Trump posted a photo of Abrego Garcia’s hand with an MS-13 knuckle tattoo. Internet sleuths say it’s photoshopped
Summary
Trump reportedly held up a digitally altered image of the hand of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was deported by the Trump administration, in an attempt to prove Garcia is a gang member.
Trump can be seen holding a printed-out photo... demonstrating that "MS-13" is tattooed across his knuckles.
"This is the hand of the man that the Democrats feel should be brought back," Trump posted. However, many have pointed out that the image appears photoshopped.
"MS-13 looks like it was typed on the photo." "Needing to have a photo doctored... is definitely something a psychopath would do."
Trump Posted a Photo of Abrego Garcia's Hand With an MS-13 Knuckle Tattoo. Internet Sleuths Say It's Photoshopped
President Donald Trump reportedly held up an altered image of the hand of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was wrongfully deported by the Trump administration, in an attempt to prove that...Maryam Khanum (Latin Times)
FDA making plans to end its routine food safety inspections, sources say - CBS News
FDA making plans to end its routine food safety inspections, sources say
Food safety inspections would be left to state and local authorities under the plan being developed by the FDA.Alexander Tin (CBS News)
like this
wildncrazyguy138, NoneOfUrBusiness, Atelopus-zeteki and goldenbug like this.
Can’t wait to die of a disease in my food because it’s unavoidable. Thank you republicucks, this will surely help other immunocompromised/auto immune disease people.
Goodbye chat
Relax, it's not as bad as it sounds. Yes, of course, you will be sick more often, and you might die sooner, but you can take really easy steps to prevent at least some diseases. Cook everything you prepare thoroughly, no rare steak, no juicy whatever. Avoid prepared/processed foods. Don't drink from the tap, don't use ice cubes.
If you have any questions, just ask any other third world nation.
Clyburn shifts blame to media over Democrats’ slipping popularity
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5257246-james-clyburn-media-democratic-party-messaging/
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
I mean it can't be due to them not listening to average Americans concerns, ignoring genocide, ignoring minority voices, downplaying economic hardships, defending billionaires as good people, constantly seeking validation for bipartisanship with Neo-Nazis, primarying progressives incumbents, and continuing to ignore the working class.
Nope, must be the media.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
clyburn, the guy whose endorsements gave us biden in 2020 and cuellar in 2022.
Yeah, I can see why he wouldn't want to admit that moving to the right is a shit strategy.
It's always someone else's fault except their ineptitude in governing.
This POS gave us Biden when we could have had Bernie, he needs to sit down and shut the fuck up
Canadians Reject Gavin Newsom's Plea to Keep Visiting California Over Deportation Concerns: 'I Don't Want to Be Plucked Off the Street'
Canadians Reject Gavin Newsom's Plea to Keep Visiting California Over Deportation Concerns: 'I Don't Want to Be Plucked Off the Street'
The California governor encouraged Canadians to visit the state, but many rebuffed his invitation, citing Kilmar Abrego Garcia's detainment.Taylor Odisho (Latin Times)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and TVA like this.
Imagine that. A reason to go to Disneyland Paris.
Wait. Tokyo Disneyland exists. Never mind.
I was there last year. It’s worse than ever. Expensive as fuck and designed to wear you down and open your wallets more. There was one really good ride and managed to see that. Had to pay extra on top of admission to ride it though. Per person.
The other big ticket item crapped out halfway through and the group of us in there ended up getting things to come back and try again later (after waiting in line for 30 mins) since it broke.
Honestly, it’s not the same as when I was a kid. The magic is gone.
As California Gov. Gavin Newsom rolled out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs, he had little to say about the Abrego Garcia case when asked about it.“This is the distraction of the day. The art of distraction,” Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, said of Trump invoking MS-13 to justify his actions. “And here, we zig and zag. This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it.”
While noting that the government needs to abide by court orders and the rule of law, Newsom added, “It’s exactly the debate they want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs; they don’t want to be accountable to markets today.”
(archived)
Abrego Garcia's deportation case exposes a rift among Democrats over how to take on Trump
WASHINGTON — A controversial deportation case has opened up a rift within the Democratic Party over how aggressively to go after President Donald Trump on an issue that has been one of his biggest political strengths.Sahil Kapur (NBC News)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Not for the billionaire class, and they own the politicians.
Remember: he does not fight the tariffs to save ordinary peoples jobs or lower prices on supermarket shelves. He does this to protect the profits of the rich.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Canadian woman detained by ICE says she wouldn’t wish experience on anyone
'I haven't slept in a while and haven't eaten proper food well, so I'm just really going through the motions,' Jasmine Mooney told Global News after touching down at YVR.Amy Judd (Global News)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Do you really want our population doubled that quickly? Keep in mind 50% of our country would now basically be Americans.
No thanks.
Yeah people keep saying California should be a province of Canada which is ridiculous. Why not suggest something that's plausible?
California should be it's own country. It's got a higher population than Canada and a much larger economy. They'd no longer need to continue subsidizing states that are happy when the guy they put into power denies them emergency aid in a disaster. They could have their own emergency relief fund they'd administer themselves, and they could set their own immigration policy.
Hell I'd be open to an EU style organization between Canada, California, and any other state that secedes because they prefer democracy over fascism.
It's funny that Trump says Canada isn't a viable country because he's making the USA into non-viable country. The hatred in the red states towards states like California was kinda there already, but he's just fanning those flames. It seems various regions of the US are forming into distinct cultures with very different values. Maybe the US is just too big to be sustainable.
Pacific States of America
I would also accept the answer
California and Cascadia
Far-right activist who vowed "retribution" lands role at the FCC
Far-right activist who vowed "retribution" lands role at the FCC
Gavin Wax, who turned the New York Young Republican Club into the "vanguard of the Trump movement," is the new chief of staff to commissioner Nathan Simington.Mother Jones
like this
KaRunChiy likes this.
Volvo prepares for 800 layoffs across three sites amid tariff troubles
Volvo Group prepares for 800 layoffs across three US sites amid tariff challenges
Volvo Group's layoffs are the latest response from a car and truck industry that is reeling from the Republican president's tariffs on certain parts.Chris Prentice, USA TODAY (USA TODAY)
The company, part of Sweden's AB Volvo VOLVb.ST
Which is co-owned by AB Industrivärden and China’s Geely. And Volvo has been leaning hard on Geely for electrification / batteries. All of that stuff if going to be hit extra hard by the tariffs.
Bummer, Volvo is making some compelling alternatives to Telsa’s shit. Better build quality, Google Automotive + CarPlay, industrial design that isn’t boring as fuck.
Actual article title (now, as it may have been changed).
Volvo Group prepares for 800 layoffs across three US sites amid tariff challengesVolvo Group plans to lay off as many as 800 workers at three U.S. facilities over the next three months due to market uncertainty and demand concerns in the face of President Donald Trump's tariffs, a spokesperson said on Friday.
Volvo Group North America said in a statement it has told employees it plans to lay off 550-800 people at its Mack Trucks site in Macungie, Pennsylvania, and two Volvo Group facilities in Dublin, Virginia and Hagerstown, Maryland.
House Member Calls on Govt to Protect Indonesian Arrested by U.S. ICE
House Member Calls on Govt to Protect Indonesian Arrested by U.S. ICE
An Indonesian citizen was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 27.Ervana Trikarinaputri (TEMPO.CO)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and dandi8 like this.
Musk to Force Pentagon to Build and Then Pay Him to Use Network of Killer Satellites
Musk to Force Pentagon to Build and Then Pay Him to Use Network of Killer Satellites
This is a two day old article. But with so much else going on I hadn’t seen it. If you haven’t really must read it. It’s one of growing number of examples that…Josh Marshall (TPM - Talking Points Memo)
like this
wildncrazyguy138, Azathoth, Hegar, SolacefromSilence, KaRunChiy and Atelopus-zeteki like this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
But none of this gets to the most jaw-dropping part of this. Musk and Thiel propose making this network of hundreds of surveillance and attack satellites into a subscription service that the Musk/Thiel/Luckey consortium would own and the Pentagon would subscribe to. Not only is this crazy and absurd but it goes without saying that in no normal time would anyone at the Pentagon be okay with the US not owning the hardware at the center of national defense. We’ve seen how this goes with Starlink, where Musk routinely threatens to turn the system on or off based on his whims and opens up separate lines of communications and perhaps deals with adversary leaders like Vladimir Putin.
