Rougarou

Completely agree with you here, because really I think there are two options: Incremental-microscopic-iceberg-slow-change that has an appearance of "things go back to normal" and life goes on until the next compelling event in 6-12-18 months OR compelling events start happening so frequently that we have a Civil War.

This has "peasant pizzeria" written all over it.

I guess I'm bought into the false narrative, as of press time, because I don't necessarily agree here, but I understand that is your characterization of it and that's the premise to which I was responding-- your assertion that it would happen. Anyways, hope it works out in Portland.

To continue using analogies and metaphors you'd understand, I feel like we started off really far away in our contract review but we are really close and just a couple of redlines away at landing on an understanding here. I do not think that kids going to march and protest--and seeing that lever of your rights being pulled and being around a group of likeminded folks who share your same (legal) values is bad-- that seems to me to be overwhelmingly good. I think that I just took your premise to be as Axiom said; it sounded like you were wanting to use children to bait police to hurting them/teargassing them, in order to advance the political agenda. I do not think that kids would be tear gassed or hurt by just existing at peaceful rallies, without adults using them (influencing them) to do things that would invite such a response. I don't think 8 or 9 year olds would otherwise disobey orders or engage in riots, of their own agency.

As a lawyer, I assume you understand better than most the dynamic between adults and minors and the reasons why ages of consent, and ages to choose things for themselves, are in place versus custodial rights (and psychological influence, power, etc.) you have. That said, I do think 8 or 9 year old's can choose good things to rally around and be in support of, such as BLM protests, etc. My children wanted to participate after we showed them the George Floyd video. It was heartbreaking to see my youngest be really effected--and scared. I questioned was I being a good parent by showing such a young kid and giving them access to the reality-- or should I be doing more to shelter/shield them. I ultimately think I landed on the right thing, for us, but I don't judge anyone who doesn't want their kids to know about the wickedness and brokenness of the world. But the question remains, are the 8 or 9 year olds acting off of some pure, primal sense of justice and what's right, existing since time immemorial? Or are they influenced by the parents? It's also the constitutional right of an 8 or 9 year old and his parents to go to a Klan rally or Unite the Right rally (perhaps, same difference?), but isn't that using children as political puppetry and/or an example of children being influenced by their parents?

This is a weird response because the replies were specific to the premise that Brisket-made, which was super specific: So you see, nobody is unconsciously doing anything or betraying any sort of deep-seeded feelings or expectations, as much as it's responding to a detailed hypothetical or assumption that Brisket made. What is not debatable by his post, if you would have taken the time to read it, is that the people who would want the world to see, and finally for once and all, turn on the jackboots, is to maneuver and position the children so that they get hurt. The implications and assumptions that can be made then just depend on your own interpretations based on your own cognitive biases and probably political leanings: Do the jackboots just betray their nature and who they are by beating the kids OR do the powers that be that brought impressionable minors (kids who "chose" but yet don't legally ((and arguably, reasonably)) have the power to do so,) do something to draw jackboots offsides in order to use children to advance a political end? Regardless, we all specifically recognize conscripting African kids to the rebellion army and feeding them drugs and giving them an AK-47 is different than having our kids go to protests and trying to put them in a position where they can possibly be hurt, in order to help the public downfall of police and advance the agenda, but what makes it holistically different?

You posted pictures of 8 or 9 years old and said to put them on the front lines, as political ploys. Someone called you out for saying that because they view it as immoral. I get that kids don't have a choice, as kids, what type of world they will inherit when they come to be influential/adults.

What does the whataboutism and both sides maneuver have to do with the price of tea in china, with respect to the (arguably valid) point he made. Using children as gambits in strategy; right or wrong? Depends? Depends on what? They chose? Since when do kids have the ability to make choices like that (and what of the adult influence?)?

Heck, maybe the 17-24 year old, TikTok demographic are full of protest survivalist chock full of homemade remedies and hacks. I guess I've just now heard it anecdotally from two posters on an anonymous website, is why I assumed Brisket was just doing his ledge routine. As an aside, can you imagine the type of rugged, survivalist, hardened Rambo-like generation these guys are? The ones honing their jackboot and riot survival skills are already hardened from having to learn how to take mental illness/school shooting assault rifle fire. These people are going to grow into middle aged adults and either be the greatest generation redux or have some serious, serious issues.

I see Brisket's Histrionic Personality Disorder is flaring up again.

The most frustrating thing is that China will continue to get away with atrocities (e.g. Uighurs, wet-markets, etc.) because they are a global and world power at part with any of the top brass and their influence is just as strong if not stronger. We let them get this big and powerful, that's on us, because now we can't do anything about it without causing WWIII or millions of deaths via mutually assured destruction.

One time we drove to a border town in Mexico around noon and then started driving back around 3am the same "day". We were drunk (not the driver) and tired and pulled over on a shoulder somewhere halfway between Mexico and Austin. Every time a car sped by the highway next to us, it slightly rocked the Jeep Grand Cherokee left and right, over and over, it was the most peaceful sleep I'd had since my newborn swing.

You need help, too, it appears. Sheesh.

Sounds like it was the Daughtry's family business. Probably what paid for the aggy tuition.

If you shop at walmart, are you even a Karen? I thought Karen's were supposed to be at least upper middle class.

I don’t think a break up could be the answer— because once the territories are defined, people would have to move and find their own water (e.g. The racist Bakersfield and Irvine, CA can move to the Republican States of America and liberal Austinites could move to Colorado as part of Liberaltopia). Or people could remain as insurgents and strangers in a strange land, because they like the beach and/or lake and BBQ respectively. That would never work. 200 years ago we could have done it (or even 140 years ago), but now the toothpaste is out I’d the tube.

Good question and no offense. I have a graduate degree; never in any education (that I can recall) had I heard of John Lewis. That said I’ve enjoyed reading a lot about him and his impact and efforts and everything about him and feel like I can participate in some of the shared grieving now. Also, there were a few years that Hollywood was making films about slavery and civil rights, and I never got a chance to catch any— I’ve read one of those movies, Selma I believe, has a good character based on him and I’ll try and find some time to catch this movie in the next few weeks.

I had no idea who this guy was; been reading about him the last hour. RIP.

I didn't think anyone *really* read IJ. I have tried twice, never got past the tennis academy interview. I did read The Broom of the System and thought it was subpar. I also didn't particularly enjoy Consider the Lobster. I thought the transcript of Kenyon college (This is Water) was pretty good, but only after like the 5th time. I just don't think this guy is my speed.

Saw an alert that public schools are virtual until November? Sucks to suck!

Is Ed Bundy the serial killer?

Good stuff, and I agree mostly. Really interested in watching how this all plays out the next few years for sure.

This is hilarious.

Hit up a DQ in Nashville-- no steak fingers there either. (DQ is hq'ed in MSP, by the way)

If your parents drove a Mercedes, I thought you were rich. Nowadays, you have poor people driving around in old models of Mercedes (which are super cheap), to fill that hole in their soul of growing up thinking a Mercedes meant they were rich and valuable and worthwhile as a human being, and I feel that.