Uh-huh, that old thing. Maybe we'll always have characters coming along who protest that they aren't biased, they're objective, and this group or that group's inferiority is an actual thing, it's just what the facts show, and the facts have to be accepted ...
Decades ago, science writer Isaac Asimov (pity we don't still have him, and Carl Sagan too) gave the "whole hip-hurrah" the back of his hand as a "colossal fraud". He observed that the whole thing can be summed up, and dismissed, in one sentence.
Nobody has ever written a treatise or book that purports to scientifically prove his OWN group is inferior.
"To be a pessimist means you have agreed that human life is an academic matter. "
You're going to have to explain that train of thought to me, because I cannot see how that would follow.
You don't have to be an optimist to fight for good things. I'd argue optimists are weaker fighters, because they fall apart when things to wrong because their core assumptions about how the world works just were proven fundamentally wrong, while pessimists knew things were going to go wrong and are prepared to get maximum results regardless of what goes wrong.
Baldwin meant that being pessimistic, believing the bad will always happen no matter what, renders the matter moot: as in, why bother if there is no chance.
The same thing can be said of being optimistic, believing the good will always happen no matter what. why bother doing the work if it will all work out anyway.
Some options:
The end result matters / the journey matters / or both.
The end result cannot be changed / the end result is changed by your actions / the end result has a chance of being changed by your actions.
If we take Baldwin's view and make it internally consistent with the oppositional nature of the terms pessimism/optimism, then both pessimism and optimism are fatalistic - both -isms believe the end result cannot be changed.
Anyway, if someone believes that the end result matters and cannot be changed, they won't do anything. If someone believes the end result matters and can be changed, they will work towards a better end result.
If someone believes the journey matters, then they will work towards a better end result regardless of their belief about whether the end result can be changed.
And you can fill in the rest.
But the world is a messy place, people's perspectives can change based on experience. An optimist may learn that the end result cannot be changed as easily as they thought, this will crush their worldview and they will cease functioning.
Meanwhile, a pessimist in the same situation just says "figures" and keeps going, because they expect downturns and disappointments.
Pessimist + worsening world -> better self image, works harder.
Optimist + worsening world -> crushed worldview, stops functioning.
Pessimist + improving world -> happier than expected, keeps working because she doesn't believe good things can last.
Optimist + improving world -> worldview confirmed, will either continue as they are or stop trying because they think they're done.
The ancient journalistic maxim "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" reminded me of a small episode from my career as an ink stained wretch:
My publisher had sued to overcome a strange and highly specific exception to the Public Records Act in a Southeastern state meant to overprotect major healthcare institutions by allowing them to keep certain plans of theirs with public implications secret from the public.
At a court hearing, the managing editor was asked why his publication needed those public documents. In response, he uttered those timeless words.
The defending attorney shot back : "Well, sir, it's well known that too much sunlight causes cancer."
When we heard about that back at The newsroom, oh how we laughed ...
It’s hard to parse the difference between pessimism and realism. For example, while Jasmine Crockett is my first choice to kick ass in the Senate, I still have grave doubts as to whether Texas can elect a black woman versus actual piece of shit Ken Paxton.
So am I being pessimistic or realistic? I want to shoot for the moon but I also want the democrats to retake the Senate.
Those who choose to use their gray matter know full well this country is filled with every ist, ism and phobe. They are all connected to racism in its white supremacy.
I would love to see her in the senate. Is this the time for that move? I don't know. I would probably play it safer to keep at stability to regain the House and Senate. To throw everything at the wall to see what sticks is not a safe move at this time. There is too much as stake to be moving a lot of pieces at the same time.
As I said about Harris it would be political suicide and it proved to be true. At one point I thought we might make it and then my deepest fears were realized.
Personally I'd play it safer until we regained good ground. How many times do we have to lose by running women this country will never vote for. We have lost a shit ton of democracy and these asswipes would vote for another white R in a minute.
Crockett will be gerrymandered out of her congressional seat anyway so she has nothing to lose. In the primary vote for who you like for whatever reason. In the general, vote for the Democrat.
Democrats grossly miscalculated in not convincing Biden that he’d already accomplished enough in one term to cement his legacy and it was time to gracefully take his last bow. Republicans were able to hammer the fact that Harris was nominated without a real primary. And that was on top of the usual racist and sexist attacks they made against her.
