annoyedparent

[annoyedparent @annoyedparent5]

@hotragn @elonmusk @TRHLofficial The “cops shoot innocent black people” narrative took a similar hit with the advent of body cams.

[annoyedparent @annoyedparent5]

@ianmiles “…with a functioning brain…”

You have your answer, they don’t have functioning brains.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Someone told Abdul: when they ask you about sharia, tell them sharia is like canon law in Christianity.

Canon law in Christianity is the body of rules established by church authority to govern a church organization and the conduct of its members.

Sharia encompasses what canon law covers for Christians, but it is not only canon law, just as Islam contains a religion but is not a religion.

Sharia is the constitution of the Islamic state, and Muslims are its citizens.

Everyone who lives under a state's authority lives under its constitution, so when Muslims apply sharia, it means the law of the Islamic state overrides any man-made law, including yours.

The Quran says: "Whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, it is they who are the infidels" (5:44), and "It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have any choice in their affair" (33:36).

So when Abdul says sharia is like Christian canon law, he is lying.

He is claiming sharia exists only to govern Muslims in matters that don't collide with the common law. That is not what Islam says.

In Islam, Muslims are obligated to rule by what Allah has ruled, not only in spiritual and moral matters but in civil ones.

Sharia defines who is a full citizen and who is a second-class subject; what speech is permitted and what is punished, who get killed for insulting Muhammad, the tax non-Muslims must pay "with willing submission, while they are humbled" to avoid the sword (Quran 9:29), and so on.

Christian canon law is compatible with Western liberal democracy. It claims no governance outside the church: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's (Matthew 22:21).

Sharia is incompatible with liberal democracy because it recognizes no separation between the spiritual realm and the earthly on, the two are one, and Islam legislates every detail of life lived under it.

And the Muslims of America, the 1% Abdul tells you not to worry about, already apply sharia in their enclaves: polygamy practiced under the Quran's own license (4:3), domestic-violence cases that go unreported because the beating is textual (4:34, "strike them"), and officials in the UK who covered for grooming gangs for years because Islam blesses the taking of infidel women "whom your right hands possess" (4:24).

Sharia is Islam and Islam is sharia.

More Muslims in elected positions means more laws inspired by sharia.

[PhilosophiCat @Philosophi_Cat]

It's funny hearing people talk about race science as a "pseudoscience" and then cite that humans share 99.9% of DNA.

We also share about 50% of our DNA with a banana and 98.8% with chimpanzees. Why? Because we are all eukaryotic organisms and most DNA is very old biological machinery that is responsible for the functions of life (copying DNA, making RNA, building proteins, generating and using energy, dividing cells and repairing damage, regulating metabolism, etc). We share that in common with all eukaryotic life.

But the human genome is enormous. Over 3 billion base pairs. Even a small percentage difference still represents millions of base pairs. Further, where those differences occur matters a great deal more than simply counting them. If some of those DNA differences result in instructions that say something like "develop this tissue in this way, at this stage, for this long", you can end up with resulting organisms that are dramatically different.

So it's not really about "percentage difference" when talking about genetic difference. A big part of the discussion must be about what genes switch on, where and how strongly they switch on, how long they stay on, what types of cells are expressing that, and at what developmental stage they are expressed.

Consider embryonic development. A single, small, regulatory alteration early in fetal development could produce a cascade of downstream consequences. If something were to, say, alter how neural progenitor cells proliferate during fetal development, you would not need thousands of new "brain genes" to produce a substantially different type of brain. You just need one single gene that changes the genetic instructions that govern how an organism develops.

So yes, humans are 99.9% genetically identical to each other in the ordinary single-nucleotide sense, but the remaining variation contributes to real and sometimes stark differences in physiology, appearance, temperament, etc. Even a tiny fraction of a percent has a lot of wiggle room and what can be done in that wiggle room is substantial.

Next time you see someone parroting the line that race doesn't exist because we are 99.9% genetically the same, you will know that person doesn't know shit about genetics and is just repeating a talking point they heard from someone else who doesn't know shit about genetics. They are not qualified to be part of the conversation.

