it was never about the abortions.

as always, the cruelty was the point.

well… it’s not a good strategy if you’re lying your ass off, it happens to be true, AND you conspired with your lawyers to commit the crime you’re accused of.

now, Jack Smith (and every reasonable person on earth, the more clever dolphins, cetaceans, chimps, corvidae, octopods, and a couple of transdimentional mice) knows this is the case, so this is definitely a terrible strategy. It’s also patently Trump to blame anyone else for his own actions but himself. Predictable, even.

yeah, it’s called a “trial”.

the “trap” is that he knows Trump will “lie” because Smith has “mountains of evidence” that Trump and his co-conspirators are “incredibly fucking guilty."

it asked me to create an account when I started up the app, then claimed I “wasn’t on the list” then had me sign up for a wait list.

yet another web browser that promises the world and delivers… nothing.

deleted.

oh, look, musk made yet another stupid, impulsive decision that could have disastrous, short- and long-term consequences for twitter er… “x”

Gibson was correct about much of our education system and Galileo was certainly right about the consequences of overvaluing mediocre wit that merely happened to well-timed. what neither of them had to content with, however, was the internet and how social media can combine the inability to reason critically and mediocre wit with crippling insecurities and anti-social personalities to what should be predictable results.

a least Gibson understood that a technocratic future didn’t imply that people’s lives would necessarily improve.

watching that dude pull out the plastic cylinder with that spindle of platters that probably had a storage capacity of maybe 30MB while the narrator brags about the transfer speed of a blazing 1.5MB/s… awww…

Piped link

link to post on mastodon

i used Atom for years until they suddenly stopped development. Pulsar is a fork of that project.

i use it for low-level code editing like bash scripts, js, and markdown document editing. some json and html.

It’s like a comedy version of the matrix, if that makes sense.

well, Matrix: Russurections was clearly satire, and I laughed through the entire thing, so, yeah, that makes sense to me.

turning ben shapiro into a real boy was a mistake

Not that this is a competition

makes it a competition

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.

Straw man

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”

Moving the Goalposts

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).

Tu quoque

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for “you also”) is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] “Whataboutism” is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.

and what does this have to do with this article anyway?

if the source is biased, logically, so would be its contents.

but nobody is accusing you of thinking logically.

no, just an imperial, genocidal, racist Russia instead. bravo.

i didn’t claim that. i quoted from an independant fact-checking source. take your disagreement to them.

ah, so your inability to make a sound argument is everyone else’s fault?