If you have anger issues, this one is a great tool (h/t mindyourbusiness)
This week’s book:
Discourses and Selected Writings
Disclaimer: I’m not your Supervisor. These are my opinions after reading through these books a few times.
Epictetus was born a slave around 50 ad. His owner was Epaphroditus, a rich freedman who was once a slave of Nero. Though he was a slave Epictetus was sent to study philosophy under Musonius Rufus.
Epictetus was lame and there are some stories it was caused by his master and others that it was caused by disease.
He was a freedman when all philosophers were banished from Rome in 89 by the Emperor Domitian. He then started his school in Greece, and had many students. He did not leave any writings from his lessons, but one of his students, Flavius Arrian, took notes and wrote the Discourses.
Epictetus did not marry, had no children, and lived to be around 80-85.In retirement, he adopted a child that would have been abandoned and raised him with a woman.
He died sometime around AD 135.
He might be my favorite Stoic teacher. I love his bare bones and very straight forward approach.
Following is a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion of one of his lessons. Epictetus’s text appears in bold, my replies are in normal text.
If what the philosophers[1] say is true, that in all men thought and action start from a single source, namely feeling—as in the case of assent the feeling that a thing is so, and in the case of dissent the feeling that it is not so, yes, and, by Zeus, in the case of suspended judgement the feeling that it is uncertain, so also in the case of impulse towards a thing, the feeling that it is expedient for me and that it is impossible to judge one thing expedient and yet desire another, and again, to judge one thing fitting, and yet be impelled to another—if all this be true, why are we any longer angry with the multitude?—”They are thieves,” says someone, “and robbers.”—What do you mean by “thieves and robbers?” They have simply gone astray in questions of good and evil. Ought we, therefore, to be angry with them, or rather pity them? Only show them their error and you will see how quickly they will desist from their mistakes. But if their eyes are not opened, they have nothing superior to their mere opinion.
I struggle with this. I HATE thieves, always have. Looking at them without that emotion, they probably don’t want to be thieves, and wish they knew a better way. That being said, I’m not sure it possible to simply “open their eyes”.
I had similar feelings the first time I read Lysander Spooner, I kept thinking this can’t be right, but I was unable to logically argue against the fact that our government is illegitimate.
5Ought not this brigand, then, and this adulterer to be put to death? you ask. Not at all, but you should ask rather, “Ought not this man to be put to death who is in a state of error and delusion about the greatest matters, and is in a state of blindness, not, indeed, in the vision which distinguishes between white and black, but in the judgement which distinguishes between the good and the evil?” And if you put it this way, you will realize how inhuman a sentiment it is that you are uttering, and that it is just as if you should say, “Ought not this blind man, then, or this deaf man to be put to death?”
I used to be very pro-death penalty. On a certain level I still am, if someone is a danger to the public, they have forfeited their right to live. My main objection to it now is the fact that the prosecutors and cops don’t care if they get an innocent man, they mainly care that they get someone. Epictetus is arguing that no one be put do death regardless of their inherent danger.
For if the loss of the greatest things is the greatest harm that can befall a man, while the greatest thing in each man is a right moral purpose, and if a man is deprived of this very thing, what ground is left for you to be angry at him? Why, man, if you must needs be affected in a way that is contrary to nature at the misfortunes of another, pity him rather, but do not hate him: drop this readiness to take offense and this spirit of hatred; 10do not introduce those words which the multitude of the censorious use: “Well, then, these accursed and abominable fools!” Very well; but how is it that you have so suddenly been converted to wisdom that you are angry at fools?
My initial reaction is to hate thieves and murderers, not because they are fools, but because they are a danger to normal life and society.
The last sentence is similar to the christian teaching that we all sin, and all sin is sin there are no levels. In spite of this most people believe their sin is small and other people have great sins.
