This implies that how we react to this will have any bearing whatsoever on how the right will treat us. It won't. They will be as mean to us as they can physically manage, regardless of how we act, because they hate us.

You Go High, We Go Low.

I think we’re looking at a future where Google ensures we don’t ever have to worry about making such a choice.

Honestly? Considering how little the police actually do to help anyone, versus the huge amount of harm they cause, I'm not entirely convinced that "Get rid of all police" wouldn't be a good idea, even if they got replaced with basically nothing. And I've seen a lot of leftists who felt similarly. So "those on the other side" aren't entirely wrong; they just don't understand how incredibly bad police are.

This doesn't mean we should replace the police with literally nothing — obviously things investing in social services and crisis intervention would be great. It's just that I find it hard to do worse than what currently exists.

I've no love lost for the developers in question. But between the original two PRs and associated comments being from over three years ago, and the "trans woman [being called] 'spam" comment being said about a PR that seems pretty strongly to me to be meant as a sarcastic insult rather than a genuine contribution, I can't help but find it a little unconvincing.

It's not without merit by far. I feel that Kling's blog post not addressing the drama was in poor taste and may indicate a lack of self-improvement regarding the initial fuckup, and saying you want to "avoid alienating people" when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic. I also understand not wanting bigots to be able to just bury their past and pretend they were never bigoted. It's just that the fiery response this has gotten still ends up feeling a bit disproportionate given how old the truly insulting issues were. Am I missing something?

I… can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

Not to mention the obscene fees with using it. Crypto is rife with issues.

stopping supporting anti hamas actions won’t stop the war… it will just lead to more innocent people dying

If you think more innocent people will die if Israel stops bombing Gaza into dust, then you haven't been paying attention to what's happening to Palestinians.

Everything Hamas has done, terrible as it is, pales in comparison to the tragedy and horror inflicted by the IDF.

This really doesn’t make Brave look any better though, seeing as it has its own version of “privacy-focused” attention-monetization schemes (Basic Attention Tokens) and its own fair share of controversies. Not to mention being Chromium under the hood and being developed by a company headed by Brandon Eich of all people — a massive homophobe.

None of which make Firefox impeccable or ever did. But all of which made Brave decidedly worse to me, including after this all happened.

Honestly, it still amazes me that this never got successfully ripped and emulated. I've heard that it's because there isn't a reliable PS4 emulator, but frankly that surprises me as well. I'd think that the sheer popularity of this game alone would encourage one to be made pretty heavily, especially since this game looks to be on track to becoming lost media otherwise.

Probably not very stupid at all. Spear phishing is by definition targeted to specific people or groups, and so can be more successful in the end. More to the point, though, is that nobody has their guard up 24/7, and people make mistakes. That's not stupidity.

Estimates of Palestinian deaths have long since exceeded tens of thousands. How you can believe that the October attacks could possibly have exceeded that is beyond me.

But you've already made up your mind. I don't even know why you're here.

If you're so worried about Trump being elected, maybe you should push for Harris to adopt better policy so people are more comfortable voting for her, rather than shaming people for not wanting to vote for the lesser of two genocides.

On the presidential ticket for 2024, yes, harm reduction is the only option. But I don't have to like it, and it's not gonna mean that I'm not going to criticize and protest the genocide she enables.

There's more to politics than just voting in an undemocratic system.

And folks wonder why I'm not optimistic for a Harris admin.

I can't understand how anyone could see a vote for her as anything other than harm reduction.

I agree, but this is still a good opportunity to interrogate our assumptions about this, and particularly to listen to folks born out of wedlock to check if those assumptions are at all accurate to their experiences.

Equal representation's good, and I never liked this mechanic to begin with. Works for me!

I still won't buy it, but that's because it lacks T.J. Rotolo, not anything to do with this.

I genuinely think now you’re a paid lobbyist. There is so much evidence

Look, I get you strongly disagree with them, but please don't fall into the trap of thinking people who disagree strongly with you aren't real.

Anti-capitalists have many, many issues with the Biden admin and Democrats generally, for a whole host of reasons. It doesn't mean we want Trump to win, think he's equally as bad, or want you to not vote. And it most certainly doesn't make us paid shills. It just means we want better, and we are often frustrated at how "better" is never an option.

