🔥 Popular | Latest

This guy aces quantum mechanics by EagleIndustriesJP MORE MEMES: Sairam Gudiseva 3nd period Never has a man influenced physics so profoundly as Niels Bohr in the early 1900's. Going back to this time period, little was known about atomic structure; Bohr set out to end the obscurity of physics. However,things didn't come easy for Bohr. He had to give up most of his life for physics and research of many hypothesis. But, this is why you and I have even heard of the quantum theory and atomic structures. Bohr came up with his quantum theory while studying at Cambridge. Bohr was a skeptic and he never truly believed in Max Planck's old quantum theory. He put forth the idea that, going from one high-energy orbit o a lower one, an electron could, in fact, be trying to emit a quantum of discrete energy. Bohr was criticized for this idea, but he didn't let up. Soon after, Bohr said his famed quote, " If quantum mechanics hasn't shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." This quote is extremely famous and has gone down as the motto for quantum physicist around the world. Understandably, Bohr never won a Nobel prize outside of physics (of which he only won one). Bohr's still going strong with his theories on atomic structure; he allowed for 100's of scientists to fully experiment with the cell and its many components. Bohr was largely on the run from the Nazi's when he came up with this discovery, which is amazing because around this time, Bohr's home country of Denmark was invaded by the Nazi's. Bohr and Ernest Rutherford are given credit, but it is believed that Rutherford decided to desert Bohr in the middle of their work. Rutherford once, quite famously said that you should never bet against the wonders of science. Niels Bohr's famous career never really kicked off until he was forty years old. Most other major scientists were going all over the world with their ideas by their early twenties. However, in order to preserve the legacy of Niels Bohr, he has his own institution, whose goal is to make many more great strides in the field of physics for years. How did Bohr affect you and me? Without Niels Bohrs' more advanced atomic theory, we might as well cry over how little we know of the atoms and their compounds. Physics would have never been such a force in the todays society. However, to this day, research is still going on to improve and update the atomic theory. Although scientists clearly want to improve on Bohr's theory, many famous physicists come out publicly and openly say that Bohr's ideas will never be improved upon, todays society cannot say goodbye to an opportunity to improve our understanding of the sciences. If Bohr never had silenced his critics, we would still be following Planck's theories, and going on incomplete information. Bohr's later life was all occupied when he decided to go back to Denmark and head the Royal Danish Academy. His main goal was to tell the world of the of the greatness of the Danish Sciences and most likely educate a new crop of scientists for years to come. There is controversy surrounding Bohr's lie during his stint in the Manhattan project. Though he claimed to be anti-violence and a peace-seeker, Bohr engineered on the Manhattan Project. Though he didn't hurt anyone directly, thousands of people died. Neils Bohr opened many doors for you and I in the physics world, he will go down as one of the greatest physicists. This guy aces quantum mechanics by EagleIndustriesJP MORE MEMES
Save
ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Congress right now Are Supreme Court decisions just Constitution fandom discourse? Your third eye is wide open tonight, friend. I think you have a point there. They write fanon based heavily in canon (the Constitution), Extended Universe documents (information about original meaning and intention, history, etc), and existing fanon (precedence). They also get the right to say if new fan theories (new laws, etc) should be considered viable or if they’re canon divergent or AU (unconstitutional). And we thought some of our fandom showdowns were intense! I will pay actual money for a summary of the US political system in fannish terminology.: My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic, ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Congress right now Are Supreme Court decisions just Constitution fandom discourse? Your third eye is wide open tonight, friend. I think you have a point there. They write fanon based heavily in canon (the Constitution), Extended Universe documents (information about original meaning and intention, history, etc), and existing fanon (precedence). They also get the right to say if new fan theories (new laws, etc) should be considered viable or if they’re canon divergent or AU (unconstitutional). And we thought some of our fandom showdowns were intense! I will pay actual money for a summary of the US political system in fannish terminology.

ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did n...