Why, then, are we angry? Because we admire the goods of which these men rob us. For, mark you, stop admiring[2] your clothes, and you are not angry at the man who steals them; stop admiring your wife’s beauty, and you are not angry at her adulterer. Know that a thief or an adulterer has no place among the things that are your own, but only among the things that are another’s and that are not under your control. If you give these things up and count them as nothing, at whom have you still ground to feel angry? But so long as you admire these things, be angry at yourself and not at the men that I have just mentioned. For consider; you have fine clothes and your neighbour does not; you have a window and wish to air them. He does not know wherein the true good of man consists, but fancies that it consists in having fine clothes, the very same fancy that you also entertain. Shall he not come, then, and carry them off? Why, when you show a cake to gluttonous men and then gulp it down all to yourself, are you not wanting them to snatch it? Stop provoking them, stop having a window, stop airing your clothes.
Once again, these thoughts seem wrong, yet I can not refute them. I do not want to live in a location where I have to worry about people stealing things they can see, yet I do not want to be so attached to possessions that I value them more than human life. While thinking on this I keep coming back to the fact stealing is wrong and makes normal life impossible if it runs rampant.
15Something similar happened to me also the other day. I keep an iron lamp by the side of my household gods, and, on hearing a noise at the window, I ran down. I found that the lamp had been stolen. I reflected that the man who stole it was moved by no unreasonable motive. What then? To-morrow, I say, you will find one of earthenware. Indeed, a man loses only that which he already has. “I have lost my cloak.” Yes, for you had a cloak. “I have a pain in my head.” You don’t have a pain in your horns, do you? Why, then, are you indignant? For our losses and our pains have to do only with the things which we possess.
Also logical and probably correct, yet it goes against everything I believe in regards to thieves. If someone broke into my house and stole my TV, stereo, computer, and other valuables, I’m not sure I could be as sanguine about it and I certainly would not want to downgrade just to discourage a repeat occurrence.
“But the tyrant will chain” What? Your leg. “But he will cut off” What? Your neck. What, then, will he neither chain nor cut off? Your moral purpose. This is why the ancients gave us the injunction, “Know thyself.” What follows, then? Why, by the Gods, that one ought to practice in small things, and beginning with them pass on to the greater.
If I am supposed to be indifferent to losing my life, why does having things stolen affect me on such a visceral level?
“I have a head-ache.” Well, do not say “Alas!” “I have an ear-ache.” Do not say “Alas!” And I am not saying that it is not permissible to groan, only do not groan in the center of your being. And if your slave is slow in bringing your bandage, do not cry out and make a wry face and say, “Everybody hates me.” Why, who would not hate such a person? 20For the future put your confidence in these doctrines and walk about erect, free, not putting your confidence in the size of your body, like an athlete; for you ought not to be invincible in the way an ass is invincible.[3]
I need to put my confidence in my rational brain and not so much into my emotional response to thieves.
Who, then, is the invincible man? He whom nothing that is outside the sphere of his moral purpose can dismay. I then proceed to consider the circumstances one by one, as I would do in the case of the athlete. “This fellow has won the first round. What, then, will he do in the second? What if it be scorching hot? And what will he do at Olympia?” It is the same way with the case under consideration. If you put a bit of silver coin in a man’s way, he will despise it. Yes, but if you put a bit of a wench in his way, what then? Or if it be in the dark, what then? Or if you throw a bit of reputation in his way, what then? Or abuse, what then? Or praise, what then? Or death, what then? All these things he can overcome. What, then, if it be scorching hot—that is, what if he be drunk? What if he be melancholy-mad?[4] What if asleep? The man who passes all these tests is what I mean by the invincible athlete.
It is easy to pass small tests under good conditions. If I lose something small due to my own carelessness, it is easy to say that it is no big deal, but if something valuable is stolen, that would not be so easy to brush off. I am pretty good at being even keeled, but a thief challenges that belief.
I don’t like this line of reasoning, but I think it is correct, not because Epictetus says so, but because I can not find a logical argument that defeats it. Emotionally I am sure he is wrong, but not when I look at it dispassionately.
Music this week is from the new CD from Turnpike Troubadours A Cat in the Rain.
It is a good album, but so far it is not my favorite from them. It is a little more somber than their earlier ones and I like their higher energy stuff more. Still would recommend it if you like them.