Of course Musk and Thiel and Palmer freaking Luckey would use this opportunity to not only get apparent no-bid contracts to build this unworkable mess, they'd get permanent parasitic access to government funds just to keep it going.
No part of this makes any strategic sense.
like this
qupada, SolacefromSilence and NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
like this
Hegar and SolacefromSilence like this.
Once these fascists are in jail
We're in the dogshit timeline, we don't get to have nice things like justice. :/
Makes no strategic sense for the government and for America!
Makes perfect sense if you're billionaires who want to cripple the government and make sure it can never actually stand against you ever again. 🤕
Go ahead, come back in a decade when I told you so. I’ll wait. Or you can just strap Musk to the outside of one of those rockets and launch it. I prefer that much more.
One of the sources familiar with the talks described them as “a departure from the usual acquisition process. There’s an attitude that the national security and defense community has to be sensitive and deferential to Elon Musk because of his role in the government.”
Following in the hallowed (retch) footsteps of Dick Cheney and Halliburton's no-bid contracts to "rebuild" Iraq.
like this
Hegar, KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness and Atelopus-zeteki like this.
like this
KaRunChiy and NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
Don't worry, he's also got the help of *checks notes... Peter Thiel and Palmer Luckey!
Don't people feel good for supporting the original Oculus Rift now? I'm so glad the godfather of modern VR is an absolute pile of shit and always was!
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and emmanuel_car like this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessle…
Never considered the pros of Kessler syndrome. Also I guess alien defense?.. speed bumps.
You mean to pay him to have someone else use it, right?
Because he’s got the cerebral capacity of a cloud of fart particles, and half the personality.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Hey now. Some of us may get sick or die, but at least we'll have an overpriced yet somehow super cheaply made satellite security system operated by a ketamine addict.
Wait...
Wannabe feudal lords come for military power, as they always have.
Omg its just like Moonraker
AG-3 satellite
The AG-3 satellite (standing for "Anti-Goa'uld") was a planetary defense platform Dr. Daniel Jackson invented during a dream sequence triggered by Shifu.Contributors to SGCommand (Fandom, Inc.)
The three companies met with top officials in the Trump administration and the Pentagon in recent weeks to pitch their plan, which would build and launch 400 to more than 1,000 satellites circling the globe to sense missiles and track their movement, sources said.A separate fleet of 200 attack satellites armed with missiles or lasers would then bring enemy missiles down, three of the sources said.
People in one forum speculated about Trump's "Golden dome" fantasy a few months ago. I did a calculation on the back of a napkin. My result: not 1000 or 200, but about 9000 interceptor vehicles are required for good coverage. Very lucrative contract, very impractical system - they'll drive the US bankrupt doing this.
And what will a nuclear-armed adversary do? At first, they might do an atmospheric nuclear detonation high over their own country - to get a little privacy. After that, a small number of missiles will launch on flight paths not leading to the target - to create gaps in the sensor and interceptor network by detonating near them in space. Maybe a few minutes later, the main attack will follow. When approaching the target area, the vanguard of the main attack will detonate in atmosphere to ionize air (turn it opaque to radar). Nuclear weapons do not need sensors to navigate or communicate, they use inertial navigation and remain silent. Interceptors need to see and communicate, which can be denied with nuclear weapons.
End result: an advanced attacker will have to spend about 10 minutes to penetrate this defense. It only buys more time to launch a nuclear counter-attack (which could be launched anyway, based on mere observation and early warning).
Satellites are bound by their orbits to spend a lot of time in useless places from the viewpoint of defending a location. This kind of a system makes the defending side over-invest in infrastructure, which is not economical.
Neofeudalism Arrives as Capitalism Departs?
Neofeudalism Arrives as Capitalism Departs? - CounterPunch.org
As a gap between billionaires and everybody else swells, a bipartisan project decades in the making, Jodi Dean, author and professor, considers if we areSeth Sandronsky (CounterPunch.org)
like this
wildncrazyguy138 likes this.
‘Shame!’ Protesters Nationwide Rally Again to Condemn Trump Policies.
‘Shame!’ Protesters Nationwide Rally Again to Condemn Trump Policies.
Thousands of demonstrators rallied at hundreds of events on Saturday to speak out against the president’s handling of immigration, civil liberties, job cuts and many other issues.Jesus Jiménez (The New York Times)
Right? Everyone is attacking him in ways that would make themselves feel bad. That’s a terrible tactic with magas. It’s like accusing me of being a socialist. Oooo scary.
What embarrasses him? Not failure. Incompetence? Probably not. Hard nut to crack.
‘There were no warning signs’: what happens when your partner falls into the ‘manosphere’?
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
‘There were no warning signs’: what happens when your partner falls into the ‘manosphere’?
More and more men are being sucked into parts of the internet that circulate misogynist content, leaving their families to deal with the wreckageMaya Oppenheim (The Guardian)
I love just saying "toxic masculinity" anywhere online, even if you're deep in the bowels of Lemmy, you will get a few reactionary turds who just see the term and lose all cognitive ability to think and mash the downvote button between heated breaths and tears streaming down their faces.
edit: and it continues, very predictable. Seriously guys, just be honest if the term makes you feel shit, you will find truth by pursuing those feelings and the questions around them, literally you will figure out why you're actually unhappy. Don't pull back, push through. Yes, I am provoking, and if it's provocation that has an effect on you, that's a HUGE sign that you can figure out a big truth about yourself and the world if you spend like, 30 minutes in uncomfortable silence asking yourself "why" about things and being painfully honest in your replies until you hit bedrock.
Ideally, you have these "arguments" well ahead of time before you marry someone who has fucked up attitudes about anyone, anywhere.
People can absolutely change and "wake up" to realize that the shit they're holding onto is going to cost them their future and they will absolutely change for the better when they care for someone else and want a better future. But not everyone is willing or capable of self-examination, and many are also not willing or capable of making changes.
Find out before you both have your names on a mortgage or carton of eggs together.
Yeah, I’m studying to be a teacher and have had several internships during my education.
Young teen boys, 12-15, are into it. They aren’t a majority, but they exist. One of the students came to me and asked if I knew what the matrix was. He was really into redpill shit! Had many conversations with him and hope he hasn’t gone deeper.
There's an old adage that you should never make life policy decisions based on how you feel in the moment. The MGTOW guys, even the "best" of them are stuck in a perpetual reaction state and thus their policy and mission statement are less actual tactics for finding comfort and peace, and more a reaction designed to elicit a response from other people.
It's a tantrum. They're all throwing a tantrum.
If you're actually making your own decisions about if you want to date or not, you just do it, you don't need to wear it like a uniform, you don't actually need community support outside of whatever actual social circle you [should] already have in life. The MGTOW movement, even in the most charitable possible light, is massively performative and expecting some kind of attention. This is why they get increasingly vocal and toxic, they're like the 11-year-old kid who packed all his favorite belongings in a checkerboard bindle over his shoulder and is at the front door shouting "I'M REALLY RUNNING AWAY NOW! FOR REAL! YOU'RE ALL GONNA BE SORRY!"
I have for almost my entire life been entirely too accommodating of other people. My husband has some issues, but a lot of them are small, lack malice or unintentional. Such is human interaction.
He is a self declared feminist, however its taken a few years of us being together before he started doing half the cleaning and things like his own laundry. We both work full time. Such is society.
He smokes 🌳 daily, i smoke 🚬 infrequently. He hates that I do, says he wants a divorce if he catches me and is quite controlling about it tbh. So I've always hidden it from him, I usually smoke 10 a week when I'm smoking and when I dont smoke I go 3-24 months without one. Last night I realized I'm a grown ass woman being treated like a child and I'm enabling the behavior. So I told him I was going outside to smoke. He kicked up his normal fuss, but this morning he initiated a conversation about it calmly and we spoke about it like adults.