[Fugitive Caesar @ThomBrady5]

Deporting Ilhan Omar would be like landing an astronaut on the moon, in terms of the emotional and psychological inspiration it would have on the American people to see a foreigner Congresswoman deported. It would be like chains and shackles were broken from a sleeping giant.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

It's useless to warn people about something if no one can have a conversation about why it's happening and what must be done to stop it.

And that conversation is something that the tech elite are totally unprepared to have, because the solution will hit them directly in the pocketbook.

I can tell you how to fix the fertility crisis in three words.

But I can't actually fix the fertility crisis with those words, because y'all are not ready to do what's necessary. You think you are, but you're not. And you'll understand why I say you're not when I tell you the three words:

Stop. Hiring. Women.

Now do you get it?

A moment ago, you thought you were willing to do anything to fix this existential threat to every part of the world that matters.

Now, you want to ask me if there isn't, possibly, some gentler way that doesn't involve any nasty shocks to our nice, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive liberal way of life.

Or you're just calling me a big meanie.

Doesn't matter. When you argue with the point I am making here, you are arguing with Mother Nature, and I promise that Mother Nature cannot hear you, and she does not care.

Women already have a job, a job they evolved for. A job that is so demanding that they have to 100% specialized for it.

Women's job is making humans.

And there's only 15 years between the age when it's a felony to make a human with them, and the age when the stuff they need to make humans starts to not work so well.

If they are filling the role of men during that time period, they cannot do their own full-time, maximum effort job, and you get no new humans.

This is precisely why Mother Nature designed women to only mate with men who are wealthier and more powerful than they are. Because a woman, who is working full time at making humans, needs to be supported.

A baby human is an investment in the future. You can't make investments in the future without someone else supporting you in the present.

If men cannot do this, women won't have babies with those men.

This is why every single high-tech civilization has the fertility crisis.

Because every time a civilization gets high-tech, the elites, who buy labor, have a bright idea. Let's start educating the women, they say. That way, we can hire them and double the supply of labor. Which is totally good for society, and the fact that we, personally, will benefit most from this is a total coincidence, and not in any way the whole reason that Wall Street loves feminism.

Everyone knows that there's a near-perfect correlation between female education and the fertility crisis.

But very few people have truly understood why. It's not the education. It's what the women are being educated for.

If you just wanted to teach them matters animal, vegetable, and mineral, along with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse, there would be no problem at all.

But women are not being educated so they can be interesting conversationalists, or well-rounded human beings. They are being educated so they can sit in a cubicle eight hours a day between the ages of 20 and 35, and answer emails or design marketing campaigns.

That leaves them neither the time nor the resources nor the inclination to make humans, because men aren't any more powerful than they are. Which gives them the ick.

And, of course, they're miserable, because they are genetically programmed to be happy when they do their real job, which is making and refining little humans. Not emails or spreadsheets or marketing campaigns.

But no one is ready for this conversation, because it would involve admitting that every change in Western values after WW2 was a huge mistake.

@elonmusk isn't going to stop hiring women. Hell, it's not even legal to stop hiring women. You can get sued into oblivion for that.

But woman can't make little humans unless the other responsibilities of life are somebody else's problem.

And she doesn't want to make little humans with any man who cannot shield her from all those extra duties.

The bar for being able to do that used to be "reasonably successful tradesman". Now it's actual serious wealth.

We can't IVF our way out of this problem. And we can't just sit around posting "have more babies" on twitter. We have to address the real obstacles that prevent women from having kids.

And the biggest of those is that we have, in effect, demanded that they share every single adult male responsibility from career-building to voting to military service.

All of these responsibilities and burdens were sold to women as opportunities. But nothing is an opportunity if you can't opt out. Just try being 18 years old and finding a man who will 100 percent support and take care of you while you bear his children and do a little light housework.

It's possible, but you had better be exceptionally beautiful, with a sunny personality to match, and social access to the right set of men.

Because the average man can't offer you that deal anymore.

Not won't. Can't.

And there aren't enough rich men to go around.

[annoyedparent @annoyedparent5]

@_Gilo1 @ralphbuttigieg @Rhinohelix @SydneyLWatson He’s sea lioning.

