Excrubulent

No worries, a lot of people are stuck in hierarchical realism. We're programmed for it from the moment we begin school or earlier if we had authoritarian parents. It's nobody's fault if they haven't yet imagined a future without hierarchy.

Edit: It's also nice to get a genuine reply back, so thanks.

Wow, this was a trip, I haven't heard this in decades. They've got a really interesting discography too.

Also though... what's with the comments on that video? At time of writing there are only four comments with different timestamps by one account, all with exactly one upvote.

If the bullet went through a teleprompter he could've been hit by the shards. That would explain all the slashes on his face.

Yeah, I'd want to see solid information on this. I just have to fight the urge to believe it because it confirms my existing biases.

This is what I've found: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-14/who-was-the-shooter-at-trump-rally-what-we-know-about-gunman/104096364

From that he was a registered Republican, but also donated to a Democratic vote registering initiative. This would've been the first election he was old enough to vote in. No word of his actual motivations, but the idea that he's a fascist who didn't like that Trump wasn't fascist enough doesn't seem to bear out from this article at least.

Direct action; ie: don't wait for the permission you will never get. Just start building locally, do mutual aid, make one another's lives better now.

In longer form: How do we build an anarchist revolution? | Constructing the Revolution

There are links there to the text and a version with no music if you'd prefer those.

Trump literally said "take the guns first and go through due process second". He is the charicature of a "gun grabber" that right wingers think Biden is.

It doesn't matter though, they're not consistent. It's not about ideas. They know a leftist or a black or brown person with a gun will get mowed down by police and they will be left alone by cops even after shooting someone.

“you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”

vs

But like, there is value in theory, and you must believe that or else you would’ve believed it was pointless to post “posting isn’t praxis”.

Those are two different things.

Also:

you insisting I’m losing a debate.

Yet another thing that I literally never said. You couldn't have made it clearer that you're not listening and not interested in anything I have to say.

You haven't convinced me that it's impossible to change minds, but you have convinced me that you personally can't be convinced of anything as you are right now, and that you personally are incapable of convincing other people of anything on purpose. I guess I agree that you're a mess, that's something you said and which I took on board. Does that count?

Don't answer. Don't care. Fuck off.

I've also heard that the glass from the teleprompter cut him and the bullet didn't graze him, which would explain the big slashes of blood all over his face.

I mean it could be either at this stage but it wasn't necessarily as close as that.

EDIT: The downvotes are weird. We literally don't know exactly what happened and I'm just pointing that out. People are cranky I guess.

Edit 2: I understand enough now to know that it probably did graze him, based on this photo: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/video/doug-mills-trump-rally-photo-src-digvid

I wouldn't trust him when he says he was shot, because he's a liar and even then he could've mistaken a piece of debris for a bullet. He wouldn't know, but that photo does make it seem like he definitely did come very close to buying it. If he was grazed, that also puts paid to the idea it was a false flag. Like, you don't shoot that close to someone you're not trying to kill.

Two things about this: firstly if he did indeed move just slightly at the critical moment, it explains why it was such a near miss. Secondly, if the bullet had hit him, that would've been a VERY different photo.

I found out from the Betoota Advocate, who are the Australian version of the Onion. I took one look and thought, "Yeah, they wouldn't fake a photo like that... bet this is real."

At this point, you're just kind of bloviating. Like, none of the points on their own is particularly confusing - although if you don't see the inherent contradictions I wonder if you're even listening to yourself, you seem to explicitly acknowledge them - I just don't know what the point of it all is. Like, you need to do some work to help me understand what you're actually trying to say. I'm not your therapist. Either you have something you want me to respond to or you don't.

The initial response of “you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”…you understand that’s the point I started focusing on correct?

That is literally not what I said. I could repeat it, but you would have to tell me you're curious to understand me or I'm not going to bother at this point. I've already asked you that and you ignored it, but you seemed troubled so I let it slide. I'm done with that. If you won't meet me halfway in this conversation then you can carry on wanking in the corner, but I'm not going to watch.

He's already made those statements and his campaign has ceased all outgoing communications. He doesn't have to, but he's a liberal, so he's not going to let an opportunity to lose pass him by.

So what you're saying is that you personally can't be convinced by a post, and you're extending that out to everyone else.

This seems like a form of solipsism. If you don't believe the posts you're surrounded by are authentic, then nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.

Like for instance, I could tell you I've been convinced by things people have said online. Sometimes it's in a context of debate, sometimes not. But if you think I'm only cynically saying that for the points, then I'm obviously just lying. It's a perfect circle of protection.

Ultimately only you can decide if you're open to being convinced. The problem comes when you decide that's everyone else's problem. I can't say what's in your head and it's hard to figure out what you mean here.

I'd be interested to know what your online media diet is, because honestly I think most debate bros out there aren't doing much of any worth, except again maybe performing to an audience. I don't know what to say here. You say your head's a mess, and I tend to agree. I can't make head nor tails of what you're saying. It sounds like you're monologuing to yourself, and I'm not really qualified to interpret it. Only you are.