In the same way that the patriarchy harms both men and women, misogyny is upheld by both men and women. Not to equal levels of course on either count, but im so proud of all the people, men and women, who can call this shit out. It took me entirely too long in this example.
(Also lol at the carton of eggs joke)
you don’t actually need community support outside of whatever actual social circle you [should] already have in life.
For me the interest was in having a group to talk with that was of the same mindset and knowing I wouldn't have to deal with people complaining about their relationship issues or changing plans because of spouse/kids. Which is not something I have in life. I have individuals who I can talk with like that but if we get more than 3-4 of us together someone's going to start bitching about relationship stuff.
Yeah though the vibe of that community was exactly as you described and not what I was looking for at all.
Yes. It is worth trying to address issues first, especially with kids/finances involved, but if nothing works divorce still does.
I would no longer recommend marriage tbh
Rachel, who is in her 30s and lives in London, met her partner on the popular dating app Hinge, and was struck by his generosity. He insisted on buying her gifts and giving her cash to spend. She thought her now ex-partner was a “normal, decent guy”.
Yeah....
IMO this is basically how society works. As soon as you rally more than a few people together under any singular form of identity (brand, activity, social movement), it turns toxic. So, by the time the label carries any meaning (e.g. MGTOW or even something like Feminist) the "voice" of the group becomes abrasive very quickly, and the internal ranks are filled with crazies that have so little meaning in their life that they actually enjoy forming their whole identity around a specific subject.
So you like cars and go to a car meet. You'll meet a few cool folks. But the people there are just from the general population, with only one thing in common. If you find that you typically only really like 1/50 people you meet, you're not going to find a higher ratio just because everyone likes cars, unless you literally value cars over all the other sociocultural aspects of your life. As a group, they'll push ideals and causes that go overboard to support the thing they like. Maybe anti-biker or anti-evironmentalist sentiments, want more roads instead of better mass transit, etc.. all sorts of things the average person who just "likes cars" may not be comfortable getting behind.
Still, 41% sounds absolutely critical level, like we need to stop all society and have a conversation, because that is so uncool.
Fucking 41... Like that is a plurality. That is a whole fucking lot of wrong people. That is entirely too many bros. I'm not sure I can impart just how disappointing that number is.
How to pull them out of the bog, no idea.
For my part I've just confessed my ignorance of what's going on on the commercial web, and shared with them the kinds of conversations I'm have on the non-commercial parts (fedi, email, chats, smol web, etc), which are usually nicer and more productive.
Although to certain extent I still consider this here a form a social media... and I'm not actually sure that it's good for us past a certain number of people. It might be "more cacophony than community" to quote one of Matthew Graybosch's blog posts.
It is better here than on the mainstream social medias, though. That's for sure for sure.
EDIT anyway, that's a total aside. I just couldn't help picking up that one thread. Good comment. I love your approach.
serious answer: by consistently running and reading experiments that refer to male and female patients.
I try my best, but if I've read three-four papers in a day about a topic and all of them use male and female, probably gonna accidentally say female.
Weirdly, I know of more women who listen to joe rogan than men (okay, the numbers are 2 to 0, so not that mindblowing). I don't fucking get it.
It was the same thing with friends who liked Elon Musk before he went fully mask off after buying Twitter. Who he was, and the function he provided, was so completely obvious to anyone who was paying attention. I don't get how anyone could miss it.
Tbf I suspect a lot of this developed from people moving from a "we" mindset during WW2 to the "me" mindset that came out of Reaganomics.
When humanity can no longer look at our neighbour and simply respect them - no matter their skin colour, religion or political viewpoint - that's when the shit hits the fan.
And politicians have seen fit to feed this sickness rather than work towards unity ... because peace doesn't pay (or play) as well as divisiveness.
That's also bad. You regularly hate-watch him? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
It should only take you about 15 minutes of watching him to understand his gimmick. He used undefined and undefinable terms like "cultural marxism". He cherry picks out of context sciencey stuff to back up his point of view. He acts super serial all the time to make people think he's a serious person. That's it. You don't need to watch any more.
You don't need to stay with a devil at all.
Some women are apparently terrified of being single. I've known some who have never been single for more than a few days since they turned 15 or something. I know it can sometimes be more complicated than that, but it's a contributing factor.
It's probably 50/50.
50% of the people are using it as entertainment and laughing at/encouraging those who take it seriously. We can call them the 'trolls.'
50% of the people are actually taking it seriously and don't know any better. We can call them the 'tools.'
Taking the red pill means different things to different people.
I hope one day we can have psychologists seriously study and analyze the meaning behind such an idea and how it can be such a powerful tool.
Agreed.
It's clear though what kind of males fall for these influencers; the ones without good male role models or father figures in their lives.
Why don't they have good male role models or father figures? I think it's because they feel they can only choose between 'cuck' and 'chad' so when their insecurity flares up, they instinctively go with 'chad.'
Balance is lost among men in our society. There's no 'firmness' anymore. Either men are pensive emo teens, or they're boisterous blowhards like tate.
Anyone in between is ignored and forgotten about.
I disagree.
Usually it's the 'modern' women who have been convinced to be treated like livestock. Nothing very traditional about going to raves or wearing pasties.
I mean, it's a tale as old as time.
Shitty males buy females thing to avoid being held accountable.
I'm guessing you're single.
Everyone, keep in mind, there's a lot of losers on the internet who will never find love and don't want you to find love, either.
Don't end up like them unless you want to.
You must be new to the world, then.
Getting everyone to agree on anything is nigh-impossible.
I'm reminded of the inspiration behind the Rust programming language.
"Rust is very much a language inspired from the past to save the future from itself."
Sorry, rampant consumerism has been detrimental to our species as a whole. Now no matter how much we have, it's never enough.
I'm glad people are fighting back against this 'new normal' that really only exists to funnel as much money as possible to the people at the top.
Also, if you leave Western nations you'll see that this "mythical simpler past" is still alive and well. The rest of the world is looking at the West like we're crazy, and most of us are. It's called hysteria.
This is it. People like Trump, Tate, Musk, and West all know how saying provocative yet ambiguous statements causes people to talk about them.
It's really an art at this point, and I'm wondering if they've been working on making it a science.
Kids in private school, high class vacations, all of it.
The fuck is traditional about any of that?
Are you one of those people who sees a movie about rich people in the past and assume that's how you would've lived?
I agree with him, but I also respect his decision not to answer.
Unfortunately, people like you can't stand when someone says something you don't like so you constantly try to pull them into a debate.
Not everyone is worth replying to, regardless of how much they beg for a response.
Right, it was implied though.
Essentially, we shouldn't listen to the men complaining but the men should listen to you complaining?
I would argue that being single equates to being alone ... and women who are alone are vulnerable as hell.
So (at least sometimes) the devil you know is safer than the devil you don't.
^ This reply shows me you don't understand what men like Andrew Tate are selling. He's selling validation to these boys and men, and you're providing a perfect marketplace for that product to sell like hot cakes.
When you reply like that to these people, the mental picture of grown men having hissy fits and "mashing downvote buttons with tears in their eyes" might feel good in the moment, but those men and boys aren't actually reacting like that. Instead, the message they get is they were right the whole time, that people like you really do just hate men and masculinity, and that people like Andrew Tate are the ones "on their side".
I get that it feels good to trigger people you don't like, but all you're doing is making Andrew Tate's job easier. Don't you think he's already making enough money as it is?
In the old days when you disappeared into a cult, you physically went to live with them and everything.
These days it’s “cult to go.” Good luck intervening and cutting off their link to the cult when the cult is speaking to them from their pocket.
I once sat next to a couple on the plane and the young woman was showing her bf a video of Tate talking about how men should be stoic and never complain because no one wants to hear that pussy bullshit. She was saying things to him like “You know how you freak out and bitch at me? You should be like him.”
