<sexy voice> Would you remove my body?

<confused introspection wondering what I just said>

<outward commitment to original ambiguous statement to avoid perceived social stigma>

<ponderance of self-reflective statements in the comments of a long-dead philosophical video>

Today’s MAGA groomer…. "“Stop the Steal” rally organizer Ali Alexander admitted to sending “inappropriate messages” as MANY young men are going on the record to accuse him of asking them for nudes while they were minors, receiving nudes from YOUNG underaged boys, and replying to them with heart eye emojis.

Once he told a 15 year old boy he would introduce him to Republican political figures on a trip if he agreed to secrecy about the trip, agreed to be “arm candy”, and to be “entertaining” for Alexander on the trip….after directly asking for and receiving nudes from the 15 year old so there’s no ambiguity about what he meant.

This behavior was known about in upper echelon Republican circles as early as 2015 but ignored until Yianopoulos made it public out of spite.

Every accusation an admission. Every disgusting defamation a mea culpa. Absolutely nothing enough for you to admit you are in a pedophilic terroristic death cult.

As a bonus, family values Marjorie Traitor Greene has now, after being caught on camera, admitted to ANOTHER affair (after denying it for months), at least the third she’s admitted, this one with a Newsmax news actor, spawning the latest divorce filing for her cuckolded husband late last year.

It's got potential. I like Pinhead's general ambiguity in particular.

The only thing that gets me is getting the cenobites' attention by just finishing the last few moves of the box. I always liked Pinhead's line that "It is not hands that summon us, it is desire".

He carefully leaves out the most important part about the network traffic they took from the office of the President.

The lawyer, Sussman, is being accused of lying in a Sept. 2016 interview about whom all he was working for.

He was indeed working for the Clinton campaign amongst other groups. It also appears there is compelling evidence that he was working with Tech staff with access to Whitehouse internet data.

Remember though, the interview is in September 2016, while the sitting president was Barack Obama. The lawyer was working for the Clinton campaign and presumably the DNC, because they were investigating the Russian hack of their email and computer systems...

But Fox and anyone willing to be compliant like Sen Cruz are tripping over themselves to make sure they fuel the false conception that Trump was spied on in the white house.

If you watch Cruz words here, he chooses them terrifically carefully to leave ambiguous the timing of the allegations about the whitehouse data to leave the impression by omission.

I don't know, but there's a few things that concern me:

1. Underestimating your advisory. We did this with Japan in the lead up to WW2. Great powers always fight the last war they won. In our case, that's WW2. China learned from the war they lost as well: WW2, and they're not going to make the same mistakes twice.

2. Ambiguous defense posture. This is how England got dragged into WW1 due to an uncertain position if Germany invaded France. Germany gambled that England wouldn't get involved because it had no spoken mutual defense agreement with France. Had the defense pact been made readily clear, it's possible Germany wouldn't have invaded.

2. Use it or lose it weapons. In WW1, one of the main issues with the initial invasion was train schedules. Things had to go perfectly to get men and material to the front line and any hiccup could delay a military victory. Once the very first German troop train left the station, there was no way to stop the invasion. Now we've got a situation where a war over Taiwan would be won or lost in about an hour of the first shot. China knows that should the US get involved, China's military assets are going to be blown up and fast. This puts China in a situation where they might choose the launch everything in a maximum impact first strike. Faced with overwhelming damage, the US would be forced to make some hard choices about how to respond. Would it go nuclear? It's according to how much Taiwan means to us.

"It won't happen". Go to Europe and see how many tombstones bear that inscription.

I'd say 50/50.

A little ambiguity can be enticing.

Well, do they "often" do better... meaning "whatever a surprising amount to Melinda Gates is" do better... or "often do better" meaning as a group they perform better and graduate more than un-aided white kids. Since we're talking stats, I'd sure like to clear up the ambiguous language!
90% seems great though.

