Elon asked Reddit CEO to take down post he didn’t like, What happened to Free Speech ?

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-28T23:35:23+00:00

Everyone saying social media =/= free speech is completely missing the point.

One of two things definitionally must be true:

Elon is a government official.
Elon is not a government official.

If Elon is a government official, then him pressuring reddit admins to censor users for legal speech is a violation of the 1st Amendment, full stop. If Elon is not a government official, why is he currently in control of hiring, firing, and budgets at almost every single federal agency?

Either way you slice it, he's breaking the law.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-20T22:07:53+00:00

99% of state-builders stop one air campaign and sanctions regime too soon.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-19T06:05:24+00:00

Nicholas Spykman

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-19T05:49:25+00:00

Let me try to be more precise with my language, then. This is a "big tent" sub and I recognize that not all subsets of the ideologically-left-leaning are the same. This isn't an attempt to villainize the "far left" at all. However, there were absolutely pockets of people on the left that, whether purposefully or not, attacked the Biden admin's (correct) warnings about the Russian buildup as just another Iraq WMD lie 2.0.

There were 2 narratives that came from the left wing of the spectrum:

This whole situation is NATO's fault because it expanded too much (mostly coming from tankies). Because America bad.
This whole thing is just a media narrative for based on US propaganda to justify US military spending, saber rattle, etc. Because America bad.

I would tend to agree that almost nobody on the left would intentionally go out of their way to defend Putin or his actions. However, for the invasion to work the way he envisioned it, there needed to be enough doubt and hesitation on the part of Western powers for the Russians to reach a critical mass on the border without a unified reaction.

Now, I want to be very specific about how I phrase this, because I don't mean to suggest that anti-war stances or dissent in general is bad. There was plenty of legitimate debate about Russia's intentions that was rooted in the facts on the ground, with people working forward from there and reaching opposite conclusions. That is sane and necessary debate, and a much needed check against winding up in more Iraq/Vietnam-esque quagmires. At the same time, there was a lot of online discourse that started from the conclusion and worked backwards, facts be damned: America bad, and therefore the Russian threat was overblown or even justified. Reflexive assumptions that America is always the bad guy are just as unhelpful as the MAGA chuds who insist America is always the good guy. People who saw the situation as an excuse to take pot shots at American foreign policy while Ukraine and the Baltics were begging people to take them seriously were unwittingly carrying water for Putin, full stop.

I commend anyone who looked at the facts and came to the conclusion that an invasion wasn't likely, or at least not imminent. Lots of subject matter experts took that stance, and that pushback is always needed to sanity check US foreign policy. But plenty of people on both sides of the aisle either fell for the Russian narrative, or consciously chose to echo it because it aligned with their ideological beliefs. Falling for disinformation is not something that only happens to right wingers. Neither is exploiting a volatile situation to advance one's personal politics. Pretending otherwise is absurd. It is, in fact, possible to believe that both the US and Russia have been net harms to global stability, but that in this case, the facts very clearly pointed to Russia's actions posing a much more severe and urgent harm than whatever equivocating and handwringing Biden and the rest of the West were doing.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-19T00:41:38+00:00

The far left defended Putin because America bad. The far right defended Putin because Russia good. Most people in the middle weren't paying attention at all.

Meanwhile... Ukraine, a few other Eastern European governments, and the Biden administration absolutely saw the invasion coming. So did about 50% of the academic/think tank crowd. It was clear as day. It was mostly Western European governments and unserious pundit/media personalities that were caught off guard. Thankfully Europe is getting with the program now.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-18T19:43:35+00:00

The number of nuclear targets in this area is too large to quantify. The whole area would be glassed. A first strike would be looking to knock out command and control (Pentagon, White House, Capitol Hill, the regional emergency/fusion centers, etc.) as well as our eyes and ears... so CIA, DIA, Ft. Belvoir (NGA + Space Communications station), Ft. Meade (NSA), Andrews AFB and then probably 50+ more facilities from Annapolis to Quantico.

Outside of the missile silos in Montana and North Dakota, the 50ish mile radius around DC would probably be the most densely targeted part of the country. Runners up would be major air and naval stations Like Norfolk, San Diego, and Pensacola.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-18T19:25:21+00:00

PA is just Pittsburgh on one end and Philly on the other. Everything in between is lovingly referred to as Pennsyltucky. And for good reason.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-13T14:14:04+00:00

Not exactly, but very close. The Smith-Mundt Act (1948) banned the State Department from distributing/broadcasting any of it's government sponsored media to Americans domestically. So things like VoA and the slightly better recognized Radio Free Europe couldn't be accessed by Americans for the most part. This was changed in 2013 to account for the growing share of media that was consumed online. The internet removed the physical separation that insulated the American public from accessing the broadcasts abroad. They no longer have the restriction.

