dslakter.bsky.social
Community college philosophy professor. Former Oklahoman, current New Yorker. Kidney collector.
There's more to life than books, you know (but not much more).
https://philpeople.org/profiles/david-slakter
4,811 posts
970 followers
1,759 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Or maybe he's lying because he thinks it was a bad post.
comment in response to
post
Ah, okay. I wasn't reading that clause separately.
comment in response to
post
So they're not like Newsom at all in respect of what OP was saying.
comment in response to
post
And that is in fact much worse.
comment in response to
post
One thing I hate about this place is people proclaiming a battle lost before it's begun.
comment in response to
post
What did they say that anyone here wanted them to?
comment in response to
post
At the Atlantic, the only thing that represents something else is kids saying the banh mi are bad.
comment in response to
post
But they just wanted to be the ones to decide who is a criminal.
comment in response to
post
It's not enough that you agree that Newsom sucks. You must also believe their lies to show that you are sufficiently dedicated to the cause.
comment in response to
post
The trouble with putting that much weight on 1 is that it was also true (and potentially more so) in 2008.
comment in response to
post
It's also about provoking that reaction if those in power won't make concessions.
comment in response to
post
Thank God Hegseth is an idiot.
comment in response to
post
If only the czar knew!
comment in response to
post
If it's a riot, the people being tear gassed aren't the ones doing the rioting.
comment in response to
post
Have you tried using Feeds?
comment in response to
post
European separation of feeder teams and school was a good idea.
comment in response to
post
Everyone loves when a heel becomes a meta-heel.
comment in response to
post
At the nonprofit I worked for, our head regularly said that our job was to make ourselves unnecessary. I don't know if he meant that, but it did at least serve its goal of remembering what our mission was.
comment in response to
post
It's so consistent that I suspect it is done intentionally to drive engagement.
comment in response to
post
Bosses are ruling class unless they're a cool boss, which is working class.
comment in response to
post
What was unclear?
comment in response to
post
Is this a joke?
comment in response to
post
Which statement which you like to be clarified?
comment in response to
post
Are you implying that being independent and being non-partisan are not logically related?
comment in response to
post
Bill O'Reilly can't be a partisan.
comment in response to
post
Are a lot of people calling me a gaslighter?
comment in response to
post
Bill O'Reilly is also an independent.
comment in response to
post
Now we've moved on the bullshitters' favorite response when being called on their attempted obfuscations.
comment in response to
post
It's the same source as the previous claim, of which you did not question the veracity. Perhaps the reader is meant to infer that Nader does not want what is best for his own party, but that inference is not an obvious one.
comment in response to
post
Why do you use English words without regard to their meaning?
comment in response to
post
You are literally just dropping chaff.
comment in response to
post
Even if I granted that this mattered to the point (I don't), it was not a one-off remark. So the truth of your claim would have no impact on the truth or falsity of mine.
comment in response to
post
They don't put you on the news beat at NYT it you still experience that emotion.
comment in response to
post
That norm is the corrective to "It's okay to seek out 17-year-olds to exploit," even if it causes its own harms.
comment in response to
post
Bluesky is the real site to see alpha males onloading on each other.
comment in response to
post
The context of the quote was people saying he was going to help Bush win. His response is that it would be better for Bush to win rather than Gore. There is no leap in logic in these claims.
comment in response to
post
I can recall being (semi-jokingly) as a child that I could be replaced, which is something I would be horrified to say to my own child. I think this was a product of that flux.
comment in response to
post
None of this shows what I said to be false. Or are you saying that I accidentally said something true, but believed it to be false and attempted to conceal that fact?
comment in response to
post
The meaning of 'lie' in most contexts is not "saying something I disagree with."
If you wish to say that I am knowingly making a false claim, you would do better to first show that it is false.
But I understand the comfort of name-calling when the challenge is difficult.
comment in response to
post
So maybe the strategy is that China can't be stopped, so we might as well prevent any regional rivals from developing? That doesn't seem too strategic, either.
comment in response to
post
You are deploying an eccentric meaning of the word 'lie.'
comment in response to
post
I said he explicitly indicated that it would be better for Bush to win than Gore. Your argument against that is that some people aren't sure that is what he meant. But there is nothing tendentious in the conclusion that he explicitly said it.
comment in response to
post
Cool that we're now saying the paid clean up crew represent candidates' real views, rather than what they say or do. You probably also believe Donald Trump abhors corruption.
comment in response to
post
Which is why he says it would be better for Bush to win than Gore, but I can see why you would prefer to gloss over that part.
comment in response to
post