_yt0l

Ha! Unfortunately, I’m usually a twice-a-day showerer. Here’s why. There is no way I’m getting into bed without a shower. There is a noticeable difference in the way the sheets look and smell within a couple days with and without showering. And if you factor in workouts or even just a bit of sweat from a walk, anyone with a somewhat active lifestyle will be fairly dirty by the end of the day. As for the morning shower? It’s a nice meditative moment to reset and start the day, which doubles as a way to get rid of my bed head. With such frequent showers, though, I find soap and shampoo are needed much less often. It’s been fun reading through this thread and seeing all the different lifestyles and opinions and makes me question whether I’m in the total minority with my own! I do live in a hot climate, so that might also play a role.

Interesting that Russia would publish self incriminating documents and evidence of their own malfeasance within Ukraine and corruption elsewhere. Really makes you think.

They are using unlawful violence and intimidation towards the pursuit of political aims. Whether or not you feel those aims are justified, their means by definition have earned the “terrorism” label.

A previous commentor made a great point about the naming of things. Often the labels for highly political movements are euphemisms at best. Some of the least democratic countries in the world include the DPRK, DRC, and the PRC. And just about every violent revolutionary movement has similar naming, like the PLO and so many others. Look to their actions, not their name or stated mission, to make your own assessment.

Antifa is in the same position as many other early stage revolutionary political movements rooted in socialist ideals. I’d characterize them as highly volatile, anti-establishment, anti-police, with many autonomous factions, and so forth. Because of this disorganized and volatile nature, their initial steps can only be disruption to the incumbent political and police forces they stand against, not to create their own. They’re too chaotic at this stage to stand any chance of supplanting the status quo with anything better on their own. Their best hope is for the current political forces to enact better policies as a reaction, but it won’t be anything created by antifa itself. Because to create order requires a unified vision, and besides sharing a common enemy, unity is something their many factions lack at this time. That being said, the brief attempt at creating something in the CHAZ was illustrative of the challenges any early stage political force faces. In it, for example, the ratio of police (or armed militia) to civilians has to be extraordinarily high. And when their police force is as young, hot-blooded and untrained as it is today, it will be more violent than that of the stable government they oppose. Such an early stage government faces external threats, obviously, but because of the elevated level of chaos within it there are substantially more internal threats than a later stage government has to deal with. And so, were antifa to successfully implement its own government it would necessarily be fascist (in the police-force dominated, no room for dissent aspect of fascism) or it would fall apart. Despite their name and mission, and despite their far left position, if they are like any of the similar movements in history their authority early on will stem from a threat of violence, which your post doesn’t attempt to deny—only that for this cause, that fascist response, to you, would be justified.

There are ~10 million arrests per year in the US. That google doc includes non-US cases as well (but is also limited by what’s caught on camera). Still, 0.0007% of arrests leading to a case like this doesn’t seem as horrible as the raw total in isolation.

It’s not about race—it’s about a shitty corporate culture. Within Intel there are full-time employees (blue badges) and contractors (green badges). Intel has shifted towards hiring more green badges while paying them less, offering them fewer benefits, and in general treating them worse in comparison to the full-time blue badges. And yes, many green badges are working for Intel under H1B visas. Because of the poor working conditions, there isn’t a great incentive for green badges to be doing their best work. Meanwhile, blue badges become proportionally fewer in number within the company.

What video is that? What took place?

Based on the language in the video, especially in the few extra seconds from the one you linked, it does seem like they were asked to clear the area that they were in. It is impossible to know for sure without the minute or so of footage that was clipped off prior to this incident. Completely agree that that additional context would be critical for making an accurate judgment of the situation.

>It has little ideological substance

Fascism is an attempt to preserve tradition and meaning in an increasingly chaotic and senseless world. It creates order by demanding a return to organic hierarchical structures and by eliminating threats to a meaningful existence. Fascism is clearly incompatible with modern values which place the individual first. Individualism atomizes people rather than seeing them as part of a whole, and indeed today people lack the feeling of togetherness that is brought about by striving collectively for a higher cause. Some people can experience it fleetingly in the modern world—soldiers, for example—but it’s rare that a fire rages within anybody anymore. Everyone dedicates their lives working toward some cause and under some underlying pretense, but what is it that gives your life’s work meaning and to what end does your effort go? Now put yourself in the shoes of the teenagers who are so seduced by fascism or any other system that promises to give meaning to life. It’s not hard to imagine that in those turbulent formative years one would favor a way of life that, on one hand connects you to your past (culturally, geographically, spiritually), and on the other hand provides some hope that your efforts today are not going to be in vain—what meaning does your life’s work have if you expect the next generation to tear it down? You say fascism has little ideological substance. Its substance, to use your frame, is the preservation of meaning. Odds are, your ideology is rooted in modern norms that stand at odds with nature. They deprive the world of meaning. I would argue that that is worse than fascism.

It’s impossible to have a balanced discussion in which all sides on a controversial topic are viewed at face value when the format of the forum promotes and hides content based on popularity. /pol/ could never have existed if it had upvotes and downvotes, for instance.

How do you view flagged content on mobile?

Mainstream media is propping them up right now because their "fake news" study supports the agenda of the current news cycle.

What is the logical conclusion of your position if not censorship?

edit: in response to the second part about Buzzfeed, just in this thread there is someone with your stance on this who is advocating for them as a news source. Maybe a coincidence, but I'd say that speaks to it not being a "significantly small" amount.

A large part of the coverage I have seen of Breitbart on mainstream news sources has taken the headlines of some of their overly provocative satire pieces and made the claim that they were reporting those headlines as fact.

As an aside, I think that if we were to nitpick CNN, FOX, or any of the other "real" sources we would find just as much "fake news" as they are claiming exists on alternative news sites. Of course it would be in their interest to discredit those sources when they fear losing viewership to them.

You're advocating for censoring a source with a better track record than, say, buzzfeed which should by your standard also be censored.

Rather than taking your opinion of Breitbart from the companies who stand to profit from the destruction of their competition, take a look at their front page right now and find just one example of fake news. Feel free to post your findings here.

The argument that "these words are too dangerous to be in the hands of the masses" is the same one used to justify the book burnings in WWII and similar thought policing throughout history.

To be fair, they have a better track record than most media outlets. They don't trust the information at face value until, according to them at least, it has been verified. What that verification process is I have no idea, but so far it does appear to be working. I might just be out of the loop, though, so if that is the case what misinformation have they spread?