Don't forget the people who are refusing to see it because Gal Gadot is in it! Anti-semitism has an impact too!
"It cheapens the accusation of anti-semitism to conflate it with not wanting to see a movie because someone who supports genocide against indigenous people is in it."
"Too late. Anti-semitism. Now you have to take the charge seriously."
Rules for humanoids running the Beijing Half-Marathon are announced:
⦿ Only bipedal robots (no wheels) - remote-controlled or autonomous
⦿ Height: 1.6 ft to 6.5 ft
⦿ Time limit: 3 hours and 30 minutes
⦿ 10-minute penalty for each battery swap
There was a case with UCLA where they checked for stuff like Jewish jewelry and asked people who were unwilling to denounce Israel to take the long way around but I'm sure we're in agreement that that is particularly egregious.
This is from back in 2023. (Jump down to where it says "sabotage" if you want to get straight to the thread.)
Here's one of the points I made in the middle of the thread:
If what you are saying is true, would it be possible to submit low-effort crap and accuse anyone who doesn’t like it as being “anti-woke” instead of “anti-low-effort crap”?
Because, lemme tell ya, I have definitely seen some seriously awful media that shoveled on the “woke” crap and accused anybody of not liking the media as being against the “woke” and not against the “crap”.
I do hope that Kazzy comes back and gives a comment about how much (or whether is an option, I guess) his kiddos liked the movie.
As for my take on Ziegler, I'll take the liberty of quoting myself:
Now beauty is subjective and we shouldn’t say whether one person is more attractive than another and the very idea of a magic mirror being able to tell who is and who is not better looking than another person is silly… but I can totally see how someone might prefer to look at Gal Gadot when given the choice between Gal Gadot and Rachel Ziegler.
“So you’re saying that Rachel Ziegler is *UGLY*?!?”
“No, I’m not saying that. They’re both good looking.”
“So you agree that Rachel Ziegler is better looking but you just don’t think so because you’re racist against Latinx Actresses!”
“No, I don’t… erm… I’m not sure when we got allowed to say that one woman is better looking than another but I am saying that I understand how someone might think that Gal Gadot is better looking, in the trailer, than Rachel Ziegler is.”
“So you’re saying that Rachel Ziegler is hideous.”
“No.”
Generally when you have a protest like that, you don’t let counterprotesters in.
From what I understand, the protest wasn't a four hour thing where they had one guy give a forty minute speech to introduce a guy who gives a thirty minute speech to introduce a guy who gives a twenty minute speech to introduce a guy who comes out and speaks for ten minutes with a whole bunch of songs praising peace and justice sprinkled among the speeches but was, instead, an encampment.
If they had a four hour thing and said "no Israelites except for Black Israelites", I'm pretty sure that everybody would have rolled their eyes and gone around the long way.
Such is the nature of four hour protests.
But an encampment? Why, I'd hate to have to argue that point in front of a judge.
Are you asking for the "For Real According To A Definition That You, Personally, Use" definition or the legal one that they're going to be using as justification?
I don't think it's left v. right. It might be easier if it were.
It's elite vs. non-elite and the elite got very good at explaining that "no, this isn't a foot fault, if you'd read the rules of the game from 1927, you'd see that "the line" refers to the part of the line closest to the net and not anything having to do with paint in general, I can't believe you're using the ruleset from 1948 or, sigh, 1977. What game did you even think we were playing?"
And some of the folks responded by reading a copy of the 1927 rules *VERY* closely and others just started trying to figure out why the refs cared when they started ignoring the back of the line but not when the opponent did.
We haven't had a stupid party for a long time. The elite still thinks it's a left/right thing.
I immediately panicked when I read Phil's accusation. "Did I miss that this was satire? Am I so poisoned that I read that and thought it was real?"
I am not too proud to say that I felt relief after I spent a few moments googling and confirming that, yes, it's real.
But I had to double and triple check first because, you know... you read that and you realize that it could very well be actively making fun of how people used to talk in 2017.
Man, wouldn't *THAT* be nice? I think you're thinking of The Babylon Bee which is, indeed, satire.
The Sacramento Bee is a newspaper that has Pulitzers and everything. While you may read the above and think "Jeez Louise, that's gotta be freakin' satire" (AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT KNEE JERK RESPONSE!!!), sadly, it appears to be entirely in earnest.
Who, exactly, was the audience for this conversation, anyway? Because it sure wasn’t the people of California.
I’d rather listen to Chico State frat boys debate their favorite IPA than spend a single moment listening to Newsom and Kirk.
I already know plenty of boring men who want to mansplain politics to me, thanks.
Now, I’m no fortune teller, but even I can see that Newsom’s little podcast project will soon crumble under the crushing weight of lackluster listenership — like so many other puffed-up would-be podcasters who have gone before him. I’m putting the over-under at 10 episodes. Any takers?
This podcast of Newsom’s is platforming people who make their living off of temper tantrums and mass-produced hatred.
