In awe of SpaceX and its story - past, present and the future. You can think about it in 10+ different ways and continue re-blowing your mind in circles. Huge congrats to the team! 🚀
My favorite @elonmusk quote that I often send friends:
Do not fear losing. “You will lose,” Musk says. “It will hurt the first fifty times. When you get used to losing, you will play each game with less emotion.” You will be more fearless, take more risks.
Tesla FSD amazed me yet again. It noticed the large trailer so it didn’t pull all the way up to the line after this car went. Then it realized that the trailer was t going to swing wide enough so it REVERSED to make way, then shifted over to get clear. This is AWESOME! #fsd
@RGIII Loved it. Felt like finally someone decided to play and orchestrate the show for the cameras instead of the stadium crowd. Your seats gonna suck in the stadium either way for a halftime show. Make it look good for TV! And they did!
I truly implore folks not to argue with “people” on this app about important events.
You’re going to drown in a sea of bots, paid foreign accounts cosplaying as Americans, and truly the worst of our citizenry.
Talk to real human beings in real life.
You’ll feel better.
We are living through a moment where a group of people do not just disagree, they do not even acknowledge a shared fundamental reality.
There is no common frame of reference, no mutual set of facts from which discourse can even begin. They can watch the same video, from multiple angles, and walk away convinced they saw a completely different event.
They exist inside a narrative so deeply entrenched that to question it, to even acknowledge a contradiction, is to commit some sort of ideological treason.
This is a deliberate, conditioned immunity to contradiction. It is a cultivated resistance to evidence. They have developed a mind so thoroughly welded to its chosen reality that it will alter, discard, or fabricate whatever it must to maintain coherence.
They can be shown, in real time, the unraveling of their worldview, and they will patch over the holes with fantasy rather than face any doubt whatsoever.
Politics has turned knowledge itself into a partisan weapon. The expectation is no longer to seek truth, but to defend your team at all costs.
There is a lingering obligation to have an opinion on everything, to be informed at all times, to adopt the correct stance. And so, they improvise. They adopt prefabricated opinions handed down by their faction. They fill in the gaps with instinctive loyalty rather than demonstrating any semblance of independent thought.
The game is rigged, and they know it. Two parties, two choices, two sides that everyone is herded into, and neither is worth the loyalty demanded of them.
But to acknowledge this would be to admit powerlessness, to admit that they are trapped in an illusion of choice. So they cope. They retroactively justify their allegiance by turning their side into something righteous, infallible, and necessary. The alternative is too terrifying.
It is a coping mechanism turned mass psychosis. And it is escalating. When reality itself is dictated by allegiance, when loyalty outranks reason, when every fact must be bent into submission to fit the tribe’s chosen narrative, the outcome is inevitable: war.
When factions exist in separate realities, they cannot coexist. They cannot negotiate, they cannot reason, they cannot even comprehend the other side as anything but a threat.
This is irreconcilable. We cannot function like this. A society cannot sustain itself when its people are no longer individuals but ideological husks, possessed by abstractions, fighting battles for masters who do not even know their names.
You are not your faction. You are not your party. You are not an extension of a collective mind.
The moment you outsource your thinking, the moment you allow yourself to believe that your side must be right because the alternative is unbearable, you have ceased to be an individual. You have become another interchangeable pawn in a game that does not need you to think, only to obey.
Wake up. This war for reality is not one you want to be drafted into.
MSNBC is live defending the second amendment and the conservatives on twitter are explaining that the existence of a firearm in an interaction with a federal agent is a justifiable death sentence. I’m beginning to feel like no one actually believes anything
Multiple things can be true at once:
1. It is true that Alex Pretti raised the risk of a negative outcome by intervening after an ICE agent pushed a female protester. It is true that he heightened the risk further by conceal carrying a firearm, and even further by resisting once he was thrown down and pummeled.
2. It is true that “he should have stayed home” is not legal justification for him being shot, nor is the fact that he was carrying. Conservatives should be very careful about repeating Kristi Noem’s suggestion that the mere act of carrying a weapon, however ill-advised in the circumstances, is proof of intent to harm law enforcement or “massacre.” Adopting that train of thought is a very slippery slope attack on the Second Amendment.
3. It could be true that the ICE agents who killed Pretti today believed their lives were in danger even if they weren’t. One agent can be heard saying “gun!” The agent who removed the gun from Pretti’s waistband appears to have had a ND of the gun (fired by accident). Either of those two things could have set off panic in the chaos of the moment.
4. It could be true that even if justified, agents acted less than ideally. Again, there is a difference between justified and necessary (or appropriate). It seems pretty apparent now that the agents weren’t actually in danger. The gun had been removed from Pretti’s waistband prior to shots being fired.
5. It could be true that Antifa and other agitators are engaged in tactics to deliberately provoke agents. And also that ICE agents should be trained to better handle that threat.
All of these things could be simultaneously true.
It is completely possible to simultaneously believe the following two things:
(1) Intentionally seeking out confrontations with cops while you're legally carrying a firearm is a bad idea that increases the chances of bad things happening, including cops believing [reasonably or negligently] that you're a threat.
(2) The 2A community can and should insist that officials be precise with their statements, to avoid recklessly insinuating that the lawful exercise of 2A rights is inherently threatening or that totally normal actions [like carrying extra mags] are inherently suspicious.
Be. Better.