nanana

what?¿? I knew about the smoke coming out of the Vatican but not the testicle fondling part… any references?

upon further reflection, which seemed worth it given the less-than-charitable response, I illustrate that my initial point had nothing do with inflation CAUSES, but instead with the EXPERIENCE of losing purchasing power. this might have been picked up on by anyone who has empathy for folks who lose 20% or greater purchasing power, but probably not picked up by anyone who is focused on defending the reputation of a politician. it is certainly a great topic (not my focus) to expand the conversation to the causes of inflation, and I would happily concede that I fell into the bad habit of Americans since the Reagan era (Reagonomics yes, but not Carteromics) to attribute all economic performance to a sitting President. it's wonderful to practice coexistence by having AND conversations rather than BUT or EITHER/OR conversations. @Rillionperhaps next time you are triggered to MadLib a choice architecture for my character for me (and all others on this thread), perhaps you will breathe, take a beat, and consider whether the initial point and your adrenillated points might be COMPATIBLE rather than OPPOSITIONAL. Peace and joy, NaNaNa

I think you have a more thorough and more accurate description @Rillion. I agree that the uniparty passed bills in both the Trump 45 and Biden administrations that jacked up the money supply and debt, which has a cumulative effect over multiple institutions’ and administrations’ decisions. While I think your underlying analysis is good, I found the Biden administration particularly tone deaf in acknowledging the effects of inflation on the public and particularly willing to attribute it to things like the Putin Price Hike and claim victory over inflation when people were still suffering. As to whether I’m a fucking idiot, a liar, a partisan troll, or a liar, I leave that question for each to answer as they will.

I love the link about propaganda Viking8x6, but like insatiableholeinTO am a bit confused by how you assess the truth value. Your methodology for assessing some of the things I wrote seemed to be about turning to wikipedia for the truth. Last time I was suspended, you offered to be a bit more transparent about what authorities you turn to when you either lack domain knowledge or alternatively wish to provide a citation. Are you now saying that the US government website is not an authoritative source? Any additional transparency would be appreciated.

UGH, seems that the prior standard already prohibited transmission of obscene content if there is proof of "abusing, threatening, or harassing a person" per the article. to be fair (may not be a popular view here), i'd imagine that it is pretty difficult for parents to control what underage children see. Still, don't adults clearly have the right to do what they want unless it harms others?

Things move so quickly. Here's the joint statement about US China economic negotiations from the Chinese ([think before following links] https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202505/12/content_WS6821a0bbc6d0868f4e8f2792.html) and White House ([think before following links] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/joint-statement-on-u-s-china-economic-and-trade-meeting-in-geneva/) Interestingly enough, the New Arab is reporting that Pakistan's "win" in the ceasefire with India sent Chinese military stocks much higher, given that they showcased China's superiority in military technology for the money compared to India's US, French, and Israeli suppliers: [think before following links] https://www.newarab.com/news/pakistans-use-chinese-weapons-against-india-gamechanger I had never heard of the New Arab, but it looks to have been started as a left-of-center counterweight to Al Jazeera: [think before following links] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-arab/

