Tweet

More from @AndToddsaid

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Apr 7

https://twitter.com/RealPhillyP/status/1512038367285981191

The point of defining war crimes is so that the winners can justify continuing to kill the losing side's soldiers even after they've given up.

https://twitter.com/RealPhillyP/status/1512038367285981191

@StevenWillcox2

@StevenWillcox2 raises a good question.

https://twitter.com/StevenWillcox2/status/1512089325323763716?s=20&t=vq3RV9lEmJA9Fdd-T5ROiw

I agree during the war it's a little different. While the war is on, it's a rally-cry that our fight is justified because they fight like savages while we fight like noble men.

"Sure, we take their women as war brides, but they rape our women in the fields!"

Read 4 tweets

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Apr 5

More often than not, opposing extreme positions don't develop independently from opposite sides. Rather, one side, upon being confronted with the extremity of their own position will craft a strawman defense, asserting that it's their way or something else equally extreme. /1

In this way, both extremes actually originate 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. What is liable to happen next, however, is that the extreme faction of the other side says, "yeah! great idea!" and adopts the alleged opposite extreme. /2

We can call this Todd's Theory of Reactionary Politics.

Now, here's where it gets fun. Humans are categorizing creatures, meaning basically we like to find opposites and invent them where they don't exist. You know how some kids think dogs are boys and cats are girls? That. /3

Read 6 tweets

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Apr 5

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1511359304238051329

A good indication that someone is trying to bulk up a flimsy argument is when they repeat the same argument over. "Ambiguous" and "does not precisely define terms" is the same argument twice.

https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1511359304238051329

In response to Robby's singular objection, it's a principle of statutory interpretation that when a term is not otherwise defined therein, it's to be read by the ordinary meaning. Naturally, ordinary meanings can be vague, but it's here that Robby needs to offer an example.

I counter that the Parental Rights in Education law is abundantly clear, either within the text or by reference to other legislation and standards, such as those established by the Department of Education.
This is the shortest section of the bill. The rest is even more precise.

Read 4 tweets

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Apr 5

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1511091758347792385

I already responded twice to this thread, but I'm stuck on it.

The things David calls absurd are, to the contrary, more than reasonable reactions to leftist extremism. But he staked his opposition on who rather than what and now he must make absurd contortions to justify it. /1

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1511091758347792385

David puts the charitable reader in the awkward position of having to decide whether he is disingenuous or just dumb. Of course a Parental Rights in Education addresses more than young children! This thing has been on the radar for months! /2

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1511091760403038209?s=20&t=yjTe38UqUqG8MaaP0b5X6Q

Here is my earlier response on the above tweet.
Let me add, this law is almost entirely comprised of guidance, either directly or via reference to other standing legislation. David would know this if he had read the law. /3

https://twitter.com/AndToddsaid/status/1511305845845504005?s=20&t=ssYgaIQ6LvH91XttL5-Mxg

Read 13 tweets

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Feb 4

@EmersenLee

I swiped this cool meme from @EmersenLee because it can help illustrate a concept I have discussed several times before, which is that in woke parlance, whiteness and blackness have almost nothing to do with skin color.

Because I'm a mischievous jerk, I like to often leave it at that. But I do have a solid idea what whiteness and blackness in woke parlance actually have to do with. I promise, I'll get back to the nifty meme. Away we go.

As I was explaining to a friend IRL not long ago, there are basically two mindsets that dominate the ideological landscape right now. Who knows, maybe these are the two fundamental mindsets at all times. All I can say for sure is that they dominate now. You'll recognize both.

Read 20 tweets

Todd of Mischief

@AndToddsaid

Feb 4

@roadtoserfdom3

The evolution of Twitter's disclaimer tag applied to @roadtoserfdom3's viral tweet. 🧵

In the first iteration, it was simply stated that vaccines work. Put a pin in that.

Strangely, the tag does not address movement licences or public incarceration. These points are ceded.

Quickly, I'd point out that "misleading" is not wrong, per se. So Twitter implies that preferring "gene therapy" to "vaccine" insinuates the thing identified does not do what it is meant to. This connotation is not removed, and is only deepened, by insisting on the disputed term.

The second version put some distance between Twitter and the claims of unnamed health officials.
Twitter cautiously words the tag, "safe for *most* people."

This tag was also commonly added to tweets specifically discussing those for whom the vaccine was not considered safe.

Read 5 tweets

Share this page!

Todd of Mischief

People who liked this thread also liked...

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @AndToddsaid

Todd of Mischief

Todd of Mischief

Todd of Mischief

Todd of Mischief

Todd of Mischief

Todd of Mischief

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?