Save
: votgs lady-feral "The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the "quantity" group: 50 pounds of pots rated an "A", 40 pounds a "B", and so on Those being graded on "quality", however, needed to produce only one pot albeit a perfect one to get an "A" Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity It seems that while the "quantity" group was busily churning out piles of work-and learning from their mistakes the "quality" group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay." Art and Fear- David Bayles and Ted Orland (via qweety) Perfection is intimidating. I think most artists blocks come from the fear of creating something imperfect. (via buttastic) putting it even more simply: just make shit. eventually itl be good shit. maybe most of it will just be shit but you can't make good shit if you're not making a lot of shit. GET EXCITED AND MAKE THINGS. (via aintgotnoladytronblues) Kind of important. Ive spent way too much of my life thinking about the perfect things I could make without actually making the damned things. 26,336 notes
Save
pangur-and-grim: pangur-and-grim: so these photos are all cute, right? these last few months, Grim’s been back & forth from the vet for irritation and hair loss on her ears. my vet’s theories included a food allergy/bacterial infection, so she’s been on daily pills and her food’s all been swapped out for hypoallergenic stuff then today, Pangur and Grim went in for their annual checkup. Pangur was dealing with her anxiety by alternating between SCREAMING, and obsessively licking Grim’s head and ears, at which point the vet just raised her eyebrows and said “oh…..okay, that’s the cause.” tl;dr I’ve literally spent hundreds bc Pangur won’t stop getting freaky with her girlfriend the grand revenge: MO BLACK HOLE CHARLES URN DEADP0OL DEADPOOA m e DINO TWE WEATWERLY TO DnawINS ANIMALS The Human Figure pangur-and-grim: pangur-and-grim: so these photos are all cute, right? these last few months, Grim’s been back & forth from the vet for irritation and hair loss on her ears. my vet’s theories included a food allergy/bacterial infection, so she’s been on daily pills and her food’s all been swapped out for hypoallergenic stuff then today, Pangur and Grim went in for their annual checkup. Pangur was dealing with her anxiety by alternating between SCREAMING, and obsessively licking Grim’s head and ears, at which point the vet just raised her eyebrows and said “oh…..okay, that’s the cause.” tl;dr I’ve literally spent hundreds bc Pangur won’t stop getting freaky with her girlfriend the grand revenge

pangur-and-grim: pangur-and-grim: so these photos are all cute, right? these last few months, Grim’s been back & forth from the vet for...

Save
gahdamnpunk:The critical thinking, the self awareness…Taste and talent JUMPED OUT: Anra Follow @AnraNana Critically and commercially acclaimed director Shinichiro Watanabe on colorism in the Japanese anime industry and the importance of diversity and genuine care in creating art. Watanabe: The anime does deal with samurai, and tion to skin color," Watan in the back of my mind I was always woried it would multiple languages. Lots be seen as nationalistic. That is why I made one of the ave white skin- all the ch main characters someone from the Ryukyus, and put ever liked. I wanted to ha in the bit about a person training in China, and had le bit about it. The same foreign characters appear. If you watch the anime, it'sred in multiple languages, clear that it has nothing to do with it. It is not an an ed. ime designed to "protect Japan's unique traditions and culture." National borders have always been arbitrarily drawn by people, and in ancient times there was a lot of exchange of people and culture with the continent. But then you get into a conversation about the Jomon and Yayoi peoples. dif people weren't used to Q: How would you explain that? Watanabe: There are many theories about who the original Japanese were, but it's pretty clear that we were not all one ethnic group but a mix of various ones. First we had the Jomon. Most of them were hunters and gatherers. Once you enter the Yayoi Period you have 10:28 PM - 18 Jun 2019 15,092 Retweets 35,120 Likes Q: This may be a little off-topic, but what do you think of nationalism? Watanabe: The anime does deal with samurai, and in the back of my mind I was always worried it would be seen as nationalistic. That is why I made one of the main characters someone from the Ryukyus, and put in the bit about a person training in China, and had foreign characters appear. If you watch the anime, it's clear that it has nothing to do with it. It is not an an- ime designed to "protect Japan's unique traditions and culture." National borders have always been arbitrarily drawn by people, and in ancient times there was a lot of exchange of people and culture with the continent. But then you get into a conversation about the Jomon and Yayoi peoples. Q: How would you explain that? Watanabe: There are many theories about who the original Japanese were, but it's pretty clear that we were not all one ethnic group but a mix of various ones. First we had the Jomon. Most of them were hunters and gatherers. Once you enter the Yayoi Period you have lots of people coming here from the continent and bringing agriculture with them. When the imperial sys- "I paid a lot of attention to skin color," Watanabe said in The Jazz Messengers. "Also to using multiple languages. Lots of times when you watch anime, the characters all have white skin - all the characters in fantasy stories all have white skin, which I never liked. I wanted to have lots of characters in Bebop without the white skin, and if people weren't used to that, well, maybe it would even make them think a little bit about it. The same was true for languages. I wanted to have lines muttered in multiple languages, but that would have been just too difficult," he laughed. gahdamnpunk:The critical thinking, the self awareness…Taste and talent JUMPED OUT

gahdamnpunk:The critical thinking, the self awareness…Taste and talent JUMPED OUT

