Christ
12.03.2026 06:24
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Christ
The fact that this guy is treated as an oracle of the mood of America's mutants blows my mind.
You’d think Trump constantly targeting the Representative that advocated for Epstein transparency would be generally treated like a pretty obvious consciousness of guilt move, but the coverage of Trump has had more than a decade’s practice in avoiding the obvious.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Pentagon tells Congress the first week of the Iran war cost the US $11.3 billion, an AP source says.
What a great update, he is despised by everyone! Remember: don’t give any credit to Republicans for just not liking Trump. Is there anything easier to do?? He’s an unlikeable guy! Anyway sorry to these dogs
But it's definitely good that @warren.senate.gov is "working with" him on a "bipartisan" antitrust measure that is doomed to fail.
I've never read any less surprising phrase than "in suburban Chicago."
What clearer evidence do we need for the preceding than the fact that they constantly hector liberals for turning fascists into fascists by calling them fascists, but never, ever ask conservatives really *anything* about their far more incendiary, and false, accusations against liberals?
And they're not even balanced, either! They favor conservatives. By default they cover conservatives as well-intentioned and liberals as, at best, misguided.
What really pisses me off about the political media is that I *truly believe* in impartial, objective journalism. Or at least, that there's value in it and that we should have it. But that's not what they're doing, at all. They're play-acting at it. And they're mistaking "balanced" for "objective."
The irony is that political journalists have all turned *themselves* into the same simplistic, badly rendered abstraction. You can't really tell one from the other. They all think exactly like this guy does.
People with attributes like that surely exist (though the "skepticism" of the conservative guy...I mean, c'mon). But the point is that they those are gross, and wrong, stereotypes of both conservatives and liberals. Abstractions. What real people say and do means nothing to the political media.
And when they think of "a liberal," they picture a screechy, young, pronoun-obsessed, green-haired white woman with a nose ring. She's very judgmental. She hates capitalism in all its forms, and is driven by rage. She is also entirely made up.
When they think of "a conservative," they picture a reserved, churchgoing, exurban white guy who maybe sells tractor parts. He's a good family man and kind to his neighbors. He's "skeptical" about immigration and trans rights, but is driven by communitarian ideals. He is entirely made up.
Oh, and he's never asked a conservative whether their constant, radical accusations against liberals tend to make liberals more radical (or hateful, or insane).
It's as if all the auto mechanics in America decided that engines actually run on grape juice. That's the level of delusion here.
Have you ever once asked a self-described conservative whether characterizing liberals as “socialist” or “Communist” would turn them into those things? Do you believe that essentially all conservatives (with a few exceptions) have in recent years turned fascist, sexist, and racist, or stopped hiding the fact that they were those things? If yes, do you believe that they turned fascist, sexist, and racist because people noted that they were acting like fascists, sexists, and racists?
The questions.
He also responded that he doesn't believe that essentially all conservatives are fascists, though he gave no indication of what he thinks the proportions are.
I told him that he and his cohorts have built an abstraction of reality, and they cover that rather than reality itself.
I emailed some questions to Marchese, and he answered (I'll paste them in next). I won't quote him because I hadn't told him I'm a journalist, but suffice to say that he doubled down on this idea that liberals are to blame for fascism. They all think like that, because they are in a cult.
“My ‘I’m An Anti-Racist’ T-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my Nazi tattoos.”
But who published this?
Earlier this month, WIRED reported on Grammarly’s controversial AI tool that presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics, without their consent.
Now Grammarly parent company Superhuman is facing a class action lawsuit over the tool.
Kinda looks like Weinstein!
To be exquisitely clear, I never volunteered for this, I was never asked about this, and I do not consent to this.
Pretty sure everyone I know on the list (much longer than what is shown) would say the same.
Grammarly can fuck off to the edge of the universe and keep fucking off beyond that.
I am fascinated by this account's choices.
“My ‘I’m An Anti-Racist’ T-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my Nazi tattoos.”
Photograph of the logo for the AI chat bot Claude, which is identical to Kurt Vonnegut’s drawing of an asshole.
Do I even have to say it
As Trump has noted, there are two ways to express percentages. This is one of them.
When asked to comment on the Iran War, Speaker Mike Johnson declined, saying this was the first he was hearing about it.
They could also write about "conservatives" going insane and turning fascist just as easily, and it would be far more relevant and substantive. But then they'd have to deal with all the "bias" complaints, which are bad when they come from the right, but somehow not when they come from the left.
Sure, you could write about various politicians' takes on housing policy, taxation, or climate solutions, but "Are liberals too judgmental?" and "Are Democrats too woke?" are right there, and you can dash off story after story with very little thought or effort.
And it gives them "drama" to write about, rather than writing about policy, which is sooooo boooooring. And it's difficult, and full of hard-to-navigate nuances. "Culture war" is so much easier and more fun. By pretending to decry it, they make it seem "serious." Again, including to themselves.