I can't speak for what Flash Mob's beliefs are directly, but I can absolutely say I've been in a similar position. It is beyond aggravating to have no options that actually represent your beliefs, but to nonetheless have so many people around you insist that you should be happy about one of the awful options because the candidate in question – who is doing the things you hate – sometimes pays lip service to what you actually wanted. Or because it's a woman doing it, now. Or, most frequently, because the Republicans managed to dig to an even deeper circle of Hell this time.

Our options are terrible, and we're pissed about it. But it doesn't make us not real. All that accusations like that do is prevent people from being understood.

I'm not who you were replying to, but:

It's not so much that Trump and Kamala are the same. They aren't, obviously – and for the record, the video agrees – it's more that the Democrats here don't really fix anything the Republicans break. Sure, Kamala is pro-abortion, et cetera, but how certain can I be that she'll actually act on the principles she espouses? If the Biden admin is anything to go by, I can expect the occasional half-measure at best. Meanwhile, there are solid odds that she will continue to fund or otherwise enable the genocide in Gaza, at least tacitly.

I'm going to vote for her, but not because she's going to help me or anyone I care about. I'm voting for her because it is harm reduction; Kamala may be a neoliberal pro-cop warmonger, but the alternative is neo-Hitler. As far as presidential tickets go, I don't have much of a choice, here.

With you here. The title made it sound like a lot more than it actually was.

Hang on, why do we care what Trump says? We already know he’s full of shit, why give him even more exposure?

It is absolutely a reasonable interpretation to assume you were referring to the people making the decision you didn't like. And even if it wasn't, calling an idea a group of people have "incredibly fucking stupid" isn't much different, as it carries an implication of how you see those people.

If you feel other people are getting offended too easily at what you say, I recommend spending extra time on your posts to ensure you avoid saying derogatory things you don't intend for. Something that looks good to you can be incredibly insulting to others who read differently from you, and since conversation is a two-way street, that's the kind of thing we all need to be aware of.

In many ways I find it refreshing how little there is to be said about the shooter. No manifesto, low social media presence — the guy just didn't have that much to dig up. I shudder to think how endlessly he would be getting discussed day after day if he had left a pile of opinions behind, and I am very glad we avoided that.

News orgs, though? Man, they are frustrated. The most they have to work off of is which party he was registered to, plus hearsay and gossip of people who knew him at one point or another. Shit like that is just trying to capitalize on a dramatic event for clicks when absolutely nothing of substance is available. It's vapor. Meaningless.

Assassination attempt aside, I could hardly be happier that the shooter – whoever he was – did not leave behind rhetorical carrion for the vultures. Site after site is clawing at the dirt, trying to force me to care about something that I really don't need or want to care about, and for once, they have nothing to do it with. Good. I have far more important things to worry about.

This is something I occasionally hear and keep not understanding, and it makes me wonder if the word "tankie" is being thrown around a bit fast and loose. Last time I heard this, the reasoning referenced a Vaush video, which is... less than convincing.

My working definition of "tankie" would be someone who unironically full-on likes China*, which is not a take I've ever known J.T. to have. Do you use a different definition than me, or do you have specific things you're upset about?

^*^ ^Bear^ ^in^ ^mind^ ^I^ ^mean^ ^"likes^ ^China"^ ^here,^ ^not^ ^"thinks^ ^China^ ^and^ ^the^ ^U.S.^ ^are^ ^equally^ ^bad."^

I’m saying that if you think you said “that is a stupid position to take and here is why,” you missed the mark severely, and you should be more careful with your phrasing if you don’t want people to get upset at you in future. It’s not about people “willingly” misinterpreting anything — whether you realized it or not, what you said wasn’t the level-headed response you may have intended it to be.

I think you're viewing the issue from a strategic lens, whereas this article is looking at it from a moral one. Obviously, we can't expect a state to be even-handed with its application of violence for the very reasons you state here. But obviously... that doesn't make it okay.

In short, I don't think you're actually disagreeing with the article at all.

I'd argue the road to fascism started a hell of a lot sooner than 2016. Capitalism in decay, and all that.

Why is someone's reluctance to vote for your preferred candidate more upsetting to you than said candidate's choice to platform genocide?

Worth remembering that many responses in politics are made impulsively due to frustration, and angry, impulsive arguments tend not to be well-researched. We're all tense, here — it's hard not to be, these days.

Unfortunately, I don't think voting is going to be what changes any of this, sadly. At least, not on a federal level.