So yeah… there are women out there who like him. They like hardcore traditional gender roles, is probably the base of it, and want a man doing cliche man shit like Tate preaches. Some women are dealt a great hand by traditional standards: big tits, blond hair, nice face, and they would rather settle into being provided for than fuss with all that feminism stuff. It’s idiotic but people believe whatever’s in their interests. And surprise surprise, these women don’t want men to have emotional needs.
I've been deep diving into right wing propaganda for a decade and still not an incel. Still laughing at the fools and their weak beta energy.
Being able to speak their language is far more impactful. Not for the right wing tool spreading propaganda but rather for the lurker who has doubts.
People missed it because they chose to "not pay attention to politics", leading to right wing indoctrination.
Turns out everything is political.
If they need validation from the likes of grifters and scumbags like Andrew Tate then they are already too far gone.
He's a fucking tool, and I have no idea why he appeals to young men. There's so many other, manlier, kinder folks out there who can provide that same validation.
Maybe they're too far gone, but you're talking about impressionable young boys, like 10-16. At those ages we as a society agree that a lot of all childrens personalities aren't dictated by their own choices since they lack the life experiences and cognitive abilities to function as an adult. Instead they're highly impressionable, influenced by their social sphere and nowadays their social media feeds.
So sure, maybe you could say they're fucked from the jump, but understand that they are not taking as active of a role in who's forming their thought processes like a 25 year old getting hooked on Tate is.
I've been a 10-16 year old boy. At no point was anyone like Andrew Tate "cool" to me. He's not witty, he's not talented, he's done nothing XTREME. He's clearly putting up a massive front to pretend to be interesting and for some reason - microplastics, smart phone addiction, whatever - it's working.
Back in the 90s we would have called him "poser."
Tate just talks into a microphone with his stupid friends. If that's what is considered "cool" to today's teenagers then they're definitely too far gone.
I know one woman who, from her 60s to her 80s, lived in a building that she co-owned with two good friends. Each one had her own full apartment. But, they were able to support each-other. I also know plenty of younger women who have roommates.
I don't think being single necessarily means being alone. Although, it's true that modern western society makes the coupling up option much more low-friction than other ones.
No, the Wachowskis are trans and therefore bad.
X-pill has transcended the artist's intent, much like Pepe the Frog. Feelsbadman
I honestly don't even know what to say lol. How do you think anyone forms an identity ever? We have - I was going to type decades - but centuries of case studies and writing about why people get roped into cults of personality and insane belief systems despite looking like lunatics from the outside.
What do you even think is happening to these people? Based on your previous reply the answer is "I have no idea" which should tell you you should look a little deeper into what's happening.
I disagree. Maybe if they received validation from their families and community, they wouldn't need validation from grifters? I think it says quite a bit about society when people feel the need to purchase the same kind of validation that they used to receive for free from their own communities in ages past.
Nobody likes being told they're worthless, they're a loser, they're an incel, or a "stupid bro", or that all of their struggles aren't valid. If everyone around them is telling them those things - Including you - Then validation becomes a rare and valuable commodity... A commodity that someone like Tate can make a lot of money selling to people.
There’s so many other, manlier, kinder folks out there who can provide that same validation.
And yet, those "other, manlier, kinder folks" are not out there doing that, are they? Instead, many of them are calling these people losers and incels and lost causes beyond all redemption, just like you are right now.
Why should they listen to those "other, manlier, kinder folks" when they aren't acting very kind to them?
Can I look down on them with disgust instead?
Andrew Tate would probably thank you for doing so. Without contempt and disgust from folks like you, he wouldn't have nearly as large of an audience, nor such an obscene amount of money.
Thank you, and I fully agree. I truly hope we're not so far down that path that bringing these boys back to sanity is impossible. Liberal western society spent a lot of time neglecting these boys, and that's ruined a ton of trust these boys once had in society.
Literally all that right-wing extremists like Tate had to do is tell these boys, "Hey, everyone seems to think you're the problem. I'm here to tell you that you aren't a problem - rather, they are the problem, and here's how to deal with them and get yourself ahead" and before you know it, they were eating out of the palm of his hand.
It's pretty clear to me that looking at boys as "the problem" instead of as human beings has a lot to do with the mess we're in right now.
I'm a bigoted asshole and I have good reason. No, I won't elaborate. No, nevermind that my name is Pablo.
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.
I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.
The claim is the word itself is derogatory.
It's an argument roughly of the form:
- Someone mentioned female humans.
- They used the noun "female".
- The noun "female" is derogatory.
- Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.
While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.
Language isn’t always about logic.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either.
Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention.
By that standard, the claim is false.
Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community.
This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).
If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted.
A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.
If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they?
At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.
Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies?
Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary.
They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.
Is it just?
Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization.
Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.
Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.
The result?
A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers.
That is neither right nor beneficial.
Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo?
That seems misguided.
Why that word?
The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric.
It's roughly an argument of the form
- Sexist extremists use the noun "female".
- Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
- Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately?
I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.
More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.
often done when discussing science or medical topics
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction.
Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it.
Not derogatory.
Context matters.
It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females
Recalling an earlier question: do they?
Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory.
Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified).
If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.
The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory.
That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.
Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers.
Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
Filtered word: nsfw
What makes you the ultimate authorityWhere do you get the power to decide
What makes your opinion about it more valid
I don't need to be or decide it and it's not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language.
Their collective choices establish observable conventions.
Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.
What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways?
Subjectivist fallacy: your opinion/feelings don't make claims true.
Up doesn't mean down because someone feels that way.
Language has conventional, established meanings.
Another comment fully argues, explains, & criticizes your argument, which I won't bother to rehash here.
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.
I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.The claim is the word itself is derogatory.
It's an argument roughly of the form:
- Someone mentioned female humans.
- They used the noun "female".
- The noun "female" is derogatory.
- Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.
While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.Language isn’t always about logic.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either.
Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention.
By that standard, the claim is false.Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community.
This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted.
A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they?
At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies?
Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary.
They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.Is it just?
Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization.
Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.
Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.The result?
A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers.
That is neither right nor beneficial.Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo?
That seems misguided.Why that word?
The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric.
It's roughly an argument of the form
- Sexist extremists use the noun "female".
- Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
- Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately?
I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.
often done when discussing science or medical topics
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction.
Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it.
Not derogatory.
Context matters.It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females
Recalling an earlier question: do they?Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory.
Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified).
If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory.
That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers.
Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
But we can’t pretend we’ve lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equallyin trying to make that point.
While I agree with the first part, that is not implied or necessary to refute the argument as presented.
They argued the same reasoning applies to "male" (literally).
It clearly doesn't.
Therefore, whatever the reasoning could be, their argument isn't it.
Basic logic.
If a sound argument exists, we should present that.
Otherwise, we're pretending to reason.
It is if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”. While it can be a noun, it’s mainly used as an adjective to describe sex.It’s like saying “A black owns the shop.” Instead of “A black man owns the shop.”
Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?
Way to absolutely miss the point.
I don’t need to be or decide it and it’s not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language. Their collective choices establish observable conventions. Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term "female" is derogatory. Women who feel that way are part of the "language community." You're talking like we're some outsider group, whose use of English is less valid than yours.
Language has conventional, established meanings.
Language is alive - it evolves, it changes. As well, English famously doesn't have an established body to define meanings. Rather, English words are based on common usage. Women commonly experience the usage of "female" in a derogatory sense. We didn't designate it this way - all we're doing is pointing out that it's used in this way. Just because you don't feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn't mean those that experience it that way are wrong.
If you had gone out to research the usage of "female," including how people perceive it in different contexts, you'd see just how many anglophones disagree with you. But those people would probably, by and large, be those who've experienced that word in a derogatory way - in other words, they'd be women. So how about we stop acting like this is a semantics issue and get to the point you're really saying, which is that women's experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.
Filtered word: nsfw
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term “female” is derogatory.many anglophones disagree with you
And a nonsignificant amount don't.
That doesn't establish a generally accepted convention of the language community.
Language is alive - it evolves, it changes.
True: still not a conventional definition per earlier remarks.