Since Paxton looks like the inevitable nominee (because Texas republicans are attracted to shit like flies are), we have to factor racism and sexism into our calculations. Plus, Paxton has the support of the white Christian nationalists who control Texas’ state government.
Again, I want her to win very much, but not convinced she can.
I have those same fears and in times like these I’d go the safer route. It’s like making bad investments do you go all in with the next or step back and reassess. I’m one that steps back first.
“Bad faith” is really just cosplay for people who can’t win on evidence. It works on podcasts and timelines because nobody has to footnote anything. The minute it hits a courtroom, gravity turns back on. That’s the part that keeps getting lost. You can build an entire online universe out of vibes, grievance, and selectively cropped data. But in front of a judge? You either have receipts or you have a meltdown. And lately, it’s been a lot of meltdowns.
They’ve so cooked their brains on right wing slop that they can’t even fathom crafting an argument that isn’t perfectly calibrated to give X chuds hate boners. I’m almost certain they’d be ripped to shreds to even attempt it.
Almost like you need a charismatic frontman to make this all work and I can’t wait for that person to be jd Vance
To show you just how far gone right wingers are, I recently heard a couple of them talking about how great Lindell's pillows are. Now that's next level Trumpism.
Bad Faith and Gaslighting is how they "govern." Speaking of bad faith and gaslighting here is the opening paragraph of a story in the NYT about Mamdani going to DC to meet with trump: "The topics that Mayor Zohran Mamdani, THE LEFT WING LEADER of New York City, and President Trump planned to discuss was not clear."
WTF NYT? You go out of your way to define Mamdani but not trump. The only way that opening sentence works is if you also said; President Trump, the MAGA leader of the country, planned to discuss was not clear. FIFY. Assholes.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s trip to the White House on Thursday was unannounced. The topics he planned to discuss with President Trump were not immediately clear.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City made an unannounced trip to Washington on Thursday to meet with President Trump, according to four people familiar with his plans.
Mr. Mamdani did not put the meeting on his public schedule, but after this article was published, a spokeswoman for Mr. Mamdani confirmed that it would take place. The White House did not immediately comment....
The mayor and the president first met in November, after Mr. Mamdani won the mayoral election. Though the mayor, a democratic socialist, and Mr. Trump, a hard-right Republican, come from wildly distinct ends of the political spectrum, they exhibited a surprising level of good feeling during the meeting...
Hmmmm. Do you think I'm lying? I can't read the whole article because I won't pay those shills. But what I posted is exactly how I read it off their website. It is altered now probably because of the outrage of readers with their bullshit. That happens frequently.
Yah! Not a real job, like mine! Probably loves Those People so race hustlers and poverty pumps. Riling up people who should shut up and work harder like i did!
I love the way they always go to incompetence as if it's a flex. For a former mayor to not know what a community organizer is does not really give give the impression of a man with his finger on the pulse of the city.
Racial science?
Uh-huh, that old thing. Maybe we'll always have characters coming along who protest that they aren't biased, they're objective, and this group or that group's inferiority is an actual thing, it's just what the facts show, and the facts have to be accepted ...
Decades ago, science writer Isaac Asimov (pity we don't still have him, and Carl Sagan too) gave the "whole hip-hurrah" the back of his hand as a "colossal fraud". He observed that the whole thing can be summed up, and dismissed, in one sentence.
Nobody has ever written a treatise or book that purports to scientifically prove his OWN group is inferior.
"Now that the Trump regime’s occupation of Minnesota is kinda sorta over,"
What the HELL? That is not even "kinda sorta" true. Talk to someone from there. The shit is still going down.
"To be a pessimist means you have agreed that human life is an academic matter. "
You're going to have to explain that train of thought to me, because I cannot see how that would follow.
You don't have to be an optimist to fight for good things. I'd argue optimists are weaker fighters, because they fall apart when things to wrong because their core assumptions about how the world works just were proven fundamentally wrong, while pessimists knew things were going to go wrong and are prepared to get maximum results regardless of what goes wrong.
I think this is almost an argument between cynics and idealists.
Baldwin meant that being pessimistic, believing the bad will always happen no matter what, renders the matter moot: as in, why bother if there is no chance.
