Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    41355
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. On a more general note, I was contemplating that there's no Charlie Kirk (or Tucker Carlson or any of a dozen others) on the left. And the corollary thought that they need someone to "tell them how to think." I think the first proposition is accurate and that leads to the second and prompts the question why is it this way? And maybe in a blinding glimpse of the obvious, deep down people know that most of the hateful "conservative" positions these days are just that, hateful and inhuman. Despite our natural tendency to avoid or even demonize "other," I think most people also have enough of a moral compass to know when ideas are at best suspect if not outright immoral. So, "the right" needs someone(s) to "make it ok" to harbor and act upon inhumane if not immoral thoughts. To justify racism. To justify inhumanity to queer people and minorities and the poor. This is what "say the quiet part out loud." The quiet part is quiet because people know that it is fundamentally wrong, deep down inside. So they need someone to justify it for them. To make it OK. It's like little kids and young people doing racist things like the "SAE song." It's fun because it's naughty. It's naughty because it's wrong and they know it. And they can be naughty with mostly minimal consequences. This is not to say that there aren't sociopaths, psychopaths, and hard core racists out there that have zero qualms or reservations about this kind of shit. But sort of the average person needs that justification real bad. And Trumpco provides it.
  2. JE was "interviewed" and said something like "you can't really contend without at least two elite DS." I was a little bit orlly? He's learned a lot.
  3. Really with you on Skinner. Also, at UK, she was admittedly a burnout, even with or maybe because of an NC under her belt. I think last year she was a burnout again.
  4. On the other end, something was going on with Emma last night. They were serving her hard and it was fairly effective at times. At one time the announcers mentioned an alignment/responsibility problem with her and AVW that may have extended to other rotations. I'm not going to ever doubt Emma's ability in serve receive or anything else for that matter, but they seem to have scouted something there.
  5. It's being reproduced mostly in the least accurate corners of the internet, including gateway pundit.
  6. That post reeks of bullshit. Web search it and it is propagated only on bullshit sites, mostly right-wing affiliated.
  7. Do you realize how allergic to facts you people are? Waaah, I don't like these facts, they're political. You're hopeless.
  8. Then I guess your team will be retracting everything it said about the culture of violence in Cloak Room? Yes?
  9. I imagine the SAIC in SLC would be one of the last to come under scrutiny from the regime. We really haven't heard too much about field offices being fucked with outside of DC and NYC.
  10. Dude is wearing an ICE hat while spewing that. It's a nice piece for him, but it is belied by his actions. Most of his media is hateful, divisive monologue. It's like you're contending Brother Jed and Sister Cindy were peaceful Christians just having a dialog on the West Mall.
  11. In Christianity, you don't redeem unkind and unchristian acts by performing kind acts. That's Pharisee shit. Faith without works is dead and that means you're working at full capacity to be kind all the time and you will still fall short.
  12. Yeah I would really like to know some more about his devout Christianity. Where did he attend services? Did he have a pastor or mentor? Was he baptized, born again, or confirmed in any denomination? Attending services at a church is not necessarily a sine qua non of Christianity, but to live a Christian life without organized worship tends to require more spirituality than Kirk evidenced.
  13. Fixed for accuracy. Still a worthy achievement, but a half-measure, if even that, as far as affordability is concerned.
  14. He was. An apolitical one to basically a food bank. Because those without the Trump mind virus know that not every appointment must include a loyalty test.
  15. several different types including public shootings, bar/club incidents, family annihilations, drive-by, workplace and those which defy description but with the established foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident. Why are GVA Mass Shooting numbers higher than some other sources? GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot. GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident. The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Murder but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns. In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not including the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.
  16. AVW ftmfw. Texas Tough.
  17. So many different contributors. Fun.
  18. Zoe sighting, I believe.
  19. Also, you tend to see assistants doing more than the HC, and Meske has spent a good while as an assistant.
  20. The GVA uses less discerning metrics. And doesn't make any conclusions or analysis. That's on CNN.
  21. No, what I said was, there's no consensus on what constitutes a "mass shooting" or even use of that term among reporters. Some include gang violence, some don't, some require 4+ victims, some only 3+. That site I linked uses the definition I mentioned, and this governmental report synthesizes that data as follows: The research examined an era of marked increase in the number and deadly effect of mass shootings in the United States. To summarize that trend: The project spanned mass shootings over more than 50 years, yet 20% of the 167 mass shootings in that period occurred in the last five years of the study period. More than half occurred after 2000, of which 33% occurred after 2010. The years with the highest number of mass shootings were 2018, with nine, and 1999 and 2017, each with seven. Sixteen of the 20 deadliest mass shootings in modern history (i.e., from 1966 through 2019), occurred between 1999 and 2019, and eight of those sixteen occurred between 2014 and 2019. The death toll has risen sharply, particularly in the last decade. In the 1970s, mass shootings claimed an average of eight lives per year. From 2010 to 2019, the end of the study period, the average was up to 51 deaths per year.
  22. He's got some health issues, IIRC, that aren't being helped by the Big Beautiful Buttfucking and is a very angry person, generally.
  23. No you keep changing your position when people call you out. Using the definition that I provided, which excludes gang violence and similar criminal activity to focus on public, single shooter, multiple victim incidents. Are these more frequent in the last 10, 20, or 50 years?
×
×
  • Create New...