Trump Enslavement Syndrome - Orange man good. /r/The_Donald and any public demonstration of rabid pro-Trump enthusiasm in spite of all reason.

[Surfin Terf]

Like refusing to decorate a cake for someone? Don't call it free, either - the engagement that Trump and the conspiratards in general brought to these platforms made them a lot of money, so it isn't free; the exchange is you waive your rights to that data and abide by their TOS. The two are fundamentally the same principle, which libertarians have been pretty steady on.

That's why I said that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While I personally view the Masterpiece Bakery case as being a violation of the baker's rights, it still has significant differences from tech companies banning rightwing accounts.
1) Colorado law specifically banned discrimination based on sexual-orientation before this, twitter is not subject to laws against discrimination based on political beliefs.
2) Decorating a gay wedding cake is not significantly harming the bakery while allowing rightwingers to post conspiracy theories on their site does significantly harm Twitter's product.
3) The gay couple could not have reasonably compromised with the baker and otherwise been equal to other customers, unlike the rightwing Twitter accounts that are allowed to express rightwing views but are getting banned for specifically repeating things that are generally agreed to be untrue but which are being used to encourage violence.

On the other hand, you could argue that
1) A few tech companies collectively form a monopoly on social media while the gay couple was easily able to get their cake from a different bakery.

But overall I think that the two cases are different enough that supporting one and not the other is entirely consistent.
And as for it being free, if Twitter decides that they aren't getting value from these users or that they provide a net negative then they are providing it for free. You also seem willing to give libertarians too much credit. Some of them are principled, but just like anyone else a whole lot of them are big old hypocrites.

There's no line by which you can say one is fine and the other is not that isn't inherently arbitrary -- the 'proper' progressive argument would be that these tech monopolies are too concentrated and have a negative effect on people, and need to be regulated/broken up.

Now, suddenly, the ultraliberal line that magically defends and enshrines their actions is the way to go? No less, while they were under consideration for antitrust litigation? Anyone that buys that business discretion applies to twitter but not to the random baker in bumfuck is a sucker being taken for a ride by the megacorps.

Yes, their monopolies should be broken up, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people. I'm 100% in favor of the tech companies being broken up and I don't think that any progressive pretends that opposing that is progressive (though some might oppose it just because they're being paid by the tech companies). I can hate Adolf Hitler but that doesn't mean that I support throwing him in jail for life because he jaywalked.

Mutilating wildlife to own the libs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it appeared the marks did not break the animal’s skin but were made by scraping off algae on its back.

Calling that mutiliation is a bit severe. It was probably some dumbass who came across an unusually docile manatee and decided it would be funny to make it say "Trump".

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I mean there is such a thing as nuance. There is a fundamental difference between “I refuse to service you because a book said you’re going to burn in hell” and “I’m kicking you off my platform because you’re using it to incite a violent uprising against the government.” Sure, you could argue that the line is arbitrary, but by that same logic one could argue that killing a spider and killing a human child are the same and any difference between the two is inherently arbitrary as the ultimate core of the act is killing a living being. Of course there’s an inherent moral difference between killing a spider and killing a child, just like there’s an inherent moral difference between discriminating against a person because of stupid and petty reasons and deplatforming somebody because they’re supporting domestic terrorism.

Spoiler: space saving force

Where, exactly, is that line? It's arbitrary - those people that looked for the baker had found plenty of other shops that would take their request, and specifically looked for the one place that would decline it. Does that make their case any more or less reasonable for "businesses can do whatever they feel like so long as it's not illegal?" You see it as "a book said you're going to burn in hell," but a religious person might see it as the state compelling someone to violate their faith - not dissimilar to Yaniv's ball-waxtacular scenario. Should a Jewish baker be compelled to make a swastika? How about a cake that says "Jews are okay I guess"? Should adult swim have been forced to keep MDE on?

