馃敟 Popular | Latest

I鈥檓 getting second thoughts about whether accepting this job was a good idea.: <?php header("Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8"); *This is a warning to any poor soul who may have to deal with this code. *I took over this criminal piece of chaos from a monkey named Joel who I assume had been given a typewriter by Mephistopheles himself. For reasons I have yet been unable to fathom, he decided to patch together this thing *using a BaseX setup hardwired into an unfixably broken Manjaro VM, queried by a handwritten plate of uncommented PHP spaghetti fit to feed an army of people with a serious death wish, without any framework or CMS. The very long BaseX script, very long PHP presenter and very long XSLT *stylesheet mostly perform the same heuristic document structuring for different components and are supposed to produce compatible results, but I bet they have mismatches somewhere. *Since Prof. T just wanted a few small functional enhancements, I decided to just patch it and keep the general setup. Unless you were hired to *correct some spelling mistakes, DO NOT FOLLOW IN MY STEPS. Putting up with this simulation of how a goldfish would design a system has literally given me CLINICAL DEPRESSION. This is not an exaggeration, I am writing this after a prolonged medical therapy - mostly successful, thanks for asking, but not fun. I wouldn't wish this code on anybody who isn't a manager at Oracle or Facebook, and therefore give you this sincere advice: *Nuke this. Take the XSLT if you must, and then nuke the app and recreate it *in Django or whatever works for you. I would do it myself, but I risked a relapse simply by opening this file again to write this comment. *Dear brother or sister, I wish you all the luck and strength in the world * and hope it will be enough. Farewell. error_reporting (E_ALL) ; ini_set("display_errors",true); print('<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF - 8 " ?>'."\n") ; ?> I鈥檓 getting second thoughts about whether accepting this job was a good idea.

I鈥檓 getting second thoughts about whether accepting this job was a good idea.