[Robby Starbuck @robbystarbuck]

Yes, and I’m absolutely right. A crackhead who uses welfare shouldn’t have the same voting power that a hard working person has.

This shouldn’t be even slightly controversial.

What sane person can argue that people with no skin in the game deserve an equal vote? 🤔

[Jess @daRubberDuckiee]

been loving this guy's videos on the en-shittification of product design:

[Real Talk with Zuby @ZubyPodcast]

"We are the exact opposite of what the principles were supposed to be."

Over 20,000 unconstitutional anti-gun statutes. A dollar that has lost 96% of its spending power since the Federal Reserve was created.

@MajToure says America is the Upside Down.

The country was founded on a tax complaint. He says look at the number now.

Full episode: https://t.co/ytKTQICSu4

[annoyedparent @annoyedparent5]

@libsoftiktok @SecDuffy They need to go after the people hiring these illegal drivers, too.

[Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1]

Christen Phillips was a DoorDash driver trying to make a living

She honked at Stanley Shockley. Because she honked at him, he (allegedly) beat her to death with a baseball bat. That was it. She was trying to go about her life and make a living, and he killed her for it

We can't live like this anymore. We shouldn't have to live like this anymore. Abolish the CRA. Make the death penalty used again, and perform the executions in public again, to send the message that this behavior will not be tolerated

[Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1]

No, Flock cameras are not good. They serve no purpose. We already know who the criminals are. 1000 people commit 40% of the crime in Atlanta. We know their names; we don't need more pictures of them, we need to hang them

We don't do so because that's mean. Flock cameras are an obvious attempt to fix a spiritual problem--our unwillingness to treat criminals harshly--with a technological solution. That is nonsense. There is no such solution to moral problems

Meanwhile, we all know that while these cameras will do nothing to solve crime, as actual criminals will be left unhanged, they will be used to enforce petty tyranny against normal, law-abiding people. Just check out the proliferation of speeding ticket and red light cameras using minor offenses to bleed normal people dry...as potholed roads are driven over by career criminals

[Rothmus 🏴 @Rothmus]

Shirky Principle: “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”

And that’s because solving the problem would eliminate their reason to exist.

That means their staff, budgets, positions, power, all gone.

So what’s the incentive?

In the case of education, for example, real per student spending has TRIPLED since 1979 while test scores stayed FLAT.

They report the same shortcomings every year and demand even more funds to “solve” them.

And so we end up wasting more money on not solving anything or even making problems worse.

[Frank McCormick @CBHeresy]

This headline helped me understand the voter psychology leading America and Europe to their struggles with Islamification and terrorism.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

No modern political event will make sense until you understand the two reasons why a man will hate you.

He will hate you because you harm him, which is easy to understand.

And he will hate you because he harms you.

No, that's not backwards. That is what you must understand.

Here's how it works.

Once upon a time, a man was given an ultimatum. He had to dissociate himself from me, or his long-term benefactor would withdraw all support.

Some people deliberate from principle, while others examine their bread to determine with side it is buttered on. I try not to judge people too harshly if they don't have much butter.

But, suffice to say, he followed his benefactor's commands, despite having nothing in particular against me.

But he then began to dislike me, and make childish comments behind my back. This was utterly predictable if you understand how humans work.

See, having acted against me, he needed to feel that his actions were just.

A man who has harmed you needs you to deserve it, so that he can still feel good about himself. And he will find excuses to think that, because humans are good at telling stories.

Welfare takers don't hate you even though your taxes keep them alive. They hate you because your taxes keep them alive.

The criminal underclass doesn't rob you because they hate you. They hate you because they rob you.

The teeming brown hordes of the third world don't hate you because of history. They hate you because they want to ruin your country and take all your stuff.

Bernie Sanders doesn't try to tax away everything you have because he hates you. He hates you because he wants to tax away everything you have.

It's important to understand this difference.

If a man hates you because you have hurt him, you can appease him. You can apologize, you can make amends, and he can forgive you if he chooses to.

Because forgiving you doesn't violate his self-image.

But if a man hates you because he has hurt you, then you can never appease him. The more you are kind to him, the more you try to placate him, the more sympathy and understanding and gifts you provide, the more he will find reasons to hate you.