English words are based on common usage.
Exactly: convention.
Women who feel that way are part of the “language community.”
Incomplete evidence or composition fallacy.
whose use of English is less valid than yours.
Nope, not implied & it's not about my use, either.
It's about observed, established convention: see earlier remarks (notice a pattern yet?).
The lack of consistency across usages indicates that derogatory meaning is not a convention.
all we’re doing is pointing out that it’s used in this way
And plenty of innocuous instances exist as discussed before.
That doesn't make a word itself derogatory:
If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.
I don't deny derogatory instances.
Do you deny nonderogatory instances?
Just because you don’t feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn’t mean those that experience it that way are wrong.
It's simple overgeneralization: people can draw wrong conclusions about their observations, especially if they disregard conflicting observations (incomplete evidence fallacy).
Observing derogatory uses while disregarding nonderogatory uses doesn't justify any conclusion about a word's conventional definition.
It varies by message, so it's not the word itself.
get to the point you’re really saying, which is that women’s experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.
Straw man fallacy.
Not implied.
Maybe you follow the logic I wrote, but the conclusion still feels wrong, so you're unwilling to accept it.
Let's unpack that feeling.
The conventional definition that the noun "female" isn't derogatory feels wrong, because sexists use that word in an ugly way, and opposing that would feel relieving.
What can we do with these feelings?
Here's one idea: even though it's not generally accepted, let's make the noun "female" an official dirty word.
Let's accept the premise of their sexism that "females" are lesser and take it further than they did: spread it to the broader community, normalize it into the official language so everyone accepts the noun for an entire gender is a dirty word.
The sexists might even be grateful.
Would that feel better?
If so, then extraterrestrial anthropologists studying you might reasonably conclude you're a misogynist.
Otherwise, you might want to tell your feelings "Fuck you, feelings! Stop making me do stupid shit!".
Alternatively, understand your feelings & guide them better.
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.
I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.The claim is the word itself is derogatory.
It's an argument roughly of the form:
- Someone mentioned female humans.
- They used the noun "female".
- The noun "female" is derogatory.
- Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.
While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.Language isn’t always about logic.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either.
Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention.
By that standard, the claim is false.Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community.
This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted.
A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they?
At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies?
Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary.
They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.Is it just?
Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization.
Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.
Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.The result?
A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers.
That is neither right nor beneficial.Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo?
That seems misguided.Why that word?
The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric.
It's roughly an argument of the form
- Sexist extremists use the noun "female".
- Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
- Therefore, the noun "female" is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately?
I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.
often done when discussing science or medical topics
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction.
Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it.
Not derogatory.
Context matters.It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females
Recalling an earlier question: do they?Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory.
Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified).
If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory.
That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers.
Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
There's green-tea smelling book clubs too if that's more their speed, but a lot of people think raves are fun. Same for the pasties; they're an option, but it sounds like hipsters in a version of full Victorian dress are just as much of a thing. The central fact being that they get a choice.
The various cultures around the world have many, often contradicting versions of traditionalism. My own tells a good story about women having "respect", but it's a version of respect that doesn't require much from men.
Listen to a random country song. There's a party with cheap beer, where the women are just potential bedpost notches, but the protagonist goes to church on Sunday and feigns piousness, so they still get to be One of the Holy Ones™. A girl's dad shows up and defends her "honour", but it's implied he did the exact same shit when he was young, and at no point are her preferences considered at all. The song ends with a thinly veiled plug for the pickup truck company sponsoring the artist.
It's easy to see why dudes who hew to that are just looking for a way to justify how shitty they always were, underneath it all. Because in practice I see that all the time, living where I do.
Yup. In the last week or two, I managed to snort shampoo. I wasn't trying to get high; I'm just operating at that level of organisation.
I'm not personally a left-wing asshole, although that's more of a show thing than a tell thing. But, I've gotten to know plenty. The point being that thinking Andrew Tate is cool is a very specific kind of dumb and/or mean.
Yah I used to one-on-one real-life coaching and mentoring, I've done my time, I've done my service, I've had several boys who became men send me letters thanking me for "saving their life" so I disagree about ALL of this, we shouldn't be expecting anything with our stupid online chatter. This whole post is useless compared to actually getting out and talking to people, making an actual impact on someone's life. The one thing that NOBODY wants to actually do. None of you readers out there want to talk to some incel and listen to their problems and give them actual help.
You want to bury men like Tate? You start getting boys off the internet entirely.
Social identity is one of those things we never talk about, it's something most people don't even believe exists. But it's so fundamental to who we are as a species that when it's taken away, people will lose the will to live entirely even if they're not depressed or have any mental illness. This has been researched to a great degree and we've made laws pertaining to how we treat prisoners because we've collectively determined that to take someone's social identity away is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Meanwhile, we have all built an interconnected palace to finding ways to dismantle our own social identities online. It doesn't matter how "introverted" you think you are or how reclusive you feel, you need a social identity to survive, you need other people, you need to define yourself in relation to others. It's hardwired.
And scrolling on the internet doesn't fill this gap. You can't get that self-inflection from reading other people's thoughts in your own head. You have to engage with others to find yourself, and if you don't, you slowly become more and more withdrawn and distant and you start to blame these dark feelings on everything else, because how do you even identify a cause or a syndrome that we don't even have language for in most cases? How many 18-year-old boys who don't know how to talk to girls are thinking "I need to exercise my social capacity to better find my own values"? When it's so much easier to find a forum that says you're the one who's right and true and honest, and the world is against you.
I applaud legalized gay marriage and BLM protests.
No, it pretty much just comes down to demonizing men, constantly, to the point that they are not even allowed to stand up for themselves. Just standing up for men when they get generalized is enough to get you censored now.
That's why you've lost gen z men. It's not some mystery.
Orbán’s stance on Ukraine pushes Hungary to brink in EU relations
The posters are going up all over Hungary. “Let’s not allow them to decide for us,” runs the slogan alongside three classic villains of Hungarian government propaganda.
Despite the neutral question, Hungary’s government is not standing on the sidelines. After the launch of the campaign, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, last week urged people to vote, claiming that Ukrainian membership would mean “we would have to spend all Hungary’s money on Ukraine”.
The government has also claimed – without offering evidence – that “cheap labour” from Ukraine would take jobs from Hungarians, while epidemics would spread because not enough Ukrainians get vaccinations.
Orbán’s stance on Ukraine pushes Hungary to brink in EU relations
Member states are considering removing the country’s voting rights after its attempts to stymie support for KyivJennifer Rankin (The Guardian)
Maryland Sen. Van Hollen says he finally met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
Maryland Sen. Van Hollen says he finally met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen announced he had finally met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.Sana Azem (WJLA)
then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
I don't know why, but this made me really sad. Remember when we, the "New World, with all its power and might" fought for "rescue and liberation"? Really makes you want to stand up and fight for who we were and can still be again.
This 100%
We should all apply this sentiment from Churchill to the current situation. Every little act of resistance adds up.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
That's why I'm in these threads saying it's worth it to fight this out in every avenue. In the courts, in the legislatures, in the media, on social media, in the streets.
Trump claimed to be able to deport people without courts being able to review. The Supreme Court rejected that view, and now the Trump administration has to spend the effort defending its actions in court.
Under tough questioning by a judge in a case aggressively litigated by Kilmar's family, Trump's lawyers then acknowledged an administrative error was made and that Kilmar shouldn't have been deported. They fired the first lawyer to concede it, but the Solicitor General conceded it, too, and the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Trump has to help get him back.
Sen. Van Hollen went to El Salvador to meet with him. Many comments online, especially here on Lemmy, openly commented that it was futile and that Kilmar was dead. But Sen Van Hollen doesn't give up that easily, showed up in country and was turned away. Then he stayed and fought for access, and was able to meet with him and ensure that he was healthy and safe.
Meanwhile, the Reagan appointee on the appellate court, Judge Wilkinson, has published a scathing ruling that the Trump administration owes the courts and Kilmar Abrego Garcia much more. Note that his concurring opinion last time around essentially became adopted as the 9-0 Supreme Court opinion.