Save
sleepyowlet: silverscreenx: sleepyowlet: antifaintl: Reminder. To all the absolute walnuts in the notes: No, sitting down to talk with a Nazi if you don鈥檛 know they鈥檙e a Nazi doesn鈥檛 make you a Nazi. Neither is trying to talk one out of their mindset. I鈥檓 not sure if you鈥檙e genuinely confused about this or just sea-lioning, but on the off-chance you鈥檙e sincere: The quote is about people being complacent and accepting of Nazis in social settings, much in the same way that rapists feel validated by rape jokes. It鈥檚 about denying Nazis social validation and acceptance, which is a good and necessary thing. It鈥檚 about putting up a stink at family gatherings by refusing to share a meal with uncle Harry after he makes a joke about聽鈥渟ome people鈥 needing to be gassed. It鈥檚 about standing up to members of your social group spouting antisemitic or racist shit. It鈥檚 about challenging them. And yes, trying to talk them out of it is a valid way to do that. But if you can鈥檛, cut ties. It means that if you are complacent, you are part of the problem. So we鈥檙e supposed to give them a victim mentality that will sooner or later evolve into a revenge fantasy and culminate in actual revenge and criminal behavior? You really don鈥檛 understand that all this 鈥減unch Nazis鈥 jargon does is making evil grow in hiding, until it鈥檚 strong enough to fight back? And it鈥檚 not even a saying here. The good Doctor just made up some ideological bullshit. Don鈥檛 try to add nuance to a blanket statement after the fact. Hello. Hi. East German here. We actually do say that. And鈥ou are aware that they already are violent? That they kill people as is? Remember the Zwickauer Terrortrio? Punching them doesn鈥檛 make them worse than they already are - Nazis are always violent because their very ideology already is violence. But you know what punching them achieves? It makes them afraid. It makes it so that they don鈥檛 dare to try to climb on the herring barrel and shout shit at crowds. It makes it harder for them to recruit followers openly. Punching Nazis and openly ridiculing and shaming them makes sure their bullshit doesn鈥檛 get normalised, aka suitable for polite conversation which, as I said, the quote is about. Make Nazis afraid again. : Dr. Jens Foell Following @fMRI guy Replying to @Trancewith Me As we say in Germany, if there's a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. 7:18 PM-13 Feb 2018 2,004 Retweets 5,180 Likes sleepyowlet: silverscreenx: sleepyowlet: antifaintl: Reminder. To all the absolute walnuts in the notes: No, sitting down to talk with a Nazi if you don鈥檛 know they鈥檙e a Nazi doesn鈥檛 make you a Nazi. Neither is trying to talk one out of their mindset. I鈥檓 not sure if you鈥檙e genuinely confused about this or just sea-lioning, but on the off-chance you鈥檙e sincere: The quote is about people being complacent and accepting of Nazis in social settings, much in the same way that rapists feel validated by rape jokes. It鈥檚 about denying Nazis social validation and acceptance, which is a good and necessary thing. It鈥檚 about putting up a stink at family gatherings by refusing to share a meal with uncle Harry after he makes a joke about聽鈥渟ome people鈥 needing to be gassed. It鈥檚 about standing up to members of your social group spouting antisemitic or racist shit. It鈥檚 about challenging them. And yes, trying to talk them out of it is a valid way to do that. But if you can鈥檛, cut ties. It means that if you are complacent, you are part of the problem. So we鈥檙e supposed to give them a victim mentality that will sooner or later evolve into a revenge fantasy and culminate in actual revenge and criminal behavior? You really don鈥檛 understand that all this 鈥減unch Nazis鈥 jargon does is making evil grow in hiding, until it鈥檚 strong enough to fight back? And it鈥檚 not even a saying here. The good Doctor just made up some ideological bullshit. Don鈥檛 try to add nuance to a blanket statement after the fact. Hello. Hi. East German here. We actually do say that. And鈥ou are aware that they already are violent? That they kill people as is? Remember the Zwickauer Terrortrio? Punching them doesn鈥檛 make them worse than they already are - Nazis are always violent because their very ideology already is violence. But you know what punching them achieves? It makes them afraid. It makes it so that they don鈥檛 dare to try to climb on the herring barrel and shout shit at crowds. It makes it harder for them to recruit followers openly. Punching Nazis and openly ridiculing and shaming them makes sure their bullshit doesn鈥檛 get normalised, aka suitable for polite conversation which, as I said, the quote is about. Make Nazis afraid again.
Save
Don鈥檛 read the source, Luke!: <?php header("Content-type: text/html; charset-utf-8"); This is a warning to any poor soul who may have to deal with this code. I took over this criminal piece of chaos from a monkey named Joel who I assume had been given a typewriter by Mephistopheles himself. For reasons I have yet been unable to fathom, he decided to patch together this thing using a BaseX setup hardwired into an unfixably broken Manjaro VM, queried by a handwritten plate of uncommented PHP spaghetti fit to feed an army of people with a serious death wish, without any framework or CMS The very long BaseX script, very long PHP presenter and very long XSLT stylesheet mostly perform the same heuristic document structuring for different components and are supposed to produce compatible results, but I bet they have mismatches somewhere Since Prof. T just wanted a few small functional enhancements, I decided to just patch it and keep the general setup. Unless you were hired to correct some spelling mistakes, DO NOT FOLLOW IN MY STEPS. Putting up with this simulation of how a goldfish would design a system has literally given me CLINICAL DEPRESSION. This is not an exaggeration, I am writing this after a prolonged medical therapy mostly successful, thanks for asking, but not fun. I wouldn't wish this code on anybody who isn't a manager at Oracle or Facebook, and therefore give you this sincere advice: * 4 Nuke this. Take the XSLT if you must, and then nuke the app and recreate it in Django or whatever works for you. I would do it myself, but I risked a relapse simply by opening this f铆le again to write this comment. Dear brother or sister, I wish you all the luck and strength in the world and hope it will be enough Farewell * error_reporting (E ALL); ini set("display_errors", true) print'<?xml version= "1.0" encodina="UTF-8" ?>' "An") : ?> Don鈥檛 read the source, Luke!

Don鈥檛 read the source, Luke!

Save
Who needs license agreements when you got this! F: <?php header("Content-type: text/html; charset-utf-8"); /* *This is a warning to any poor soul who may have to deal with this code I took over this criminal piece of chaos from a monkey named Joel who I assume had been given a typewriter by Mephistopheles himself. For reasons *I have yet been unable to fathom, he decided to patch together this thing using a BaseX setup hardwired into an unfixably broken Manjaro VM, queried by a handwritten plate of uncommented PHP spaghetti fit to feed an army of people with a serious death wish, without any framework or CMS. The very long BaseX script, very long PHP presenter and very long XSLT stylesheet mostly perform the same heuristic document structuring for different components and are supposed to produce compatible results, but I bet they have mismatches somewhere *Since Prof. T just wanted a few small functional enhancements, I decided to just patch it and keep the general setup. Unless you were hired to correct some spelling mistakes, DO NOT FOLLOW IN MY STEPS. Putting up with this simulation of how a goldfish would design a system has literally given me CLINICAL DEPRESSION. This is not an exaggeration, I am writing this after a prolonged medical therapy mostly successful, thanks for asking, but not fun. I wouldn't wish this code on anybody who isn't a manager at Oracle or Facebook, and therefore give you this sincere advice: Nuke this. Take the XSLT if you must, and then nuke the app and recreate it in Django or whatever works for you. I would do it myself, but I risked a relapse simply by opening this file again to write this comment. *Dear brother or sister, I wish you all the luck and strength in the world and hope it will be enough Farewell. * error_reporting (E_ALL) ini set("display_errors", true); print ('<?xml version-""1,0" encoding- "UTF -8 " ?>"\n") : ?> Who needs license agreements when you got this! F