You can't throw nuance into "a business is free to do what it thinks best outside of illegal concerns," because you are then defining what a business can and cannot do 'with nuance.' There's no metric or transparency and no line beyond "common sense," a phrase which has no legal meaning and can be reliably interpreted as "whatever doesn't personally disturb me." Nuance tends to translate similarly.

I should say my concern is more with webhosting and payment processing, though. I don't really care if twitter and facebook ban cheetos don or so-on.

This is true, and it would help improve a lot of things. But would it really prevent some people from being completely de-platformed? Even the KiwiFarms and the Parlers of the world have rules, and if you can't talk online for ten minutes without making actual, non-joking death threats, eventually you'll run out of places to post. De-platforming seems to be their main complaint, and not... like... the million other things that are fucked up about Twitter and Facebook.

Yes, their monopolies should be broken up, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people. I'm 100% in favor of the tech companies being broken up and I don't think that any progressive pretends that opposing that is progressive (though some might oppose it just because they're being paid by the tech companies). I can hate Adolf Hitler but that doesn't mean that I support throwing him in jail for life because he jaywalked.

Spoiler: savin de space

I don't think anyone has particular issues with statements that violate law, and none have advised that a platform should be unable to remove those. These empty, idiotic, cope-tastic posts are what have been removed - which do not violate the law. I'm not even speaking in defense of the modern version of a "free speech advocate," some unskilled tart or grifter spouting off epithets for internet cummies from other AA flunkies.

You will find that Trump is not going to get hit with inciting a mob or treason or even quite probably sedition, because these are all rhetorical descriptions being given to what is ultimately unpresidential but legal behavior. Impeachment isn't a criminal consideration/judgment. Similarly, the people running the stupid conspiracy accounts are not going to get hit with these charges; they were not by any legal definition inciting insurrection or rebellion, and there broadly are not laws which punish you for sperging like a retard and upping the temperature. It's a flaw of the first amendment which the internet and social media's unique nature makes novel in how exploitable it is.
(This doesn't apply to the people that stormed the capitol, who can probably get hit with sedition. Or anyone that posted 'herez how u sneak in da gunz' shit.)

Cutting off the financial particulars from politicians like Ted Cruz and throwing the whole of Parler off of AWS when neither of them have broken federal or state law (or indeed even been charged for such afaik), is a dangerous precedent. Because where is the line? Both are being chopped for a gray area - something that the various companies personally dislike, or personally see as an acceptable risk to take in order to parlay with the incoming administration.

This would be an absolute nothing if not for the fact that these companies command so much of the market share in their various realms, who can leverage their size to absorb or run out any and all competition. Get rid of the monopolies in web hosting, and it no longer matters if a provider doesn't really want to host Parler. Get rid of monopolies in payment processing, and it no longer matters if one doesn't want the son of the zodiac killer to get campaign funds. Force the companies to have clearly defined and rigid policies about when and when not they will engage in this sort of behavior, and it doesn't matter as much when they follow their own rules.

Yes, this means that I want people who actively call for the violent overthrow of the united states because they're trustafarian commie shitheads larping to still be able to use their credit cards even if I would personally prefer that each and every one of them got shipped off to the central african republic.

It's the line everyone is using right now because it pisses off conservatives the most, because it was a talking line of theirs not long ago. The libs saying Twitter should have a say in political affairs outside of the U.S., such as that Ugandan election coming up, are just as stupid as people saying free speech in the U.S. is dead because specific persons can no longer shitpost on Twitter. Those persons were kicked off because they helped incite and partook in a riot that lead to the death of two, technically three people; To me that is a reasonable excuse to ban a person from a major form of social media. Twitter banning specific Ugandan news sources because they might give "incorrect" news, however, is stupid. Why Ugandan news stations are using U.S. based social media is a whole other discussion. There's always going to be unrepentant corporate dick-suckers on either side of the aisle, the best thing to do is just keep making fun of them.

Spoiler: savin some space

If they were just taking the piss I'd have a laugh, but it comes off more to me like people are simultaneously holding that the emperor has clothes and is naked whenever it benefits them most. I don't really care for that kind of inconsistency, and it's worth a paddlin'.

