I hope we’re wrong!

It’s too bad that officer didn’t pick her up, carry her, and body slam her onto the pavement like her goons did to Kat Abughazaleh.

Fuck Kristi Noem!

Thank you, and I agree. I appreciate this post and your take.

Yeah, I figure it’s part of intimidation and scouting. It just makes me want to resist even more and it’s training me to hate the military. I have a military family covering every branch of service and I just want to disown them all for not speaking up or doing anything to counter narratives.

I’m still committing it by being liberal minded and having diverse neighbors (Asian, Pacific Islander, Indian, Iraqi, Black, Polish, Latino/a) on my street.

People are still shoplifting on occasion and speeding or blowing red lights (and the stop sign at the end of my street).

So, no.

I live in the Chicago area (close to the city, but not the city itself) and ever since August 16 or so (when the Air and Water Show was), I’ve heard helicopters hovering or flying over multiple times daily. I’ve lived in my house for almost 10 years and never heard a helicopter during that time until now.

I didn’t until you just wrote it, Kenny! Here in America it was MXC (Most Extreme Elimination Challenge).

I honestly don’t understand how to “do” crypto. Here’s my brain’s interpretation and questions. You will probably see why I, and many others, don’t use it or dabble in it:

It’s got to be mined to obtain (power hog and time)

You can buy it but it is traded like stock which may inflate it to be more expensive to obtain

Who really owns or has responsibility over what you purchase when it comes to the cryptocurrency?

Where is it “stored” (locally, on a cloud somewhere)?

What coin type do you choose and how do you know it’s safe?

Do you just make your own coin and use a program that does everything needed to package it as “money”?

How does someone verify that you actually have the money behind the coin(s)?

You know what? I latched onto a single thing and misinterpreted what was being said.

You’re absolutely right. This is about the first amendment and the context is very different. I’m sorry.

Let’s definitely put the pressure where it’s deserved—this shit, weaponized administration.

I’m not trying to turn this into cancel culture at all.

I reread the original post I replied to and what I said. I still think the example I brought up is an example of retroactive thought crimes, but I understand your point and where you’re coming from. I think I took the original comment wrong so I’ll just end it here.

I’m sorry. You’re right. This thread is and should be about the bullshit the administration is doing.

You’re spot on and thank you for your analysis here.

I am asking you to define retroactive thought crime, not what is justifiable. That’s a different argument and my point was that cancellation of some people is a punishment using retroactive thought crime based on what I understand the definition to be.

Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not. Both are persecution of retroactive thought crimes. It’s just one is a justifiable case (cancellation of celebs) and another is not (pride flag).

If you still disagree then how else do you exactly define a retroactive thought crime?

Fine, let’s go with James Gunn and his firing by Disney because of past Twitter comments. James was quick to explain, publicly, that he had stupid past decisions and doesn’t stand by them anymore as he has grown as a person. It took that as well as others advocating for him for Disney to consider bringing him back. It wouldn’t have happened without the people advocating for him who know him.

I understand your point and agree. I am asking how that is not punishing someone using retroactive thought crime. I’m asking you, how is it defined if you think that example isn’t an example? At literal translation, it defines it perfectly whether you agree with who or what it happened to or not.

Trump is labeling half the US as “others” and getting nastier in messaging instead of referring to us as fellow Americans. They’re all normalizing this through repetition so that when they do come for us, no one bats an eye.

I completely agree with you on this case. Especially since it was allowed at the time by that administration and if they aren’t showing it now because of this administration then why are we doing this except to purge Democrat.

Now, here’s the part where I get downvoted because people won’t want to acknowledge this:

You said retroactive thought crime is a big no no, but many cancellations of recent past (last 5-7 years at least) have been what you would label “retroactive thought crimes”. When someone pulls Twitter posts or quotes of people from their past and use it as justification for cancelling them then that is exactly what a retroactive thought crime is.

One of two things may be true here. First, they still believe what they said and thus we should hold them accountable for not growing and hurting others. Second, they said that stuff and forgot about it but have changed their opinion and truly regret it. They should be given a chance to explain their position either way. Chances are we can tell if they’re sincere based on how they’ve been acting or talking over time.

If I’m being honest, I am guilty of judging others for their past without further finding out if they have actually changed or not. I fully own that.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position on this.

My feeling is that while, yes, there is an echo chamber here, it’s important to have these posted to see what is being said. I’m sure there are many people that haven’t read this or understand what is going on because the right does not share this, will undercut it, or cut it to propagandize their echo chambers. Others share them with other social feeds to have discussions or raise awareness.

There will always be bias in anything you read. Sometimes the bias is stronger and, yes, this is meant to rile up the left. The Daily Beast is a strong left bias, but are they wrong? This man and his words alongside his position of power is unhinged and dangerous. We need people to be aware and get angry. People need to be uncomfortable so that they act, in some way, to help fight back. Not all Conservatives are devoid of thought and empathy and perhaps even seeing this will get them to stop and think. Many won’t, but you need to start getting the ones that can change to change.

I had to look it up, but she apparently couldn’t hear his speech at all because of bad acoustics and sound or something. That’s what Harbour’s take was.

Then why did you feel compelled to post that response like it was a disgusting burden? You even said you needed to add more words to your block list. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but when one feels the need to block something then it usually means they are offended by it.

Out of curiosity, what is so offensive to you about this article?