Imagine if Trump said that this is not acceptable… But guess who keeps his mouth shut instead.
Totally non-weird response to a journalist asking questions.
Cultists radicalized into terrorists.
Those f’ing weirdos
Faermongering thugs. Can you imagine what they’re doing to Vance’s wife?
I’m imagining it.
I can’t stop imagining it 🥵
Next thing, you’re gonna tell me that water is wet.
Water isn’t wet. Wetness is a property that occurs when a liquid adheres to a solid surface due to cohesive and adhesive forces. Water molecules exhibit hydrogen bonding, creating a network, but they themselves aren’t ‘wet’ until they interact with another material.
So you’re saying wet is water.
No. It is the essence of wetness.
So you’re saying:
It’s essential.
Interesting, but pedantic.
Not everyone has a sense of humor.
We still love you. Just keep being you.
Hmm yes, shallow and pedantic.
So you’re telling me that water makes things wet. That makes it wet as a verb, so flatter us in fact wet all the time
I am very dry, even when wet.
Rain is wet, it is not adhered to a solid surface. The middle of the ocean is wet even if there’s no solid surface near by.
Isn’t it only wet after it touches you? You can anticipate it’s wet, but the state would exist after contact.
Aren’t the molecules touching other molecules wet if it involves touch?
An individual h2o molecule can’t be wet, but if two of them are touching, they are both wet.
Wet to the touch, not to each other. It changes the property of something else to make it wet.
A wall can be wet, it doesn’t require a person to touch the wall before it can be called wet. So the sense of touch is not required for something to be wet.
It changes the property of something else to make it wet.
If the wall was dry and I add water to it I have changed this property, if the wall is already wet and I add water to it I have changed nothing. Therefore if I add water to something and do not change its properties then it was already wet in the first place.
If adding water to water does not change its properties then the water was already wet in the first place.As I said, it changes the property of something else, a person does not need to be involved.
How would you know if it was wet if you’re not around
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
I thought we were talking about science, not philosophy.
How do we know the properties of black holes, distract stars, and the early universe if we’re not in them?Educated guessing.
So a person doesn’t have to be physically present and interacting with something in order to know the physical properties of it.
I think it might be wet somewhere. But I am not there, and I cannot know unless I am there to experience the essence of wetness.
I am of the opinion that a single molecule of water is not wet but since water makes other things wet… A molecule of water would make the surrounding molecules of water wet. Therefore pretty much any example you can give of water is wet unless you mean just a single molecule of water separated from anything else.
I’m going for a swim in the hydrogen bond.
Counterpoint: water is wet because it is the wet.
A powerful example of such a scenario is this quote from the philosopher, Batman:
“I am vengeance! I am the night! I.am.BATMAN!”What this proves is shut up, water is wet. 😡
If there is water, and no one is around to be wet… is it still wet?
Let’s all just agree that water is moist. Oceans of moisture.
My bear just shit a brick!
The pope is jealous
Really fucking weird.
Hey fellas, is it weird to send death threats to a news station for not asking trump softball questions and kissing his butt? 🤔
Guess we’re gonna have to keep recorders on our lines til these morons grow up
They’re in favor of a free press, except if that press isn’t in support of their political agenda. Then all of a sudden that free press isn’t supposed to be so free.
If the freedom you want has a required political position, it’s not freedom that you want.
Just like how they only use “free speech” to defend the indefensible things they say. Because they can’t actually justify the things they say, so they fall back to “well you technically can’t stop me from saying it.” The “free speech” defense is just about the lowest bar you could find, and if you’re using it you should seriously examine why you’re saying the things you are. Because if you’ve fallen into the “free speech” defense, it means you have no other defense.
this is a little odd because it comes off as you attacking free speech a little
It’s definitely not that. They are just pointing out that the right to free speech prevents the government from impeding someone’s ability to say something, it doesn’t (despite implications made by a lot of people who cry out that their right to free speech is being impeded) force others to listen to or agree with that thing being said. If anything, the people that abuse the name of free speech by implying that it means people need to agree with them, or need to amplify their message, are attacking free speech by mudding the water around what it means and making it harder for good faith entities to invoke that right
Ever since the pan. Everything was already terrible, but then the hinges broke. The crazy really took over. And this is where we are. Fucking stochastic terrorism with heaps of actual terrorism. They just don’t have any boundaries anymore. Or sense of decency. Or shame. Fuck the right.