I really like this one, Mean Old Sun
Ran my heart through a Chipping Mill
Looking at them without that emotion, they probably don’t want to be thieves, and wish they knew a better way. That being said, I’m not sure it possible to simply “open their eyes”.
I think many thieves want to be thieves. “GIMME DAT!” seems to be the driving force.
I agree. Many people steal things because of the thrill or because they just don’t want to pay for it. Very few thieves are stealing the bare minimum for survival because they have no alternative. Anyone stealing luxury/nonessential goods or something they could pay for wants to be a thief. They know a better way, they just don’t care to take it.
“GIMME DAT!” and envy. Dont forget envy. It is a major motive for much of human behavior. In addition to what RC says for a lot of thieves there is a certain amount of malice involved, motivated by envy. “You dont deserve that so I am going to take it away from you!”
Dogs, hay and all that.
Drug addiction leads so many thefts. It messes with your head, makes you do bad things to raise money for drugs. Now the mass robbery chains, that’s a new wrinkle. I think that still comes back to drugs and drug addictions demanding satisfaction.
The thrill of danger in a tribal environment.
It’s like team sports, except with higher stakes and more assholishness.
The last sentence is similar to the christian teaching that we all sin, and all sin is sin there are no levels.
Catholicism has levels to sin.
Well, just two. Venial and Mortal.
They have simply gone astray in questions of good and evil.
There’s a lot of that going around.
I can not find a logical argument that defeats it.
What line of reasoning? “stop admiring your clothes, and you are not angry at the man who steals them”; no actually I am. Believe me, I don’t admire my clothes (looks down at self…. hm, everything except my boots is cheap costco crap…). But I purchased them for a purpose. I spent my money, a representation of the value of my labor and effort – a fraction of my life – into acquiring them. And that has been taken from me. I am not angry over the removal of my clothes which I admire as clothes, but rather the abrogation of autonomy; it is no different in principle whether some takes them off my hanger while I’m not looking or puts a gun to my head and confiscates (looks down at costco clothes again…) 30 seconds of my life to generate the wealth for them to buy said clothes.
I pride myself on rationality and logic – but increasingly wonder if that’s how humans really work vis-a-vis morality and ethics.
People aren’t rational animals. They are rationalizing animals. I would bet that most thieves could you give a song-and-dance on how it’s not really wrong for them to steal what they did. They’re just wrong about that. Sincerely believing something is justified doesn’t actually make it justified.
Yes – your first 2 sentences apply to so much bad and anti-social behavior. I try to avoid it myself and sometimes succeed.
I have heard a number of grifters say that their marks deserved what happened to them. They should have known better, so it is their own fault.
“Stores have insurance”
Usually with a civil unrest exclusion in them.
Most cons won’t work on honest people. They require the mark to want to get something for nothing or to allow themselves to be convinced that the high reward/low risk deal is a sure thing. Note that’s most. Shortchanging and the like just require people to be average at math and distracted.
“GIMME DAT!” seems to be the driving force.
It’s not stealing if the world owes it to you.
you can’t steal from sub-humans
That’s just what Washington DC tells them. So the thief just decided to cut out the middle man.
Ought we, therefore, to be angry with them, or rather pity them?
I pity Elon Musk. Bursting with ideas, and the ego and ambition to bring them to fruition.
Poor guy.
If it were only a material possession that was stolen, I would agree with Epictetus. But, that is not all that was stolen. The opportunity cost of replacing that possession was stolen from you. Even if it was insured you still need to deal with the insurance company. What did it cost you in labor to obtain the money to buy that possession in the first place. You can be Stoic about knowing you can’t do anything in the moment about a stolen possession. But I would still hold animosity towards the thief.
I had a car stolen.
Fuck thieves.
We’re all gunrunners now
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre described the DOJ measure as “life saving action” that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, have sought.
“It’s just common sense,” she said during Thursday’s briefing, later adding: “This administration respects the right of responsible gun owners, while also believing Americans have the right to live free from gun violence as well. Those two things can exist.”
