I'll take your compliment when you pry it into my cold, dead hands.
There's a home for you in my blocklist without a people for a people without a blocklist.
Here's a thought experiment they don't teach in American schools.
Imagine a foreign power, significantly stronger than the United States, decided after a disputed intelligence assessment that the American government posed a threat.
It assembled a coalition, invaded, removed the government, disbanded the military, releasing hundreds of thousands of armed men into unemployment, and installed a transitional authority composed largely of exiles who had been living in the foreign power’s country for twenty years.
It then spent the next decade conducting night raids on American homes.
It ran detention facilities where Americans were held without charge and in some cases tortured.
It operated checkpoints in American cities where American citizens were stopped, searched, and sometimes killed by foreign soldiers who did not speak English and could not distinguish a civilian from a combatant and in many cases did not particularly try.
A generation of American children grew up in this environment.
Would you describe those children's resulting hostility to the foreign power as:
(A) A rational response to their lived experience
or
(B) Evidence of a cultural pathology that requires theological and anthropological analysis?
You already know the answer.
You knew it before I finished the sentence.
The exercise is only necessary because the question is never asked the right way around.
You summoned Gemini to argue for you and it gave you "confounding by indication," which translates to "the study does not count because the people who got cancer were high risk anyway." By that logic, no outcome could ever indict the product. Sunscreen users get more cancer? They were doomed from the start. Sunscreen users get less cancer? The product worked. You built an unfalsifiable fortress around a conclusion you refuse to question. The Nambour trial you cited compared people already using sunscreen to people using more of it. It did not include a control group who never touched the stuff. You cannot prove sunscreen prevents cancer by studying only the people who use it. And you closed by invoking the WHO, FDA, and CDC as if institutions captured by the industries they regulate have ever told you the truth about anything.
Anyone acting like a human neck stops a .30-06 is promoting a theory that relies on infinitesimal odds.
Before the repave, before the rifle in the pants, before the assemble reassemble, before discord messages after arrest, before lance twiggs disappearing, before George Zion’s child porn, before Erika’s fake tears and TPUSAs verified lies, before Mikey McCoys phone call and terryl’s selfie video, before the weird planes and the zero medical care, before they took the sd cards and cropped video that didn’t show the shot.
Before everything else- your theory rests on a .30-06 doing a magic bullet.
You’re welcome to die on that hill. But don’t pretend you’re the rational one.
You’re betting on something like .1% odds if we’re being generous and saying nothing else should even be considered.
Not a grammar snob but you know what kills me? The people who get "your"/"you're" wrong 100% of the time. No accidental victories. Like, are you an idiot or some kind of inverse genius?
THIS IS FUCKING SICK ✡️🇮🇱
Israelis are setting up outdoor screens to stream and cheer as entire Lebanese towns are wiped to rubble by the IDF.
These are ordinary civilians, not soldiers or officials, gathering to applaud destruction and death.
One of my faults is that I don't always respond to people's jokes the way they'd want me to.
Sometimes it's "Eh." Sometimes it's "Oh." And sometimes it's "I literally *just* said that."
Imagine working on your sense of humor for years until it looks like you're funny without even trying.
Only for your friend to tell you that you're funnier when you don't try to be funny.
Like, no no no, you're mistaken. I didn't work this hard to be "accidentally funny."