JB stan account's Avatar

JB stan account

@johnbrownstan.bsky.social

Militant liberal. Aspiring re-education camp counselor. Filibuster abolition enjoyer. Look down the game tree. What's at the end of all those off-equilibrium paths? DO NOT REPEAT THIS INSIGHT

12,323 Followers  |  812 Following  |  31,061 Posts  |  Joined: 28.04.2023  |  2.0009

Latest posts by johnbrownstan.bsky.social on Bluesky

it’s particularly tedious because I do not operate a surveillance state, and the only reason that I know you did this thing (not voting or whatever) is because *you fucking told me*, it’s absurd to volunteer this information than get huffy and wounded because provokes a reaction you don’t like.

17.02.2026 01:53 β€” πŸ‘ 206    πŸ” 25    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

I'm sorry but the idea that any Democrat, Gavin Newsom included, would conduct Operation Metro Surge is completely deranged. It feels like you're trying to gaslight us or something.

17.02.2026 00:51 β€” πŸ‘ 851    πŸ” 73    πŸ’¬ 32    πŸ“Œ 7
Post image

I don't feel like editing the meme, but

17.02.2026 00:19 β€” πŸ‘ 10    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Never. We don't talk about those freaks

17.02.2026 00:19 β€” πŸ‘ 9    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Yeah, it's all irrelevant

16.02.2026 23:17 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

So is being willing to throw an election in the face of literal concentration camps

16.02.2026 23:16 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

It's the context of the original post

16.02.2026 21:37 β€” πŸ‘ 1    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Weirdly, he never made that case so explicitly, though I'm guessing he might admit it in private

16.02.2026 21:36 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

It is where you arrive if you really and truly believe in the welfare theorems, I think. But the flip side that you also necessarily arrive at if you buy that argument is that people who cannot work "efficiently" enough to sustain themselves for whatever reason should just die

16.02.2026 21:35 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

If you're interested, his claim was that rich people have extremely valuable time, more money means they can outsource more of their day-to-day life stuff and focus on the things they get that big bucks for, and doing so is maximally efficient for everyone

16.02.2026 21:34 β€” πŸ‘ 4    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

No argument there

16.02.2026 21:32 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

Hayek explicitly argued against the idea that money can have declining marginal utility

16.02.2026 21:31 β€” πŸ‘ 5    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

Depends on the era of Hayek. 1944 Hayek would. 1988 Hayek probably wouldn't. At best, he would concede the point in theory but argue that it's an impossible outcome of a "true" free market economy

16.02.2026 21:30 β€” πŸ‘ 6    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

Anything to give Sulzberger a stroke

16.02.2026 21:28 β€” πŸ‘ 52    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

I'd support her on that basis alone.

16.02.2026 21:25 β€” πŸ‘ 117    πŸ” 3    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

AOC leading in the polls in a primary will cause a level of elite lib derangement which will make the response to mamdani seem mild mannered and good natured

16.02.2026 21:23 β€” πŸ‘ 145    πŸ” 5    πŸ’¬ 3    πŸ“Œ 4

The successful effort to force Biden out signaled to elite media that they had a veto over Democratic Party primary voters. Whether they successfully exercise it or simply try to in 2028 is an open question but bet your sweet nippy they’re going to try.

16.02.2026 20:04 β€” πŸ‘ 1712    πŸ” 343    πŸ’¬ 28    πŸ“Œ 35

You don't hate the New York Times enough

16.02.2026 19:32 β€” πŸ‘ 98    πŸ” 17    πŸ’¬ 3    πŸ“Œ 0
Post image

Have you ever once seen the New York Times quote Trump like this?

16.02.2026 18:24 β€” πŸ‘ 12854    πŸ” 2521    πŸ’¬ 520    πŸ“Œ 672

Yes, the reason I do not like Gavin Newsom is that I'm not convinced he'll go ham on prosecuting every member of the current administration along with a huge chunk of ICE

16.02.2026 18:27 β€” πŸ‘ 53    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

Like I agree with you on the trans sports rules! But if my only options are bad trans sports rules that we'll have to work to overturn or *fucking concentration camps*, that's the easiest choice of my life. If it isn't the easiest choice of your life, there's something wrong with you.

16.02.2026 18:23 β€” πŸ‘ 128    πŸ” 11    πŸ’¬ 4    πŸ“Œ 1

I'm really sick of getting scolded by people who think they hold the moral high ground that, actually, trans sports rules (or whatever) is more important than a literal secret police whisking tens of thousands of people away to concentration camps and then deporting them to torture and death

16.02.2026 18:21 β€” πŸ‘ 130    πŸ” 5    πŸ’¬ 4    πŸ“Œ 3

I don't know how to explain to people that elections have consequences beyond their specific pet issue, and that not caring about those consequences is actually pretty shitty.

16.02.2026 18:19 β€” πŸ‘ 256    πŸ” 37    πŸ’¬ 11    πŸ“Œ 3

... then I really don't think you hold the moral high ground that you think you do.

16.02.2026 18:14 β€” πŸ‘ 12    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 1    πŸ“Œ 0

The Democratic party has an extremely good track record of sticking up for trans people's rights.

Not that it matters that much, because if your view is that tens of thousands of immigrants languishing in concentration camps is less important than trans participation in sports...

16.02.2026 18:14 β€” πŸ‘ 16    πŸ” 1    πŸ’¬ 3    πŸ“Œ 0

I think Gavin Newsom is kind of a shitty choice for a number of reasons, but he actually has a legislative record you could look at if you want to know what he would do as an executive

16.02.2026 18:11 β€” πŸ‘ 12    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

Socialists are not more honest and morally pure liberals. A lot of them are actually real sickos

16.02.2026 17:05 β€” πŸ‘ 50    πŸ” 3    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

I wish our idiots were more useful.

16.02.2026 15:49 β€” πŸ‘ 16    πŸ” 3    πŸ’¬ 0    πŸ“Œ 0

If you would vote 3rd party in this situation, you are a really sick person

16.02.2026 15:46 β€” πŸ‘ 107    πŸ” 7    πŸ’¬ 13    πŸ“Œ 1

Yeah, there's essentially nothing that can be done about their existence (and I don't think we'd want to) but I do think there should be very stringent laws about using them for deception

16.02.2026 15:13 β€” πŸ‘ 22    πŸ” 0    πŸ’¬ 2    πŸ“Œ 0

@johnbrownstan is following 20 prominent accounts