But but you have to understand they’re just worried because the elites have abandoned them!! /s
There was a time when the conservatives would have just actually lynched her. That’s what they refer to as “the good ol’ days”.
Yup. “Make America great again” is code for “I preferred it when we could lynch black people for literally anything.”
this is not meant ironically, i’m so tired, boss. this shit needs to stop. as human beings can we collectively hate something other than ourselves? like maybe we can start hating methane with the same furvor…/i wish it were snark
But the profits!! Think of the poor shareholders!
She embodies almost everything they hate, this was almost inevitable once she came to their attention.
At some point in the future, there will be LLMs that will scan all voice, video, or text calls and do sentiment analysis. If they flag a call as hostile, they could send a signal to all intermediate network conduits that this person is a threat and will essentially ‘unmask’ their origin. Authorities can then take appropriate action.
If we’re lucky, laws will be passed to enable it just for cases of assholes threatening someone they don’t like. And after a few public lawsuits, the whole doxxing/swatting/death-threat thing will cease to exist.
More likely, it’ll be used by governments to stifle dissent. But you gotta dream 😔
How to stop violent death-threats.
Sounds like the kinda thing my grandpa would say back in the 90s. I’m still waiting for the micro chip that’s supposed to make me worship Satan
That’s not what LLMs do. They’re sentence-construction software.
An LLM could do this, but it would be very expensive to do this for every single communication and not particularly good. Humans are good at communicating through subtext. “You have such a lovely wife, I would just be gutted if something tragic were to happen to her.”
ChatGPT picked up the veiled threat there, but that’s a very unsubtle example.
Arrest and jail each one. Don’t make death threats at people.
Law enforcement pretty much always sides with Trump supporters on this stuff so I wouldn’t hold your breath. If this woman died, most cops would probably laugh.
Law enforcement pretty much always sides with Trump supporters
There’s over 450 January 6 idiots sitting in jail who used to believe that is true.
Yeah, the justice department has been really lax with this stuff. AFAIK that’s not protected speech, and if you start jailing the first ones it’ll stop. Stirring up hate towards someone to the point they get death threats has become a normalised part of the discourse on the right now.
A.G. Garland is a conservative. Trusting a conservative to act in good faith as A.G. was a huge error in judgement by this administration. That error has come very close to costing us our democracy.
A conservative should absolutely never be granted any position of authority. A conservative does not have a moral compass and can only act to benefit themselves or their in-group.
Definitely agree. Democrats have been afflicted with centrist West Wing brain where they’ll give the reigns of the justice department, FBI, CIA and military to Republicans because they hope that’ll make Republicans respect them more or something? It’s just a constant barrage of own goals. Even the guy that was supposed to investigate Trump was a Republican that had been a member of his golf course.
When else?
Even a statement of “authorities are working on tracking these people down to charge them” would scare a lot of these people off.
- they said they are coming to get us, Ilya
- let’s hope they do, Piotr… I’m so tired of this! What do we have today, by the way? Insults, death threats or stupid memes?
Yeah, emotional violent savages are gonna act that way. They are not intelligent enough to argue and are uncivilized animals. Screw maga, they are weird outcasts and, anger getting wrecked in the election, can go hide in their bunkers where polite society doesn’t have to look at them anymore…
I woke up to a response from someone who asked me why I had to make “everything” about racism.
This is why.
Pointing out racism is not you making everything about racism, it’s there being a lot of racist shit.