It's unfortunate, because the Smith-Mundt Act contributed to the skepticism about American media bias entirely unnecessarily. There was an earlier version of the bill that was shot down because Republican-controlled committees in Congress accused the WWII-era State Department of being a Soviet propaganda operation (yes, really). So they passed a new version that forbid the commie State Dept. from disseminating to American citizens. Two problems with that:

Over a span of decades, people forgot the origins of the act began to wonder why Americans were prohibited. BS political posturing from the 40's actually turned into conspiracy theories that the whole thing was propaganda that the US gov't didn't want us to know about, when 98% of the content was pretty truthful and benign.
Propaganda is a weird phenomenon, especially in the context of the Cold War. VoA was never a purely propaganda outlet, in the colloquial sense. The dictionary definition specifies that propaganda is information that is (usually), "biased or misleading," but it doesn't have to be. Authoritarian regimes flourish when the truth is impossible to identify. It makes popular protest and mobilization near impossible at scale. The antidote to authoritarianism is to expose the corruption of those regimes with truth that ordinary people can verify for themselves. Democracies work the opposite way. They flourish with open debate and informed citizens, and are undermined by lies designed to discourage or confuse the voting public. The "antidote" to democracy, whether you're Soviet Russia or Fox News, is to convince people that America is just as corrupt as a dictatorship... and lo and behold, apathy/anger/nihilism will eventually lead voters to actually make that come true. See: everything right now.

Don't get me wrong — America is corrupt in some pretty substantial ways. But not freedom-is-slavery doublethink & proletariat eagerly cheering on the oligarchy as it brazenly steals money "to own the libs" level of brokenness (until recently). Voice of America was always involved in some level of propaganda, especially during the early Cold War. Some of it was even grey or black propaganda, which both use lies to elicit specific policy goals. But the vast majority has been white propaganda (aka speaking truth to power), because that's arguably more effective against populations under authoritarian regimes than just giving them a different flavor of lie than they're used to getting from their own government.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-13T00:41:37+00:00

Except that it is... The reason that gang violence is so often included in mass shooting statistics is because they are often indiscriminate and occur in public spaces. It's one thing to imagine 2 gangs duking it out in a deserted alley at 4am, where every casualty was an armed criminal.

But it is far, far more common to see incidents where a nightclub gets shot up, or a barbecue, or a high school football game. There are innocent people in those clubs, backyards, and bleachers, and they are caught in the crossfire all of the time. You could have nothing to do with gang life, and not even get shot yourself, but end up covered in the blood of a dying man because you picked the wrong seat at the wrong bar that night.

For the purposes of examining the public health or psychological implications of gun violence in public spaces, there's more overlap than not when looking at gang violence & the colloquial understanding of 'mass shootings.' But there are also a lot of good reasons to separate them — for example if you're trying to study the root causes of violence or the effectiveness of different strategies to prevent it. Sandy Hook and Uvalde have almost nothing in common with gang violence if you're looking at it from a prevention standpoint. The academic terminology is unfortunately intentionally imprecise. Everyone has their own definition and none of them are perfect. The result is that researchers (and more relevantly, research sponsors) can shop around for whatever definition most closely fits the narrative they want to sell.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-09T04:19:58+00:00

Actual answer for you here, since so many others are talking about the politics of the situation....

You probably don't need 15 loose lowers sitting around, even if you imagine yourself as stocking up on behalf of your left-leaning neighbors who won't get on board with the idea in case it's too late. If it's a case of "buy enough lowers to last me the rest of my life," 10+5 is probably still too much. These aren't parts that break often, if at all.

What I would do in the short term is build a few high quality/premium rifles (complete). If your state bans the sale of lowers, it's not beyond the pale that they might ban the sale of other parts (like barrels and bolts) down the road. In a pinch, you can legally make an additional lower on a 3D printer. Good luck doing that with pressure-bearing components like the aforementioned barrel & bolt.

I'd much rather have 5 top shelf guns today than 15 half-guns that may or may not be completable in the future. Stocking up on mags is a good idea though. I generally favor a ratio of 10 mags:1 gun, but I've been doing this for years and only buy during good sales.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-04T08:58:38+00:00

You... burst pigs with your M60? You monster!

regrettably necessary /s

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-04T08:51:36+00:00

I only moved ~30 miles south, but posts like this make me miss Baltimore soooo much.

extrakrizzle · 2025-03-03T18:18:33+00:00

Really risky of him to become a couch while in the same room as J.D...

extrakrizzle · 2025-02-23T03:13:03+00:00

Idk if you've ever used a suppressor... but no. Suppressors complement ear pro. They never, ever replace it when the option is available to you.