Once published on the Federal Register, the rule will undergo a 90-day public comment period before being finalized. The measure would go beyond brick-and-mortar stores and affect the sale of firearms at gun shows, flea markets, over the internet and through mail orders. It also provides examples of actions that would likely qualify as engaging in the business of selling firearms and also clarifies when the sale of firearms would not require the seller to have a license.
“The whole goal here is to provide, again, concrete, common sense guidance and information to the public on the application of the new provisions in the statute,” a senior Department of Justice official told reporters in a press call on Thursday.
Simple common sense rules. What they really need to do is conduct a background check on the seller first, to determine if he should be allowed to own the gun in the first place, and then a back background check on the buyer.
Failure = confiscation.
Mr. Gunsngear went over the proposed rule. It’s overly broad and ill-defined. It is full of mights and mays and is complete mush for trying to discern what exactly may cause an action being taken against you, other than you are one of those ickies and we’re gonna hammer you.
And “The LAHW” republicans will be slavering over enforcing it once it’s been on the books for a few years.
They are not gun safety groups, they are gun grabbers. So…Politico, as usual, is lying right out of the gate.
“…the sale of firearms at gun shows, flea markets, over the internet and through mail orders.”
Whut? All of those circumstances already require licensing and background checks. What they want is to prevent non-gun sales such as inheritance or buying a squirrel gun for your nephew. What they want is total confiscation of firearms from the populace. Just think for a minute about why someone might want to do something like that.
Fuck them. They can tell all of the lies they want. They can break the supreme law of the land all they like. They cant have my guns.
Is it ever OK to steal?
If I don’t steal this, my child will die. Is this OK?
If I do steal this, my child will live . . . . . . but some other child will die. Is this OK?
I’ll steal a trolley, run over some people, and get back with you.
I anxiously await your results.
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
Here use this game for these kinds of problems.
Kill count 91
Here’s the real trolley problem solutions.
Spoiler Warning for The Good Place.
I like this one. Relegating the material to an unimportant status is staggeringly difficult. But it looks increasingly to me as if it’s a pretty critical.
Thieves lose their power over you if your stuff doesn’t mean anything.
Thanks, Ron.
Have another Ray of Sunshine
Thieves lose their power over you if your stuff doesn’t mean anything.
I question the premise implicit – really explicit – in this statement. If your stuff doesn’t mean anything, why do you have it? Why did you spend the effort, time, value in obtaining it? So it’s tautologically true, but… Almost by definition, your stuff means something to you and to me it’s illogical to claim otherwise. So if that second clause is wrong or at the very least questionable, I think the actual opposite sentiment can obtain. Thieves gain power over you. You’ve lost something you almost certainly, by your actions, value. Now you replace it (only to have it stolen again?) or do without whatever value you got from it. Now you work for the collection of thieves, or you modify your life so you no longer value anything that thieves might also value (e.g. everything).
Dude, I said it was staggeringly difficult. Does my stuff mean something to me? Of course. But that adds to my worldly burden if worry if I worry that someone will steal it from me. I think one of the real values of Stoicism (and Christianity) is the emphasis on how you live and the choices that you make. I will obviously never achieve perfection but the pursuit is important. To me, I mean. Everyone has their own goals.
I guess I’m questioning the intrinsic value of arriving at a position where your stuff doesn’t mean anything to you, e.g. that as being something to strive for and reaching that is ‘achieve[ing] perfection’. By our very nature, the human needs ‘stuff’ to survive both individually and as a species, so stuff has an intrinsic value if humans (as an individual or a species) are to survive. So I question any philosophy that sees denying the value of ‘stuff’ as an intrinsic good – I don’t see any value to philosophy outside of being human and aiding in human thriving.
Obviously there’s balance here and having absolutes rarely makes sense. Should I value gold leaf clothes and perfumed anal cream? Maybe not, but I’m going to value shelter, clothes, and food are they are requirements of my existence. The value of stuff can obviously get out of hand and a philosophy that helps control that evolutionary drive can be helpful if it prevents you from going too far, but it *is* part of your worldly burden to worry about someone stealing it from you – we are required by our nature to need stuff to keep us alive. One might not like the worldly burden, but there’s no escaping it as a human.