Premise 1: You have one Third Reicher on your show and you have a Third Reich show.
Premise 2: Gavin Newsom had a Third Reicher on his show.
Conclusion: Gavin Newsom has a Third Reich show.
Now, if the conclusion is obviously false, we have a problem with one of the premises.
If the conclusion is true, we have to explore whether having a Third Reich show is enough to make the host of a Third Reich show a Nazi himself.
If it does... then the governor of California is a Nazi.
That hasn't happened since 1975.
I don't think I know anybody who is a Tateista. Like, not even on Twitter have I encountered someone who says "you gotta see this" for any reason but to (rhetorically) ask "why in the hell is this guy considered charismatic?"
Even Joe Rogan, to whom I do not subscribe, gets boosted inside of my circles to get a "you gotta watch this clip!" from time to time.
I have never seen a complimentary clip of Tate.
So maybe no problem, right? Nobody I know even listens to him.
I see Alito as being coherent (though, perhaps, deranged). There's an argument that he sees coming and he wants to cut it off at the pass and, as such, attempted to. Failed, of course.
When I was a kid, the tragedy of schism meant that baptized protestants couldn't partake of the Eucharist. I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so.
In any case, if memory serves, there was an amount of resentment on the part of protestants in general that they couldn't partake of the Eucharist.
Lemme tell ya, anybody who showed up in the Babtist church could take a pinch of bread and a shot of grape juice even if they were Methodists.
So, at the very least, there were hard feelings on the part of those told that they were Heretics living in apostasy. This usually resulted in hammering on several of the (now moot) 95 theses.
As for the Grand Mufti declaring people heretics, the most recent example I can think of is Rushdie.
The right-wingers I've seen are pointing out that a single judge can force the government to send taxpayer dollars overseas!!!
The left-wingers I've seen are pointing out that this ruling applies *SOLELY* to work that has already been completed! It's basic contract law!
And I'm looking at this part from the ruling again: "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines"
I think that this phrasing is agreeing 100% with the left-wingers and is not talking, for a single second, about what Alito is talking about.
However: The goal isn't changing Tate. It's making Tate irrelevant.
"I shouldn't have to make Tate irrelevant! He should already be irrelevant!" may be a true statement but the fact that Tate is not irrelevant is a problem that won't be addressed by pointing out that he shouldn't be relevant and you shouldn't even have to explain why.
Well, the part where you say "“heresy,” however interesting to outsiders, is a matter of internal club rules and has no purchase on non- members" seems to be true for you personally but it doesn't seem to be true for others.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Don't forget the people who are refusing to see it because Gal Gadot is in it! Anti-semitism has an impact too!
"It cheapens the accusation of anti-semitism to conflate it with not wanting to see a movie because someone who supports genocide against indigenous people is in it."
"Too late. Anti-semitism. Now you have to take the charge seriously."
"
Bipedal humanoid robots are being allowed to run in a half marathon in Bejing.
The Rules:
Rules for humanoids running the Beijing Half-Marathon are announced:
⦿ Only bipedal robots (no wheels) - remote-controlled or autonomous
⦿ Height: 1.6 ft to 6.5 ft
⦿ Time limit: 3 hours and 30 minutes
⦿ 10-minute penalty for each battery swap
"
Is the AP sufficient? CNN?
There was a case with UCLA where they checked for stuff like Jewish jewelry and asked people who were unwilling to denounce Israel to take the long way around but I'm sure we're in agreement that that is particularly egregious.
"
This is from back in 2023. (Jump down to where it says "sabotage" if you want to get straight to the thread.)
Here's one of the points I made in the middle of the thread:
And this is from back August of last year where we discussed, among other things, Zeigler posting about Palestine (you may recall that Gal Gadot did her stint in the Israeli army). I recapped the drama for Kazzy here.
I do hope that Kazzy comes back and gives a comment about how much (or whether is an option, I guess) his kiddos liked the movie.
As for my take on Ziegler, I'll take the liberty of quoting myself:
"
Generally when you have a protest like that, you don’t let counterprotesters in.
From what I understand, the protest wasn't a four hour thing where they had one guy give a forty minute speech to introduce a guy who gives a thirty minute speech to introduce a guy who gives a twenty minute speech to introduce a guy who comes out and speaks for ten minutes with a whole bunch of songs praising peace and justice sprinkled among the speeches but was, instead, an encampment.
If they had a four hour thing and said "no Israelites except for Black Israelites", I'm pretty sure that everybody would have rolled their eyes and gone around the long way.
Such is the nature of four hour protests.
But an encampment? Why, I'd hate to have to argue that point in front of a judge.
"
That's one heck of a framing, anyway. Were you around for the whole "artisans" thing?
"
"The students took over the quad and closed it down to anybody who wasn't willing to denounce Israel."
"They're supporting Palestine."
"
Disney has cancelled its London premiere of Snow White.
"
Are you asking for the "For Real According To A Definition That You, Personally, Use" definition or the legal one that they're going to be using as justification?
