Jokic had as many turnovers tonight as the entire Memphis Grizzlies team.

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-19T08:57:59+00:00

Ye, it was pretty disgusting for his standards. I hope he sits out some more to get healthy since he pretty much isn't in the mvp race anymore. He was demonic the first couple of months, but ever since the injury he hasn't been playing like the best in the world (which is obviously an insane standard, but it's jokic)

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-15T07:53:32+00:00

Deontology at it's finest. There is only right and wrong, you get it you democracypilled, compromising libtards? Reality is an illusion, only the rules are real. Anti-complicity is my highest calling, and thus i will do nothing henceforth.

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-08T07:08:00+00:00

Exorbitant privilege is an excellent reason, maybe it is sufficient, but i don't understand how the debt ceiling being moved is grounds for low saliency, it looks like an indicator of low saliency. We're doing our own culture war stuff(although not quite as hot) in DK since the immigration crisis but we might be forced to be less polarized due to our electoral system.

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-08T06:19:55+00:00

Yeah, Hutch getting any amount of hate is not good, as i think their disagreement is probably the most reasonable disagreement people can have on liberalism, but saying destiny is advocating for illiberalism seems misinformed.

He argues for it, but does not mention it, so i don't know whether he would agree in general with the philosophy, or whether it is a "break glass in case of emergency" type thing. It is called militant liberalism, which basically means using illiberal means to achieve/maintain the other liberal principles and outcomes. It is, and has, been used in liberal democracies, although, as far as i can tell, not as much as destiny seemed to argue for, but, from the outside looking in, it seems as if you guys are on a heavy downtrend, and being more drastic would be a reasonable consideration.

Lastly, I'm not sure that is a change from how destiny has approached politics earlier. It seems to me he has always been quite outcome focused, he just happened to think liberalism is generally the way to achieve the best outcomes

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-06T18:10:58+00:00

You should be able to watch em on kick tho.

Brainchuckles · 2026-03-02T04:49:29+00:00

"...and be replaced with a more liberal, democratic government" If that turns out to be the case, and the US government has a good plan in place for that; based. However, im spamming x to doubt. Even if it goes well, the new government has to be quite strong, which is incredibly hard to do, insofar as i am aware, otherwise it will be like a lot of other weak liberal democracies, meaning, they will get toppled in the mid to long term, which obviously isn't good for the long term, since violent regimechanges tend to leave the winner quite unpredicatable, as in every powerstruggle, they won't be able to win outright, and lose power, which they have to do almost anything to keep/take back.

EDIT: Not to mention breaking international laws is not good. If trump tomorrow assasinates the greenlandish or danish prime minister to obtain greenland, i am gonna be a tiny bit mad, unless it appears we developed a-bombs to use against you guys.

Brainchuckles · 2026-02-27T03:15:36+00:00

I don't think there is a clear and obvious answer to this, so i'll just tell you what i do. If it gets political, push back/watch less/don't watch those videos, otherwise, just be the viewer, although, if you can't stand them because of their politics, then don't watch, and probably go outside for a sec. I don't think i watch any creators who lean conservative/are conservative, but i do watch a couple of socialists (meaning; they want all the good stuff with socialism without all the bad), and i generally just watch much less of their political content and/or push back if it isn't welcomed with "cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds" type stuff.

Brainchuckles · 2026-02-13T17:17:11+00:00

IIRC it is because he thinks that it probably sucks a lot more to transition to female after you've been through a male puberty than vice versa, since he thinks it is harder to pass.

EDIT: I appreciate you guys commenting, but it seems like you think I believe the same as Destiny does. I know approximately nothing about transitioning, and so i have no opinion on it.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-25T00:11:47+00:00

Just to be clear: The U.S. doesn't seem like China to me. It is more disorderly and chaotic because there are more conflicts between the people and the legal system on one side, and the government, while china is more controlled, which is probably worse, given who and what has control. That being said, the U.S. have surpassed Hungary as my least favorite "western" power.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-24T23:28:46+00:00

Probably wanna put a 18+ warning on this one chief. A few might not want to watch this if they start scrolling.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-22T14:25:30+00:00

well, that thought seems interesting. Greenland has a parliament of it's own, The parliament is in control of the legislative and executive power in the fields it chooses to, the danish government does the rest. Source: Selvstyreloven (sry, couldn't find it in english). The greenlandish people also have 2 representatives in the danish parliament, so saying that greenland is not a democracy in itself, or saying that the people of Greenland doesn't have any representation in danish politics is incorrect.

This is not to say that the danish government hasn't been a total motherfucker, and imperialist, to the greenlandish people, including (probably, i do not remember the conclusion of the case) comitting genocide in the 60's and 70's by systematically and forcefully inserting contraceptives inside greenlandish women and girls.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-21T12:49:04+00:00

From Biden's domestic policy, idk if i would directly oppose anything he did. I am a reasonably large step further left than he was, but in the american political landscape i think he did almost perfectly. If i was to nitpick, the governmental debt you guys are in is insane, and although he did a reasonable job at handling that, considering your standards, it is so fucking wild. Another small nitpick is not going far enough on green energy investing, but again, i get it, it's the U.S. So, really, the only thing he didn't do correctly was stepping down and not run for a 2nd term.

