Yes, I *am* that ESR. Well, it's the question people usually ask. Programmer, wandering philosopher, accidental anthropologist, troublemaker for liberty.

Joined May 2010
This is true, East Asians are often less sexually dimorphic than Europeans. And I've often thought it explains something about Japanese anime. Which is why the characters often don't look very Japanese even for domestic consumption. It's been observed that as the average wealth level of cultures rises, sexual dimorphism does too - you can even see this in skeletal measurements of humans buried in different times and places. Sexual dimorphism is a luxury good. Why? Because it's...sexy. if you like women, hyperfemales are a turn-on. If you like men, hypermales are a turn-on. So, anime. All other things being equal, the animators want their characters to be as visually attractive as possible. This pushes them towards more sexual dimorphism. And the most plausible way to draw characters that are quite a bit more sexually dimorphic on average than Japanese is just to make them look European. The point here is that it may look from anime as though a lot of Japanese or sexually fixated on Europeans. But no; they're just expressing a universal preference for more sexual dimorphism in the most convenient possible way.
A helpful reminder that East Asians are often less sexually dimorphic than Europeans.
12
7
241
9,239
It's all fun and games until they screw with the Second Amendment. Here's an underappreciated fact about the philosophical and legal theory behind the Constitution: the 10 Articles of the Bill of Rights are special. They do not grant rights that can be revoked, even by later amendments. Rather, they are considered to describe "natural" rights which are prior to the Constitution itself, and which no government may revoke without forfeiting its legitimacy. (Supporting rant about the Federalist papers, English classical liberalism, Blackstone, and the revolution of 1688 is here omitted.) Why does this matter in 2026? Because there's a rumor abroad that a shadowy constellation of left-wing groups has a plan to engineer a color Revolution after the 2026 midterms. I'm not going to comment on whether I think that rumor is true or not. Instead, I'm going to take it at face value and do some scenario analysis based on what their political objectives are supposed to be. Abolish the Senate in favor of a a unicameral legislature? Pack the Supreme Court? Constitutionally mandate things like universal health care or a right to abortion? These would be very radical changes, but they are things which at least in theory you could do at an Article V convention convened by state governors. We'd still be inside the system of the Constitution. What they couldn't do is mess with the Bill of Rights. Doing that wouldn't modify the Constitution within its own premises, it would legally and morally blow the entire constitutional charter to smithereens. In practice, this is a problem because all of the factions rumored to be among the revolutionnaires have at least one thing in common: they hate that Americans are armed and have the capability to resist tyranny. They'll come after the Second Amendment. If they delete it, or any other item in the Bill of Rights, more than half of the country will correctly evaluate that the foundations of our political system have been dynamited. That's when shit gets real.
51
84
5
877
15,120
Here's the variant of this one I would do if I were single and dating: brunch or lunch at a cheerful retro diner. Partly because I love places like that. But partly because I think a woman's ability to enjoy simple food in unpretentious surroundings - or lack of same - tells me a lot about her. I'm an upper-middle-class guy with an ivy League education, I'm likely to be most interested in women from a similar SES. The thing is, I don't trust those of my class peers who are so hung up on their own status that they're not comfortable around truckers and tradesmen and the kind of people you find in a retro diner. Also, if she can't handle a diner, she's probably going to freak right out when I take her to a gun range. This filter is quieter and less expensive.
I don’t think enough women who want to date wealthy men know that wealthy men often hide their wealth in the beginning stages to avoid transactional dynamics (That’s why turning up your nose at coffee dates isn’t signaling “high value” it’s is signaling “I am after your money” and those guys are specifically assessing for this)
6
6
268
7,439
Idiots. I've lived in Europe. I could have told them...
10
9
210
5,238
I've said before that public pre-election polls no longer exist primarily to convey information, they exist primarily to manufacture plausibility for the consequences of massive electoral fraud. Here we see the manufacturing in action.
Absolutely incredible… "Wedgewood Polls" just admitted they are a fake polling firm and made up their polls. Their fake polls have been posted in both the NYT and Nate Silver’s averages.
14
120
5
955
7,844
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
Cool. Trump Admin, have him arrested for speaking into a microphone. If he complains that that's a violation of his rights, say he is free to use all methods of free speech available in 1791 only.
Abdul El-Sayed on the Second Amendment: "When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket."
