For the record: the deleted post and original article referred to “the autism problem” that Trump “wants to solve”. Please explain, for the record, what “more specific context” was needed to discover that referring to a group of people as “the ___ problem” in need of a “solution” was wrong.

I’m not normally one to yuck anyone’s yum, but if what gets you going is hearing about how your husband is going to force other people to suffer, get therapy.

Nothing says resolute opposition to an authoritarian like “we are ready to work with him, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, we’ll be there”

I simply can’t get over the menorah which both contains the wrong number of candles and is for a different holiday.

A report from a committee co-chaired by Karen Goodnough. An editor would immediately flag that as being far too on-the-nose for a character responsible for a pro-chatbot report that used made-up citations from a chatbot.

Weird how statements from four scientific experts winds up in the same section as Ezra Klein waxing poetic about a bigot, rather than news. Really speaks to how you’ve failed this country that unhinged rambling by Trump (even as a candidate) is news, but statements from experts are opinion.

What a profoundly stupid description. Wanting to “solve the problem even if…” implies the “even if” is a solution. That’s like writing “Trump wants to solve his weight problem even if it means using racial slurs on a daily basis”

I do love the idea that the batshit health influencers somehow arrived at “drink bleach” before they discovered that folate (an actual supplement people actually take) was the real “cure”.

Hang on, the fix for problems caused by taking Tylenol during pregnancy is taking folate supplement? Something most pregnant women are already recommended to take?

“If Alito hasn’t ever explicitly written that he knows the law disagrees with what Trump is doing but ‘fuck it, we ball’ how can you say he’s partisan?”

It would be a shame if the “well I don’t know what he did in Cambodia but Kissinger was nice to me and liked Star Wars” overshadowed the “ackshually liberalism is about believing in freedom of any kind or rights of any kind” inanity

It was bad enough when your hagiographic recounting of the tale of Charlie Kirk was restricted to kowtowing op-eds. This is just pathetic pandering.

Because long-range missiles don’t feel as phallic as “big gun on plane that sprays out a lot of little stuff”

This is true if you assume voter turnout is something close to the maximum, and thus gains and losses of support are zero-sum. If that weren’t true, and turnout were more like 50%, not so much. NB: “I wanted the cruelty but it’s hurting me too” isn’t a change of heart.

I can absolutely believe it Ezra Klein is this stupid. I can also believe that someone this profoundly dumb can succeed wildly in political commentary. I definitely don’t like it, though!

Have you checked your offices for carbon monoxide leaks?

I have to give the devil his due, the gamergate strategy of “hypocritically invoke easily-rebutted principles as a decoy target” apparently just fucking works. If you’re writing about the hypocrisy or “this is a bad principle” you’re missing that it has no principle, it’s just spiteful punishment.

Two mistakes in the first paragraph. First “Utah prosecutors claimed” is not “more evidence has emerged”. Now more than ever “cop or lawyer of a right-wing government said so” can’t be mistaken for “evidence”. Second, no carefulness in choice of words would have mattered. Not your best work.

It is a winnable argument. But my grim prediction is instead of making that winnable argument writers and electeds will lead every single statement with “I condemn political violence” (framing it as an overreaction to a terrible event) and cut the argument off at the knees.

It’s remarkable that a human being can say what amounts to “his hate-filled rants and glee at other people’s suffering is actually just what this whole party stands for so we should pretend it’s just an ‘agree to disagree’ kind of thing” and not pause to consider what that means.

Y’all need to get up to speed on how alt-right tactics work, because right now you’re just getting played. This is gamergate shit. So, lesson 1: If you’re criticizing their standards you’re already repeating the lie that they have standards. They don’t, they want to punish people they dislike.

Yes, the lesson we should take from this extreme expression of right-wing ideology is definitely that a sect of republicans were right and the far left was wrong.

Legality aside (though it’s clear that Carr threatening ABC probably isn’t) this is also proof that whether Democrats use a power or even acknowledge it could be used has zero bearing on whether republicans will abuse it. Republicans are a slippery slope unto themselves.

In some small corner of my heart I hold the tiny light of hope that we come out the other side of this and from it gain the widespread understanding that cops lie and our immigration system is fundamentally cruel.

There’s fascinating semiotics to how referring to both unabashed bigotry on the one hand and utterly anodyne “rushing to conclusions for political convenience is bad” statements as “remarks” makes the bigotry sound better and the uncontroversial statement sound worse.