The attempt to pressure foreign political parties from twitter and so-forth is funny to me for a similar reason, though, yeah. People bitching about US colonialism and interventionism... want to pressure twitter to do it arbitrarily against people and governments they don't like? I hate colonialism, so let's have the empire interfere in your local government because we didn't earlier think about what might happen if we gave the dominant tribe access to firearms?

Like, there's absolutely no doubt that twitter and facebook and so-on have empowered awful leaders and awful ideologies all over the world... but maybe they should've fucking thought about that rather than had their engineers spit out an algorithm guaranteed to enthrall people. Fuck, we've got engineers working around the clock to churn out deepfakes and speech recognition technology, right? How do you think that's going to roll over?

The effort to make these toys and then pull them from only specific world leaders we don't like is so completely childish and sophomoric - you need to pull them from all world leaders, no world leaders, or make actual goddamn standards as to who can and cannot use the service or else you're admitting that some yuppie fucking tech morons get to decide whose politics are proper and correct the world over whenever they want, at their own whim.

I'm firmly in the "just destroy social media altogether" camp, though, so I'm quite enjoying that Jack Dorsey's expert management and trips to get stung by bees in the Himalayas has helped to turn despotic shitholes into irredeemably despotic shitholes. Lotta good that guy brought into the world there, for sure.

 

[Lou’s Biggest Fan]

Spoiler: space saving force

Where, exactly, is that line? It's arbitrary - those people that looked for the baker had found plenty of other shops that would take their request, and specifically looked for the one place that would decline it. Does that make their case any more or less reasonable for "businesses can do whatever they feel like so long as it's not illegal?" You see it as "a book said you're going to burn in hell," but a religious person might see it as the state compelling someone to violate their faith - not dissimilar to Yaniv's ball-waxtacular scenario. Should a Jewish baker be compelled to make a swastika? How about a cake that says "Jews are okay I guess"? Should adult swim have been forced to keep MDE on?

You can't throw nuance into "a business is free to do what it thinks best outside of illegal concerns," because you are then defining what a business can and cannot do 'with nuance.' There's no metric or transparency and no line beyond "common sense," a phrase which has no legal meaning and can be reliably interpreted as "whatever doesn't personally disturb me." Nuance tends to translate similarly.

I should say my concern is more with webhosting and payment processing, though. I don't really care if twitter and facebook ban cheetos don or so-on.

Spoiler: savin de space

I don't think anyone has particular issues with statements that violate law, and none have advised that a platform should be unable to remove those. These empty, idiotic, cope-tastic posts are what have been removed - which do not violate the law. I'm not even speaking in defense of the modern version of a "free speech advocate," some unskilled tart or grifter spouting off epithets for internet cummies from other AA flunkies.

You will find that Trump is not going to get hit with inciting a mob or treason or even quite probably sedition, because these are all rhetorical descriptions being given to what is ultimately unpresidential but legal behavior. Impeachment isn't a criminal consideration/judgment. Similarly, the people running the stupid conspiracy accounts are not going to get hit with these charges; they were not by any legal definition inciting insurrection or rebellion, and there broadly are not laws which punish you for sperging like a retard and upping the temperature. It's a flaw of the first amendment which the internet and social media's unique nature makes novel in how exploitable it is.
(This doesn't apply to the people that stormed the capitol, who can probably get hit with sedition. Or anyone that posted 'herez how u sneak in da gunz' shit.)

Cutting off the financial particulars from politicians like Ted Cruz and throwing the whole of Parler off of AWS when neither of them have broken federal or state law (or indeed even been charged for such afaik), is a dangerous precedent. Because where is the line? Both are being chopped for a gray area - something that the various companies personally dislike, or personally see as an acceptable risk to take in order to parlay with the incoming administration.