59
190
5
2,105
24,094
I want to put this on record. I'm not even really part of today's gamer culture, but I nevertheless give Gabe Newell huge respect for his consistent choice not to be a nasty dick to his customers and for his major support of Linux. Gabe, you're one of the best friends open source has ever had. Do not think it has not been noticed.
Correct. Moreover, two things to note: 1. Convenience is everything. When Steam first came out I hated the idea - I wanted control over a physical disc, rather than having it on a chain to someone's server. But Steam added so many quality of life features that being able to buy it off Steam became a plus. Its how they can charge that beastly 30% commission... 2. I'm a writer, and as any writer can tell you, piracy of books is trivial. Its essentially impossible to stop. But I had people throwing money at me well before I ever thought to ask for it. Westerners really do care about supporting artists; and only mind the publishers if they get in the way. The owner of Steam is venerated enough here that I think he qualified as a minor Shinto god at this point...
13
20
675
8,426
Boosting this because it deserves wider exposure. The central point that a drop in subscriptions is a *lagging* indicator of business failure is really astute - the kind of thing that should have occurred to me but didn't. The additional point I want to make is that at the velocity of change today, that lag is much more dangerous than it used to be. By the time you can notice that your customers bailed out of using the project a while ago, it may well be too late to course-correct. This is, I think, what's going to happen to Adobe. They're like Wile E. Coyote running in mid-air right now - their customer base is furious with them and probably already trying out alternatives like DaVinci and even the new Photocraft. But the famous dark-pattern stickiness of their subscription flow is going to ask that market signal for a while. And of course the people running the company are probably going to be looking for any excuse to believe that everything is juuuuust fine. There will be a period in the near future during which they'll be telling analysts "Bah! Revenue is in great shape, these would-be competitors are not meeting consumer demand." That is, until revenue falls off a cliff. Savor the irony. The same dark pattern that made them so profitable is what will rob them of time to correct before an irreversible crash.
The dirty secret of SAAS is that subscription pricing allows you to keep charging customers who aren't really using the product. The downside of this is that when your subscriptions finally churn, it's a *lagging indicator* of your business failing. I strongly suspect that there are many, many "dead men walking" now in SAAS, both AI-native and traditional: businesses where the financials may still look fine -- just a quarter or two of stagnant growth, margins are still great, maybe there's an AI narrative going forward, etc. but the *product* is losing utilization and they will lose every single customer to {{AI-native competitor, possibly the big labs themselves}} as the customers encounter those solutions. Those customers become dormant users, but the subscriptions still run for the while. The actual revenue churn only occurs months or quarters later when the question of "is anyone still using this? do we need to keep paying for this?" is finally answered with a "no" rather than an "i'm not sure".
30
56
5
793
19,711
The Useful Idiot: A Natural History Specimen: Western, educated, well-meaning. Habitat: universities, NGOs, quality newspapers, dinner parties where the wine is good and the opinions are better. Status: abundant. The useful idiot is not exactly stupid. This is the first and most important thing to understand. Stupidity would be a defense. The more precise diagnosis is what we in Poland call pół-inteligent – the half-wit. Not the bottom of the intelligence distribution, which is too obviously lost to be useful. Not the genuine top, which tends to develop the inconvenient habit of following arguments wherever they actually lead. The sweet spot: smart enough to absorb a complex ideological framework, to deploy its vocabulary with confidence, to feel the social rewards of appearing sophisticated – but not quite sharp enough to interrogate the framework itself. Enough horsepower to run the program. Not enough to question who wrote it. The pół-inteligent is the useful idiot’s technical specification. And the specimen is typically convinced – this is crucial – that it is among the most independent thinkers in the room. The delusion is important. Remove it and the whole architecture collapses. The species emerges in conditions of comfort and safety, which is why it proliferates in precisely the societies it works to undermine. It requires a baseline of security – enough that the consequences of being wrong about power remain abstract, theoretical, someone else’s problem. Eastern Europeans, who paid in flesh and decades for the privilege of understanding what the useful idiot enables, are able to see this as naivety so profound it becomes a moral failure. Not innocence. Culpable ignorance dressed as virtue. Observe the specimen in its natural habitat. It discovers The Cause sometime between the ages of 18 and 24, usually at an institution of higher education, usually through social contagion rather than solitary reasoning. The Cause varies by generation – Soviet sympathies, third-worldism, postcolonial theory, current-year identity grievance – but the structure is invariant: a clean division of the world into oppressors and oppressed, a designated villain class, and a role for the specimen as