Профиль

For a lot of these people, all the gender stuff actually meant was “gay marriage should be illegal” but they did not communicate that to their kids successfully and now there’s an entire generation of Catholics who think John Paul II taught that women have to stay home and churn out babies

I was exposed to a ton of that stuff as a kid but it had very little role in our lives, my mom always had a life outside the house, my sister was encouraged to be educated and think, there was no question about women voting, etc

I think something similar is happening with gender on the right, a lot of the tradwife stuff among Catholics specifically is among people my age whose parents told them all that same shit about gender roles but did not act as if it was true

I feel like this is a pattern with right-wingers, what one generation understands as a useful lie becomes a truth. The clearest example is “originalism,” which Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia knew was a made-up thing you could use to overturn Roe v. Wade, but Neil Gorsuch actually believes in

I am completely obsessed with this phenomenon, which I usually refer to as something like “next-generation belief in one’s own bullshit”

Mr. Gorbachev, turn down for what

I always think about this with the childcare stuff. Do people making $$$ need free childcare? Definitely not, but it’s much easier to understand the program if it’s “everyone gets free childcare” and then just raise taxes on the rich than if there’s a gazillion forms and requirements.

I think this is the single biggest issue with guys like Stancil, they don’t seem to get that simplicity, communicativeness, and clarity are valuable elements of policy.

It’s probably not going to make a big difference but it’s fine. It’s a tangible thing people can see.

I basically think the NYC city-run grocery stores are the kind of thing you have to do to make it look like you’re trying, which is an essential part of governing

You know I had to do it to em www.nytimes.com/2026/07/29/n...

[guy who has never read any criticism before voice]

lmao no it is not. It just isn't. It is fully within the norm for a negative review where the writer feels strongly. This is Roger Ebert.

Agree with @jamellebouie.net that it's pretty clear Elon Musk wanted to eviscerate USAID *for the purpose of killing as many African people as possible.* Mass death wasn't an accidental byproduct of his "deep state" paranoia; it was a key mission of DOGE. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/29/o...

I knew someone who was a real nasty piece of work and worked at Heritage, groyperized by any sane meaning of the word, and she quit because Heritage was too nasty for her.

AI boosters are basically singlehandedly responsible for the negative reputation of AI generally. Its an amazing technology and its a real bummer the people who created it and promote it are goons who are obsessed with mysticism over the calculator box

today in AI Is The Future we have one ceo claiming he invented an actual genie and another suing so people can generate non consensual nude images of random teenagers

You can think of it as him being too rich or you can think of it as our legal system not being built to handle someone as rich as he is but either way the upshot is he’s going to be allowed to do whatever he wants until someone figures out how to punish someone with infinite wealth or take it away.

The answer to this is that he’s so rich that our legal system is no longer able to restrain him. That’s the actual answer. Trump thinks he (Trump) is a king but the person closest to being a king in 2026 is in fact Elon Musk. This is an enormous problem and it has to be solved.

Selling snake oil purely for love of the game