The same thing can be said of being optimistic, believing the good will always happen no matter what. why bother doing the work if it will all work out anyway.
Some options:
The end result matters / the journey matters / or both.
The end result cannot be changed / the end result is changed by your actions / the end result has a chance of being changed by your actions.
If we take Baldwin's view and make it internally consistent with the oppositional nature of the terms pessimism/optimism, then both pessimism and optimism are fatalistic - both -isms believe the end result cannot be changed.
Anyway, if someone believes that the end result matters and cannot be changed, they won't do anything. If someone believes the end result matters and can be changed, they will work towards a better end result.
If someone believes the journey matters, then they will work towards a better end result regardless of their belief about whether the end result can be changed.
And you can fill in the rest.
But the world is a messy place, people's perspectives can change based on experience. An optimist may learn that the end result cannot be changed as easily as they thought, this will crush their worldview and they will cease functioning.
Meanwhile, a pessimist in the same situation just says "figures" and keeps going, because they expect downturns and disappointments.
Pessimist + worsening world -> better self image, works harder.
Optimist + worsening world -> crushed worldview, stops functioning.
Pessimist + improving world -> happier than expected, keeps working because she doesn't believe good things can last.
Optimist + improving world -> worldview confirmed, will either continue as they are or stop trying because they think they're done.
Vance does have little, squinty eyes, doesn't he. I had never noticed before.
"Mine eyes have seen the... o shit.
Ta, Denny. Crooks, liars, charlatans, snake oil salesmen, AOT, K.
All good stuff.
The ancient journalistic maxim "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" reminded me of a small episode from my career as an ink stained wretch:
My publisher had sued to overcome a strange and highly specific exception to the Public Records Act in a Southeastern state meant to overprotect major healthcare institutions by allowing them to keep certain plans of theirs with public implications secret from the public.
At a court hearing, the managing editor was asked why his publication needed those public documents. In response, he uttered those timeless words.
The defending attorney shot back : "Well, sir, it's well known that too much sunlight causes cancer."
When we heard about that back at The newsroom, oh how we laughed ...
It’s hard to parse the difference between pessimism and realism. For example, while Jasmine Crockett is my first choice to kick ass in the Senate, I still have grave doubts as to whether Texas can elect a black woman versus actual piece of shit Ken Paxton.
So am I being pessimistic or realistic? I want to shoot for the moon but I also want the democrats to retake the Senate.
Those who choose to use their gray matter know full well this country is filled with every ist, ism and phobe. They are all connected to racism in its white supremacy.
I would love to see her in the senate. Is this the time for that move? I don't know. I would probably play it safer to keep at stability to regain the House and Senate. To throw everything at the wall to see what sticks is not a safe move at this time. There is too much as stake to be moving a lot of pieces at the same time.
As I said about Harris it would be political suicide and it proved to be true. At one point I thought we might make it and then my deepest fears were realized.
Personally I'd play it safer until we regained good ground. How many times do we have to lose by running women this country will never vote for. We have lost a shit ton of democracy and these asswipes would vote for another white R in a minute.
Crockett will be gerrymandered out of her congressional seat anyway so she has nothing to lose. In the primary vote for who you like for whatever reason. In the general, vote for the Democrat.
Democrats grossly miscalculated in not convincing Biden that he’d already accomplished enough in one term to cement his legacy and it was time to gracefully take his last bow. Republicans were able to hammer the fact that Harris was nominated without a real primary. And that was on top of the usual racist and sexist attacks they made against her.
Since Paxton looks like the inevitable nominee (because Texas republicans are attracted to shit like flies are), we have to factor racism and sexism into our calculations. Plus, Paxton has the support of the white Christian nationalists who control Texas’ state government.
Again, I want her to win very much, but not convinced she can.
I have those same fears and in times like these I’d go the safer route. It’s like making bad investments do you go all in with the next or step back and reassess. I’m one that steps back first.
Republicans would never have gotten to hammer that point without our own centrist democrats shivving her right in the back
“Bad faith” is really just cosplay for people who can’t win on evidence. It works on podcasts and timelines because nobody has to footnote anything. The minute it hits a courtroom, gravity turns back on. That’s the part that keeps getting lost. You can build an entire online universe out of vibes, grievance, and selectively cropped data. But in front of a judge? You either have receipts or you have a meltdown. And lately, it’s been a lot of meltdowns.