There's cynicism all around, but most of what has already happened is the type of stuff that the cynical pessimists would've never expected to happen in this case.
The brazen lawlessness of the Trump administration is currently backfiring, and now things are escalating into full blown discovery into the ICE/DHS deportation decisions,
The message is that this fight is still worth fighting. Every little step matters.
And when we force these issues into the court for plainclothes arrests, arbitrary revocation of student visas or other authorizations to be in the country, we force the Trump administration to actually say what they're doing, to be scrutinized and analyzed.
The lawsuits are bringing transparency and may still bring results, so quit with the doomerism. Even if we don't win every fight, the struggle continues, and we force the other side to expend their resources and effort in a way that makes it harder for them to accomplish their agenda.
Donate to the nonprofits fighting for this stuff. Volunteer your time. This fight is worth fighting.
James Carville blasts ‘supremely naive’ Bill Maher over White House dinner with Trump
The Democratic strategist accused Maher of lending ‘legitimacy and credence’ to Trump’s behavior
Political strategist James Carville has branded Bill Maher “supremely naive” after the comedian dined with President Donald Trump and praised him as an “effective politician.”
Carville, who helped get Bill Clinton elected to the presidency, hit out at Maher and accused him of giving Trump “legitimacy.”
The criticism comes after Maher, a longtime critic of the president, had a private dinner at the White House with Trump at the end of March. He made the surprise admission that, actually, he found Trump “gracious and measured” despite railing against him regularly on TV.
like this
dhhyfddehhfyy4673 likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
his wifes support financial of israels genocide.
Give her a break, they didn't get to the Middle East unit in her Social Studies class yet.
I watched this Maher thing and I really don't get why anyone cares at all. He basically said trump wasn't a giant douche in person like he is on tv and online. And I totally believe that. Does that really surprise anyone? He's 100% the type of guy that would smile to your face and say your great and then talk mad shit behind your back. Call your mother a whore on truth social and then the second you see him he'd say he regretted it or it's fake news or he didn't actually mean it. I mean just look at zelensky, he talked MAAAAAD shit online for like weeks leading up to that and when they finally met he was asked "why did you call president zelensky a dictator?" And Trump's answer? "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question."
So yeah, I totally buy that he'd be mild mannered and even reasonable in private with some people. But once you turn your back or if he has a little army of ass kissers with him he will immediately change his tune. I feel like everyone has met a guy like that.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
Have you yourself heard or seen Dave Chappelle say or do something transphobic? AFAIR Dave Chappelle pissed off one trans person, and got labeled as transphobic. He may not be an active trans allied, but IIRC he actually has trans people in his friends groups who haven't disavowed him.
Don't get me wrong, if someone's actually transphobic, they should totally get called out for it. But if the term is to keep its meaning, we shouldn't throw it around.
Nah, a couple years ago he had a big section of one of his Netflix specials just bashing trans folks with unfunny jokes.
Just looked it up, the special in question is "The Closer" and yeah just look at this mess -
A little more than halfway into The Closer, Chappelle mentions writer J.K. Rowling, who in recent years was called out for her own transphobic remarks.“They’ve canceled people that are more powerful than me,” Chappelle said in the new special. “They canceled J.K. Rowling, my god. J.K. Rowling wrote all the Harry Potter books by herself. She sold so many books, the bible worries about her. And they canceled her because she said in an interview—and this is not exactly what she said but effectually—she said gender was a fact. And then the trans community got mad as shit. They started calling her a TERF.”
Chappelle added that he didn’t know “what the fuck that was” initially, using the opportunity to mock the trans community.
“I didn’t event know what the fuck that was but I know that trans people make up words to win arguments, so I looked it up,” he said. “TERF is an acronym. It stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminists, and this is a real thing. This is a group of women that hate transgender, they don’t hate transgender women but they look at trans women the way we Blacks might look at blackface. It offends them. Like, ‘Ew, this bitch is doing an impression of me.’”
Chappelle then noted he “shouldn’t speak on this” because he’s not a woman, but continued anyway.
“I am a feminist, that’s right,” he said. “I’m team TERF. I agree, I agree man. Gender is a fact. You have to look at it from a woman’s perspective.”
Later, Chappelle claimed he wasn’t saying “trans women aren’t women” before immediately rolling into remarks that contradicted that claim.
“I am just saying that those pussies that they got, you know what I mean?” he said. “I’m not saying it’s not pussy but that’s like Beyond Pussy or Impossible Pussy, you know what I mean? It tastes like pussy but that’s not quite what it is. That’s not blood, that’s beet juice.”
So in the space of about 10 minutes we have transphobia, complaints of cancel culture, support of TERFs, support of JK Rowling, and a self admission that he "doesn't know what the fuck that is" but runs his mouth about it anyway.
When he (rightfully) got called out about this, the only thing he talked about for the next year afterward was how jazzed he was to be getting "canceled", as Netflix continued to bankroll more specials for him and suspended/fired trans employees who had complaints about this.
Dave Chappelle is a clown and not the good funny kind.
James Carville works for Palantir
privacyinternational.org/examp…
He and Maher can both go fuck themselves
Palantir's secretive predictive policing programme in New Orleans
Under a secret deal beginning in 2012, the data mining company Palantir provided software to a New Orleans Police Department programme that used a variety of data such as ties to gang members, criminal histories, and social media to predict the likel…Privacy International
I've got a podcast for you
I Hate Bill Maher | Podcast on Podbay
Listen to 57 episodes of I Hate Bill Maher on Podbay. Full episodes on the best podcast player on the web. Hosted by Will Weldon, I Hate Bill Maher is an investigation of the life and career of Bill Maher, a...Podbay
List of cities hosting nationwide anti-Trump protests on Saturday, April 19
like this
Drusas likes this.
"His announcement Tuesday, pledging to spend $20 million on its efforts, triggered a wave of criticism and concern from some Democrats, including members of Congress, DNC members and Democratic strategists, many of whom expressed frustration over Hogg’s dual roles as an activist and party representative"
I'm sorry, are they openly saying they don't want Democrat leadership to be... Active?
Fucking hell, this is why I never became one
‘This Should Be Shocking’: Conservative Judge Blasts White House As Senator Finally Accesses Abrego Garcia
The claim that they were “sipping margaritas” was revealed to be completely staged nonsense, as apparently Bukele aids showed up with the props solely for the misleading photoshoot:
Mr. Bukele, in a social media post, even crowed that “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the ‘death camps’ & ‘torture,’” was “now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!” But according to a person familiar with the situation, a Bukele aide placed the two glasses with cherries and salted rims on the table in front of Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Abrego Garcia in the middle of their meeting in an attempt to stage the photo.
The Right are so comfortable lying that it’d be comical if it wasn’t so chilling.
‘This Should Be Shocking’: Conservative Judge Blasts White House As Senator Finally Accesses Abrego Garcia
“This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.” Those words came not from a liberal juri…Techdirt
Supreme Court to hear first challenge to the ACA in Trump's new term
Summary
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in Kennedy v. Braidwood, “a case that could strip away insurance coverage for preventive services like cancer screenings, HIV prevention and diabetes medication for millions of Americans.”
Braidwood Management claims covering PrEP “violated its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
The justices will weigh whether the United States Preventive Services Task Force “has the authority to recommend preventive services like PrEP be covered.”
A loss could mean “millions of Americans will be deprived of access to free, effective preventive care,” with “dire” impacts on marginalized groups and public health at large.
This Supreme Court Decision Could Make It Harder For Millions To Access Preventive Health Care
The court will hear the first significant challenge to the Affordable Care Act under the second Trump administration.Lil Kalish (HuffPost)
like this
SolacefromSilence likes this.
At the time, Dr. Steven Hotze, the sole trustee and beneficiary of the Braidwood Management company, said he was unwilling to pay for PrEP or STI screenings for his employees. “They are consequences of a patient’s choice to engage in drug use, prostitution, homosexual conduct, or sexual promiscuity – all of which are contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs,” the complaint read.
