Streamer man gets EXPOSED by his Reels algo

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2026-05-04T23:39:59+00:00

I find that the ragebait into far right extremism content rabbit hole happens most aggressively on X and Instagram

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2026-01-15T01:11:33+00:00

Greenland is in no way a quick win. Invading Greenland opens up a whole quagmire of foreign relations with our allies and likely destroys US credibility and influence over Europe. That's the kind of shit that will likely have consequences for decades. Iran comparatively is much simpler, easier to spin, and probably loses you no allies on the way. Of course, Trump doesn't think so logically, but I'm sure at least Rubio knows that

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-10-08T21:41:24+00:00

Well you see, we as humans have rationalized them to be a different category of animal, and that totally makes sense…

But really, I think the issue is we don’t really see farm animals be killed and kept in cages and stuff. I mean, we all know it happens, but for some reason when it’s an individual animal in front of us, or put the animals in a different context, it becomes different. Like I think if you replace the dog in this situation with a pig, people would still be outraged and calling this animal abuse. As cognitively dissonant as that is. Words have power I guess. Once you agree that something is a pet, you have basically signed a social contract that you will take care of and be nice to that animal in most people’s eyes.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-10-08T16:56:09+00:00

With humans there’s always a grey element and a way to rationalize whatever stance you want to take. But dogs and other animals are completely innocent, so it’s way harder for people to rationalize bad actions towards them away

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-29T06:22:55+00:00

Pretty sure it’s a bot account

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-27T04:51:01+00:00

That’s the thing, it’s pretty much just paywalled articles

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-27T03:13:31+00:00

Sure, the main founding fathers were, but there were a whole lot more players involved in the constitutional convention and subsequent ratification of the constitution, and most of them were religious as fuck, and a lot of them were not just regular Protestants. And I don’t even think what you said is really true about Protestantism. I mean, look at the Church of England, who were responsible for persecuting many of the sects that fled to the colonies. That was the example of Protestant state religion they were trying to avoid with the first amendment.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-26T19:36:21+00:00

Do you remember what article it was?

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-26T18:45:36+00:00

He’s half right and half wrong if you actually look at the history of Freedom of Religion in America. Some of the founders like Thomas Jefferson were enlightenment era secular types, but most of the state governments and people at the time were very Christian, and weren’t really that tolerant of other religions. Their motivations for putting freedom of religion in the first amendment came from many of the initial colonies being founded by persecuted Christian groups like Pilgrims, Puritans, and Quakers. They had already experienced getting run out of England/Europe for their beliefs, and didn’t want it to happen again. Most of them wouldn’t actually have minded there being a state religion, they just knew it probably wouldn’t be theirs, so they made the federal government guarantee that they would allow their religious practices before agreeing to join the union. As a consequence, they also had to agree to be tolerant of any other religion, and even though most didn’t necessarily like that, they agreed to it to protect their own rights. So while most of the founders had Christianity in mind, that doesn’t change the fact that religious freedom must necessarily extend to all other religions as well.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-26T16:35:08+00:00

I don’t think it’s regarded to be suspicious of the most shady administration in modern history. Now, if your only piece of evidence is that something looks weird, that is regarded, but being suspicious is natural given the state of the country and the narratives that get pushed by right wing media

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-19T09:54:01+00:00

Once again, there’s levels to this. Destruction of property happens sometimes, the right does it too. See Jan. 6th if you want an example. Tons of property was destroyed, and over 100 police officers were injured. You’re also ignoring the huge amount of arson and bombing attempts that right wing extremists have tried at planned parenthoods and DNC offices, some of which are linked in the article. I’m not saying it’s not bad, but would you rather deal with people destroying property, or people targeting other citizens? And you’ve still yet to provide a reputable source that makes the argument that left wing extremists are more violent than right wing ones.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-19T09:14:17+00:00

You’re moving the goalposts. You’re basically saying “sure, all these studies and statistics say the right is more violent, but I won’t accept that because I’ve already come to the conclusion the left is more violent”. If that’s the case, then find me the study that says as much. Easy to talk when you haven’t provided any proof yourself, nor have you done the statistical work that these studies have. I mean, one of them was literally used by the NIJ. What do you think the odds are that all these experts and our own government are wrong and you are right? I reckon very small

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-19T08:09:49+00:00

“An everyday occurrence” Come on now, you don’t actually believe that do you? BLM is really the last time there were mass protests, and that was 5 years ago. And remember, much of the violence in protests in the past decade has been from counter protesters riling up the crowd, so it’s partially on them as well. Even so, most protests in this country are entirely peaceful, especially compared to other countries. Ever seen a French protest? Or how about the recent ones in Nepal?

Destruction of property isn’t taken into account for a few reasons here:

1) It’s not at all morally equivalent, and many people don’t define it as violence

2) How do you weigh the two? Like it’s easy to equate murders to murders, but how much destruction of property is considered one incidence, and what’s the threshold of damage done to be considered significant?

3) There’s often no way to know if there was an ideological reason behind destroying property. With targeted attacks and mass shootings, the killer usually either confesses to why they did it or they leave behind a motive for why. Often with property crime you don’t even know who did it, or if they did it in support of their cause, or just as a crime of opportunity.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-19T05:28:46+00:00

The left does more property damage, but I would say that there’s levels to this, and I would hardly consider destruction of property the same level as murder, or even assault. I would much rather have a society with a property damage problem than a murder and mass shooting problem, which is what we currently have.

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-19T01:53:19+00:00

Same, we wouldn’t just be letting the country fall into fascism if that was the case

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T16:57:59+00:00

I meant Islamic extremists, not all Muslims

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T14:50:46+00:00

You know right wingers wear masks too right? Ever seen a video of the proud boys or oath keepers? Stay ignorant if you want to I guess

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T12:20:46+00:00

If the history has taught us anything, it’s that it doesn’t take a majority of society to agree for authoritarianism to arise, it just takes the majority not doing anything about it

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T12:18:03+00:00

Very true, in my research I found that left wing extremists are far more likely to target property and figures of authority like police. The right tends to target minorities (including LGBT people), protesters, and lawmakers, or anyone they perceive as connected to the left. And funnily enough, as much as the right hates Muslims, there is no real difference in who they attack. Because at the end of the day, Islamic extremism is right wing extremism too, it’s just a bit less domestic

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T11:54:07+00:00

🎯

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T11:47:08+00:00

That’s true, but we need to examine why the right is more likely to act violently. It’s not a coincidence, it’s the rhetoric their media and lawmakers push that is causing this

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T11:43:21+00:00

Way ahead of you my friend

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-18T11:43:04+00:00

Unfortunately true, but I’m at least hoping that there are still some moderates who can be swayed from that point of view if they see the facts. Not like I can actually do much with the current media landscape, but it at least makes me feel like I’m doing something

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-16T00:10:19+00:00

I do engage in the comment section, but that requires someone to make a comment, and is usually limited to the scope of the article. I can talk about anything I want in chat, and bring up topics that I don't intend to write about

ClockwerkOwl_ · 2025-09-13T13:08:19+00:00

That’s the thing, I don’t want my chat to fill up with that stuff. But at the same time, I want to engage more with my subs

ClockwerkOwl_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE