mozz

gaslighting

Okay, sure. Let's see. I'm gonna go back and read your message in full, and then as soon as you start lecturing me on something I clearly already agree with, or tell me that I believe some wrong / evil thing that I clearly don't believe, I'm going to stop and come back here and just quote the point at which you did that. I will bet that I won't get 30% of the way through your message before it happens.

Edit: I made it 5 sentences. Some earlier stuff is maybe debatable, but then you got to "Saying that Joe Biden's electoral chances are weak and he has little chance of getting elected doesn't mean I support Trump." Nobody on any side said even word 1 about Biden's electoral chances being weak, that I know of, let alone anything about what that would imply about their motivation (although I did draw a conclusion about someone's motivation from a totally different-from-that behavior.) I'm all done with what you have to say now. You can keep talking, but I don't plan on reading it or responding.

Suppose I tell you your house is flooding.

I have a better analogy.

My house is flooding.

Someone comes in the house and says OH MY GOD THERE ARE TERMITES ALL OVER THE HOUSE, and demands that any conversation about what we're going to do about the house has to include the termites, and if you try to talk about the flooding then you're crazy and trying to change the subject away from the termites, and even if something else is going on (like furniture floating away), it must be connected to the termites, and also by the way there are termite exterminator companies in this town who have a vested interest in selling termite exterminator solutions, although the person in your house who wants to connect anything and everything to termites treats any attempt to bring this up as some crazy conspiracy theory which is just more indication that you're not taking the termite problem seriously and you must be making things up.

In this case, something totally unrelated to Biden (the antisemitism bill) is getting linked to him in this particular propaganda-adjacent way in this video, and I think that's notable. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it from my end. You can come up with whatever strawman you like, where somehow me saying that means I don't care about the election or trying to silence criticism or defending genocide or whatever. I honestly didn't even read your whole message. But, the point remains that something totally unrelated to Biden is getting linked to him in this video, and to me that's notable, and a little strange from someone who keeps swearing that their primary concern is for good things to happen for Palestinians and for US politics. Really that was all I wanted to say about it.

We have no obligation to coddle or avoid acknowledging the complicity of a sitting president in a genocide.

Was "He's enabling genocide" somehow not clear enough for you to understand that I agree with you on this? Feels like you're just assigning some kind of strawman view to me so you can have your little grandstanding, and avoid dealing with the totally different things that my message was actually saying. Which, I mean, sure, carry on if that's what you want to do, but regardless of that nothing in this is anything that I was doing or anything that I disagree with.

Biden expressed full support for this bill if it passes

Citation needed (not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen it; I'm just curious)

the one person who can flip the situation overnight

Citation needed

(Also, totally separate topic, while I was reading up to write this message: You will never guess why it is that MTG and Matt Gaetz had objections to the bill. I'm serious -- it would have taken me quite a few guesses before I arrived at why it is that they're angry about it.)

Dude I'm not saying Biden is good on Israel. He's enabling genocide. If it sounded like I was saying he's doing a good job, I am not.

I am saying it's weird that a video that is super concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people is singularly focused on the one type of action -- finding things that you can look at sideways in such a way that it'll depress support for the Democrats in the general election -- that is almost guaranteed to make things worse for them, worse for student protestors, and worse for a whole bunch of other people. Like this thing is solely focused on the antisemitism bill, which has universal support from the Republicans, almost-universal support from the Democrats, and not super-active resistance (which he should be giving it) from Biden. And the person they're blaming for it is... Biden.

It's like someone in the middle of World War 2 who's very very concerned for the plight of oppressed people who is suddenly very very vocal about the fact that Churchill is a racist warmongering dickface. Like yes... he is. Why are you saying that and what is your alternative you're pushing? If it is "let's do uncommitted votes, let's do a protest, let's divest from Israel, let's resign from the State Department, let's do these things that will put pressure on Biden now and generally hopefully help the Palestinians," then fuckin-a let's rock and roll, we can be friends. If it is "let's let Trump come to power because I'm mad that Biden is continuing American empire with all its crimes instead of ending it," I'm gonna have some questions about your motivation in saying that.

Surely that makes sense? Or no?