Save
blue-starr-in-the-sky-port: randomnightlord: blue-starr-in-the-sky-port: A whole lot of Horde Corp. crew going on in this one. Question. Is Hordak a Fan of Matrix? Hordak is a fan of looking as punk and/or intimidating as possible. He unfortunately never indulged in pop culture, so he would’ve never seen it! But I think a certain somebody would eventually drag him on to the couch to watch it. That clears things up! Thank you! : A DORA Hordak Paue -7t chld of the Horde Pony, dun velvet accessories tute tops boss pantr Corp. CEO, alt corings Mr. Prtme guas dout ggetter Over-ach:enres vikligo PUNK hacker gonna F you up Eancelly Entrapta ses Scrunchie s fer slee ping w-all that hair CATRA Scrence Babe - dress code rebcl oversized Shirts Jcans eggings clhucks Eataple Dy! Dr. black na: Tech/Science Geuius 's tay Food poltsh (s0's) bair dinles Teadve's grad studantsn cobotics -chokes plays vidco gomes alicu cnthusiast has been waitig YEARS SCIEUCE Gor somecue to ask aloout her theories Seorpi 3 ty Pletty Stafement Jewelny THE Ryalte MORDE SQUAD Best hugge Buff and Soft the Same time Lonnse not dude G the oCC: ce stlant type Badass Boss Gol hos a -ttern Betangs baked Cocks vests eke nobedy's bustne ss struggle s real gecko good Svcet -REP expert Cxing He wprers n yle for evcryone Poob. tea m skeils blue-starr-in-the-sky-port: randomnightlord: blue-starr-in-the-sky-port: A whole lot of Horde Corp. crew going on in this one. Question. Is Hordak a Fan of Matrix? Hordak is a fan of looking as punk and/or intimidating as possible. He unfortunately never indulged in pop culture, so he would’ve never seen it! But I think a certain somebody would eventually drag him on to the couch to watch it. That clears things up! Thank you!
Save
inserqent: INTERESTING/HELPFUL READS: 19 Ways to Declutter Your Life That Will Prevent Anxiety     How and Why to Build ‘White Space’ Into Your Day 34 Most Brilliantly Simple Tricks Everyone Needs to Know According To Science, There Might Be an Upside To Anxiety Hacks You Can Use to Organize Your Entire Life 6  Easy Ways To Make Extra Money in 2019 Actually Brilliant Advice That Seems Useless Until You Try It 7 Amazing Reasons To Learn A New Language 10 Genius Smartphone Features That Most People Don’t Know About Yet 37 Things That’ll Help You Get. Stuff. Done. In 2019 Crazy Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True 10 Legitimately Easy Tips for Getting Your Home Decluttered and Organized The Most Satisfying KonMari Before and Afters 50 Myths About Your Body You Should Stop Believing Right Now 23 Insanely Easy Tips and Tricks Every Driver Should Know            : Internet. So fhelptml inserqent: INTERESTING/HELPFUL READS: 19 Ways to Declutter Your Life That Will Prevent Anxiety     How and Why to Build ‘White Space’ Into Your Day 34 Most Brilliantly Simple Tricks Everyone Needs to Know According To Science, There Might Be an Upside To Anxiety Hacks You Can Use to Organize Your Entire Life 6  Easy Ways To Make Extra Money in 2019 Actually Brilliant Advice That Seems Useless Until You Try It 7 Amazing Reasons To Learn A New Language 10 Genius Smartphone Features That Most People Don’t Know About Yet 37 Things That’ll Help You Get. Stuff. Done. In 2019 Crazy Conspiracy Theories That Actually Turned Out to Be True 10 Legitimately Easy Tips for Getting Your Home Decluttered and Organized The Most Satisfying KonMari Before and Afters 50 Myths About Your Body You Should Stop Believing Right Now 23 Insanely Easy Tips and Tricks Every Driver Should Know           
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’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … 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’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s 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’t 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’s 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’t convince you, there’s 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’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s 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’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s 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’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s 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, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. 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’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s 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’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t 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’s 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’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” 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’ve 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 “merits this”. 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… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t 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’t mean they’re 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’s execution. That’s 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, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” 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’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … 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’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s 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’t 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’s 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’t convince you, there’s 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’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s 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’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s 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’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s 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, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. 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’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s 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’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t 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’s 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’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” 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’ve 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 “merits this”. 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… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t 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’t mean they’re 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’s execution. That’s 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, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” 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