This would be an absolute nothing if not for the fact that these companies command so much of the market share in their various realms, who can leverage their size to absorb or run out any and all competition. Get rid of the monopolies in web hosting, and it no longer matters if a provider doesn't really want to host Parler. Get rid of monopolies in payment processing, and it no longer matters if one doesn't want the son of the zodiac killer to get campaign funds. Force the companies to have clearly defined and rigid policies about when and when not they will engage in this sort of behavior, and it doesn't matter as much when they follow their own rules.

Yes, this means that I want people who actively call for the violent overthrow of the united states because they're trustafarian commie shitheads larping to still be able to use their credit cards even if I would personally prefer that each and every one of them got shipped off to the central african republic.

Spoiler: savin some space

If they were just taking the piss I'd have a laugh, but it comes off more to me like people are simultaneously holding that the emperor has clothes and is naked whenever it benefits them most. I don't really care for that kind of inconsistency, and it's worth a paddlin'.

The attempt to pressure foreign political parties from twitter and so-forth is funny to me for a similar reason, though, yeah. People bitching about US colonialism and interventionism... want to pressure twitter to do it arbitrarily against people and governments they don't like? I hate colonialism, so let's have the empire interfere in your local government because we didn't earlier think about what might happen if we gave the dominant tribe access to firearms?

Like, there's absolutely no doubt that twitter and facebook and so-on have empowered awful leaders and awful ideologies all over the world... but maybe they should've fucking thought about that rather than had their engineers spit out an algorithm guaranteed to enthrall people. Fuck, we've got engineers working around the clock to churn out deepfakes and speech recognition technology, right? How do you think that's going to roll over?

The effort to make these toys and then pull them from only specific world leaders we don't like is so completely childish and sophomoric - you need to pull them from all world leaders, no world leaders, or make actual goddamn standards as to who can and cannot use the service or else you're admitting that some yuppie fucking tech morons get to decide whose politics are proper and correct the world over whenever they want, at their own whim.

I'm firmly in the "just destroy social media altogether" camp, though, so I'm quite enjoying that Jack Dorsey's expert management and trips to get stung by bees in the Himalayas has helped to turn despotic shitholes into irredeemably despotic shitholes. Lotta good that guy brought into the world there, for sure.

The line is the same that defines a lot of things that might otherwise be arbitrary: “Reasonability”. Many states use this as a gauge for if deadly force was justified or not in a self defense situation. Example: a reasonable person could be expected use deadly force if they were cornered in an alley with no means of escape except through their attacker. A reasonable person would NOT be expected to use deadly force in a situation in which somebody flashed a knife at them from across the street while they were in their car with the doors locked and able to simply drive away from the situation with absolutely no risk to themselves or anybody else.

That same metric can be applied to situations like business practices. Would a reasonable person refuse to accept the money and perform the service they are registered to perform to the public simply because that person had a skin tone darker than what they were used to seeing? No. They wouldn’t. Would a reasonable person refuse to accept the money and perform the service they are registered to perform to the public because the person in question was using their service to incite domestic terrorism? Yeah absolutely, and if they didn’t they’re retarded.

Would a reasonable person kill a spider? Yeah. Would a reasonable person kill a child? Fuck no.

The world doesn’t exist in black and white. Sure you can’t apply a legal definition that has a clear cut yes and no to everything, but you can absolutely still use common sense and critical thinking to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, and if you actually can’t do that and you need to have very clearly defined “do’s and dont’s” applies to every situation otherwise you consider it should just be allowed by default, then you should go get diagnosed because that is one of the hallmarks of Autism.

 

[The Last Stand]

lol

https://twitter.com/RayRedacted/status/1348388601118273537

View attachment 1843437
View attachment 1843436

He sounds like he's about to cry.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

The line is the same that defines a lot of things that might otherwise be arbitrary: “Reasonability”. Many states use this as a gauge for if deadly force was justified or not in a self defense situation. Example: a reasonable person could be expected use deadly force if they were cornered in an alley with no means of escape except through their attacker. A reasonable person would NOT be expected to use deadly force in a situation in which somebody flashed a knife at them from across the street while they were in their car with the doors locked and able to simply drive away from the situation with absolutely no risk to themselves or anybody else.