Sorry, I’m working a lot of these ideas out as I type, not trying to be a dick to anyone.
No worries, we all are.
I will live a better, more virtuous life if I focus on the moral rather than the material. This doesn’t mean an ascetic life (although for some, maybe it does), but prioritizing that which will bring me closer to the ideal.
I get that and understand the value. What I object to (not the right word… confuses me?) is why that’s the “ideal”? There’s value to not prioritizing the material, but to me the ideal is the balance between the moral and material – in fact balance implies they are opposites in some sense, but to me, assigning some priority to the material *is* moral. So maybe I’m misunderstanding – the philosophical underpinning seems to cast being totally disconnected from concern about the material to be the ideal – we can strive for it, may never reach it, etc, but it is the ideal. But that’s the wrong target to me – the ideal is balancing the – obligate – concern with the material against other values, not excluding the value to the material entirely and thinking that if you don’t totally dismiss it, you have failed to reach ‘perfection’. It just doesn’t seem to comport with our nature and I don’t see our nature as being inherently good or bad – it just is.
Tundra is moving into a tiny house with a compost toilet, no power and a hand pump.
Don’t take his flesh-light.
It will also add to your worldly burden if it is stolen from you. Especially if you have to, or just want to, replace it.
Stoicism is all about making conscious choices, as near as I can tell. At some point, pursuit of material goods gets to be a choice that is probably not “good” from a Stoic perspective. But until that point, it’s fine, unless you plan to live naked and scavenge what food you can from the countryside during your short and miserable life. If there’s nothing wrong with wanting to live a life with material possessions (to a point), there’s nothing wrong with keeping those possessions from being stolen.
Why are cheap sunglasses so attractive to auto burglars? I don’t understand.
ZZ Top can enlighten you.
Today, more than 1 in 5 gun sales in the U.S. are conducted without a background check, amounting to millions of guns per year ending up in the hands of people who aren’t allowed to buy them. This rule expands requirements for gun dealers to become licensed and conduct background checks, closing a massive loophole in our live-saving background checks system,” Brady president Kris Brown said in a statement. “It is past time to ensure that anyone who sells firearms for profits is required to be licensed and that their sales of firearms are subject to a Brady Background Check.”
It’s easier to buy a gun illegally than to buy a root beer float.
Why do I doubt that 1 in 5 number? What data is that based on, since those sales are conducted by definition outside the all-seeing eye of the State?
Why do you doubt it? Because it is a lie. Gun grabbers lie. It is what they do.
Their end goal is wildly immoral, making their means to it immoral also. They seem to relish in making the whole affair as immoral as possible from beginning to end.
This week is a tough one.
I also have issues with thieves for the same as many here.
I don’t care about the object as much as my labor and time used to obtain it.
Think about it as taxes instead or clothing. If someone believes they need or want something more than me and don’t give me a choice to prevent them from taking it, I’m not down with that.
Not at all, but you should ask rather, “Ought not this man to be put to death who is in a state of error and delusion about the greatest matters, and is in a state of blindness, not, indeed, in the vision which distinguishes between white and black, but in the judgement which distinguishes between the good and the evil?
Are thieves really ignorant of what is good and evil. Or do they know and choose to do it anyway. I can imagine the taxman being in a state of ignorance as taxes are so imbedded in the consciousness of a being a necessary thing. Taxation being extortion and all.
This one will require a little stoicism
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/half-of-vaccinated-people-never-stop
Note that this experiment used a control group which never received the COVID vaccine. None of them had lingering spike protein in the blood months after.
I haven’t heard much about the J&J “vaccine” lately. That was not an actual mRNA vaccine, right?
It’s adenovirus based. It still delivers a gene coding to the cells to produce the spike protein.
The delivery vector is different but the intention is the same. The question is whether it’s as persistent or distributes as far and wide as mRNA vaccines, which go all over the body.
Downside to adenovirus based RNA vaccines is that you can develop an immunity to the adenovirus itself, thus rendering further treatment useless. Or maybe that’s a plus.