Hi Guys, @tallslenderguy wrote, and I really like this idea that comedians can help partisans see that the other side is human too: @BootmanLA had a nice insight (that I generally agree with) when he wrote: The traditional fool who worked for the king was often the only one allowed to make fun of the king's bad decisions. I have a slightly different view of great comedy, related to both of these, but my favorite comedians are generally those who hold up the mirror to point out hidden truths, which can sometimes be painful but are often able to give voice to things that have gone unacknowledged for too long and are festering. This can seem like punching down if there is no empathy for the target, but sometimes the culture has lost clarity and creates privileges for marginalized groups that become aggravators of discord among tribes. I also would love to think that humor is universal, but I've found that people react very differently to comedy depending upon their partisanship, even if their intention is to be open to being amused, also can be offensive. There is also comedy where the comedian thinks they're chasing truth but end up painting with too broad a brush in a way that people outside the cohort don't recognize and find stereotypical or just plain off. It can also be so nice that it doesn't rise to the level of authenticity, which is also a humor killer. With that preface, I'd love to hear some other examples of comedians that may be great examples of political or above-political comedy, of comedy that makes the tribes love each other more or focuses on more universal truths that transcend partisanship, of punch-up comedy, of punch-down comedy, or of comedy that provides painful insights, like King Lear's fool (not necessarily punch-up or punch-down. I'd also be interested to see people's reactions to the list. Always looking for an insightful comedian. (May have to be a great era of the comedian's career, or may be only one routine). It's often easier to find consensus from the past since most of us have grown up accepting wisdom from the victors, maybe George Carlin, or Dick Gregory? (Definitely harder to do when the would-be-victors are in the midst of past-making in the present, but still interested if people have comedians that they think are transforming or even better finding the absurdity in the culture right now): Here's Dick Gregory at a Southern Diner in the Civil Rights era: George Carlin on the 7 words you can't say: These are old, but anything newer people might want to share?

Maybe the censors should review posts from 2020-2024 and suspend everyone who promoted the wet market pangolin-barebacks-and-cums-in-slut-bat-at-a-wonton-street-sauna theory. Ha Ha Joking sort-of

I got that spelling from some initial reports, even the Vatican website (I think), but I revisited them, and they have all normalized around the English spelling at least in English. A lion in sheep's silk robes, but so far, generally I LOVE everything he has said since he has become Pope, against war, admonishing journalists to promote peace rather than whip up hatred, and be cautious with but enter the digital fray. I hope he takes up the challenge to Pope Francis to go to Gaza. Judgement withheld, but hope springing again. [think before following links] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope.html

insatiableholeinTO makes a great point about Bill Gates and RFK. I guess the rubric is that billionaires can manufacture reality but multi-millionaires can’t afford it. It’s probably more profitable to suck up to Bill Gates than to RFK Jr.

I’m Episcopalian. We have high church and gay bishops to boot, though the Arch Bishop of Canterbury struggles to keep those of different moral views under one tent.

It's definitely not deep knowledge on my part, I had never heard of him. The quotes from the NYTimes say he expressed disappointment that some Western media held "sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel," in particular, the "homosexual lifestyle" and "alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children." Prevost also opposed a government plan in Peru to add gender studies instruction in classrooms, telling local media "The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist." But it is a first impression. Often people exhibit many dimensions, and it is very hard to summarize an entire future-life from past actions. I am personally more concerned not about his beliefs but about how he puts them into action; hoping non-violence/tolerance will inform his actions. The NYTimes has been wrong before... Here's his twitter feed if folks wish to do more research:

The first American Pope Leone XIV (was Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost from Chicago) is described as a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and gender studies in classrooms. "Peace be with all of you!" - the first words of the 267th Bishop of Rome. Sounds as if he has taken actions against these things he doesn't like rather than co-existing. And the wheels of the Popemobile turn like lady fortune.... I am not Catholic but did appreciate Pope Francis' ability to co-exist even if he didn't approve of things, even pursue reconciliation and love.

@TT2025 I respectfully disagree that this applies to conservatism in general, think it is maybe true for social and religious conservatives but not as much for economic and libertarian conservatives. I would also say that as a non-liberal in a very liberal city and with many liberal friends, I find them very likely to make very oppressively uncurious assumptions that everyone agrees with them because they are of course right about everything. I am not completely sure how you are using the term "oppressive," so you may not agree that this kind of environment is oppressive. There were many liberal regimes in the Middle East that imposed a more western liberal morality (women's rights, etc.) on a much more conservative population that I think could count as dictatorships, e.g., Algeria, Afghanistan, etc. I think it is highly human not to have a universal stream of empathy, but liberals are frequently characterized as leaning towards universal values and conservatives are frequently characterized as having more immediate values. (It is very hard to generalize about these topics since the cohorts are SO big and build off of local histories and issues.)