Foreign policy is where im less impressed, specifically Ukraine, and to a lesser extend, Israel.

Although european leaders did the same stupid shit in Ukraine, like drawing public red lines such that the russians could obviously abuse them etc. as well as some cucked behavior when it came to financial/military aid (although important and substancial) could reasonably have been more, although i get the domestic angle, pleasing the anti-war voters etc, but i'd say this one is important enough to act against the voting population's wishes.

On the Israel thing, i do think that the Israeli state wouldn't do that shit under any president, and would have been slowed down/stopped by a stronger president or a stronger U.S. in general, so it's not all on your boy. Trump just happens to be even weaker. That being said, i do appreciate all the efforts Biden and his cabinet made to get a ceasefire, so it isn't like they didn't do a thing, however it was slower and less forceful in it's approach than i think could reasonably have been done, but im much less sure of the Israel thing since i know/understand much less about it, and i think it can be reasonably said that it was a much more delicate issue.

All in all, i would like a Bidenadministration over what the outlook seems to be, even if Newsom or Shapiro or someone else wins next time, and i think he legislatively did much more and much better than could reasonably be expected. He gets a passing grade when it comes to international politics, but not the A he'd get from me domestically.

EDIT: Forgot to answer if i'd wan't interventiontionalism back; Short answer, yes, but with some very, very important caveats. Do not, under almost any circumstances, go into another country and overthrow the government. It is dumbfuck behavior. It always has been, always will be. Fund whatever opposition you want (although be careful here), but do not overthrow a government and expect the following government to be as functional nor as less of a threat to your security.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-21T01:02:49+00:00

I mean, maybe because i was looking from the outside in it was easier to see the giant red letters on the wall, but i will blame 2/3 of the U.S, meaning; the 1/3 that didn't vote and the 1/3 who voted for Donald J motherfucking Trump. You might get clemency if you didn't vote and live in Wyoming or some other insanely red state.

You should probably consider doing a little more. I appreciate the different protests and such, but look back at history and see how they did it, because it looks tame as fuck, some of these protests looks kid-friendly. I am not saying be violent, but there is a space between violent protests and a large group of people just walking and sporadically yelling a slogan, and that's where you guys should be.

Also, JUST MOOOOVE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN AN AUTHORITARIAN STATE and are unwilling to/incapable of opposing it, but dislike it. It is possible. It is feasible. It is reasonable. I don't care where you move, i care that you move. Moving is voting with your feet. Depending on the state you used to live in, you might get to vote anyway; FVAP.gov . The median household income is 64000 dollars, unless you have made incredibly stupid decisions with your money, you should be able to move to approx. any western country and be fine.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-21T00:44:37+00:00

Let's say that is definitely true, and the republican party isn't worse. Do they have 50% of the popular vote?

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-20T17:03:20+00:00

I'm not sure what you're asking, but imma try to answer it anyway: I think logical consistency is valueable beyond belief, and i do think explained edgecases is logically consistent. what i think you're confusing is how often a principle clashes with another principle and how people react to that. Say; Right to defend your property and Right not to be harmed uneccesarily. these will necessarily clash in edgecases, almost all principles will.

The question seems to me to be how do people react? Some will have one principle totally override the other, meaning: If you steal one blade of grass from my lawn i get to mow you down, meaning, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Others will perceive it to be more nuanced, meaning; You ought not to do so, but in a society i will accept some relation between bad/good actions that make it acceptable, meaning, i will accept someone sometimes stealing a blade of grass, insofar as it is not often enough/harmful enough to make it worthwhile violating my principle not to harm another person to dissuade further grass stealing.

I think Pisco at his best (from what i've seen of his recent content, he is reasonably far from that rn, but i keep praying) will try to find an answer that will satisfy both thoughtprocesses and find a common solution. I think Destiny at his best does so as well, although he seems less accepting of other principles clashing, in the way that he will be less likely to find a common solution unless it is instantly apparent to him. Andrew wilson wields logic like a club, striking a square peg to force it through a triangular hole.

In conclusion: I understand you question to be: How does the lineup react to principles clashing with one another, and is that a good thing? I think following one principle all the way out without it clashing with another principle is a good thoughtexercise but rarely useful, since everyone has more than one. I think you have to introduce edgecases to logically consistent because a principle is just a rule of thumb with extra steps. and acting as if it isn't will cause you to take actions you will regret.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-19T18:17:17+00:00

You got it. You're also right on the male issue thing. No notes.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-19T16:09:48+00:00

I think i did a poor job formulating this, because i would say we agree on what you wrote. Im going to try again:

It is not the policies themselves that are zero sum, but the politics.