How about rape, Mr Hotze? Do patients that contract STIs when they are the victims of rape deserve to just suffer even more with STIs after their attack? How about the victims loved ones? Do you expect them to shun the victims of rape if they contracted an STI from it?
Please stop bringing up uncomfortable realities of my policies.
Just listen to my amazing sound bites and don’t forget to smash that like button fellow kids and subscribe to my slay propaganda
- GOP
P.s. Liberals bad
Organized Religions say we should heal the sick.
The people in those organizations don't care what the religion says.
Say im the spotlight while everyone is looking, then preach the opposite and practice causing harm.
If we could trust the religion to do the things Jesus said, this country would have been waaay more progressive than it has been. By miles. Including with healthcare. Cause the largest group against that are also conveniently the largest Christian group.
like this
SolacefromSilence likes this.
Then what wr thought was Christianity and its religious history is now gone and the world's largest religion just lost sooooooooooo many of its members. Like the vast majority. The entire catholic church? Gone. No longer christian. And instead we have a religion that is one of the world's largest and has no name. But its still an Abrahamic religion, which then makes this all really confusing.
And all because the minority of Christianity said they no longer consider them Christian
And Im glad all of us who suffered from Christianity can know that you free Christianty from having to take that blame, and instead we get to recognize you as a victim because all this time we blamed your religion.
As someone who lives in Houston: of course it’s fucking Hotze. A snake oil salesman who runs “wellness centers” and is currently under indictment for hiring a private investigator to look into voter fraud who ended up holding an ac repairman at Gunpoint.
He also released a Techno album critical of the ACA in 2013
He tried to sue Greg Abbot for doing too much during COVID. The greg abbot widely criticized by the rest of the nation for doing very little.
For more fun facts, look at his Wikipedia Page
Fuck Steve hotze.
Arrest Of Elon Musk For Felony Vote Buying Demanded In Wisconsin
Arrest Of Elon Musk For Felony Vote Buying Demanded In Wisconsin
Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler has accused Elon Musk of felony vote buying and he has called for the billionaire's arrest if he comes to the state.Jason Easley (PoliticusUSA)
This!
Then aggressively review his widely known to be fraudulently obtained American citizenship, seize his American assets including his companies, and send him back to South Africa.
send him back to South Africa
Venezuela might also be nice at this time of year.
Trump’s war on clean energy just killed $6B in red state projects
Trump’s war on clean energy just killed $6B in red state projects
Thanks to Trump's attacks on clean energy, nearly $8 billion in investments and 16 projects were cancelled, closed, or downsized in Q1 2025.Michelle Lewis (Electrek)
like this
Australis13 likes this.
Treczoks
in reply to MicroWave • • •perestroika
in reply to Treczoks • • •Anyone's hand, presented by the man whose first column in the "customs tariff table" was a ridiculous lie made up of cooked numbers (trade deficit instead of tariff rate).
There's no reason to put a grain of trust in him.
PillBugTheGreat
in reply to perestroika • • •Noobnarski
in reply to Treczoks • • •Looking at the photo on top of this thread, which shows his hand, it seems like he has the tatoos, but not the letters MS 13.
So that picture was most likely of his hands, and then someone added the MS13 to it.
Treczoks
in reply to Noobnarski • • •Mog_fanatic
Unknown parent • • •JohnnyCanuck
Unknown parent • • •INHALE_VEGETABLES
Unknown parent • • •barnaclebutt
Unknown parent • • •queermunist she/her
Unknown parent • • •It starts off plausible:
M=Marijuana
S=Smiley
But then it gets stupid:
1=Cross?
3=Skull???
queermunist she/her
Unknown parent • • •1 isn't really a cross, but I guess if you really stretch it?
But the skull also has a mouth. That's 4.
CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]
Unknown parent • • •There are five possibilities:
All of these have problems.
tigeruppercut
Unknown parent • • •kronisk
in reply to queermunist she/her • • •The explanation I read is that skull is cranéo in spanish - "cranium" - which would give us C = 3rd letter of the alphabet. The jury is still out on the cross, but perhaps "god is number one" or something. Never mind that actual MS-13 members have no qualms about tattooing the actual letters all over their bodies instead of elaborate ciphers...
None of this matters though, focus should be kept on the right to due process. They can smear him all they want, it doesn't change the facts.
MBech
Unknown parent • • •I think this whole Garcia deportation is part of that. It wasn't supposed to in the beginning, but they're cooking with what they have.
Instead of talking about how fucking insane it is to deporting people to a death camp without any due process. We're now talking about how insane it is to deport someone who wasn't "supposed" to be deported to a death camp, and then refuse to do the bare minimum to get him back.
They've made sure we ignore the hundreds of people getting removed with no sign of evidence against their crimes.
Kbobabob
Unknown parent • • •There are literally annotations under the symbols.
Marijuana, Smile, Cross
SouthEndSunset
in reply to MicroWave • • •StJohnMcCrae
in reply to SouthEndSunset • • •It's his hand. You can find other angles of it in the same article. It seems to me that the ms-13 edited onto his digits is meant to be a translation of the symbology of his tattoos:
Marijuana leaf = M
Smiley face = S
Cross = 1
Skull = 3
Is that an accurate representation of what his tattoos mean? I have no idea, I'm not an expert on gang symbology. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The presence of a gang tattoo is something that could be submitted as evidence in court - which is a right the accused was never afforded.
What I am sure of, is that trump intentionally presented this information in such a vague manner so as to muddy the waters so he can come back later and claim his claims were misrepresented by the "lying, dishonest media" - which is itself dishonest.
It's an inkblot test. His detractors will take the claim at face value, and his supporters will dig in and claim we're stupid for not immediately taking his claims as gospel. He doesn't care if his claims hold up in court. He only cares about the court of public opinion, and right now, he's defining that conversation.
skisnow
in reply to StJohnMcCrae • • •Why does "Cross = 1, Skull = 3"? I did my best to google it but every result is comments from posts made within the last day.
What I did find was this quote in yahoo.com/news/trump-posts-ima… :
Yahooist Teil der Yahoo Markenfamilie
www.yahoo.comStJohnMcCrae
in reply to skisnow • • •TurnWest
in reply to skisnow • • •perestroika
in reply to StJohnMcCrae • • •I'm not an expert either, but I'm from another country. Does the gang speak English? If it's an Ecuadorian gang, why would they use English abbreviations in their symbol language? It seems natural for them to use Spanish. :)
Railcar8095
in reply to perestroika • • •Marijuana is Marihuana and Smiley is not adapted, so it's still Smiley.
The cross and the skull being 1 and 3 I have no idea what means.
Spacehooks
in reply to CosmicTurtle0 [he/him] • • •Alenalda
in reply to MicroWave • • •techclothes
in reply to Alenalda • • •theangryseal
in reply to MBech • • •Nikelui
Unknown parent • • •MedicsOfAnarchy
in reply to MicroWave • • •Auli
in reply to MicroWave • • •Auli
Unknown parent • • •Vandals_handle
Unknown parent • • •I read that in Gloria Estefan's voice;
Turn the E around, Microsoft confessin'
Auli
Unknown parent • • •na11.campaigns.federalbank.co.…
Hikuro-93
in reply to MicroWave • • •Even if that's real, which doesn't look like it, what's keeping them from forcing Mr. Garcia onto a chair, hold him down, while they tattoo it?
This administration and their dictator allies have shown to have no constraints, no guardrails, time and time again. Consistently. You can always blindly trust them to bs and lie their way through anything.
You gonna tell me people who tried to stage Mr. Garcia sipping some Margaritas by a hotel pool wouldn't stoop so low as to place fake tattoos on him? Yeah, that's the thing with dishonesty - even if you tell the truth once it's still gonna be called into question. The boy who cried wolf, and all that.
barneypiccolo
in reply to MBech • • •This is exactly it. They flood the stage with all sorts of distractions, and then run with whatever issue gets traction. While everyone is focused on this one guy, dozens of others with the same non-criminal background are forgotten about, because they have nobody to support them, or their family didn't spot an identifying tattoo in a propaganda photo.