That same metric can be applied to situations like business practices. Would a reasonable person refuse to accept the money and perform the service they are registered to perform to the public simply because that person had a skin tone darker than what they were used to seeing? No. They wouldn’t. Would a reasonable person refuse to accept the money and perform the service they are registered to perform to the public because the person in question was using their service to incite domestic terrorism? Yeah absolutely, and if they didn’t they’re retarded.

Would a reasonable person kill a spider? Yeah. Would a reasonable person kill a child? Fuck no.

The world doesn’t exist in black and white. Sure you can’t apply a legal definition that has a clear cut yes and no to everything, but you can absolutely still use common sense and critical thinking to determine what is acceptable and what isn’t, and if you actually can’t do that and you need to have very clearly defined “do’s and dont’s” applies to every situation otherwise you consider it should just be allowed by default, then you should go get diagnosed because that is one of the hallmarks of Autism.

The existence of stand your ground and responsibility to retreat laws expressly codify "reasonability", as well as every state's particulars about self-defense and gun handling in general. If you buy a gun and rely on your "common sense" to inform your self-defense options, you really should not be buying that gun. Every single decision made by a court that falls outside of the previously established rules becomes precedent.

Trump and Cruz are not getting hit on incitement to domestic terrorism charges no matter how much you repeat it, either, so your comparison would be "someone that people on the media have said are inciting domestic terrorism." Which I'm told is the playbook of the notorious internet felons of the Gamer Gate...

You are trying to apply "common sense" morality to a world of law and its intersection with business in the form of regulation. Very, very few things are left up to "reasonability" when you're dealing with the law - or they shouldn't be. After all, domestic spying on absolutely every American and tapping international leaders' cells was "common sense" and "completely reasonable" given 9/11 and the realities of international terrorism.

Let me put it this way - if someone reported your use of Kiwi Farms to the government, and you were effectively barred from accessing your money, using payment processors, thrown on the no-fly list, etc... would you say that was perfectly reasonable? Are you endorsing what has happened to dear leader as reasonable? Because you certainly seem to be. By all common sense and critical thinking, the behavior of the Farms is not acceptable and payment processors should be free to deny service to the guy running it.

Who defines "reasonability?" Who defines "common sense?"
If blasphemy laws are common sense in Singapore, should they be legally common sense for anyone using a Singapore-based payment processor?
You are talking about millions of dollars in capital, not some guy stepping on a bug. You do not use wishy-washy language when you deal with shit this big.

 

[Mrs Paul]

Trumpers trully live in their own reality. I had a moment with my mother recently where she said she could never respect Arnold Schwarzenegger, because he cheated on his wife. It was in response to his statement on the insurrection. She legit does not believe Trump ever was unfaithful to his wives.

Even though he out and out admitted it, after he left Ivana for Marla Maples? It was all over the media -- even I remember it, and I think I was only about 12 at the time.

 

[Neil]

View attachment 1842779

For years, Trump fans used the Bible verse stating that all leaders are chosen by God as a way of forcing other non-trump fan christians to hold no objections to Trump's presidency or actions.
But now, when the roles are reversed, I don't expect many of those same people to hold up that verse so proudly.

All this shit about Biden being a dictator and camps for conservatives is sheer projection. It's literally what they wish Trump could have done.

I really hate how this "Biden is a chinese communist" shit took off to the point where it's reached the Asias and Africa and has raised support for Trump because of said lie being spread and mistranslated and taken as true.
Granted, the support is in little pockets, but still.

I got thrown off a flight and arrested when all I did was storm the capitol and smear my shit on the walls. This is literally 1984.

This is so orwellian it's kafkaesque!