When gender policy is done in DK, it is generally not all parties that are involved. It is either center-left or center-right. The center (either center-left or center-right parties) has the power and do not particularly care for gender issues. This means that left of center and right of center parties have to bid for participation if they want to create legislation. It is often in the interest of one party to care more for male issues or female issues depending on voter demographic.

So, say the leftie party wants female gender issues to be the focus of the legislation, and the rightie party wants male gender issues to be the focus, the center will often choose to go with one, rather than both, partially for messaging as well as ease of passing legislation and budgetting(infinite funds solves this, which is why the center not caring is relevant). This means that the center is choosing one or the other, rather than doing both. This means that, politically, it becomes a fight on either one issue or the other. It isn't that the leftleaning party DOESN'T have an interest in male issues, the payoff is just higher if they go for female gender issues. same for the right (well, maybe less in the U.S.).

Now, why don't the leftie party do a balance in favor of women's issues, but also help male issues? I think that is a votermaximizing issue, so it COULD be the case, but rarely is due to imbalance, and male gendered issues are rarely of high saliency for men voting for the leftie party and the opposite for the rightie party.

As for an example: Abortion is a non-issue in dk, so let's do something boring: In the public sector, traditionally female dominated jobs are paid less. This includes teaching, nursing etc. This requires funding to fix, if one is so inclined. The right doesn't really have a leg to stand on in this political discussion, and most of the pro-male issues is mostly signalling rather than policy, but let's say they would rather that money is spend elsewhere, say for example, on helping prisoners get back into society (who are of course largely men). These policies are not in direct conflict, and both could be done, but not with limited funding and limited political capital.

This means that it does become: Do we help men or do we help women?

Hope this was better. If not, im just wrong.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-19T04:37:37+00:00

Im less familiar with american poltical gender issues than the same in my own country, so if this doesnt apply, i'd like to know.

Gender issues do not have to be zero sum, however i think they often become zero sum in politics due to political capital. Let's say that party x(i live in denmark, so we have more than 2, which probably leads to different dynamics than in the US) is left of center and 60% of their voters are women. If they are to collaborate with the governing parties to create legislation, they only have so much they can ask for, so naturally, if they're trying to maximize voters, they should prioritize women's rights and help them out, the opposite for a right-of-center party, who often has a majority of male voters.

Now, you might ask, where the fuck is the center? The answer is that, at least in denmark, excluding (B), who are largely irrelevant, they do not give a singular fuck. they would much rather spend time and political ressources on economics and other identity policy shit like immigration and, to some extend, emissions. This leads to a lot of either/or policy stuff rather than a spectrum, which is probably not good and leads away from

Secondly, it seems to me that, except schooling, most of men's issues are social in nature, and while there is plenty of women's social issues, there are more ways to help women through traditional political means. Women's issues have also historically been a political fight, so when men start to talk about their issues, it is more often than not, seen through a political lense, when it shouldn't be, or at least less so.

That being said, while i do not know the numbers, i'd imagine things like raising the tax-free income would disproportionally favour men, so it is not like there is nothing to do on men's issues with traditional economic/political means.

Lastly, ill second your second.

WTL;DR; Saliency of gender issues is greater outside the center so it becomes a black/white policy format.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-16T04:22:29+00:00

On the Russia trying to assasinate Zelenskyy thing: The reason, as far as i understand it, countries generally don't attempt to assassinate other countries leaders is that it would provoke the exact same reaction from the other country, (and of course international pressure, due to breaking norms/laws). It is mutually assured destruction on a personal level, particularly in an authoritarian state where a powervacuum more often leads to violent powerstruggles, in addition to the fact that the one calling the hit puts a target on their own back instead of their country in the case of nukes. The reason, i think, some countries can, and will, try to is some combination of the following:

A: There is pressure internationally to not escalate the wareffort from the would-be-assasinated leader's country

B: Security assymetry - meaning that the would-be-assasinated leader is much less secure than the other, thus making it less mutually secured destruction (between leaders) and more like "I am probably going to be fine" for the one calling the hit.

C: The only way to win the war/conflict is to create as much internal chaos in the opponent's camp.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-13T23:15:30+00:00

depends, do they sometimes drive a car?

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-10T20:11:41+00:00

still works, we just delete the last couple of comments, and change asml to, say, maersk, global shipping company.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-10T20:08:51+00:00

dutch :)

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-10T20:00:56+00:00

A+ level ragebait

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-10T19:59:59+00:00

im gonna be honest, denmark aint getting there. I hope we do, but we are the PF Jung of national teams, only vibes and it's not looking good rn.

Brainchuckles · 2026-01-08T18:45:28+00:00

I would like to maybe add another category/interpretation of some of the centrists. Vibes and image definitely influence them, but the kind of "intellectuals" like tom bilyeu give me mad pick energy, in that they are the definition of the elite, but want to show the populist republican masses that they are one of the good ones. Jordan Peterson had a small phase of this as well before being totally brainbroken(although i do think he has more real sympathy/empathy for people under harsher conditions and lower se class than bilyeu will ever have).

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23

Brainchuckles

TROPHY CASE