I can recognize the intent here, to rouse people’s sense of pride and love for the imagined ideal of who “we” are. It doesn’t fucking work. It vindicates the right (if we’re not “that” country, clearly this wasn’t bad) and demotivates the left. 1/

Senator, it looks like a rogue consultant changed your strong opposition to the Republican agenda into a call for bipartisanship and whining about them not negotiating. You should look into who has access to your social media and senate website, someone appears to be sabotaging you.

I’m simply shocked that centrist Dems spending years agreeing with the far-right about “cancel culture” didn’t actually create a stable alliance in support of free speech.

It says nothing good that my only thought seeing this was a desperate desire to make sure my Representative (a Democrat from a district that Harris won by 20 points) didn't somehow meander his ass into fucking up.

If there's a single unifying ideology of the right-wing it's "making me feel bad in any way is basically a war crime".

"How could it not be an organized conspiracy when a bunch of people all want to yell at Trump all at once? There just happened to be dozens of people in a city where the vast majority hate him? Inconceivable"

It’s almost like right-wing claims to support free speech were always just “freedom of speech they liked” and anyone who bought into the idea that there was some bigger principle at play was an absolute fool. Anyway, how many times did y’all call Kirk a free speech advocate in your hagiographies?

Anyone who couldn’t anticipate that republicans would claim Kirk’s death was due to a Democrat, and that we were celebrating it, (regardless of who the shooter was or how we acted) needs to simply not be in politics.

Schiff isn’t seriously trying to make “uhm ackshually this is a misuse of federal funds, good sir” into a thing in 2025, is he? Like… damn dude, are you trying to make the very stupid “kitchen table issues” rhetoric sound less dumb by being even stupider?

The dumbest motherfuckers alive need to figure out that there’s no shame threshold past which republicans will actually change. Telling them Charlie Kirk was a li’l smol bean guy who never used hateful rhetoric and called for violence won’t make them give those up. It’ll justify their hatred more.

Ohh, got it. He’s not actually a stooge for right-wingers. He’s an idiot who thinks a hagiographical account of a fascist had some chance of not helping fascism. I guess that’s better in some ways.

“It’s only political violence if you’re sufficiently famous” really underscores that when the commentariat says it they mean “violence I think I could be the victim of”

Motherfucker is going to “kitchen table issue” us into the grave.

“[W]hen 600 people are killed in Chicago once every year” is a fascinating string of words Fetterman said. First, substantively, even taking it in a sane way, 600 deaths in Chicago per year is 0.02% of the population. Which is absolutely a tragedy, but fewer deaths than prostate cancer. 1/

Stupidity of the idea in general aside, two specifics: 1. Investors expect quarterly reports (it’s why even non-public companies issue them to investors), so any company choosing to not do them would be seen as bad news. 2. 10-Qs have nothing to do with unemployment or tariff numbers.

I’ll take my chances, thanks.

“You thought we were bad when we promised to put a right-wing feelings editor in at CBS? You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

This does put that white dude Post writer’s “ackshually these memes originated outside of the alt-right and therefore cannot be associated with them, we simply know nothing about the shooter’s motives” bullshit in perspective.

Because if there’s one group of people famous for not following national politics and having opinions about it, it’s New Yorkers.

The bet seems to be that either (a) they can build an authoritarian regime fast enough to be fait accompli, or (b) the people who voted for him were motivated by supporting his bigotry and authoritarianism, not in spite of it because of grocery prices.

Completely unrelated to all of the shitshows going on, I recently discovered that my wife had never heard of AO3. I may have opened something of a Pandora’s box.

Cool how this post falsely attributing Kirk’s death to trans rights isn’t going to get the Post banned for any amount of time. Despite being a much clearer policy violation than “rest in piss” They’re close early encouraging violent reprisals And encouraging harassment and violence against a group

There’s little value in pointing out the hypocrisy of the right’s paeans to how calling for violence against people is dangerous and evil compared to this. But it absolutely proves that the commentariat definition of “political violence” is limited to “violence that could be directed at them”.

The most consistent attribute of self-styled free speech advocates is their belief that “free speech” only includes things that don’t make them personally uncomfortable.

It's the apotheosis of politics as sports It's not a question of what he advocated, if he did it within the rules of the game his success *must* be laudable. Hack-a-Shaq was "doing basketball right" Though it's also childishly naive to claim Kirk's "framework" included real support for free speech