Who needs license agreements when you got this! F

Save
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I鈥檓 now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn鈥檛 want to be here. Okay, @angrybell 鈥 actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don鈥檛 read that with a tone, don鈥檛 read that as an attack. That鈥檚 my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn鈥檛 translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author鈥檚 reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn鈥檛 convince you, there鈥檚 the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He鈥檚 broken literally every one of those rules. He鈥檚 openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn鈥檛 *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn鈥檛 his to distribute. That鈥檚 aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that鈥檚 treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that鈥檚 an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that鈥檚 treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he鈥檚 on the hook for contempt, if he doesn鈥檛 then he鈥檚 on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn鈥檛 go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he鈥檚 committing grand larceny by fraud, because he鈥檚 taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, 鈥渉igh crimes and misdemeanors鈥. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he鈥檚 failing that job. Trump鈥檚 supporters probably believe he鈥檚 done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn鈥檛 like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they鈥檝e ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. 鈥 His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he鈥檚 failing that job. 鈥 I like how Bogleech doesn鈥檛 know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It鈥檚 not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That鈥檚 what 鈥榓bove reproach鈥 means. An impossible standard, considering people 鈥渞eproach鈥 Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I鈥檝e seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says聽鈥渕erits this鈥. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets鈥 Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don鈥檛 need to know the context, or any other point, when you鈥檙e indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump鈥檚 execution, we鈥檙e 5 paragraphs in and you haven鈥檛 even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I鈥檓 guessing, because I鈥檓 not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-鈥漜oncocting鈥 a response, and yet you鈥檙e waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn鈥檛 about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump鈥檚 execution. That鈥檚 it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of,聽鈥淪o, click-bait subtitle that you don鈥檛 see until you鈥檝e already clicked on the article link out of the way, here鈥檚 what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,鈥 could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It鈥檚 like鈥 it鈥檚 like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,聽鈥淥h, seems you made a typo,鈥 you鈥檇 jump in like,聽鈥淏ut what about they鈥檙e perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They鈥檙e lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it鈥. You and what鈥檚 his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y鈥檃ll keep saying聽鈥渂ut what of the context?鈥 when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.聽鈥淪ure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.鈥 Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I鈥檓 now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn鈥檛 want to be here. Okay, @angrybell 鈥 actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don鈥檛 read that with a tone, don鈥檛 read that as an attack. That鈥檚 my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn鈥檛 translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author鈥檚 reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn鈥檛 convince you, there鈥檚 the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He鈥檚 broken literally every one of those rules. He鈥檚 openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn鈥檛 *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn鈥檛 his to distribute. That鈥檚 aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that鈥檚 treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that鈥檚 an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that鈥檚 treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he鈥檚 on the hook for contempt, if he doesn鈥檛 then he鈥檚 on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn鈥檛 go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he鈥檚 committing grand larceny by fraud, because he鈥檚 taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, 鈥渉igh crimes and misdemeanors鈥. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he鈥檚 failing that job. Trump鈥檚 supporters probably believe he鈥檚 done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn鈥檛 like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they鈥檝e ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. 鈥 His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he鈥檚 failing that job. 鈥 I like how Bogleech doesn鈥檛 know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It鈥檚 not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That鈥檚 what 鈥榓bove reproach鈥 means. An impossible standard, considering people 鈥渞eproach鈥 Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I鈥檝e seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says聽鈥渕erits this鈥. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets鈥 Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don鈥檛 need to know the context, or any other point, when you鈥檙e indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump鈥檚 execution, we鈥檙e 5 paragraphs in and you haven鈥檛 even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I鈥檓 guessing, because I鈥檓 not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-鈥漜oncocting鈥 a response, and yet you鈥檙e waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn鈥檛 about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump鈥檚 execution. That鈥檚 it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of,聽鈥淪o, click-bait subtitle that you don鈥檛 see until you鈥檝e already clicked on the article link out of the way, here鈥檚 what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,鈥 could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It鈥檚 like鈥 it鈥檚 like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,聽鈥淥h, seems you made a typo,鈥 you鈥檇 jump in like,聽鈥淏ut what about they鈥檙e perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They鈥檙e lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it鈥. You and what鈥檚 his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y鈥檃ll keep saying聽鈥渂ut what of the context?鈥 when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.聽鈥淪ure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.鈥 Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Save