 

[Doctor of Autism]

For years, Trump fans used the Bible verse stating that all leaders are chosen by God as a way of forcing other non-trump fan christians to hold no objections to Trump's presidency or actions.
But now, when the roles are reversed, I don't expect many of those same people to hold up that verse so proudly.

I honestly can't understand that logic because does that mean Obama was god-appointed along with many other shitty presidents

 

[brooky]

I honestly can't understand that logic because does that mean Obama was god-appointed along with many other shitty presidents

Democrats were all installed by a secret worldwide cabal of Satanists, duh.

 

[Montalbane]

Thisbis the face of the monster who single handledly conspired and brought down the trump administration.
Look at him, this is Q a malicious intellect capable only of evil.

The only words which will reasonate form now on are: "SHIOCK BECAUSZ"

https://youtu.be/p3qBlHqWgtY

 

[Doctor of Autism]

Crossposting this from the Qanon thread but "HERE'S HOW TRUMP CAN STILL WIN!"

Great stuff today- Trump made a crack about Biden having to worry more about the 25th Amendment than him ("because he's senile ha ha")... and he mentioned the "Biden administration".

AS IF BIDEN WILL EVER POSSIBLY BE INAUGURATED

Remaining Qtards freaked out
View attachment 1844793

https://twitter.com/travis_view/status/1349129961492377602

But others saw a mention of a Sun Tzu quote on the 8kun qresearch board, and started bleating it to keep the faith.
View attachment 1844792

https://twitter.com/Steven16066852/status/1349171594653028354

Meanwhile, other Qtards have been attempting to get even more avenues of communication closed off through their stupidity by... sending text spam
View attachment 1844789

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/qanon-falsehoods-move-text-message-chains-n1253962

 

[A Welsh Cake]

Stop killing spiders
️

 

[bugbear]

So, this may just be wishful thinking on my part, but is it possible that we will see a sort of police and prison reform somewhere down the line? Nothing major, of course, but even some minor improvements. It seems that right wingers are going to be slightly more willing to entertain the idea of a reform now than they were a week ago.

Of course, I could just be dumb.

 

[AnOminous]

lol

https://twitter.com/RayRedacted/status/1348388601118273537

View attachment 1843437
View attachment 1843436

REEEE REEEEEEE why do I suffer consequences for my crimes? Shouldn't I just be able to break the law without consequences?

God, I wish we had another Teddy Roosevelt right now.

The populist tendency in American politics that elected Teddy is directly related to what elected Trump. It's just sad it was misdirected to a scummy scam artist.

Didn't see it in the previous pages, but parler got super hacked.

They even used a free trial version Okta

That is said also to include data from Parler’s “Verified Citizens,” users of the network who verified their identity by uploading photographs of government-issued IDs, such as a driver’s license.

Lmao self-doxing faggots.

 

[iafiv]

So, this may just be wishful thinking on my part, but is it possible that we will see a sort of police and prison reform somewhere down the line? Nothing major, of course, but even some minor improvements. It seems that right wingers are going to be slightly more willing to entertain the idea of a reform now than they were a week ago.

Of course, I could just be dumb.

Its not that bad in prison for white supremacist/far right types. White supremacist gangs have proliferated in prisons for decades now. The folk who stormed the Capitol will be heroes for the guys behind bars. Prison is genuinely bad only if you have no one to watch your back.Granted you also have to defend the group if need be. These guys will go behind bars quickly become heroes of other far right types and have a pretty good stay. Most will be out in 5-10 years the difference being they now have experience and will be able to take charge of far right groups. Even McVeigh didn't have that bad of a stay in prison.He actually was pretty ok. Even made friends with the Unabomber and Ramzi Yousef.All of that he'll be someones wife jokes are only valid for the ones without any backup.
Like it or not but the storming of the Capitol will be an inspiration for these types for decades to come no matter how hard a crackdown afterwards.If anything most were probably as surprised as everyone else that they did it. Which also means these types will mostly stay loyal to Trump because its obvious why they did it.The fact that they managed to do it tells them everything they need to know.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Most will be out in 5-10 years the difference being they now have experience and will be able to take charge of far right groups.