@harrysmith25 since I first wrote, I revisited the Biden admin and have to concede how quickly I forgot the demented things he’d say, the babies he’d sniff, and the puttering on stage that he did, so concede your point about the weirdness

I am not following the “weird” part exactly, but I think you have a great point harrysmith25. I think most gay politics underestimates sound ECONOMICS as the real liberator for anyone not in the majority. Bidenomics with its massive inflation put everyone back into pie-shrinking mentality and less broad minded. Whatever its merits, woke culture struck a lot of people as imposing fantasies and delusions on others who wanted no part of it. It’s not surprising there was a backlash.

I found this to be counterintuitive thus interesting. However, it does fit with my empirical experience. There are vast differences within the cohorts but in this current era liberals seem to be more likely to get mad when people don’t take their simple worldviews at face value, and conservatives are more likely to think of liberals as well-meaning but naive, and maybe a bit loose with other people’s money. However, these qualities I mentioned can manifest in both conservatives and liberals, with a cohort of conservatives having simple dogmatic views, and many liberals having the ability to live in a complex real world where slogans don’t always work. I like the point that a higher % of Democrats think the Republicans have done harm than % Republicans who think the Democrats have done harm. I have some additions: 1) I hypothesize that a higher % of liberals think people are fundamentally good and thus find it harder to deal with people who may fail this standard in their eyes, whereas conservatives may have a higher percentage of people who see human nature as flawed so expect less perfection; 3) in my experience SLIGHTLY more liberals than conservatives take their party leaders’ speeches at face value and don’t research whether the actions match; 4) more liberals seem to take media at face value and be less aware of how propagandized they are than conservatives (who are equally propagandized but have had more recent upsets with the propaganda stream); 5) liberals seem to measure their empathic muscle by finding the person least like them and turning them into a symbolic test of empathy, whereas conservatives seem to measure their empathic muscle against the majority, their families, etc. Do others find this study counterintuitive? Any other hypotheses? Do you find the study convincing?

[think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672231198001

@harrysmith25 maybe they will eventually realize what a gift diversity of thought is. In the meantime us twats still risk swimming the waters…

I’m from the southern part of east coast America. Southerners are less direct than gods own truth than northeasterners (was so excited to meet northeasterners who could both hold truthfulness and love in their hearts). But Southerners who wish to be real have a nice communication technology for saying both truth and expressing compassion: no ed cure worked for him not cialis not viagra not horny goat weed BLESS HIS HEART (the technology part of it being to affix BLESS HIS HEART to the less-than-uplifting insight, taking the word “technology” back to a synchronicity of the invention of the abacus. It was a nice way to express reality and compassion and a wish that we are all in gods hands but a suspicion that god would give some but not all of us handjobs. Before we give up on this site we should fuck an incel.

I think You have a point Rillion. Does your point apply to other social media platforms or are you asserting that X is unique in that respect?

If you're into latex, just get a body suit with holes designed in for your mouth, your cock, and your ass. Fuck condoms. The only really good condom is a human condom with its own reservoir deep in its guts.

@SDCumPup since you are able to form this opinion it implies that you DO know how to read or understand scientific reports. If you’d be willing to show us an example of how RFK Jr misinterpreted a report and how you could correctly interpret it, your insight would rise above the level of an ad hominem attack, which is a rhetorical approach people use when they put down the person without addressing the substance of the argument. Since is painfully obvious to you, would you be willing to give an example? It would be helpful for those of us for whom it’s not as obvious. Thanks in advance, NaNaNa

What are your thoughts about this quote. Does it resonate? Does it repel? Does it partly resonate and partly repel? Is truth “nice”? Is “nice” truth?

You do realize that X is a billion people with diverse worldviews? I’m having a hard time understanding how you’d distrust X sort of like distrusting that your email didn’t change a’s into e’s. Can you help me understand how you’d distrust something as transparent as e-mail? Agree that many of the billion with X accounts might not be trustworthy but it feels like drowned baby in bathwater.