wazzbot.bsky.social
Yo hoo. Lefty af, neurospicy with even spicier opinions, writer, standup comedian, owner of a really fucking annoying but mostly otherwise lovely dog
🍉🏳️⚧️🐕💜 (he/they)
430 posts
70 followers
63 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes! Except of course for all the conspiracies that have been proven correct, from MK Ultra to Thalidomide to Ogilvy&Mather helping Shell place the blame for climate change on the consumer, and neoliberalism, and the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc etc etc etc etc
comment in response to
post
Friendo, you're talking about a drug that causes almost no social harm whatsoever. Drinking causes violence; weed does not. If I didn't have weed, I would have killed myself many times over. Think about just who you're throwing under the bus and why they might choose to take a drug like weed.
comment in response to
post
Your takes are veering into reactionary territory. You're not better than someone on the basis they smoke weed. Find a better target
comment in response to
post
Has to be shitpost mode. If he has beef with Tom Nicholas then idk what's going on with the world
comment in response to
post
You may have causality going the wrong way, btw - 'it can't be bad BECAUSE I'm participating in it.' or 'if I'm not participating in it, it can't be good'.
It's our inability to hold the cognitive dissonance of 'I'm participating, but it still might be bad', due to the ego, which is the problem.
comment in response to
post
The being a human fallacy
comment in response to
post
this is why so many of these liberal journalists and commentators fall for it. every time. they fall for the narratives being fed to them by empire, they shape their analysis off of it, and even the most progressive ones end up serving empire by spreading misinformation and incorrect analysis
comment in response to
post
it's not only their misunderstanding of geopolitics and dialectical materialist analysis—it's their bewildering naivete. they genuinely take statements from the white house seriously—they don't accept the reality that narratives are being shaped and consent is being manufactured. it's embarrassing
comment in response to
post
So, both sides?
comment in response to
post
Like when US soldiers perpetrated war crimes at My Lai/Abu Ghraib, the political class is grateful for someone to hang out to dry; usa and uk were grateful there was someone more fascist than them in the nazis so they could demonstrate their enlightenment-fuelled virtue by going to war with them.
comment in response to
post
A running club? Getting harder for me to discern your sarcasm, what's going on with this tweet mate
comment in response to
post
'chess grandmasters hate this one simple trick'
comment in response to
post
Is that your Only Fans pic?
comment in response to
post
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. We collectively decided in the 70s that drink driving should be banned because of societal harm, then smoking, etc. Some things should be banned. Not saying either weed or video games should be banned, though. And I don't think Kavernacle was either
comment in response to
post
I'm all for weed. I've got a prescription. And I play and enjoy video games. And yes, other industries are further up in line to be made more sustainable. But these things can all be true at the same time as saying video games aren't a sustainable industry nor does it really do any societal benefit.
comment in response to
post
They're not really much of a good either, and you can certainly talk about environmental harms
comment in response to
post
While these are definitely societal harms that cost us a lot more than they gain, 1) these are more used by the working class just to deal with capitalism and 2) banning them won't reform capitalism in the slightest. This is something we can look at after we've done away with capitalism.
comment in response to
post
They've been gaslit and trained into fight or flight and have chosen to outsource their fight.
comment in response to
post
Also the Tarantula Hawk Wasp
comment in response to
post
You should check out the CPGB-ML. They were in favour of brexit, are in favour of North Korea and Mugabe and are against trans rights.
comment in response to
post
Divide by 60 million and then it's looking reasonable
comment in response to
post
You should try dlysexia. Ma'am, that's a heel of a durg.
comment in response to
post
Have you considered thinking about doing yoga while instead drinking a bottle of wine? That often helps me
comment in response to
post
Gone the way of the horse, as the QR code roars down the highway
comment in response to
post
Have you considered getting extremely high instead? That usually works for me. Not in terms of being well enough to take the dog out, but it's more fun than pain
comment in response to
post
That's terrible! Where, though?
comment in response to
post
It's rarely purely from body language, but you know how some people say they're bad liars? They're very easy to read for me. Others less so, but still sometimes readable
comment in response to
post
Do you have screenshots? I can't seem to find them
comment in response to
post
Some of them. Others are ideologues who would sacrifice their own family; fewer still are genuine ideologues who would die for their cause.
comment in response to
post
A swastika with some doodle in it
comment in response to
post
We need a Butlerian Jihad. (I haven't actually read the books so I don't know if that's the right way to use that, but I am aware of some of the lore)
comment in response to
post
Well there's Israel, and having been raised jewish with an israeli mother in London in the 90s I can attest to these claims on an anecdotal level. I'm not sure about his numbers, they might be an exaggeration, but the problem does seem to be bigger within judaism than other religions
comment in response to
post
It was more or less true before then too
comment in response to
post
Okay, sorry if I misinterpreted your reaction
comment in response to
post
So what warrants your passive-aggressive / condescending 'oh, Mike'? When someone says 'look at this data point around gender', do you really think we're not being asked to form a conclusion on that data point, even if it's not explicit?
You think I'm an incel, don't you? Or an apologist, right?
comment in response to
post
Maybe you're seeing mansplaining everywhere. I'm asking about sample size in order to get some context around this data point. I don't have any agenda. I'm asking for more details because so far we're being asked to form a conclusion based on unknown numbers and my autistic ass needs to know them
comment in response to
post
So is it your opinion that the blame lies in the millions of voters difference, not in the politicians?