Sorry, last message was ambiguous - you need the key fob to be in close proximity to both unlock, and to press the start button.
From the video, the thief driving the car takes his box inside the car as well, which would mimic the key in order to start it as well.

There does seem ambiguity as to who is the main focus of the video.


I'm not complaining. Just noticing the videography and staging and focus.

"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

Simply put: he doesn't get it.

"Divisive" is general and ambiguous. "Inclusive" vs "Exclusive" is the distinction he misses. It's a choice, (expletive)!

ChaosEngine, I recommend checking out the fanedit called "Prometheus: Giftbearer". It incorporates deleted and alternate scenes into the film. It brings much better clarity to the story. The original version was ambiguous to a fault.

I put a browser in incognito mode (so there would be no cookies / history to tailor results with) and tried it. Should be pretty much on par with average Thai results since I have Thai ISP and went through google.co.th. Also, I changed the search term to "Hitler" in Thai language script: "ฮิตเลอร์".

I'm pretty functionally fluent in listening to Thai and semi decent at speaking it (I can get along in daily life fine although I'll never be mistaken for a native speaker since I didn't grow up with a tonal language). I'm not completely illiterate when it comes to reading it, but I'm quite slow. Sort of "Dick and Jane" level. Anyway, it would take forever for me to interpret the results of that search reading everything in Thai, but here's a quick once-over:

#1 result is https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/อดอล์ฟ_ฮิตเลอร์
The Thai wikipedia article on Hitler is a bit shorter than the English one, but seems to cover everything in a similar way. I didn't try to read much to confirm but it does talk about the holocaust and Jews.

#2 result is http://teen.mthai.com/variety/57766.html
Seems to be a blog-type article on Hitler, written by a (high school?) student. I used the Chrome translate feature (which generally produces nonsense with Thai to English, but can get you broad strokes) to save time. This one does mention that Hitler hated Jews and talks about the holocaust being "cruel", although it seems to present a sort of positive take on Hitler in general. At least, more than we'd generally be comfortable with in the West.

#3 result is https://pantip.com/topic/31569039
This is a web forum. The article/post is called "(เรื่องน่ารู้) 10 อันดับเหตุผลที่ทำไมฮิ
605;เลอร์ถึงเกลียดชาวยิว", which google translate converts to "(I know) 10 reasons why Hitler hated the Jews". My stab at a better translation would be "(Things you Should Know) 10 reasons why Hitler hated the Jews". Thai doesn't really have pronouns, so that bit in parenthesis is semi ambiguous, but น่ารู้ means "should know" or "worth knowing".

This one is interesting. The list it presents is:
* Jewish influence in communism.
* Jewish causes lost World War 1.
* Jews make Depression
* Hitler knot lodged since childhood.
* Hitler was influenced by the idea against genocide.
* Hitler's brain has been affected as a soldier.
* Master Race theory
* Hitler believed in conspiracy theories about Jews.
* Political nationalism
* Hitler envious of wealthy Jews.

It explains those in brief terms (a few sentences each) and then there is a poll where readers can vote on which one was the main reason that Hitler hated Jews. There's some anti-semitic implications mixed in there, but it is also blunt about the evil stuff that Hitler did and doesn't present him as a person to be emulated / respected.


I wish I read Thai better so I could get a better read on those. Your question is quite interesting, along with (my potentially incorrect take on) those first few search results.

You weren't joking.

"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as fully too rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

That's the international political equivalent of acting crazy when someone tries to mug you. Give 'em the old crazy eyes.

Also, partly thanks to separate feeds for the two of them and being allowed time to fully answer, Chomsky was fantastic at dealing with Cathy Fucking Newman. The poster child for modern condescending journalism, with her "Ah, no one is surprised you're critical of the US...." --having listened to supporting facts for several minutes, she comes back with tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really insinuations about bias. Subtly and with plausible deniability, attacking the person not the argument.

It's good that this kind of discussion appears on TV at all, especially on a major British channel, but they get away with the same kind of shit that people lambaste RT for.