I’m using the term vaccine liberally here. They’re gene therapies.
👍🏻
Have you heard if anyone is trying to answer this question? The mRNA’s seem to be getting all the press…which I understand, being the most common. Is the J&J even given out anymore?
J&J voluntarily withdrew it.
Guess they figured they didn’t own enough politicians and bureaucrats to shield themselves in the long term.
Hmm. In a moment of weakness I got the J&J. I know I made the wrong choice, I just hope it was the least wrong choice.
I’m not certain about the J&J. I know it had an elevated short-term risk profile, but beyond that I’m not certain. I got the impression they weren’t as well shielded. Pfizer and Moderna were essentially marketing arms for a bunch of defense contractors, because that’s where the patents and technology came from on mRNAs.
It’s still less damaging than getting multiple boosters.
My friend PK took it. He died three months later of an anyuerism. I took the Moderna shot, may deal with that decision forever.
I am really stunned by these “mRNA” spreads around and persists claims.
Having worked on RNA in the lab, keeping it intact is the problem. Since RNA viruses are a common enemy, enzymes that destroy RNA are literally everywhere. The tiniest flake of dust or a fingerprint on a pipette can very quickly destroy a carefully prepared RNA sample with thousands of times more RNA than there is in a vaccine.
I thought it came out recently that the vaxx was actually modRNA, not mRNA. Does that change your thoughts?
The vaccine mRNA was modified with pseudouridine to stabilize it and of course the lipid nano-particle delivery system was to protect until it got into the cell. Given your experience, I assume you’re aware of all that! That said, I don’t think any claims are that the mRNA itself persists for an extended period outside of the cells, but rather that is gets into all kinds of cells that will the happily generate spike, as designed, and that spike production can continue without additional, surviving mRNA. Secondly, is the question of reverse transcription – the mRNA package got transcribe into the DNA instructions, so now your cells will produce spike forever (hence the IG4 enhancement in immune response). That’s my crude understanding anyway; I’m not sure there’s any necessity for long lasting mRNA for vaccine spike to keep being produced long after the shot mRNA has disappeared.
Or, you know, what PM said. 🙂
If I had to take a bet, what is spreading are the LNPs, which are toxic in their own right.
Which is a separate issue from persistent production of spike protein.
Correct. It’s Adenovirus vector.
#pureblood
#metoo
Similarly, human cells with COVID vaccine genetic code reverse-transcribed into them may also endlessly produce the spike protein for the affected individuals’ lives.
Now take your boosters. Those yachts don’t gas up themselves.
I am confused as to why all the discussion on this subject. The people driving it have been caught repeatedly lying and withholding important info. They have exempted themselves from any liability.
They have been squawking for decades that they want the bulk of the human race to die. Then they come along with fear mongering over a virus they created and demand we all take an untested vaccine that is very obviously harmful.
What the fuck people? This is not a big ooopsie for them. They dont want us to be immune, they want us to die. I never touched that stuff and will not do so in the future.
If freedom means nothing to you, you won’t object to it being stolen.
Some people are so blinded by their gilded cage that they will not realize what they lost, until it is gone.
I asked a friend once to imagine a setting. There is a bird in gilded cage sitting next to a window. Outside the window, a bird is sitting in a tree in the middle of an Iowa winter. The bird in the tree has to find food every day or die. The caged bird gets clean water and food every day. So which would he prefer to be. The bird in the cage or the bird in the tree. He said he’d rather be the bird in the cage. So, I then asked what happens when the owner turns into an asshole and mistreats and starves the bird in the cage. He had no response.
I’m gonna have to consult Mr Skynard on this one.
This appears to be the southern rock post.
I belive he would say that one requires three steps, and having to go begging for the same is terribly inconvenient.
It’s too late. Tuesday is gone.
It’s hard to be stoic when some jackass runs off with your tools. Even if it’s somebody who borrows one and doesn’t return it. I think hillbilly stoic allows an exception for that. When I did auto repair, most mechanics had a big sign up telling you in one way or another the keep the heck away from their tools.
