If a guy went topless nobody would have given a fuck is the more appropriate comparison, the fact that you have to intentionally reach for the wrong example to make your point work is proof, that the people calling you misogynistic are not far off.
All hail the compost worms!
Yeah a beard doesn’t come with a new jaw line included usually, you can just hide it in there
Wow, I totally misunderstood the headline.
I thought that because so many people listen to that caveman that exposes alarming low IQ.
Drake Lemar drama. Say that 10 times fast in a row.
During basic military training, doing push ups the instructors would yell out “ONE” and we all would answer “AAAND”-“TWO” and so on, and I swear it helped getting through them. Generally doing sport in a group helped me push further.
Well at least Tucker was fired over it?
I thought all of them were from welcome to the jungle…
I knew flaneur as an adjective in German, for example when you go on a walk through a shopping street, without any intent of shopping you go “flanieren”. Just having a walk, looking at stores and people.
the gullible idiots will disappear.
They’ll just jump on the next grifter that tells 'em what they want to hear.
Yeah, like you said it’s SOP. In Hamburg, Germany any ship above 90 meters gets a specialized pilot to navigate the port, there is a logistical network in place to shuttle those pilots to and from the ships they are needed on. You are not allowed to navigate your ship in the port without one.
It’s a highly specialized job and it’s the dream of most seafaring folk around here - study nautics, become first officer for a couple of years, become captain and travel the world, after TEN years you qualify for the special pilot training and then you get the dream job of being paid like a captain but sleep at home every night.
Everyone has heard about a new cure that kills cancer in a Petri dish, but remember so does a gun.
Hey you’re not even gonna credit Randall?
Yeah, I’m a policy wonk too. I didn’t want to talk too broadly because I didn’t pay too much attention to Greenwald in the Infowars universe, but I heard the Q&A episode with Greenwald just recently so I was confident to not mix up too much.
It’s episode #709 2 Dan’s 2 War.
Yeah the documentary is nuts, Alex Lee Moyer is a such a hack, just letting Alex Jones assert things over an over without any interest in finding out if the things he says are true OR even remotely resemble anything he said in the past, is just terrible craftsmanship.
But, the endgame documentary made by Jones himself is way funnier, like that a lot of his source documentation is just left blank or “insert quote” or fucking dead Encarta links, that so shitty and dubious you have to admire the braveness to just put something like that out there.
There are few journalists willing to go against the status quo, even after going through constant smear campaigns and bad press from legacy media types!
Eeeh I have recently heard excerpts of his interview with Alex Jones about the documentary “Alex’s war” and oh boy did Greenwald sell his soul on that one.
Alex Jones unpromted says “I didn’t lie on purpose” 4 times within a couple of minutes, a couple of more times throughout the interview and Greenwald just ignores it.
For starters that’s not what a lie is, either you made a mistake or you lied. Furthermore he says that so often and always unpromted, which journalist would just ignore that?
Since it was a promotional interview for the documentary he likely got paid for it, but to have so little integrity to just let that fly made me question everything Greenwald did from that point on. I mean to take money from Alex Jones for an interview is a bad move from the jump, then leading an interview that doesn’t even address the answers Jones gives is bad, but to ignore that sentence at least 6 times completely is willfully shitty journalism to me.
Just to make sure, I am not questioning what he reported in the post, it is clearly and thoroughly documented what Israel did to the Palestinians during all of its existence. I am questioning Greenwalds motives and journalistic integrity in a broader sense than what was reported here.
it took 2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more, and they were already in the verge of losing.
Some historians argue that the bigger factor was the sowjets preparing to enter the war against Japan and that the nuclear bombs just kind of sped up the decision that was coming anyway.
Yeah I once saw a “colorization” done by AI from a photo from the early 1900s or something, it was a photo from a house and some people in front of it, Russia or Ukraine somewhere.
The thing is that the photo that was used was in fact a color photo that they turned black and white and then gave it to the AI. The AI used very muted colors, a little beige a little dark green - colors you would expect from a photo of that time and region. In the original you could see, that the colors where actually very bright and plentiful, the house was a bright yellow not beige, the green fence was not dark green but bright green, the accents on the house were not brown but red. The people in the AI colorized picture had black, white, dark blue clothes, a man had a brown hat, in the original they wore blue dresses, yellow blouses, the hat was red and so on.
Of course you can extrapolate some things but the original photo was so colorful, these people clearly painted the house bright on purpose and they wore very bright clothes but the re-colorization was so much less colorful and it gave a wrong impression of the reality what was photographed. Of course the old film wasn’t perfect and the colors maybe were also a little off - but it showed how many different colors were present in the original.
You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.
That’s exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.
It’s a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don’t protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.
Your first link shows what happens when we don’t apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.
Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you’re in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.
Nope. They’re right, you’re wrong.
You didn’t even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket “both sides do it!” You just used more words.
And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the “bad speech” the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.
So the “bad speech” got plenty of “more speech” to counter but it didn’t change anything.
There is only two responsible ways to cover Alex Jones, either not at all, no mention, nothing.
Or the knowledge fight way, which is producing thousands of hours of material disproving his claims one by one, all in context, all well researched with sourcing.
Everything else just plays into his hands. Like that Bon Iver folk song which was intended to mock his rambling theories? He LOVES that shit. He played it almost completely in one of his documentaries.
In the article someone linked below I found this section :
So you find a cavity with bones and other remains in there and use it as a mold I suppose? They probably were excavating the city from the ash cover and when they found something that could be remains of a human they stopped digging and used said techniques to preserve the remains.