dardanos.bsky.social
44 posts
38 followers
176 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
youtu.be/gkFmzuO1364?...
comment in response to
post
It's quite the phenomenon. Show a college-aged right-of-center guy a video of Trump just... Talking. You don't even need to say anything. They'll short circuit like you've insulted they're greatest hero. "He's memeing!" they desperately cry. No, Dave, he isn't. He actually thinks windmills do that.
comment in response to
post
Randy from Independence Day would have a word.
comment in response to
post
I saw you once on Piers Morgan. Not sure how you did it, but I haven't seen you on since. Hopefully you can keep getting on there in the near future since conversations like that, with folks that are well-versed in rhetorical jiu-jitsu, are desperately needed.
comment in response to
post
I will say, I was proud of that users willingness to go find studies to support their view, however, none of the studies actually confirmed their assertions. Scott Galloway echoes this constantly: Men just have to do better.
comment in response to
post
But they constantly wanted to talk about how Feminism was ruining everything and it consistently gets talked about, at length, that women are effectively one giant cabal conspiring socially against men, but none of the data confirms that.
comment in response to
post
So when the user linked studies for why men are losing out in management positions, you could go into those studies and see that it was pretty specific and overtly organic: People in general just preferred non-toxic, non-confrontational management skills, which women dominate in.
comment in response to
post
In that same conversation, it was confirmed that the stats aren't lying when men are falling behind in other areas. Scott Galloway has been covering this very well and in healthier ways than online communities of dudes. The problem is that men aren't grappling with the 'why' and want to stop short.
comment in response to
post
The same source also confirmed that the 99c to $1 disparity is achieved when controlling for every possible variable, but isolated in various ways, the gap gets bigger and it favors men even more. This isn't to be interpreted that 'men have it better in every way.'
comment in response to
post
A fascinating interaction on Reddit: When a user asked if the gender gap still existed, while also asking if men were falling behind, someone replied saying, "Yes, men ARE falling behind," then proceeded to link a source that showed the gender pay gap still favors men. "It's only 99c to $1 though."
comment in response to
post
What are you talking about homie? These look dope af. Full send, you'll look stunning when running.
comment in response to
post
For whatever reason the image wasn't loading properly for me, however....
comment in response to
post
Mark, any chance you could find some time in your schedule to get some media presence in for left-leaning casters? We need more reps in that space. Ro Khanna was just on www.youtube.com/@LibAndLearn. Hopefully you could stop in.
comment in response to
post
I'm so tired of the downplaying of actions this administration takes and how that plays out with the underlying culture war. "Biden's admin did it, just quietly." There's never a citation here and there's always more context. These people are saying this so when the bad time comes: *They're* safe.
comment in response to
post
Please, this isn't realistic at all. It's the *Heritage Foundation.* The body wouldn't be recognizable from the insane hail of bullets it received.
comment in response to
post
Better be careful with describing critical thinking so succinctly. I can hear it now, the drafting of the latest EO: "Don't Think, Publish First, Never Workshop: An America First Strategy"
comment in response to
post
2024 will always go down, to me, as the election cycle where I understood, in crisp detail, how a populace can knowingly and willingly be open to full blown authoritarianism.
comment in response to
post
Idiots like him will then drill down to the tiniest of gaps in details for literally anything else Trump does and proclaim that we lack any good faith approach to analyzing those actions, which he pretends, by default, completely overshadow Trump trying to install himself as President in 2021.
comment in response to
post
He tried to steal the election, full stop, and these folks, at the end of the day, don't care enough to be swayed to vote, at minimum, for a candidate that isn't full blown authoritarian. Even the douche-sucker GoodLawgic couldn't describe Trump's actions that day as anything but "a bit frantic."
comment in response to
post
It's hard to describe the level of disdain it invokes because I have to reckon with family members who were, and still are, specifically told by their right-wing circles that it wasn't a big deal and they require no specifics surrounding it at all.
comment in response to
post
Even the best legal minds of MAGA could not, and still cannot, reconcile or justify the actions Trump and his cronies took both on that day and the months leading up to it.
