I don’t think it’s out yet but there is likely to be semi-untethered hen for PS4 and PS5 soon.

The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.

Pants!? To protect their newfound legs for the cold Canadian winter!

No, no let’m cook. Everyone knows jokes are funnier after you explain them.

deleted by creator

It is weird that your comment was removed.

it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad

Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]

i guess we makin babies now

You don’t expect me to eat a car peel and all, do you? How else do I get at that delicious sweet car meat?

it has Jim Crow style laws at best and apartheid at worst.

But you repeat yourself.

Dickfacé

On a note completely unrelated to this comment. MullvadVPN was raided by the police and was unable to provide logs and accepts cash by mail without providing personal information.

Yo mama makes tracking easier.

Perhaps it could be state funded? It worked for PBS for a time and it still mostly works for the BBC. Why not a browser? A truly independent steward for the open web is important and it doesn’t seem like Google is capable of that.

On

No, I’m pretty sure that’s powdered luck.

He tried to warn others of inaccurate posts but in the process posted an inaccuracy himself.

Most of his argument comes from direct quotes of actual political philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and, Adam Smith. These aren’t just random scholars, these are people who are fundamental to the development of liberalism as a political ideology. Some guy on the internet who clearly has never engaged with that history of work isn’t going to change the actual meaning of the word either.

Look, I’m not citing a YouTube video because it’s the end all be all of sources. You should absolutely consider other perspectives. I’m citing it because it’s easy to understand and it’s clear you’re having a hard time understanding what people are talking about. I say again, you can still make up your own opinion but please inform yourself before you get into an argument of what liberalism is.

It doesn’t just mean “freedom”. I assure you if you have any conservative friends in “real life” they would disagree with the notion that liberalism just means freedom. There are probably even some Lincoln Project conservatives who would disagree with that.

I personally think that there are some aspects to liberalism that can lead society closer to being more free but there are other aspects to liberalism that work against that end. But almost everyone who has a basic understanding beyond a dictionary definition would agree that there’s more to it than just being a synonym for freedom.

You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?

Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.

Trump said it in a way that he could have meant that you won’t have to vote for him again. He kept saying “vote for me now and in 4 years you won’t have to vote again”. I’m sure if you made this criticism to Trump’s face he would act like you’re being unreasonable and pretend that of course he meant that he can only do 1 more 4 year term. Trump’s supporters would respond similarly. But that’s why it’s called a dog whistle, the message gets to the people he wants it to while it forces his detractors to debate what’s going on inside Trump’s head.