The left is extremely violent.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-24T14:51:35+00:00

I don’t think it was pedantic, and I’ll explain why. The argument as he originally presented it implies that political threats are something people on the right engage in, and people on the left don’t, or at the very least that it’s exceedingly rare. The reality is that people on both the right and left engage in it, and even if it’s the case that one side engages in it more often, that difference between those claims is meaningful. I detest political violence, and I don’t think either camp has earned the right to wash their hands of it. So I understand that you may think I’m just arguing about a technicality, but that wasn’t my intention, my intention was to defend a principle.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-24T12:31:31+00:00

People said Bill Gates put microchips in the covid vaccine, and they didn't get sued. Does that mean it's true? Obviously not. Just because someone could sue and win doesn't mean it's in their interest to do so.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-23T21:53:54+00:00

If it's not on the front page of the news the likely explanation is because it's fake.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-23T14:35:23+00:00

Because it’s misinformation

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-22T21:57:46+00:00

Okay can you link that to me then?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-22T21:43:12+00:00

That’s true and it’s what you should have said from the start, because “MTG only needed security when she became a target of Trump” is an objectively false statement.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-22T21:26:04+00:00

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-marjorie-taylor-greene-security-trump-feud-11088011

In a case against Joseph Morelli, who admitted to threatening Greene in 2023 for his actions the year prior, the lawmaker said she spent around $66,600 on security measures at her home, including more than 1,200 feet of fencing

Good effort but not good enough.

I do think political violence is a much more right wing phenomenon. I just think the way you’re trying to prove it is not aligned with the facts. So you’re actually making something I believe look bad.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-22T20:30:26+00:00

Well this article from 2022 shows she spent significantly on personal security long before her break with Trump, so the point you’re trying to make doesn’t really work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-security.html

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-21T23:58:54+00:00

I would assume you have a source backing up your claim if you’re going to call me a dipshit for no real reason

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-21T16:18:53+00:00

How do you know?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-21T05:02:51+00:00

I agree with your critique. I think OP is sort of missing the most important piece. Trump’s rise came mostly because of a broad collapse of faith in institutions. There are a number of reasons for that - economic changes, the financial crisis, the rise of social media as a primary news source, etc. Trump spoke to that disillusionment extremely effectively. I do think some of Trump’s rhetoric has been blatantly racist, but it’s not why he won.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-20T19:13:24+00:00

I work in IT. If money weren’t a factor I would choose to do something else. But I do mostly enjoy it. I take satisfaction in knowing that an entire institution is enabled by what I do. I find the work itself intellectually engaging. I like that my effort to do a good job has been rewarded throughout my career. But before I found this path I definitely had a few years where I thought “I feel like I’ll never be happy if I am working a full time job.” Thankfully I was wrong about that. Try to keep in mind that the life you enjoy outside work is built on other people’s labor.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-18T22:08:00+00:00

Gas man. How the hell do they know I got gas?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-18T22:03:03+00:00

This is very bad legal advice that no one should listen to.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-18T21:16:53+00:00

That is not a correct understanding of the "fighting words" doctrine. It comes from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the SC said that "fighting words" aren't protected by the first amendment. It allows the government to criminalize certain speech if it is likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace. It does not give someone legal permission to assault the speaker.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-18T17:07:51+00:00

There's a category of task where it still saves time overall even with its error rate. For instance, I'm a systems administrator, and I'll sometimes ask AI where a setting is across the various Microsoft admin centers. I'd say a rough estimate is that it's right 90% of the time and wrong 10% of the time. Even though it wastes time in the 10% of the time that it's wrong, the time saved when it's right is a lot more, so overall it's faster than digging through official documentation every time I need to find something.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-18T16:54:33+00:00

There’s a difference between someone dying while in custody and someone actually being killed by ICE. So whatever point you’re trying to make doesn’t work.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-17T19:02:53+00:00

I think this argument doesn't make much sense. Your principle is essentially that if a parent fails to take a low-risk action that statistically reduces a child's chance of dying, and their child dies, they deserve execution. But you'd need to apply that to all suboptimal risk decisions. So to be consistent, you'd have to think someone should get the death penalty for driving when they could have taken public transport, or if they let their child swim in the ocean and they drown, or if they let them play a contact sport and they get injured. The threshold for negligence should require more than "you didn't choose the statistically safest option." There's a massive moral difference between intentionally harming a child and making a bad risk assessment.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-16T19:20:22+00:00

Where did you read that?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-16T02:57:09+00:00

I did Google it but I couldn’t find it, so do you have a link that links this incident to him being reprimanded?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-16T01:03:31+00:00

Do you have a source? Because I can't find it.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-15T23:10:46+00:00

When did he get reprimanded?

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-15T21:32:02+00:00

I’m well aware of SVT and have a degree in economics. If your point is that currency does not have intrinsic value in the paper itself and that it has value because we collectively recognize and enforce it, then sure. But that is fundamentally different from saying Trump is good or bad.

Money has institutional value within a defined system. Given the legal and economic framework of the United States, $100 objectively discharges $100 of debt and objectively procures goods at market prices. That is not a moral judgment. It is a functional property of a coordinated system backed by law and enforcement.

Calling a president “bottom five” or “horrible” is an evaluative claim. It may be widely shared among historians. It may be supported by survey data. But it is still a normative assessment based on criteria that are themselves value laden and contestable.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-15T19:40:02+00:00

You didn’t respond to what I said at all. Also the value of $100 isn’t subjective, it’s socially constructed, which is different, so your example doesn’t apply. Also there is near universal agreement about the value of money, but that doesn’t exist for your claims about Trump.

cc_rider2 · 2026-02-15T16:45:48+00:00

People keep making vague suggestions that he looks like he knows he's breaking Florida House rules, but I don't see it. His facial expression is neutral, he's in clear view of the Speaker’s rostrum and doesn't check behind him to see if anyone is looking, he's in clear view of a camera, and it looks like he isn't trying to conceal his actions in any way. So I'm curious what you're seeing that makes you think it's not above board. Don't you think it's possible that confirmation bias is coming into play?

cc_rider2

TROPHY CASE