comment in response to
post
This is the hardest part for me when looking at family members or Trump voters that 'just stick to facts' when it comes to analyzing him as a leader. Here we are, 4 years later and there's no legitimate reconciliation for that awful day, or the fake elector plot.
comment in response to
post
Handwavy, for sure, but I think this implies that we've reached a point where the practicality is recognizable by most people. Is it only an issue in that it's not recognized in that way by the Constitution?
comment in response to
post
If the states were to each have their own individual laws and processes on immigration, in addition to naturalization, is there not going to be tons of legal infighting? Couldn't they all choose their own interpretation of a *uniform rule* set by the Fed? Who's going to settle it?
comment in response to
post
Especially given the context you provided about 'sabotage,' which I hope I'm not misinterpreting.
comment in response to
post
This concept seems far more approachable when we only had a handful of States and populations were smaller. To me, practicality won when the Federal Gov became the authority on both, with or without specific Constitutional powers towards immigration specifically.
comment in response to
post
As someone who isn't versed in this discussion, but is interested in the debate: How would the US reconcile the Feds' ability to naturalize immigrants while States retained their ability to regulate immigration? Assuming that power was given back entirely and birthright was over.
comment in response to
post
Going into MAGA circles to get their take on this is astounding and honestly makes one regret having a reading skill. The bottom of the barrel has completely punctured the earth and is in outer space somewhere on the opposite side of the planet.
comment in response to
post
It never ceases to amaze me that the MAGA movement is literally being bolstered by the same people it rails against: the 'elite'. Such insane dissonance. Batya is a threat to intellectualism and encapsulates the astonishing dissonance amongst morons fighting *for* the things they claim to hate.
comment in response to
post
Keep fighting the good fight. Huge fan of yours from here in Rock County.
comment in response to
post
This is an outstanding piece. Thank you.
comment in response to
post
Excellent. Watch out, The ECOMMUNIST.... Inc New EO: "Decisive Policy Strikes To Fight Communism By Combating Inflammatory Remarks From Media Sources That Proclaim To Be So Called 'Experts' on Economy."
comment in response to
post
If the poster was more interesting to the Executive, the poster would certainly carry risk to be treated in the same way.
comment in response to
post
Sure. You're replying to someone that isn't significant. Your 'joke' about them being hyperbolic holds that they're still free, but the article they're referencing discusses the loss of freedom of a person who fits a certain criteria that the Executive sees fit to punish.
comment in response to
post
Aren't there Russians critical of Putin on Reddit? I'm certain there's some 'critical' discussion in online spaces from countries that are literal dictatorships. Authoritarianism looks different in the 21st century, it seems. The poster you're replying to doesn't yet fit the criteria to be targeted.
comment in response to
post
The photo in the thumbnail. How is no one mentioning this spectacular image? It's like she's preparing to look through a telescope that isn't there. Because it's defunded... Because they hate science...
comment in response to
post
For sure - I can get behind this. Thanks for the response.
comment in response to
post
More specifically, am I not afford an opportunity to return equivalent fire?
comment in response to
post
I would need some additional convincing that this is some enlightened way of thinking about it. I'm resistant to the idea that you're seemingly saying: Only the aggressor gets to be adversarial. Isn't the idea that they're choosing to enter the arena? So what if I choose to be their opponent?
comment in response to
post
Seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Surely there other places you could be yelled at for the same assertion. Regardless, 'tentatively' seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting but comes across as both unoffensive and accurate. I'm just some guy so I'm not *that* confident. Still, happy to follow.
comment in response to
post
Once again, every time I go to try and substantiate claims framed this way I always end up uncovering tons of context that you intentionally leave out. Clinton explicitly worked and negotiated with Congress for very targeted, bipartisan reductions in the federal workforce.
comment in response to
post
Every time I go to try and substantiate claims like this I always end up finding the opposite is true. The Biden administration overtly followed judicial rulings. I found all of the context you intentionally left out. Then you follow up with broad, personal attacks. Nice going.