Eventually they'll let this guy go, and everyone will celebrate, and the Nazis will act insulted, while secretly cebrating that dozens of equally innocent people will still endure life sentences in a torture prison for the crime of being born brown.
jagged_circle
in reply to MicroWave • • •barneypiccolo
Unknown parent • • •OH, COME ON! That isn't even a plausible fake. Couldn't they find a third-grader to do a better job?
This is the HitlerPig 2.0 version of the hurricane weather map. I'm surprised he didn't just scribble on the photo with a Sharpie.
jagged_circle
Unknown parent • • •jagged_circle
Unknown parent • • •troglodytis
in reply to MicroWave • • •acargitz
in reply to MicroWave • • •spicehoarder
in reply to acargitz • • •caboose2006
in reply to spicehoarder • • •Treczoks
in reply to acargitz • • •That was in the last century or so.
But_my_mom_says_im_cool
in reply to MicroWave • • •CalipherJones
in reply to But_my_mom_says_im_cool • • •JohnnyCanuck
in reply to Auli • • •I don't think all of the gang members being deported from the US are wearing the tattoos so boldly. They probably had to be a bit more subtle than that in the US than in Venezuela or El Salvador (before last year).
Look at these 5 guys from 2023 foxnews.com/us/five-suspected-…
Or these three from 2018: foxnews.com/us/3-ms-13-gang-me…
Or all of these ones from 2021: breitbart.com/politics/2021/08…
It's going to be hard to find subtle versions of the tattoos with image search since they all give the same results of blatant face tattoos.
Illegal Alien MS-13 Gang Members Indicted for Murders, Kidnappings
John Binder (Breitbart)Bosht
in reply to MicroWave • • •ExLisper
in reply to MicroWave • • •borari
in reply to ExLisper • • •Bruh. So they went from M to S to 1 to 3? Instead of A to B to C … to 1 to 2 to 3?
No. Don’t try to muddy the waters and spread more supposition as fact. Trump has already been proven to alter images to fit his own internal incorrect narrative, just look at that hurricane path incident from his last term. All evidence and common sense points to someone digitally editing this picture in order to fabricate support for this man’s illegal deportation.
HipHoboHarold
in reply to borari • • •I think the point is that we all know they put in the MS13 digitally
The argument isnt against that
We all know it
The argument is that the republicans arent arguing he literally has MS13 tattooed
But that even they know that was added
And thats its just added to help people figure out why the tattoos would represent MS13
Its not that Republicans are saying the edited in part is part of the tattoo
Just that the tattoos that are there represent MS13
JcbAzPx
in reply to HipHoboHarold • • •borari
in reply to HipHoboHarold • • •rasakaf679
in reply to ExLisper • • •Marijuana= M
smiley = S
Cross= 1
Skull = 3
Thats what the printed texts above each knuckle represents. These dumb people claiming it has poor photoshop... Has something loose in their head
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to rasakaf679 • • •I'd like some independent decoding of these symbols. He could be celebrating his Master of Science in Computer Science.
(Also, the whole Trump argument is irrelevant because they already admitted he was "deported" in error)
JcbAzPx
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to JcbAzPx • • •flango
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to flango • • •flango
in reply to JcbAzPx • • •Mongostein
in reply to flango • • •jordanlund
in reply to rasakaf679 • • •Actual MS-13 gang members don't bother encoding their tattoos. They straight up say "MS-13". The gang is many things, ambiguous and shy are not two of them.
They're kind of like white supremacists in that regard, they don't try to hide who they are:
HipHoboHarold
in reply to ExLisper • • •And itd amazing to me how this is another of this shit is dumb, we dont need to make stuff up to complain about it being dumb
Like the excuses for the symbols dont make sense. We can just call that out. We dont need to lie.
nomy
in reply to queermunist she/her • • •goldfndr
in reply to Vandals_handle • • •Turn it upside down,
also starts the bashin'.
Uppp
in reply to MicroWave • • •Cyrus Draegur
in reply to Uppp • • •Look. I wish he could be removed by impeachment. But we need to accept that he's an outlaw.
He is a clear proponent of extrajudicial capital punishment.
Only an overdose of his own medicine will take him down.
RealFknNito
in reply to Cyrus Draegur • • •MyNameIsIgglePiggle
in reply to RealFknNito • • •A sniper or cyanide could also work.
Or a Luigi
RealFknNito
in reply to MyNameIsIgglePiggle • • •barneypiccolo
in reply to Cyrus Draegur • • •Sanctus
Unknown parent • • •troglodytis
Unknown parent • • •Sure. We are in agreement. That's exactly why it's important to adhere to our constitution. Due process is an instruction for how to operate our government when looking to use its violent capabilities upon individuals. "No person shall" has nothing to do with who the individual is, only how our government must go about depriving them of "life, liberty, or property", if it sees fit.
Until we change our constitution, due process for all.
JcbAzPx
Unknown parent • • •Spanish would work for the first two, as silly as it is, since marijuana is already a spanish word and sonrisa is smile. You could almost get away with 1 for the cross, though it would be c by the logic of the first two.
The skull, though, is utter nonsense.
JcbAzPx
Unknown parent • • •JcbAzPx
Unknown parent • • •Actually, at the time he was kidnapped he was a legal resident and the administration had court orders specifically not to send him to El Salvador. Anything anyone tries to say about his tattoos, one way or another, is completely irrelevant nonsense and attempting to defend the administration's actions against him is a moral evil.
teamevil
in reply to MicroWave • • •superkret
in reply to MicroWave • • •SSNs4evr
in reply to MicroWave • • •WhatYouNeed
in reply to MicroWave • • •iz_ok
Unknown parent • • •MrShankles
in reply to INHALE_VEGETABLES • • •barneypiccolo
in reply to MicroWave • • •What insults me more than anything is that he thinks I am so stupid that I would accept that obviously doctored photo as real. I felt the same way when he pitched his hurricane weather map with his Sharpie edit.
Hey, HitlerPig, we aren't all as stupid as you, and the people around you.
HellsBelle
in reply to MicroWave • • •Who do I trust?
A lying asswipe who wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in his orange face?
A man I don't know that has been sent to a foreign nation's prison for no reason?
Easy choice.
NoSuchAgency
in reply to HellsBelle • • •redstate.com/beccalower/2025/0…
barooboodoo (he/him)
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •jordanlund
in reply to barooboodoo (he/him) • • •It doesn't, and actual MS-13 gang members don't bother encoding their tattoos. They straight up say "MS-13". The gang is many things, ambiguous and shy are not two of them.
They're kind of like white supremacists in that regard, they don't try to hide who they are:
NoSuchAgency
in reply to jordanlund • • •Some do, but not all of them. Just look up MS13 gang tattoos and look at the pics, or do a little research and you'll learn that they do have coded tattoos that represent different things such as their rank in the gang.
The tattoos you're showing aren't white supremacist tattoos btw.
jordanlund
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •That theory has been completely been debunked:
m.economictimes.com/news/inter…
Did Trump share a fake photo of deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia's MS-13 tattoo? Here's the shocking truth
ET Online (Economic Times)Guns0rWeD13
in reply to HellsBelle • • •the individual is not the issue. it's the process. i'm not going to go to bat for some rando who might very well be involved in nefarious shit, but i will damn sure defend the idea that every person is allowed a chance to defend themself. this is the issue. people need to stop treating this dude like a saint. it could very well backfire.
in fact, leftists and liberals in general need to stop automatically assuming the opposite of everything a conservative claims is true. that's a fucking trap and it's illogical.
NoSuchAgency
in reply to MicroWave • • •redstate.com/beccalower/2025/0…
Tony Wu
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •NoSuchAgency
in reply to Tony Wu • • •Tony Wu
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •techclothes
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •RizzoTheSmall
in reply to MicroWave • • •techclothes
in reply to MicroWave • • •queermunist she/her
in reply to kronisk • • •NoSuchAgency
Unknown parent • • •NoSuchAgency
Unknown parent • • •