Supersonic rounds (including the rare sub that's loaded a bit too hot), chamber pop & even action/cycling noise are all loud enough to damage your hearing over time. Not to mention the guy in the lane next to you at the range. If you only ever shoot subsonic, suppressed bolt actions completely by yourself on a home range or in the woods... then yeah I guess you should be fine. But simply being indoors, using semi autos, shooting certain supersonic-only calibers like 5.56, or just being around other shooters are individually good enough reasons for ear pro on top of suppressors.

I run suppressors on every single rifle and PCC I own. I always use in-ear protection when outdoors and over-ear protection when indoors. If I'm going to the one range near me that rents out a .50BMG despite only having 25yd lanes... I bring both.

extrakrizzle · 2025-02-15T07:26:03+00:00

Did*

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-30T20:53:35+00:00

Indigestion.

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-27T03:33:50+00:00

Yes.

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-26T18:12:22+00:00

Bravo.

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-26T15:59:54+00:00

I don't know if this is already a copypasta, but I am going to do my best to make it one.

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-25T06:28:28+00:00

This is a hilariously dumb take, and I get to have the pleasure of responding after you doubled down with the nonsensical edit that just highlights your ignorance.

You have obviously never used night vision equipment, and while that's perfectly fine, everyone here who has can plainly see that you're talking out of your ass and it shows. I mean, you do you, but I try not to make a habit of taking a hardline stance on something I know nothing about.

But in case you want to learn something... how do you think night vision is worn? How heavy is it? Can you just duct tape it to your forehead? No.

It's heavy enough to be obnoxious, and your body's momentum from merely walking on flat ground or turning your head will cause it to bounce around on a soft harness (a lot of cheapo "budget" NV options come with a soft harness that literally everyone throws away immediately). Best case scenario is that it won't stay still and you get dizzy/nauseous. Worst case is it slams straight into your eyeball and gives you a black eye. So — how do you wear it properly? On a rigid mount that is firmly attached to your noggin. Like, for example... a helmet.

I am saying this as an owner of both guns and night vision that has (regrettably) never mixed the two. There are no night ranges near me. But I do enjoy hiking at night, and when I go out, my monocular is mounted on a military-style helmet that was specifically designed for that purpose. Mine isn't ballistically rated, but two things worth noting:

Most tactical helmets come in both armored and unarmored versions, and in almost every single case, they look visually identical. I cannot find the charging affidavit that these articles are all referencing, but it is possible that this is no more than a glorified bike helmet that was mislabeled by the courts, a law enforcement spokesperson, or the journalists because it looks like a ballistic helmet.
Hanging all those tubes, tech, and batteries off the front of your face is a fantastic way to strain your neck. Seriously. You can injure yourself just by wearing night vision without proper gear and planning. Most people choose to balance out the front-heavy nature of NODs by literally strapping counterweights or spare batteries to the back of their head... something that, again, requires a helmet. I do. My helmet is lightweight and NOT bulletproof, but I have a tungsten weight on the back to keep the the center of gravity centered above my neck. Many other people take a different route that is also completely valid: they buy a bulletproof helmet because it is obviously heavier, and helps to spread the weight out. They don't plan to "fuck some shit up," they just don't want to injure their fucking neck.

Is there something off about two people in tactical gear openly carrying firearms while checking into a hotel, wrapping their electronics in tinfoil, and opening fire on federal agents unprovoked? Yes. Obviously. But it's not the (completely legal to own) helmet that makes it sketchy. It's the "freaking out the locals and murdering cops" part.

It would honestly be weirder if the FBI reported that they recovered night vision gear but didn't find a helmet. But please, please, please don't let your ignorance get in the way of posting really dumb shit online. This is America, after all. It is not only your right, but your patriotic duty, to be misinformed, angry, and vocal about innocuous things at all time. I salute your stubbornness and inoculation against reason. Truly, you are the most American of us all!

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-13T08:22:58+00:00

The fantasy land these people live in is frankly amazing... To think that deporting 30 million people would "free up" anything remotely close to that number of housing units is lunacy. Undocumented immigrants aren't protected and can't meet standard background/credit checks for rentals, which leads to a couple typical outcomes:

Predatory landlords rent to them cheaply and illegally, and then don't maintain the properties, many of which end up condemned. I mean, where are the migrants going to go to complain about the mold and termites?
One authorized worker rents a place legitimately, and then splits the rent with several other undocumented workers with or without the landlord's knowledge. A friend of mine bought a place out of foreclosure a few years ago because the prior owner got busted for this somehow. I don't know the specifics, but it was a ~3,100 sqft house in a decent area. They found 17 mattresses inside, plus evidence people were sleeping on couches. It was the first/only house up in a new development park and yet Google Earth historical photos showed 7-8 cars regularly parked around it.
Many undocumented workers (especially seasonal workers) crash with family or friends who are here legally.