enlightened ally. The emotional reward is immediate and substantial. Belonging. The claim of moral clarity. The warm superiority of the awake among the sleeping. What the specimen does not perceive – what it is structurally prevented from perceiving – is that it is being used. Lenin coined the phrase, and he meant it with cold precision. The useful idiot is not a partner in the project. It is infrastructure. It provides legitimacy laundering: translating raw power-seeking into the language of justice, making the predatory appear compassionate, and doing so with enough genuine conviction to be convincing. The cynics who run the operation cannot do this themselves – cynicism is legible. True believers are required. The useful idiot’s sincerity is its primary value to those who deploy them. And so Lenin used them – and so does Islam now. The specimen’s lifecycle has a melancholy third act that it rarely anticipates. When the project advances far enough – when the institutions are captured, when the Overton window has moved sufficiently – the useful idiot becomes inconvenient. It knows too much about the earlier, more honest phase. It has friendships across the new fault lines. It retains, sometimes, inconvenient principles from when principles were the point. The revolution, as it industrializes, prefers newer models: fully formed apparatchiks with no memory of idealism to complicate their loyalty. The useful idiot is retired, marginalized, occasionally denounced by the very movement it spent decades building. It dies puzzled. It never quite understands what happened. We've all seen the very surprised lady in Paris... History is littered with these figures. Western intellectuals who defended the Soviet project through the show trials, the Holodomor, the Gulag – and who spent the rest of their lives in various stages of retrospective rationalization. Fellow travelers who called Solidarity troublemakers, who thought the dissidents were exaggerating, who trusted the official version over the testimony of people who had lived it. Their names are recorded. Their counterparts today are producing content, signing letters, and occupying endowed chairs. The useful idiot is not the enemy. It is the weapon. Understanding the difference matters – because the weapon can, in principle, be disarmed. It requires only one thing: contact with reality at sufficient intensity and duration to override the social rewards of the delusion. This happens. Some recover. Eastern European experience – the unignorable, undeniable, lived reality of what the project actually produces – has cured more than a few. The cure is not pleasant. It requires admitting that one’s most cherished moral identity was constructed by people who found it useful. That the independence one prided oneself on was curated. That the dinner party consensus was not wisdom but a lie. Most cannot make this admission. The identity investment is too great. They double down instead – find new framings, new rationalisations, new ways to explain why this time is different, why the critics are the real problem. They remain, to the end, useful.
The look of someone discovering reality. This young woman stood in front of a smashed shop window in Paris last night and said the smashing and looting are not what the cause is about. She still believes the people who broke the glass share her cause. They don’t. They have their own. This is not how she imagined it. It has a name: cognitive dissonance – the pain of watching reality contradict what you were told to believe. She learned it last night, in pain. Millions of others will learn it in the coming months – the same way. Because reality doesn’t need the media. It comes through the window. We were right all along.👇🏻 And they were wrong. So will they admit it now, and let go of their delusions? Or will they double down? In 1954, an American psychologist infiltrated a small cult that had predicted the end of the world on a precise date. The date came. Nothing happened. Did the believers give up? The most committed did the opposite: they started preaching harder than ever. That is what most true believers will do. Admitting the error would cost them their friends, their careers and their image of themselves. So they will blame the police, the "far right," the economy, the weather – anything but the idea. For them to change their minds, their whole system will have to collapse – the salaries, the institutions, the friends who all think alike. Belief survives as long as the group survives. We have seen it before: in 1989, when the system fell, Poland’s communists woke up one morning as social democrats – and a good number of them as businessmen. But the believers are not the audience. The people watching are. Reality rarely converts the priests. It converts the congregation – one broken window at a time. And yesterday was much more than a broken window. A day like that must have opened the eyes of millions. Events like that change history. The priests will keep preaching. The congregation has already started to leave.
157
1,130
148
3,543
115,685
Americans have been trying to tell you Europeans for decades that disarming yourselves was idiotic - that personal weapons in the hands of civilians are actually a force for order and stability, precisely because they constrain criminals and rioters. The French police are overwhelmed. Because of course they are. Large-scale, decentralized threats to civil order have to be met with a large-scale, decentralized response - people defending their homes and businesses, using the threat and, if required, the actuality of lethal force. If the riots in France teach this lesson, at least some good will have come from them.
