Teddy Fleming

If you ask me, the light’s winning.

[Jack Posobiec @JackPosobiec]

People who never studied the Jacobins, Bolsheviks, CCP, and Khmer Rouge are having trouble understanding the events of the last several years

[Andy Ngo @MrAndyNgo]

Riots, demonization, and tacit approval of violence from Democrats laid the foundation for the culture of assassination.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

Leftists have tried to kill the president three times now. They killed Charlie. They've shot up churches and Christian schools and rioted in the streets. They are the party of terrorism. Political violence comes from one side. How much longer will we allow these people to wage war on the country?

[Cernovich @Cernovich]

We are a nation at war. Our POTUS almost killed twice. Charlie Kirk murdered. Hundreds of violent attacks beginning in 2015 - random Trump voters targeted. The seriousness of this moment is still not understood. People live in glibness.

[@jason @Jason]

The left has a serious violence problem, which @DavidSacks called out early and often.

This generation of woke democratic socialists are morally bankrupt.

They believe in looting and violence as a political tool — and they’re vocal about it.

If you called out the violent members of the January 6th riots, you also have to call out the radical left.

#ballsandstrikes

[Teddy Fleming @ejflemingv]

@Lawyer4Deals “Looks good, thx.”

[Alex Su @heyitsalexsu]

One of the best articles on AI and practicing law that I’ve read. Lots of tactical examples. The big takeaway:

[Teddy Fleming @ejflemingv]

@Eli_Albrecht “LOL”

[unusual_whales @unusual_whales]

BREAKING: Newly released Epstein documents suggest that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick discussed a possible visit to Epstein’s island in 2012.

This is years after Lutnick had said he severed all ties with Epstein around 2005, citing revulsion over Epstein’s behavior, per Newsweek

[SMB Attorney @SMB_Attorney]

You have to wake up with unshakable confidence that it’s all going to work out, probably in different and better ways than you can even imagine. But in order to get the most out of it, you have to get up and get the fuck after it.

[Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt]

Parents: Do not give your children any AI companions or AI enhanced toys. With social media 15 years ago, we can say we didn't know.

With AI, we can already see some of the harms, such as suicide and psychosis. Other harms will surface years from now.

https://t.co/hUsRHIas3t

[Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt]

I and a growing number of professors ban all devices during class--even our grad students fall into distraction. How can K-12 students handle it?

@jean_twenge shows that they can't.

Get laptops and tablets out of classrooms now:
https://t.co/0uunLBBWLe

[Steve McGuire @sfmcguire79]

“Although it once seemed like a good idea to give every child his or her own device, it’s clear that those policies have been a failure.”

💯

School-issued laptops distract students at school and home, expose them to things they shouldn’t see, and hurt learning.

🧵

[Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 @MarinaMedvin]

A ton of videos out of Gaza with Palestinians executing their own. Not a peep from the people who pretended to care about a Palestinian “genocide” — interesting, isn’t it.

[Greg Lukianoff @glukianoff]

This is going to be a Rorschach test for a lot of people. What I see when I look at this is the harm of a quasi-mystical idea of “hate” as a spectral, even demonic, force. It’s a superstition that allows you to turn off your critical faculties, ignore anything that might contradict a sacred belief on a particular topic or about a particular individual — as in this case — and act with impunity.

It has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual idea, developed by those who saw intellectuals as mere tools for often extremely simplistic partisan ends to allow them to win arguments by brute force rather than logic and proof.

It has spread into the rest of society and across the globe in a way that allows taboo to defeat reason and skepticism almost every time.

I hope it’s an idea — like “speech is violence” — that we can relegate to the dustbin of history. If you believe the world is divided into a simplistic binary of “good people” and those infected with hate, then maybe the post-Enlightenment world is not for you.

And for those of us who believe that human morality and nature is more complex and less flattering than the sacred warriors in this battle, it's time to remember that Enlightenment values are not easy. But they are absolutely worth fighting for because the world without them is a place that lets you excuse the most monstrous behavior and never lose your sense of moral superiority.

That's the trap of the binary.

[Midwest vs. The Rest @midwestern_ope]

Top 5 Midwestern Activities:

1. Wave someone through a 4 way stop even though you got there before them

[Rob Wiblin @robertwiblin]

Christ this data is so grim:

"The troubling decline in conscientiousness. A critical life skill is fading out — and especially fast among young adults."

[Teddy Fleming @ejflemingv]

@CoffeewClassics The Road Home by Jim Harrison.

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

.@piersmorgan You say you support Israel’s right to defend itself after Oct 7—but now call its actions “beyond proportionate.” That only proves you still don’t understand what “proportionate” means in the laws of war.

Your question is valid. But you haven’t asked me—or any serious scholar of war. Try Victor Davis Hanson, LTG (ret) H.R. McMaster, Sir Andrew Roberts, Lawrence Freedman. Ask us what proportionality means in actual war—not on talk shows.

Proportionality in war isn’t tit-for-tat. It’s not "you killed 1,000 so you can kill 1,000." It means that the expected harm to civilians cannot be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated.

So what’s Israel’s objective? The total defeat of Hamas—a terror army that invaded its territory, slaughtered civilians, took hostages, and is still firing rockets, using tunnels, hiding behind civilians.

The value of that military objective? National survival.

Israel has made extensive efforts to reduce civilian harm: notification, evacuations, precautions, humanitarian corridors, aid deliveries—despite Hamas actively sabotaging them. The IDF targets fighters. Hamas puts civilians in harm’s way on purpose.

You often imply there must be another way. History agrees—there was another way. For example: Egypt could have temporarily taken in civilians into safe zones in the Sinai, enabling Israel to fight Hamas without their uses as the civilian deaths as their primary strategy.

But instead, the world demanded Israel fight a genocidal terror army without displacing civilians—essentially giving Hamas human shields by design.

You continue to repeat Hamas's talking points: blurring combatant vs. noncombatant, ignoring the laws Hamas systematically violates, and judging Israel’s actions without context—military or moral.

So I ask again: What exactly would you have Israel do?

Given Hamas’s size, strength, tunnel network, embedded positions in dense urban terrain, continued rocket fire, and the hostages it still holds—what is your real alternative?

Say it clearly. Because vague moralism won’t defeat Hamas. Clarity and courage might.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

Why is not OK for the DoD to accept a $400 million plane from Qatar, but it is ok for our elite universities to accept billions from Qatar?

How is one proper and the other not?

Just asking.