Breaking the World to Save It
Good essay.
Somehow I feel like I know Sergeant Bronson from somewhere.
A lot of this I was aware of, but this one is new and would be unfuckingbelievable if I didn’t know what I know now.
There were no fucking good guys in that fight, including the UN forces.
But there were a lot of victims.
I may have missed it, but this was an interesting column about the state of propaganda written from a less black pilled state of mind than I am capable of.
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/01/you-dont-listen-to-the-press-im-telling-you-washington-post-columnist-philip-bump-strikes-out-at-those-who-question-prior-false-claims/
Turley gives his take on a single interview with a reporter and how he and his paper handle it.
In which Kieth Olbermann loses his mind and says crazy people things….
https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1697059745142542540?t=rV4LthJFJyyzEPe-byNAZg&s=19
In which former world record holder and 3 times Olympic gold medalist (and woman) Nancy Hogshead puts him in his place.
https://twitter.com/Hogshead3Au/status/1697448922304663651?t=QR-_A4YAHZZFY5R9tpHj7w&s=19
When does he ever say sane person things?
Once again, the community context notes are devastating.
In which Nate the Lawyer continues to munch on those red pills.
https://youtu.be/Xy1VZAzbTyA?si=pyp00OP056pc3zbb
“Get woke, go broke” is the usual mantra.
In this case Nate says “get woke, end up with a dude with a boner watching you shower., a new version of FAFO in the virtue signaling era.
In this case, it ain’t the woke judge who has to take showers while some dude watches and pops a boner.
“Judge rejects sorority sisters’ lawsuit blocking trans woman from joining: ‘The court will not define a ‘woman”
I bet the court damn well will define a woman when someone brings a sexual discrimination case.
“Your honor, the plaintiff’s case rests entirely on an asserted status as a so-called “woman”. As this court has so astutely stated in the past, it will not define a woman. Consequently, there is no basis for concluding that the plaintiff is, in fact, a woman, and therefor no basis for the plaintiff’s claim to be discriminated against on that basis. Defendant moves for summary judgment.”
Yeah, that judge is going to grant that motion.
Keep watching. Nate reads the sorority bylaws that state that they accept women and anyone who identifies as a woman
That is where the real LULZ begin.
The sorority defines “woman” as anyone who identifies as a woman, then these members ask a judge to overrule their own bylaws. Judge says “you broke it, you fix it”. Head of national sorority says they are all for dudes who identify as women in the sorority house, and complaints of staring and boners are just drunken rumors.
They could just disband the chapter and reorganize. Tell the national to suck their womanly dicks.
They also voted to accept their new member and proudly posed for photos. It really is funny when all that virtue signaling bites them in their own ass. Usually it bites some poor innocent third party.
Fuck sororities.
Rand Paul joins the Duran for a chat on war and how we are bankrupting ourselves.
https://rumble.com/v3dww1c-the-us-bankrupting-itself-on-wars-w-ron-paul-alexander-mercouris-and-glenn-.html
“And you, Mister Olbermann, suck at thinking.”
Blech.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38304694/sources-acc-votes-invite-stanford-cal-smu
Not sure how that conference works. If you are Cal, you gotta take the entire softball team from San Francisco all the way to Miami, Louisville, Boston, Syracuse, Raleigh, Winston Salem, Clemson (SC), Tallahassee, Chapel Hill, Charlottesville, Blacksburg (VA)….
How?
I can’t see them affording charters, so commercial? Almost none of those will be direct flights. An entire season with 8 or 10 hour commutes, each way?
It seems like they will have to form an alliance with another conference out west and make a super-conference with east and west divisions. Forget the economics, the logistics just don’t work. Not if you want to attend classes.
I don’t care for these recent conference expansions. My beloved Big Ten conference is 14 members with 4 more members to be added. It’s nuts.
They also voted to accept their new member and proudly posed for photos. It really is funny when all that virtue signaling bites them in their own ass. Usually it bites some poor innocent third party.
There is a simple and easy solution. Quit the goddam sorority.