This video would all make perfect sense except for the big inclusion of the smiling face of the only US president to put sanctions on Israeli settlers, freeze military aid to Israel (* - since Reagan), or other weird little weak-sauce attempts to reign in our favorite partner for war crimes out of a whole world of war crime adjacent ally countries. And the assignation of blame to him for the "antisemitism" bill which as far as I know has nothing in particular to do with him.

Is that enough? Fuck no. Does it excuse Biden's support for their crimes including providing literally the bombs that are being used to blow up women and little children and hospitals? Fuck no.

Is it worth digging into why this channel which is supposedly so passionate about advancing left wing causes in the United States, has as its only two videos that I'm familiar with, two very Biden-specific videos (this one and a "why voting is a bad idea if you are a left wing person" video) the logic of which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you take it at face value, but makes perfect sense if you're trying to come out with a big slick professionally produced video about why left wing people should not try to stop Trump from coming to power? With no particular other solutions to offer, other than making sure Biden doesn't get elected?

Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck yes.

(Incidentally, if you click on the video and then click away after a few seconds, it'll downgrade it in YouTube's metrics and make the algorithm less likely to show it to other people. If you're interested in that kind of thing.)

(Here is a quick summary of the video, created by pasting the transcript into GPT after I grabbed it quickly and scooted away to avoid encouraging this video to the algorithm:)

Second Thought is a 100% grassroots-funded operation. If you'd like to help support the channel, get early access to every video, and join the Discord, consider becoming a patron.

The way to the Senate, colloquially referred to as the "anti-Semitism bill," might tempt you to think, "Oh good, we're finally doing something about hate speech." Well, that is not the case. HR 690, or the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, is once again a Trojan horse piece of legislation whose real intent is to make it illegal to protest the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. This is just the latest attempt by our corrupt and morally bankrupt ruling class to maintain the status quo.

HR 690 will be the first time a concrete definition of anti-Semitism is enshrined in US law. At first blush, that sounds like a good thing. However, the definition in question is the one agreed upon in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which includes some common-sense things like, "Accusing Jewish people of secretly controlling the world's governments is anti-Semitic." That's great; such statements are genuinely anti-Semitic. However, the definition also includes items such as, "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor," and "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

This is problematic because many argue that the State of Israel has pursued policies reminiscent of apartheid. The legislation effectively bans calling Israel what it is: a racist apartheid regime. Additionally, it would restrict the ability to compare Israel's actions to those of the Nazis, which some see as legitimate given certain similarities in policy and action.

On campuses across the United States, protests have erupted against these policies, driving the bill. The student movement has transformed into a cultural schism, with young people and university staff on one side and militarized police and Zionist agitators on the other. This bill, if passed, would criminalize dissent, marking a concerning step towards the legalization of fascism under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

In conclusion, while the bill presents itself as a protective measure for Jewish people, it could also severely limit free speech and criminalize valid criticism of Israeli policies. As the protests grow and the debate intensifies, the distinction between legal actions and moral righteousness becomes ever more apparent. The challenge now is to continue advocating for justice and human rights, despite potential legal repercussions.

This video would all make perfect sense except for the big inclusion of the smiling face of the only US president to put sanctions on Israeli settlers, freeze military aid to Israel (* - since Reagan), or other weird little weak-sauce attempts to reign in our favorite partner for war crimes out of a whole world of war crime adjacent ally countries. And the assignation of blame to him for the "antisemitism" bill which as far as I know has nothing in particular to do with him.

Is that enough? Fuck no. Does it excuse Biden's support for their crimes including providing literally the bombs that are being used to blow up women and little children and hospitals? Fuck no.

Is it worth digging into why this channel which is supposedly so passionate about advancing left wing causes in the United States, has as its only two videos that I'm familiar with, two very Biden-specific videos (this one and a "why voting is a bad idea if you are a left wing person" video) the logic of which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you take it at face value, but makes perfect sense if you're trying to come out with a big slick professionally produced video about why left wing people should not try to stop Trump from coming to power? With no particular other solutions to offer, other than making sure Biden doesn't get elected?

Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck yes.

(Incidentally, if you click on the video and then click away after a few seconds, it'll downgrade it in YouTube's metrics and make the algorithm less likely to show it to other people. If you're interested in that kind of thing.)

(Here is a quick summary of the video, created by pasting the transcript into GPT after I grabbed it quickly and scooted away to avoid encouraging this video to the algorithm:)

Second Thought is a 100% grassroots-funded operation. If you'd like to help support the channel, get early access to every video, and join the Discord, consider becoming a patron.