Once again, I think we have really crossed a line tonight and entered completely new territory, nothing of the sort has ever happened before. There are groups of hoodlums roaming the city and openly terrorizing people while in many places the cops are nowhere to be seen. The violence of yesterday was shocking, but it wasn't the first time we had seen far-left activists and gangs of hoodlums opportunistically join the protests to cause mayhem and loot. But I grew up in France and have been obsessively following French social and political events for more than 20 years and I have never seen anything like that. If you look at the tweet he is replying to, it's another video showing a similar group kicking in the door of a residential building to break in. It's Clockwork Orange stuff at this point.
26
85
4
937
16,337
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
"You reduce crime by eliminating poverty." This is one of the greatest intellectual confusions of our century. It sounds compassionate. It feels obvious. And the moment you actually test it, it falls apart. Let's look at the data. First, the correlation is real. Nobody serious denies that poorer areas have more crime. In Sweden, kids from the poorest 20% of families are about 7 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than kids from the richest 20%. But correlation is not causation. So Swedish researchers did something brilliant: they compared siblings. Same parents, same home, same upbringing, but different family income at different points in their childhood, because parents' income moves over time. Result, on more than 500,000 children (Sariaslan et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2014): once you account for what's shared inside the family, the effect of income on violent crime goes from 7x to nothing. The hazard ratio drops to 0.95. No effect. Finland ran the same test on 650,000 people. Same result: the income-crime link disappears when you compare siblings. What predicts crime isn't the bank balance. It's what travels inside families. Second test: what happens when poverty spikes for everyone at once? 2008. US unemployment doubled from 5% to nearly 10%. 15% of Americans officially poor. If poverty creates crime, crime should have exploded. Instead it fell. Year after year. Robbery, the most "economic" crime of all, dropped 10% in 2010 alone. Criminologists literally said they were stumped. Same story in the Great Depression: 25% unemployment, and crime went down in many cities. Third test: take families out of poverty and see. The US government ran a randomized lottery called Moving to Opportunity. Thousands of families in public housing got vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods. For boys, violent arrests dropped at first, property crime arrests went up, and over time the effects faded. New zip code. Same behavior. Fourth: the claim that police don't matter. This one is just false. Chalfin et al. (American Economic Review: Insights, 2022): each additional police officer prevents about 0.1 homicides. And per capita, the lives saved are twice as many among Black victims as among white victims. The people who suffer most from "police don't matter" are the poorest neighborhoods. So what does predict crime? The Dunedin study followed 1,000 children from birth to age 32. Self-control measured between ages 3 and 11 predicted adult criminal convictions, even after controlling for social class and IQ (Moffitt et al., PNAS, 2011). Cognitive ability matters too: across 700,000 Swedish men, lower cognitive scores at 18 track with violent convictions, and the link barely moves when you control for childhood socioeconomic status (Frisell et al., 2012). And here's the part nobody quotes: in Dunedin, kids whose self-control improved over time did better than predicted. Behavior can change. Which means responsibility is real. Why does this matter? Because "poverty creates crime" isn't just wrong. It's toxic. It turns criminals into victims. The man who robbed you becomes a symptom of "the system," and you, the real victim, become a footnote in someone else's narrative. It merges two completely different things. "You're poor, we'll help you" is one policy. "You're poor and you committed a crime, so we'll excuse you" is another. Fusing them insults the millions of poor people who work, raise their kids, and never hurt anyone. The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. That alone kills the theory. It removes responsibility. Build a political system on "your circumstances made you do it" and you destroy the one thing that actually changes behavior: the certainty that you own your choices. Every excuse the state manufactures is an incentive. And it feeds the state forever. If every crime is a social failure, every crime justifies a new program, a new budget, a new agency. Crime becomes the business model of bureaucracy. The alternative is simple and old. A lighter state that protects instead of explains. The same rules for everyone, from the projects or from a gated community. Certain, swift punishment for anyone who commits a crime. And never, ever telling someone their crime was written in their social condition. Treating someone as responsible is respecting them. Excusing someone because they're poor is the most condescending thing you can do to them.
This quoted post is unavailable.