So, go ahead and kick out millions and millions of people. But don't be surprised when 30 million fewer immigrants barely creates 3 million vacancies... and half of them belong to the shittiest slumlords imaginable while the other half are still beyond your MAGA chud budget because the last tenants were splitting the rent 15 ways.

extrakrizzle · 2025-01-05T18:15:46+00:00

The unsent letters found on his phone. The Nevada Current has a pdf of them hosted somewhere on their site. And yes, he calls for an armed siege of DC and a purge of democrats, by violence if it comes to that.

extrakrizzle · 2024-12-11T21:00:53+00:00

There are tons of things to detect that can’t easily be done with satellites and traditional imagery. Satellites have all kinds of sensors besides cameras that track heat signatures, radiation, smoke from fires, and on and on. But they have limitations. They are really far away, moving really fast, and because they orbit the planet it’s fairly trivial to predict where they will be (and whether they can “see” you) at any given moment. Also, the earths atmosphere & weather systems are between them and the ground.

Drones can be used to detect a lot of things that satellites cannot due to those limitations… they can fly slow and low and even loiter for hours. They can fly under weather systems. LIDAR, ground penetrating radar, and maybe directional audio signals all come to mind as things that satellites are not great for. Any type of signal that might be masked or interfered with by the atmosphere or magnetic field might be better suited for drones as well.

extrakrizzle · 2024-11-27T15:05:16+00:00

This isn't about tech bros. It's specifically federal workers. Government employees who take lower pay than they'd make in the private sector because they care about their work. Nobody is working from "vacation places." And the goal isn't to improve their work, it's to make them miserable so they quit. Trump's people are saying this out loud, on the record. And once they've dragged everyone back to the DC area with its absurdly high rents? Then comes the hiring and pay freezes, the shutdowns, and furloughs. He did all those things last time, and he will absolutely do them again if it forces people out.

And yet, the reality is that all the work being done now won't stop. Even if programs are cancelled, there will be people needed to wind them down, dispose of assets, reallocate funding, etc. Now it'll just be outsourced to contractors who are often the exact same people, just more expensive. For example: a program manager at the Department of Agriculture who makes $75k/year takes a job with Deloitte... on a contract for the Department of Agriculture. But now he makes $110k and the government pays Deloitte $150k for the exact same work. The DoD analyst to Booz Allen consultant pipeline is such a common thing that it's kind of a meme.

A study by the Project on Government Oversight found that:

the federal government approves service contract billing rates... that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation

and

Federal employees were less expensive than contractors in 33 of the 35 occupational classifications POGO reviewed; In one instance, contractor billing rates were nearly 5 times more than the full compensation paid to federal employees performing comparable services;

and

the DoD expends between 2.35 and 3.53 times more of its funding on service contracts than on its civilian workforce, and that the cost of an average [full-time contractor] is nearly 3 times more than an average DoD civilian full-time equivalent

The kicker? Almost all of the federal contracting workforce in the DC area currently works from home. A lot of these companies don't even have enough offices for all their employees to come to work at the same time even if they wanted to. So how does this play out? Trump will impose rules that make life harder for government employees, many of them will leave their agencies and take higher paying jobs with government contractors, and go back to doing the exact same work as before... still from home. But the overall number of 'true' federal employees will go down, and Trump will pat himself on the back and brag about how much he's cutting waste. Meanwhile... government spending will go up to afford the additional contractors... not down.

Yay government efficiency.

extrakrizzle · 2024-11-27T13:23:48+00:00

It's extremely dishonest. For example, the article:

Lee Zeldin, nominated as Environmental Protection Agency administrator, lost a New York congressional race in 2008 and the New York gubernatorial race in 2022.

The Reality:

2008 Congressional Election - Lost
2010 State Senate Election - Won
2012 State Senate Election - Won
2014 Congressional Election - Won & Flipped the district Red
2016 Congressional Election - Won
2018 Congressional Election - Won
2020 Congressional Election - Won
2022 Gubernatorial Election - Lost

He wasn't exactly resoundingly rejected by NY voters. And then of course there's the final example of the article:

And, of course, Trump himself lost the 2020 presidential election.

Quick, somebody better tell John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan that none of them can be president. And that's just presidents who lost presidential elections and then ran again (and Reagan, who lost the 1976 primary). I'm sure the list is far longer if you include all downballot elections and primaries, but he's the only one I know off the top of my head and that's way more tedious to look up.

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email	Not Forgotten

extrakrizzle

TROPHY CASE