Cripes, this is like, easy-mode. The way to push back without giving them a soundbite is dead simple:

Our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists.

Reply: “Is it obvious? What distinguishes the way they act from terrorists, Ben?”

What? The 2A people have a way to prevent this: More guns! It’s always more guns! If only this father had had a gun to defend himself from his armed attacker/son…

(/s, just in case)

I still believe this headline even after seeing the community it’s in.

Why am I not surprised that he’s all-in on that sovcit typography nonsense? “It can’t mean me because it says Enrique Tarrio, not Tarrio-comma-Enrique!”

That is the ultimate goal, isn’t it? The problem here is that the situation isn’t so neatly reciprocal. The Republicans offer about ⅓ of the nation exactly what they want, whereas the Democrats offer nobody exactly what they want. The favorability ratings in the polls show that. They only offer, “we’re marginally better than fascists,” which is good enough for a small lead in polling for the midterm elections, masking how deeply unpopular Republican actions are, and providing a veneer of legitimacy for them in the form of a near-tie.

No, I want them to GTFO of the way. If our election system only admits two major parties, then they are complicit by camping out in one of the slots, preventing a political party that’d actually put up a fight from arising. Whatever their alleged motivation, or level of cooperation, it no longer matters at this point; they have been the party in that second slot as U.S. political institutions slid into fascism over the course of decades. The record shows that they’re not going to turn it around should they win back Congress in the mid-terms (if we even have elections). At best, they might stave off full fascism for another few election cycles. That’s the issue we have with Democrats.

YouGov has published a page about its polling methodology. Polling groups abandoned the random telephone survey decades ago, at this point.

Ah, yes, indeed! Related to that, I’ve seen a lot of comments from circumcised men on here saying that they’re glad that they had it done, because they’re already “too sensitive,” by which they mean that they reach orgasm too easily. (Not that it’s too pleasurable.) I’m a straight guy, so I’ve only experienced one penis, but my friend who has experience with his own, and many more, says that that’s not how it works. He says that intact men have better awareness of their own level of arousal, and better control over the level of stimulation, and can last longer before.

That’s certainly a case of not missing what you never knew.

Great insight!

I would add, though, that you absolutely can miss what you never knew you had, even if you don’t know you’re missing it. (Else, why the concept of eggs?) I have seen several intact men in these communities say that their primary sexual sensation comes from their foreskin. Say you were one of those men, and had your primary source of sexual sensation amputated at birth. You could go through much of your life knowing that something was “not right” with sex, but not knowing what.

The other commenter caught my intent to ridicule Rittenhouse by his own standards: His community fluoridates the water, so either drinking the water turned him gay, or, if it didn’t, he’s full of shit.

Weird way to come out, by okay.

I still have an impacted wisdom tooth, and it’s okay. Everybody should keep theirs.

Okay, but let’s then also talk seriously about routine infant labiaplasty. A lot of women prefer the look, and it’s a common cosmetic surgical procedure that many of them get later in life. If it were done at birth by a qualified medical practitioner, it wouldn’t harm the clitoris, but have the advantage of cleanliness and, while it hasn’t been studied extensively, preliminary results show some benefit in preventing disease. Seems like a great idea. Why don’t we do it?

Yes, but “this isn’t new” is a major rhetorical weapon for fascists and their media enablers.

Thanks for the explanation, even if it’s verified as half lies.

Damn, I misread that as “Shrank IQ Scores of Americans by Half,” and thought, “Hmm, that tracks.”

This, but unironically. Just do it, ferchrissake.

WTF are you talking about?

It’s also not self-defense if you escalate. They could’ve just driven around her vehicle and been on their way, but apparently sniffed an opportunity to oink.

I’m calling you a liar because your line of thought doesn’t comport with reality, and I’ve had enough of liars brazenly telling us to ignore what we can plainly see with our own eyes. I don’t know your intent, either, but that’s a textbook fascist tactic, which is why I’m done with being nice about it. Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Good intended to block traffic:

1. She then did a shitty job at it. The vehicle in front of the ICE truck had enough room to go around.
2. Waving at them to go around, too, is a really bizarre thing to do if one’s intent is to block traffic.
3. Even if she had successfully blocked the street, the ICE goons didn’t have to get out of their truck.
4. Once they got out of their truck, they didn’t have to go power-tripping by trying to breach her vehicle.
5. Assuming her intent was to ram the guy (who wasn’t even in front of her vehicle), he could’ve just stepped out of the way.
6. Shooting somebody in the face is not proportionate to the alleged offense.

Geez louise, this “blocking traffic” narrative doesn’t even stand up to the barest breath of critical analysis. But there’s more:

She wasn’t even there for the ICE protest. She had just dropped off her son. Here’s a reason to pull out into the street like that: To turn around and go back the way she came. It’s a Y-turn, and here in my Midwestern city, I see this maneuver several times a week. I’ve done it myself more times than I can count. So here’s a hypothetical narrative, but one which is not plainly contradicted by the events in the video:

1. Uninvolved driver finishes dropping off her son, tries to do a Y-turn.
2. She did not see traffic coming so quickly (from behind), so she stops to let them go by.
3. First SUV has plenty of room to go by without incident.
4. She waves to the pickup truck driver to go around, a very common thing in Minnesota.
5. Instead of going around, several men get out of the truck menacingly.
6. They immediately attack her vehicle.
7. In a normal human response, she panics, and tries to get away from attackers.
8. ICE agent immediately pulls and fires weapon and kills her.

And the cherry on top is that it doesn’t really matter which interpretation is correct, the one that makes sense or the one that doesn’t, he fucking shot her in the face because ICE agents decided to be power-tripping pigs. But for that decision, it all could’ve been avoided.