know - '

'But, it goes on "They all returned from him to you,"' said Alice.

'Why, there they are!' said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. 'Nothing can be clearer than that. Then again - "before she had this fit - " you never had fits, my dear, I think?' he said to the Queen.

'Never!' said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

'Then the words don't fit you,' said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

'It's a pun!' the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved."

high time these protesters were armed. — The Opposite

They just need horns and animal skins.

I had actually suspected plagiarism and had googled some of his comments to see if I could get a hit. I wasn't successful, but looks like others were.

I wouldn't quite put it that way. But there's little to distinguish Trump Republicanism from neo-fascist European movements like the National Front except maybe the latter are, if anything, a bit more subtle with their tactics. Same overall playbook. — Baden

I think you can levy the fascism claim upon Trump personally, but I think his followers truly believe they are protecting democracy from being stolen by some secret society. They also are convinced that the judges haven't been following the Constitution and that the rule of law is dead. They also believe that you and I are sheep, blinded as to reality, giving them a feeling of superiority and a justification for their defiance.

I work with a guy like this. He refuses to wear a mask because he thinks they don't work and their only purpose is to force the citizens into submission. They're sort of a gateway drug, where today they'll get you to wear masks, so that eventually they'll get you to willingly give up your first born. Then, after that, it'll get even worse, and people will voluntarily give up their guns.

I've never rage quitted in my life. It's tough being me and not able to relate to other people. — Benkei

I make mistakes only to make myself more likable. it's a godlike quality where what apparent evil I might do is for the better and what errors I make are actually for the best. That's how great I am.

There's not much meaning to "Republican" any more. Two very different wings that should not be sharing the same name: Fascists and regular conservatives. — Baden

I agree with the first part, that "Republican" means very little anymore, but I don't think the distinction between the two types is lunatic and normal. Compare the last two Republican Presidents: GW and Trump. GW believed in military intervention in the Middle East, he courted the Hispanic voter and didn't enforce the immigration laws, he favored open trade, and he responded to 9/11 by creating a federally controlled Dept. of Homeland Security. Trump is opposed to military action in the middle east, he's built a wall on the border, he wants to negotiate what he thinks are fair trade practices, and he left entirely to the states how to respond to covid.

I think the real meaning of a Republican is anyone who opposes a Democrat, with the best example being McConnell, who doesn't seem to be an ideologue or even a pragmatist, but really just an obstructionist, who has figured out how to make nothing happen.

I think sometimes it's like rage quitting a video game when you keep getting flustered. You rip off your earphones and throw the controller to the ground and you're like "fuck, I hope I didn't break anything."

Once I couldn't get my weed whacker to start and I threw my shoulder out yanking on the rope. It pissed me off so I threw it into the creek. As I watched it spinning through the air, sailing over the fence, I thought to myself, there must have been a better way to deal with it.

Little moments in time when we become unhinged only to regret it microseconds later.

I don't understand how he can condemn a violent insurrection, considering the will of the people was subverted when the election, which wasn't even close, was stolen. Isn't democracy worth dying for?

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. It apparently is working with you, so good for him.

tell me how is it possible that the most admired man in America (according to a Gallup poll) had fewer votes than Joe Blow, who couldn't bring fifty people together at a rally? — Rafaella Leon

With that sort of iron clad proof I totally get why a horned man stormed the Capitol. You are on the side of righteousness. Keep telling yourself that.

“There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President.”

I do agree with her that Trump ought be impeached, but it's hard to overlook the sanctimony, considering daddy Dick is that charming black hearted national treasure who left office with a record breaking 13% approval rating after there was, whoopsie, no WMD.

A picture so vivid you can almost smell the unmistakable scent of week old cabbage you know announces his arrival to the podium.

As predicted, the Democrats will squander this great opportunity to pass meaningful law while they control both houses and the presidency. Instead, they will spend the first critical months with impeachment proceedings only to watch their efforts unravel in the Senate. And if they are actually successful in the Senate and Trump is told he can never again hold public office, the only one helped by that will be the Republicans.