217
1,785
180
8,839
246,759
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
The most powerful thing America ever did was not building the bomb. It was what it chose not to do after. In 1945, the United States held a weapon no other nation possessed. For the first and only time in history, one country could have taken anything it wanted from anyone on Earth, and no one could have stopped it. Every empire that ever held that kind of advantage used it. Rome conquered until it collapsed. The Mongols conquered until they collapsed. The British built an empire so vast the sun couldn’t set on it, and then it collapsed. The pattern is five thousand years old, and it has zero exceptions. Except one. America won the war and rebuilt the countries it defeated. Not as colonies. Not as vassal states feeding tribute back to Washington. As sovereign nations with functioning economies and the freedom to eventually compete with the country that saved them. Germany went from rubble to the economic engine of Europe in a generation. Japan went from unconditional surrender to the second largest economy on Earth. Three years after the war, American planes were flying food into Berlin. A city in the heart of the nation that had just tried to destroy the world. That was not foreign policy. That was a civilization deciding what it was at the exact moment it had the power to be anything. No empire that held total dominance has ever voluntarily built its competition. America did. And then it kept doing it. Every alliance. Every trade route. Every open market. Billions lifted out of poverty, not because America had nothing to gain, but because it chose a version of winning that included everyone else. We are approaching a moment that mirrors 1945 in ways almost no one has fully processed. AI is going to concentrate a level of power in so few hands that it makes a nuclear monopoly look primitive. Whoever holds that advantage will face the same choice America faced in 1945. Use it to dominate. Or use it to build something that includes everyone. The question is not which country will build the most powerful AI. It is which country has the track record of holding extraordinary power and choosing restraint. One country in five thousand years of civilization has done that. One. And it is the same country currently leading the AI race. The measure of a civilization is what it does when it does not have to do anything at all. The world is about to hand that kind of power to someone. History only produced one answer. It would be a catastrophic mistake to assume it will produce another.
38
98
20
442
33,108
This is the funniest announcement I've seen in weeks: "The European Union is working toward fast-track antitrust approval for a satellite joint venture between Leonardo SpA, Airbus SE, and Thales SA, which is positioned as Europe's response to SpaceX" We know pretty much how this is going to go. With a vast wheezing and clanking of bureaucratic gears, the consortium be approved. It will provide extremely comfortable livings for a vast horde of bureaucrats, consultants, and hangers-on. White papers and bold, forward-looking plans will issue like confetti. After approximately a decade of extremely expensive grinding, the consortium will have approximately the productive output of a wet fart.
The damage for SpaceX is massive "The European Union is working toward fast-track antitrust approval for a satellite joint venture between Leonardo SpA, Airbus SE, and Thales SA, which is positioned as Europe's response to SpaceX" The actions of the 🇺🇸 US administration have consequences. Recent reports from 4 sources confirm that both Elon and Trump supported the restrictions of Starshield, which confirms my earlier posts stating that SpaceX is involved and part of it. The Telegraph on Oct. 16 reported that it was Musk who proposed the speed cap to Trump — and Trump "agreed," one source said. That sounds very likely to what really had happened including Elons denial to have any responsibility (half true) and Trumps lie which is just one more of the many he spreads every day. finance.yahoo.com/economy/po…
180
347
18
4,590
84,093
We've seen this movie before, it's a very common attempt to manipulate the voter pool. Phase 1: Bogus polls put the Democrat way ahead during most of the run-up in an attempt to demoralize Republican voters. Phase 2: Bogus polls are allowed to tighten to a very narrow D lead just before the election. An honest poll would show a huge R lead. Phase 3: Ballot fraud steals the election. The purpose of the bogus polls was to supply top cover for the fraud. It's a tale as old as time.
Texas polls converging on much smaller Talarico leads than they showed a month ago. From 5-7 point leads down to just 1-3 points. Either the massive Paxton rescue effort is working, or the Talarico leads were always BS. Regardless, in a tie race in the polls, I'd probably rather be Paxton based on Texas fundamentals.
50
269
16
1,742
33,373
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
I'd also add that it is fine to argue "even one is too many" in this context, because I agree, it is. That's why I think we should have better security at schools. However, progressives do not apply that logic elsewhere when it does not suit them. For example, they argue violent crime by illegal immigrants is too rare to worry about. But such crime is WAY more common than school shooting deaths. Texas has recorded 636 homicide convictions for illegal immigrants between 2011 and 2025. That's about 42 per year, in just one state. And again, that's convictions, the real number is higher. So 8 people dying in school shootings per year means we should undermine the Second Amendment, but 42 murdered per year by illegal immigrants in Texas alone is not grounds for aggressive deportation? Interesting!