"
Engage in illegal discrimination, lose your Federal funding? Gasp! This is just like Hitler!
"
I don't think it's left v. right. It might be easier if it were.
It's elite vs. non-elite and the elite got very good at explaining that "no, this isn't a foot fault, if you'd read the rules of the game from 1927, you'd see that "the line" refers to the part of the line closest to the net and not anything having to do with paint in general, I can't believe you're using the ruleset from 1948 or, sigh, 1977. What game did you even think we were playing?"
And some of the folks responded by reading a copy of the 1927 rules *VERY* closely and others just started trying to figure out why the refs cared when they started ignoring the back of the line but not when the opponent did.
We haven't had a stupid party for a long time. The elite still thinks it's a left/right thing.
"
I immediately panicked when I read Phil's accusation. "Did I miss that this was satire? Am I so poisoned that I read that and thought it was real?"
I am not too proud to say that I felt relief after I spent a few moments googling and confirming that, yes, it's real.
But I had to double and triple check first because, you know... you read that and you realize that it could very well be actively making fun of how people used to talk in 2017.
"
Man, wouldn't *THAT* be nice? I think you're thinking of The Babylon Bee which is, indeed, satire.
The Sacramento Bee is a newspaper that has Pulitzers and everything. While you may read the above and think "Jeez Louise, that's gotta be freakin' satire" (AND I SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT KNEE JERK RESPONSE!!!), sadly, it appears to be entirely in earnest.
"
The Sacramento Bee has an opinion piece that I'm sure you'll enjoy: California needs Newsom to be a leader, not another mediocre white man with a podcast
The people are speaking. Is Newsom listening?
"
Premise 1: You have one Third Reicher on your show and you have a Third Reich show.
Premise 2: Gavin Newsom had a Third Reicher on his show.
Conclusion: Gavin Newsom has a Third Reich show.
Now, if the conclusion is obviously false, we have a problem with one of the premises.
If the conclusion is true, we have to explore whether having a Third Reich show is enough to make the host of a Third Reich show a Nazi himself.
If it does... then the governor of California is a Nazi.
That hasn't happened since 1975.
"
Wait, the podcast he went on was Charlie Kirk's!!!
Newsom is reaching out!!!
Holy cow, he's someone who would have gone on Joe Rogan.
"
I don't think I know anybody who is a Tateista. Like, not even on Twitter have I encountered someone who says "you gotta see this" for any reason but to (rhetorically) ask "why in the hell is this guy considered charismatic?"
Even Joe Rogan, to whom I do not subscribe, gets boosted inside of my circles to get a "you gotta watch this clip!" from time to time.
I have never seen a complimentary clip of Tate.
So maybe no problem, right? Nobody I know even listens to him.
Right?
"
OH! I stand corrected. (I thought that there was a thing that baptized Protestants in good standing who believed in the Presence could do it.)
"
Oh, was that the question you asked?
"
He's running for President. He suspects that you can't be on the 20 side of a national 80-20 issue as Harris just amply demonstrated.
On “Comment Rescue: DavidTC on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Unfreezing of Funds”
I see Alito as being coherent (though, perhaps, deranged). There's an argument that he sees coming and he wants to cut it off at the pass and, as such, attempted to. Failed, of course.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
When I was a kid, the tragedy of schism meant that baptized protestants couldn't partake of the Eucharist. I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so.
In any case, if memory serves, there was an amount of resentment on the part of protestants in general that they couldn't partake of the Eucharist.
Lemme tell ya, anybody who showed up in the Babtist church could take a pinch of bread and a shot of grape juice even if they were Methodists.
So, at the very least, there were hard feelings on the part of those told that they were Heretics living in apostasy. This usually resulted in hammering on several of the (now moot) 95 theses.
As for the Grand Mufti declaring people heretics, the most recent example I can think of is Rushdie.
Is it okay to use him as an example?
On “Comment Rescue: DavidTC on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Unfreezing of Funds”
Here's a copy of the order (warning: PDF).
The right-wingers I've seen are pointing out that a single judge can force the government to send taxpayer dollars overseas!!!
The left-wingers I've seen are pointing out that this ruling applies *SOLELY* to work that has already been completed! It's basic contract law!
And I'm looking at this part from the ruling again: "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines"
I think that this phrasing is agreeing 100% with the left-wingers and is not talking, for a single second, about what Alito is talking about.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
You're *NOT* going to change Tate's mind.
However: The goal isn't changing Tate. It's making Tate irrelevant.
"I shouldn't have to make Tate irrelevant! He should already be irrelevant!" may be a true statement but the fact that Tate is not irrelevant is a problem that won't be addressed by pointing out that he shouldn't be relevant and you shouldn't even have to explain why.
"
Well, the part where you say "“heresy,” however interesting to outsiders, is a matter of internal club rules and has no purchase on non- members" seems to be true for you personally but it doesn't seem to be true for others.
Which is how we got here in the first place.