That, and I don't think I want to see the Libertarians win either, if I'm honest.

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this article, and in addition the comments you've been making here on top have also been of great quality besides. Thanks you for posting this!

So if leftists really cared about Gaza, they'd... not protest the party currently in power? The one selling the bombs?

Because I don't think you genuinely believe any leftist, tankie or otherwise, actually likes Trump. I think you just don't like it when they protest Biden or Harris.

So people need to vehemently denounce Trump once per hour or else they must obviously be siding with him...?

Seriously though, isn't it obvious? If you expect Trump to be terrible, why would you fly into a rage when he meets that expectation? By contrast, Biden is expected to be better than this, and yet isn't.

Pressure is applied where it is most effective. That is not and will never be anyone from the Republican party, because they openly and obviously do not give a fuck about any of us.

^(edited^ ^for^ ^kinder^ ^tone)^

And why's that on us? Why is it our job to toe a party line when said line means killing people en masse?

It's supposed to be their job to represent us, not our job to kiss their asses. Stop letting the DNC use Trump as an excuse to do whatever they want; if they want to be more electable, maybe it's on them to adopt a better platform.

I'm no expert in video editing and have only done it scarcely, but I do still want to plug Kdenlive for those interested in a FOSS alternative to Resolve. I don't know how it stacks up by comparison, and I suspect it probably can't do quite as much, but it's still a well-made piece of software that's been easy for me to use and more than capable of pulling off anything I've needed.

This was always my biggest concern about voting Democrat in the coming election. I've since been convinced I should regardless – a realization of how little impact focusing on the presidency actually has was what changed my mind – but I could've been swayed far sooner if someone had provided me with a more reliable way to keep the DNC accountable back then.

To me, the Democrat party is failure by any standard bar the low one of "better than Republicans," and that's pathetic. I can't be excited for any candidate they field unless I can be given good reason to finally trust them. And considering their sordid history, that's gonna take a lot.

You're coming out here arguing in favor of a megacorporation keeping even more money for itself instead of artists getting paid for their work. I feel like you should have expected to have upset people.

The core problem is that there are so many things that can help prevent the problems from arising to begin with that need to be done before policing is even considered. Better healthcare, housing, education, etc. Police are, at best, a last resort solution to desperate cases, and they tend to be hammers looking for nails as a result. It might be possible to do it well, yes, but it's very hard, and you should really be looking for a less antagonistic solution first.

To take your idea of "speeding at 100+" as an example: This could be solved by replacing cars with public transport, such that people don't really have so many opportunities to go 100+ to begin with, or by using traffic calming techniques to make it feel too unsafe for anyone to want to try, or using alternative road layouts to make it significantly harder to pull off at all (e.g. roundabouts). There are many options, almost all of which are better – and less punitive – than the police.

Also, tangential, but...

crisis councilors aren’t going to be driving trying to perform a PIT maneuver.

Of course not; PIT maneuvers would kill people.

I really don't think these are the same group of people. From the article:

The strike was ignored in some areas, reflecting deep political divisions in Israel after nearly 11 months of fighting.

Those are the people you're thinking of, and they aren't striking.

Late response (sorry!) but wanted to let you know that I appreciated the comment and details. Personally, this doesn't convince me he's a tankie, but that's largely because I'm not familiar enough with Hakeem to know he's a tankie, nor do I know what video you were referring to. Which is not to say you're outright wrong — just that I would want to see more specifics to change my opinion, is all. All the same, I appreciate the effort and am happy to better understand your position.

I do somewhat agree with your definition of a tankie, for what it's worth. I don't think saying the GOP and DNC are both bad is necessarily tankie behavior, but the rest makes sense. This said, I've personally seen extremely little defense of Russia from any far-left discourse, including communities close to Second Thought, and from what I hear from those communities China is still very divisive. You've clearly encountered worse though, and my experiences are limited, so take them for what you will.

I saw that one. It's what I was referring to when I said "saying you want to 'avoid alienating people' when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic." Criticizing the maintainer response there was one of the good parts of the blog post.

But the outcome of that doesn't really much change the fact that the sarcastic PR was sarcastic, and thus calling that PR spam is reasonable, whereas claiming they called the trans woman herself spam is not. To be clear, however: I've no issue with the sarcastic PR itself, only the framing of it in the blog post.