The same number of minors have died in school shootings in Canada this year as in the US (8), even though we have about 8x the population. And that's using an expansive definition of "school shooting" for us that counts things like gang-related violence after hours in the parking lot of a school. If you only counted situations of killers breaking in to try and murder innocent children and teachers, which is what people actually mean when they say "school shooting," Canada is ahead of us this year. We should better secure our schools for sure, but people absolutely overstate how common school shootings are here, and pretend other countries don't have them too. Part of our frequency is also due to our very large population. According to WaPo, from 1999 (Columbine) through 2025, a total of 218 people have been killed in school shootings in the US, or about 8 per year. Obviously, we want it to be zero, not one child should be harmed in schools (or anywhere else). But statistically, it's pretty close to zero. Lightning strikes in the US kill about 3x that number annually.
10
100
5
528
7,506
"Ban guns and there will be less gun deaths" Listen up, because I'm going to explain why this isn't true. If you ban guns, most law-abiding people won't keep them. This might reduce gun deaths slightly, but law-abiding people basically don't shoot each other much. You get the occasional crime of passion and the odd gun accident, but these are rare enough to be almost statistical noise. What you would see is a large drop in gun suicides. But one of the things that is well known about suicide statistics is the people who really want to kill themselves readily substitute means. So they would off themselves in other ways, for no net decrease in anything we really care about. Meanwhile, criminals are going to laugh at your gun ban. They will still have firearms. They will still kill each other with firearms at a pretty horrific rate that we couldn't expect to change much after the ban. What will change is that criminals will see firearms as a more effective tool for predation, because the victim population is disarmed and can't shoot back. There will be more crime, and more gun deaths, because of this. This isn't just theory. We can study longitudinal crime statistics in jurisdictions before and after gun bans and see it in practice. To "reduce gun deaths" significantly, you'd have to find a way to remove guns from the hands of criminals, and then keep them inaccessible to criminals. There is no known way to do this that actually works reliably, and doesn't have other costs that are too high for a free society to pay.
Replying to @doggintrump
Grenades are banned, no grenade killings, rocket launchers are banned, no rocket launcher killings…. Ban guns and there will be less gun deaths, just a simple fact
131
148
9
1,355
26,361
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
The same people who hate Elon for making a flying car hate all your more ordinary passions and joys. You’re not exempt because you dream quieter dreams. And the people who are outraged when something has no utilitarian purpose also hate your refusal to frame happiness and beauty in economic terms. You’re not allowed to opt out of the cubicle farm; God forbid you find meaning in something outside the rat race. Some things you do for yourself, not for money and not for other people…and when you do, you create evidence of an individual beating heart that does not bow to the great gray crowd, and some people will never forgive you for it. Do your mad beautiful thing anyway.
25
71
9
441
9,498
Eric S. Raymond retweeted
In recent years, Peter Thiel has repeatedly, and convincingly, advanced the argument that, contrary to popular belief, we live in a period of technological stagnation. Since the 1970s, he argues, innovation in almost all areas of human endeavor has ground to a halt. The fact that the world of bits was a notable exception had blinded us to just how little progress had been made in other domains. The post-WWII generations dreamed of a future filled with flying cars and humanity colonizing other planets, visions immortalized in science fiction. These dreams never materialized, though, and at some point, it seemed they never would, at least not in the foreseeable future. Until one man decided to commit his fortune and ambition to reviving those dreams and turning them into reality. And the rest is history. How exhilarating it is to live through the end of the Great Stagnation, and how humbling it is for us all to stand on the shoulders of this giant as he blazes the trail toward a different kind of future. e/acc, sir. 🫡
Turns out the future does have flying cars
48
76
8
1,009
43,875
Kaylub Giamanco is an armed civilian who ran into lethal danger to save the lives of others. He didn't just react to what came at him, he recognized a general threat and went after it. Many people want to call him a hero. I do not, because using that label is implicitly an excuse for cowardice by others. Giamanco did his duty as a man, an American, and a member of what is still described in federal law as the unorganized militia. We will have a healthy culture again when every American man knows he is expected to do the same. If you call this heroism, then every man must be a hero at need. Only in this way can civilization be maintained.
39
95
5
983
29,926
With every hour that cops and journalists carefully avoid disclosing any details about the Bend school shooter, my p(trans) rises.
20
58
4
1,428
26,153