Eli Bishop

A troll is an actual human. Just one who has decided to say inflammatory shit for kicks. Actual humans do this all the time.

And that's also a really terrible example of "being honest about not knowing a lot." Claiming to have no real opinion, and saying it's just "data", while still totally framing it as advice and leaving the nature of the data unclear, is dishonest. He very clearly thinks he knows a lot.

The clear message of this profile is that this is an interesting deep thinker and his book is important-- and that "you better 'signal resource' or you won't get laid" isn't a negative message because it's "data-driven." I don't care how vaguely liberal he is in some other way, that is shitty.

"Pile-on"? People aren't reacting to some rando just sharing their thoughts - he's a media personality putting out a book and getting a glowing profile in the Guardian. And a key part of his message is, in a lot of people's opinion (& mine), pretty toxic. So we are allowed to say so.

I understand this feeling, but like so many times when people post a "why isn't this in the news" comment, the answer is that it IS in the news. It's widely & prominently reported by national outlets.

If you want to change the subject to "I want people to go to jail, nothing else matters", there are one million other threads about that on Bluesky.

I'm not talking about personal grudges or family feuds. This thread is about universities, which are massive communities full of complex alliances. I do not think it's correct to say Americans have "the memory of fruit flies" when it comes to malfeasance and betrayal at that level.

I mean, I think the POV of the comment I was replying to was that Americans are uniquely brainless in this way - like, reverse American exceptionalism - in which case France wouldn't be relevant. But I think Americans also have experience in their own lives of long-standing grudges.

This is a popular thing to say, and I get the frustration behind it. But it's more true on the national-news level than within communities. Most of us have at least one community in our life where there are deep lasting group grudges, even if they're not on the radar of people outside that group.

In the actual section 4, the phrase "all civil officers" does make sense because it's saying every position is individually subject to impeachment. (Not "impeachment for treason" - treason is a criminal offense, impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding.)

That is, the "If the president is impeached for treason..." thing. It's not a hypothetical, it's just a false garbled statement. It's nonsense to say "all civil officers" shall be removed" if the president is removed - what, the entire federal government??

You posted an image of a totally untrue claim about Article II section 4. If you understood what you were reading, you wouldn't have posted it.

We do not know what was or wasn't included in that presentation. The Washington Post story is sourced to "two people with direct knowledge of the operation", which I take to mean people within either the military or the executive branch.

Sure, people *could* be coming from there. But I reserve the right to feel that someone who immediately jumps to the Soviet analogy (which is what he literally said it was in his follow-up) either hasn't really given it much thought beyond that, or isn't operating in good faith.

I guess if I have to spell out that I am not in favor of total government control making any controversial creation impossible, OK, I am not. But again, the Soviet comparison is one I have heard since I was a kid in the 80s about every single thing the government could ever do. Including buses.

I didn't argue that it should be the sole source of artists' income. I was replying to a facile pseudo-argument of the "any socialist program = the USSR = serfdom" type that I've heard in the USA for my whole life. Any public funding for anything is "state-approved" and selective in some way.

Fair enough, but your previous comment *did* pretend it's universal. I guess that's the risk of a short comment limit.

To be clear, I'm also in favor of UBI - I don't think artists, or anyone, should have to apply for grants just to be able to eat. But the idea that any arts funding = state propaganda is an old lazy cliche (again, unless you're an anarchist or a libertarian, in which case it's at least honest dogma)

It's like saying public transit is state-approved transit. I mean sure bus lines will always be selective, they won't go absolutely everywhere at all times, there's inherently political compromise. But they still make a huge fucking difference to the general public's ability to go places.

"State-funded writers means state-approved writing" is a thing people say who have never seen art made in places with a functional arts funding system that's run in an honest way. That's not a theoretical thing; they have existed. If you're an anarchist or a libertarian, fine, but otherwise come on.

In threads about this I saw way too many comments where people had somehow talked themselves into thinking *all* photos are mirror images - because they had seen that effect in Zoom or something. I felt like screaming "have you ever seen a photo that had text in it."

I did have the pleasure of hearing Graeme read a little of his book in Chicago, early this year [which now feels like 100 years ago]: bsky.app/profile/russ...

A really lovely and informative and engaging interview with Graeme Wend-Walker about one of my favorite novels. I still haven't dived into Graeme's new book on Hoban, but it's on my table giving me come-hither glances every day!

It's like if a bad guy deploys the same ideological buzzwords that I prefer, his badness actually makes me more right! Whereas if he's saying similar stuff to what some other person says, it makes that other person more wrong.

It's even stupider because, regardless of whether he's relevant, they're using his shittiness as proof that his opinion is correct - like, if *even Carville* thinks [we should "drop woke" and run on "rage"] then that means its blazing truth is clear even to old fools. Cool trick, dude

I WISH I could tolerate drinking a lot of caffeine. As a young person as soon as I discovered coffee, I self-medicated with it a lot, but unfortunately frequent caffeine makes me feel like mangled ass.

Sure it's fine if you remove the aside. The aside is the problem - this is just a straightforward misuse of a parenthetical. You either don't need the first "often" or don't need the second "often". "Intended as poetic" is a highly generous interpretation of a thing people do by accident easily.

What am I missing? "People often, often people..." looks to me like nothing but a mistake for "People, often people..." - it's being used exactly like I'd expect if that was the intent, I don't see any way for it to work as wordplay.

I'm picturing something like the alien from ALIEN with its little spring-loaded mouth that shoots out of the big mouth and stabs you

It's hilariously wrong in terms of vibes and personality and policy and pretty much any other metric other than "this is a Democratic [or Democratic-adjacent] politician who said a strongly worded sentence at some point, and has recently gotten some likes on their social media posts"