Yeah, that's kind of a worrisome thing. When Britain housed all the IRA members together in prison they just taught each other how to build bombs.

 

[A Money Creature]

Personally, I find enslavement syndrome so much more entertaining. Maybe because I'm personally on the left, I doubt that that's the full reason. It's much more cultish, insane, and realistic. "Tranny bad" and "black person bad" gets extremely tiring of being heard all day, and I'm glad these people are finally getting their shit fed back to them.

I also think a lot of people on this site are/were like this, and I think that recent events are finally weeding out the partisianism that arose during the 2016 era. Both sides deserve to be mocked equally.

 

[FencePost]

Its not that bad in prison for white supremacist/far right types. White supremacist gangs have proliferated in prisons for decades now. The folk who stormed the Capitol will be heroes for the guys behind bars. Prison is genuinely bad only if you have no one to watch your back.Granted you also have to defend the group if need be. These guys will go behind bars quickly become heroes of other far right types and have a pretty good stay. Most will be out in 5-10 years the difference being they now have experience and will be able to take charge of far right groups. Even McVeigh didn't have that bad of a stay in prison.He actually was pretty ok. Even made friends with the Unabomber and Ramzi Yousef.All of that he'll be someones wife jokes are only valid for the ones without any backup.
Like it or not but the storming of the Capitol will be an inspiration for these types for decades to come no matter how hard a crackdown afterwards.If anything most were probably as surprised as everyone else that they did it. Which also means these types will mostly stay loyal to Trump because its obvious why they did it.The fact that they managed to do it tells them everything they need to know.

Any action taken against them is going to create martyrs and heroes. Just look at the lady who got shot last week. It doesn't matter that, as a member of the air force, she attempted treason by taking part in the riot or that she was a textbook "Karen," complete with at least three husbands. She was a MAGApede that was shot by the evul demonrat police, that's all that matters.
A large portion of the people sentenced are also going to finally catch on to what other groups have been piggy backing on the MAGA train. Others are going to realize the lengths and depths you have to go to herd a group of cats like the MAGA and QAnon crowd. They'll serve time with like minded people but that doesn't mean they'll like the company.

 

[Steamboat_Bill]

Personally, I find enslavement syndrome so much more entertaining. Maybe because I'm personally on the left, I doubt that that's the full reason. It's much more cultish, insane, and realistic. "Tranny bad" and "black person bad" gets extremely tiring of being heard all day, and I'm glad these people are finally getting their shit fed back to them.

I also think a lot of people on this site are/were like this, and I think that recent events are finally weeding out the partisianism that arose during the 2016 era. Both sides deserve to be mocked equally.

The partisans will weed out their own ranks because even the slightest sign of dissent is blasphemy for them.

For example: Liz Cheney just came out and said she wants to get rid of Trump, and now there's a ton of House Republicans who want to remove her from her duties. It doesn't help them at all, but it's meaningless partisanship and that's what matters, right?

 

[iafiv]

Personally, I find enslavement syndrome so much more entertaining. Maybe because I'm personally on the left, I doubt that that's the full reason. It's much more cultish, insane, and realistic. "Tranny bad" and "black person bad" gets extremely tiring of being heard all day, and I'm glad these people are finally getting their shit fed back to them.

I also think a lot of people on this site are/were like this, and I think that recent events are finally weeding out the partisianism that arose during the 2016 era. Both sides deserve to be mocked equally.

Partisanship did not form in 2016. Its been steadily growing since the Clinton scandals. There was a small respite from it from about 9/11 up to the 2004 election but it grew fast afterwards. Don't forget that things like the Tea Party or Occupy were a direct result of growing divisions. And then came Obama taking a clear stand in controversial cases like the Zimmerman trial. And then it finally had an overt racial dimension. Trumo created nothing he only took it to the next level. But the foundations were layed during Bush 2 and Obama.