TheDankHold

If you strip the context to its most basic form then yeah they’re both moving somewhere to nebulously increase their quality of life. Much like elevators and stairs are the same thing because they’re infrastructure that allows you to reach floors in a building that aren’t ground level.

Because that’s always what Joe wants to do. Maher bringing up Trump was a breath of fresh air and a conversation Joe has tried to avoid.

Big old rant that addresses nothing I’ve said and makes up different arguments to win. Not sure what you’re going for here.

You dance around the real facts that he has consistently downplayed the crimes of the Trump administration and argues that one of the biggest conservative propagandists, Tucker Carlson, had journalistic integrity. All this while constantly attacking democrats for any perceived misstep and obsessing over CNN. He’s given tons of airtime to Hunter Bidens laptop but seemingly can’t tell you a single thing Trump was charged with.

You also pretend that I’ve said anything about “silencing” anyone so you can clutch your pearls and act persecuted but that’s not what I’d happening. I’m not censoring or advocating censorship. I’m using real world examples of someone’s public behavior to understand them better.

The grandest irony is you calling me a reactionary when all I did was point out examples of Joe espousing reactionary rhetoric and giving examples of conservative politicians he’s close with. Not to mention he has on so many conservative pundits he doesn’t need to have the politicians on. He’s already boosting their narratives.

Also, just to remind you since you said this:

Are you guys so void of critical thoughts that you can’t listen to someone you disagree with? Even for a few minutes?

I do follow the show. That’s why I’ve been citing moments from the show to back up my position. I directly referenced events from the past two podcasts. If you can’t accept this then I don’t think you’re intellectually capable of an actual discussion. If you make this empty accusation again I’m not going to respond.

It’s okay for Joe to be right wing. He’s allowed to change his perspective and think whatever he wants. It’s very telling however the length’s people will go to deny and obfuscate this reality.

Notice how this person ignored all the listed reasons I gave to hyperfocus on something from 2016.

“But he said he’d vote Bernie” is a literal meme from how often that tired talking point has been thrown out.

If he held any true convictions that weren’t conservative he wouldn’t play defense for Jan 6th and pal around with reactionary ghouls like Abbot and DeSantis. He also wouldn’t be trying so hard to downplay the crimes of the Trump administration and defend the “journalistic integrity” of Tucker Carlson like he had any.

Oh and while we’re bringing up stuff, you missed his recent climate change denial rant on the PoP episode? Because despite your insistence otherwise I do follow JRE. It’s why I know how empty your counter argument is.

So centrist that he supports DeSantis, has dinner with Greg Abbot, thinks Jan 6 was a false flag, and still claims Trump facing prosecution is evidence that the US is a banana republic despite the episode immediately before having the guest lay out in irrefutable detail the real crimes DJT is standing trial for.

If he isn’t right wing then the only other viable explanation is that he’s an empty bobble head that invites on as many conservatives voices to nod along with as they can.

Do you think only rapists and murderers go to prison you empty headed creep? Cool your bloodlust and try to value human dignity.

Agree with everything except it being an extension of the Roman Senate. By the time Constantine declared it the state religion the senate had been all but banned from important offices due to the changes that occurred to end the principate phase of the empire.

In reality it was a subversion of Roman governance as the pope gained the authority to “legitimize” emperors and is a primary reason alternative religious beliefs were suddenly all stamped out after centuries of moderate tolerance.

But without bread, the other shit is just set dressing on a corpse.

Did I say that? I’m offering the other side as counterbalance. I also think that reporting on the violence in Manipur is a bit more important than talking about them investing in something several other countries have done (when this investment could be used to address rampant malnutrition in the country).

If this space program results in novel tech then I’d be a bit more into focusing on it but from my knowledge it hasn’t and comes across more as a PR program. A way to stick a good headline amongst all the horrific things happening there.

All while one of their ethnic minorities faces genocidal sectarian violence.

There’s a time for both tbh. If you want to just fuck around then items and stuff are a lot of fun. But if you’re playing from a competitive mindset many of these mechanics get in the way of the parts of the game they love the most. In fact, I think my experience playing without items made me more effective with them when I played with people that wanted them turned back on.

The important thing is that you play the rule set everyone playing will have fun with. That’s why the customization of rules has always been pretty in depth.

A jihadist coup won’t result in the infrastructure you hope for. It will result similarly to other jihadist nations, torn apart by sectarian violence and religious oppression. It’s telling that you want to overlook that aspect to focus on geopolitical intrigue that doesn’t affect the daily lives of Nigerians.

I never said a coup in theory was bad. I’m saying this coup is bad because sometimes it turns out that bad people can be couped by worse people.

Progressive movements will never be fueled by religious fundamentalism, your waffling about how a religiously zealous Castro could be progressive is you playing dumb because if you actually believe in progressive ideals you’d know organized religion back by the state is the opposite of those ideals.

Do you think a jihadist regime will be closer to a democratic society? From my understanding of religious extremism, it would probably make it less democratic.

If Castro was a religious zealot I’d also prefer Batista stay in power tbh. Castro was more secular though so I don’t see it as inherently doomed to an even more fucked up level of abuse and control and wouldn’t hold the same perspective. Because the two scenarios are noticeably different.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like the idea of colonial territories being made economically independent and such but I don’t think a movement that self describes as jihadist will get them going in the right direction to a just society.

I don’t find pleasure in the success of jihadist movements that overthrow democratic elections. I think the world would be better off with less religious extremists exerting control over people. It’s like celebrating the creation of North Korea because western powers lost influence over the area. Doesn’t make the inevitable oppression any more tolerable.

One of the angles is 180 though so imagine what the two sides joined there would look like. After all this isn’t to scale.