And logic that isn’t much but “neener neener”
Except with the fucking moron appointed judges. The supreme court fucked us for decades.
Why is it always the worst exemplars of race that proclaim its mastery?
To quote Spider Jerusalem after saying something similar to a weak-chinned nazi: "You! Where the fuck is your chin?!"
So glad we still have a court system that mostly works.
That, and enough people demonstrating, could be the salvation of our country.
DHS abuse
In TX – as they abuse and kill children
https://bsky.app/profile/lomikriel.bsky.social/post/3mfru7fy4gc27
In OH – pepper spraying moms while driving
https://bsky.app/profile/radleybalko.bsky.social/post/3mfrwejbwe22c
In NJ – causing car crashes and then leaving the scene
https://bsky.app/profile/iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social/post/3mfpun2owis2c
And more no-bid propaganda to cover Kristi Noem’s press conferences (not about the bags she leaves on planes)
https://bsky.app/profile/moreperfectunion.bsky.social/post/3mfrvdyerrk23
YOUR TAX MONEY
This piece of shit.
You should poop on him, Brib!
I weel!!!!1
I would like to Bite him, but I'm scared I might catch a disees.
Couchfucker looks pre-pooped-on.
They’ve so cooked their brains on right wing slop that they can’t even fathom crafting an argument that isn’t perfectly calibrated to give X chuds hate boners. I’m almost certain they’d be ripped to shreds to even attempt it.
Almost like you need a charismatic frontman to make this all work and I can’t wait for that person to be jd Vance
I bet you did not know this: America has a 24/7 Lindell TV broadcast.
"LindellTV News Is QAnon Meets QVC, and Now They're in the White House Press Corps | The Daily Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ci1hKRmEI0
Only the best people. /s
To show you just how far gone right wingers are, I recently heard a couple of them talking about how great Lindell's pillows are. Now that's next level Trumpism.
Today on LindellTV in the morning, we're going to show you how to snort crack thru your MyPillow.
Bad Faith and Gaslighting is how they "govern." Speaking of bad faith and gaslighting here is the opening paragraph of a story in the NYT about Mamdani going to DC to meet with trump: "The topics that Mayor Zohran Mamdani, THE LEFT WING LEADER of New York City, and President Trump planned to discuss was not clear."
WTF NYT? You go out of your way to define Mamdani but not trump. The only way that opening sentence works is if you also said; President Trump, the MAGA leader of the country, planned to discuss was not clear. FIFY. Assholes.
Not what I'm seeing:
𝗠𝗮𝗺𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗶 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s trip to the White House on Thursday was unannounced. The topics he planned to discuss with President Trump were not immediately clear.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City made an unannounced trip to Washington on Thursday to meet with President Trump, according to four people familiar with his plans.
Mr. Mamdani did not put the meeting on his public schedule, but after this article was published, a spokeswoman for Mr. Mamdani confirmed that it would take place. The White House did not immediately comment....
The mayor and the president first met in November, after Mr. Mamdani won the mayoral election. Though the mayor, a democratic socialist, and Mr. Trump, a hard-right Republican, come from wildly distinct ends of the political spectrum, they exhibited a surprising level of good feeling during the meeting...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/nyregion/mamdani-trump-meeting.html
Hmmmm. Do you think I'm lying? I can't read the whole article because I won't pay those shills. But what I posted is exactly how I read it off their website. It is altered now probably because of the outrage of readers with their bullshit. That happens frequently.
Because Mamdani is not a member of the various clubs Trump is.
My gawd, he's a community organizer! /s Not a REAL leader like those in Bidniz or Finance or the Legal Profession.
I'll never forget Ghouliani, in 2008(?) at the Rethug Convention saying "a community organizer? I don't even know what that this."
It's kinda like how they can't pronounce Kamala. Their stupidity appeals to their aptly named "base."
Yah! Not a real job, like mine! Probably loves Those People so race hustlers and poverty pumps. Riling up people who should shut up and work harder like i did!
I love the way they always go to incompetence as if it's a flex. For a former mayor to not know what a community organizer is does not really give give the impression of a man with his finger on the pulse of the city.
Threats, mostly
Seems to me that another community organizer was elected president for two consecutive terms.