Because if you are good, then he is bad. So you can never be good in his eyes.

This is why no amount of sympathy is ever enough. This is why reparations for fictional injuries are a demand that never ceases.

This is why communists want to kill you, no matter how much you benefit them. And the more you do for them, the more they will hate you and want to kill you.

You must never turn the other cheek unless you struck first. You must never apologize unless you have actually done wrong.

You must never pay the Dane-geld, or you will never be rid of the Dane.

You have to fight them. You have no choice.

Because they do not hate for your sins. They hate you for theirs.

And they will continue to hate you until you punish them. Only when they have been punished do they stop needing to tell stories about how you really deserved what they did.

Mercy is for after you take vengeance, not before.

[PoIiMath @politicalmath]

Sorry, can't train more doctors. People in charge of training doctors says it's not allowed

Best we can do is import doctors who couldn't get into American medical schools while we tell 80% of our best students that they're not allowed to be doctors

[Handre @Handre]

Between 1837 and 1863, the United States ran no central bank, and prices barely moved. This is no coincidence.

After Andrew Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States in 1836, America entered what historians call the Free Banking Era. Banks operated under state charters, competed with each other, and issued their own paper notes backed by gold and silver. No Federal Reserve. No lender of last resort handing out cheap money to well-connected institutions.

The result? Average annual inflation sat somewhere around zero. Some years actually saw mild deflation, meaning your dollar bought more over time. Imagine telling that to someone who watched their grocery bill climb 20% between 2020 and 2023.

Free market thinkers have pointed to this period for decades because it demonstrates a fundamental mechanism: competition keeps banks honest. If a bank in Ohio issued more paper notes than its gold reserves could support, people caught on fast and demanded redemption. The bank either held enough gold or it failed. There was no bailout waiting.

Yes, banks did fail sometimes. Free banking critics love bringing that up. But bank failures in a competitive system are exactly how bad actors get flushed out. Depositors learned to check a bank's reputation. Publications like the *Bank Note Reporter* gave people real information on which institutions were solid.

The system wasn't perfect, but it produced something modern central banking has never once delivered: sustained price stability without a government committee deciding what money should cost. The Fed has existed since 1913, and the dollar has lost over 97% of its purchasing power since then.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

This is a penalty reserved for white parents specifically. No inner city black mom or deadbeat black father will ever be arrested, much less sentenced to 15 years in prison, for the savage crimes committed every single day by their kids.

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

If you give problems the wrong names, you can't understand them.

If you can't understand problems, you can't fix them.

There are almost no homeless people in America. There are only feral humans.

A homeless person is someone whose distinguishing feature is not having a home. I was homeless once, for a day, when the lease on one apartment expired before the next one was cleaned, repaired, and ready.

I parked a moving van full of my worldly possessions at my university, and slept on a couch in the student commons.

That's "homeless".

"Feral" is when a human cannot live within society, or comply with the basic expectations required for membership.

Yes, they do not have homes.

But this is not their distinguishing feature. Because they also don't have jobs, sanity, sobriety, manners, morals, or hygiene.

Which is why they do not have homes.

If you give them a house, because you think they are "homeless" rather than "feral", then they will simply repeat, within that structure, the same feral behavior.

And soon that structure will be uninhabitable.

Which, for certain people, is the whole point.

A man whose job is to sell 3d printed houses isn't trying to fix the feral-human problem. He's trying to sell 3d printed houses.

And it's one hell of a lot easier to sell them to bureaucrats who aren't spending their own personal money.

It doesn't matter if 3d printed houses suck to live in. It doesn't matter if the feral humans trash them. Nobody in this equation cares about the feral humans, even the feral humans themselves.

And nobody in this equation cares about the taxpayers. If the feral humans are still feral, then the 3d house grifters can sell more gimmick houses, and the bureaucrats can spend more of someone else's money.

If a violent political upheaval becomes necessary, this will be very unpleasant for everyone involved, but at least afterwards, we will all be able to use the feral humans, bureaucrats, and grifters to fertilize the garden of new homes.

Which will be made out of bricks.