The way to the Senate, colloquially referred to as the "anti-Semitism bill," might tempt you to think, "Oh good, we're finally doing something about hate speech." Well, that is not the case. HR 690, or the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, is once again a Trojan horse piece of legislation whose real intent is to make it illegal to protest the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. This is just the latest attempt by our corrupt and morally bankrupt ruling class to maintain the status quo.

HR 690 will be the first time a concrete definition of anti-Semitism is enshrined in US law. At first blush, that sounds like a good thing. However, the definition in question is the one agreed upon in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which includes some common-sense things like, "Accusing Jewish people of secretly controlling the world's governments is anti-Semitic." That's great; such statements are genuinely anti-Semitic. However, the definition also includes items such as, "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor," and "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

This is problematic because many argue that the State of Israel has pursued policies reminiscent of apartheid. The legislation effectively bans calling Israel what it is: a racist apartheid regime. Additionally, it would restrict the ability to compare Israel's actions to those of the Nazis, which some see as legitimate given certain similarities in policy and action.

On campuses across the United States, protests have erupted against these policies, driving the bill. The student movement has transformed into a cultural schism, with young people and university staff on one side and militarized police and Zionist agitators on the other. This bill, if passed, would criminalize dissent, marking a concerning step towards the legalization of fascism under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

In conclusion, while the bill presents itself as a protective measure for Jewish people, it could also severely limit free speech and criminalize valid criticism of Israeli policies. As the protests grow and the debate intensifies, the distinction between legal actions and moral righteousness becomes ever more apparent. The challenge now is to continue advocating for justice and human rights, despite potential legal repercussions.

No. There is another.

It’s starting. We’re not even into summer yet. And next year will be worse, and the year after that will be worse than that, with no particular safety measure or merciful limit.

And even when it reaches a protein-denaturing threshold and people start dying for real, by the thousands or more, we'll still be burning gasoline, setting new records for "production."

The news on regular TV is almost all bought and paid for by Sinclair / Fox / whatever other explicit propaganda outlet. The people reading that bullshit may hate it a lot more than you do, but they may be contractually obligated to go up and say it. It's real fucked up.

You hit the nail on the head with reference to going public. At that point, it's pretty much out of your hands. You might think you can maintain 51% of the control with the owners, and everything will be fine, but... honestly, just don't go public.

Best by far is just to build it up over time without taking outside investment (or borrowing from family or friends you trust, or from the bank, not investment with shares but just borrowing and paying them back). Going the route of big angel investors is so tempting because it opens up so many possibilities, and trying to bootstrap it is so slow and uncertain, but it is absolutely inevitable that the people who gave you a bunch of money are going to wind up calling the shots. If what you're talking about is something you care about, I would go the bootstrapping route.

I've seen companies work well by bootstrapping themselves up over years of small client work until they were big enough to grow up into real companies, the right way. I've seen companies work well by taking out massive loans and paying them back with interest with these big punishing payments every single month. I've never seen a company that opened itself up to outside investment survive in its original form as time went on. If what you're talking about is important to you, I would do everything you can to stay away from it.

IDK, if you already took on some investment, then I would just work with it as best as you can, and keep in mind trying to get out from under it because you've outgrown it, as quickly as you can. I don't know how you do that really, but that's the direction I would be thinking if you care about these issues.

On top of that, things to keep in mind:

1. The culture. You want people to be able to speak their mind and you want to be able to do the kind of work you want and not the kind that you don't.
2. Point out examples of early Google beating out all the enshittified solutions, Facebook and Yahoo squandering their dominant positions through enshittification, things like that. In the long run, it really is a bad idea to cheat your customers and business partners. Maybe pointing that out to a money-focused person will make an impact on their thinking. Maybe not.
3. Make sure your investors trust you and respect your judgement. If they see you're wise financially, focused on the bottom line, being responsible with what you're doing week by week, they'll be less prone to want to override you with "sensible financial decisions" that will lock you into something horrendous that you won't want to be doing.

Honestly even that much is a big step for the New York Times. I’m a little surprised they’re not trying to “both sides” it.

It needs to have a 0* tier with Clinton, Reagan, Grant, Harding, and maybe a couple others. And then the huge gulf and then Trump up top.