Ok, so think about this. The left and the right see a video of Crowder this week, and they see two very different things. They hear about a man killed on a subway and their take-away is totally different.
How can we debate ideas when our view of reality is so different?

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1654304796503941120

I see this video and I am right with Lance- all I can say is what in the actual fuck is wrong with Tim, what the fuck?
People get surgeries that carry risks all the time, and I think they should have the choice to do so, and its none of my business or anyone else's.

Well, I'm puzzled by the question.
We are both referring to the fact that Jordan Neely had been arrested multiple times, and it seems that his mental illness played some role in these arrests.
Your argument seems to be that this did no good whatsoever.
Oddly enough, so is mine. When people with certain types of mental illness, who have no access to proper treatment or care and are forced to struggle to survive in a hostile environment, subjected to trauma and routinely ignored, this can result in sometimes disturbing behavior.

Ok, so I guess we have to talk about WHY are HIPAA laws- didn't think that was where we are at, but explaining why people are so horrified at the violations of trust, of rights, of privacy and of dignity in the situation with Reed and Singal is, well I guess we'll do that then.

https://twitter.com/GorinMoti/status/1635025546911580160

People going to doctors need to have these assurances of privacy, that the things they say are and do are not going to be blabbed around. This allows people to come forward with honesty if they have, say, a drug addiction, or an STD, or some other embarrassing or personal

This is from Singal's recent piece on the Reed allegations, and its so... shockingly telling. Someone comes to you about a clinic for children and you fully admit that it could just be bullshit, you have no real proof of anything other than their say-so, but you are definitely going to print it and endorse it.
Just so awful.

This question fundamentally misunderstands religious conservatism. It carries with it the absurd assumption that there are any arguments that a religious conservative would find persuasive enough to violate their worldview and social group standing for- there aren't. A person who is religious can do this, a person who is a religious conservative is not. If the conservative has a family member, sometimes- and only sometimes- they will find some way to work around the cognitive dissonance, because of their love for that family member.

Ok, I think we all need to take a moment to appreciate just how INCREDIBLY FRAGILE James is, and there's a point coming here.
After a whole 12 hour vaca from Twitter for saying he could kill Elliot Page with one punch for no reason, he gives this screed. Let's remember the sequence of events. Elliot Page was able to wear their first ever pair of swim trunks after getting top surgery, and celebrated this with an Instagram shot where they look really happy.
That is all. He threatened no one. He did not claim to be invulnerable.

The biggest problem with this is that betyourass the US has labs that do this shit and disgusting practices around foods.
We all knew a pandemic was coming, we all knew what we should or shouldn't be doing, we all chose to fuck around and found out. (We meaning our governments).

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1398268985326645248

Instead of obsessing over the possibility of lab leaks in Wuhan or trying to find someone to put on a hook (because unless y'all are ready to go to war for this shit, I don't see how it matters) we could all take some lessons from this shit.
It is NOT the last pandemic.

Oh that chat is gonna be something.... if you're gonna whine that you said you could kill a specific human being with one punch and got a whole 12 hour suspension... seriously, cry harder, you wuss.
I should record it because its gonna be FULL of hate, but not today, Satan. And while Jimmy Concept's snotty schoolyard bully act got a lot of rightful mockery- he was giving his large transphobic fanbase encouragement to physically attack trans people- which they clearly don't need much of. Would like some bigger atheist names to go on record here:

I should have known back when they started their swing to "anti-sjw" bullshit that atheists would end up going against secularism. I feel a classic atheist thread coming on, lol. I was recently reminded- I forget by who- of that time in 2017 a Christian "charity" got courts to remand drug addicts to them for "treatment" at a "farm" in lieu of prison sentences. Actually they just got them to work in a chicken processing plant as slave labor and threatened

"How Not to be a Bernie Supporter" right here. I will make it clear that I didn't "smear" Bernie, I gave the reasonable argument that he's a demsoc in practice whatever he says- and really, that's ok. I voted for him, I don't worship him. I also don't worship AOC. I don't attach myself to any politician too hard- they are politicians, after all.
I liked Barney Frank better than either of these two, honestly, but that may be a personal thing and it doesn't matter.

@shaun_vids Here's the thing.
The sexualization of young (mostly) girls in dance, cheer and pageant circles has been an absolute problem for a while.
I went to a dance recital for a friend's kid, and when I left I expected to be arrested in the parking lot, it was awful.
BUT- how do you 1/ @shaun_vids show how much of a problem this is, how bad it is and how extensive it is- without showing young girls being sexualized?
You can't.

There was no homelessness because the police wouldn't allow it? Can this be true?
No, my lovelies, it can't. But I CAN tell you what he's talking about. Buckle up for some history!!!

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1274112222143242241

This is gonna be quick and dirty so... not perfect.
Let's start in colonial times.
Poor people would be most likely mentally ill, disabled, women, or children (or all of the above).
And there was a sort of three-pronged approach.
The first- find a family member. ANY family.

This a-historical colonialism apologia is everything that is wrong with these IDW hacks. It's easy to just be wrong in 27 different ways in a twitter thread that intersects so many subjects- but explaining why it is wrong would take forever. He makes vague but sweeping pronouncements without evidence, because why the hell not? Just assert it with arrogance and authority, and tell your readers that people who see it differently are being 'intellectually lazy' (OMFG).

In truth, its not a good thing that people can get past peer review. I cringed when papers about "midichlorians" got published in three "scientific" journals. gizmodo.com/scientific-jou… And that was right after another scandal, where a fake doctor (whose name literally translated Dr. Fraud) was accepted to the editorial board of 48 journals. gizmodo.com/sting-operatio…

So, I wanted to show y'all this thread which I find exemplary of a certain type of misogyny, one that I can promise you is occurring in boardrooms, classrooms and social groups everywhere (tho not usually this obviously or in writing). It starts in an @Hbomberguy thread 1/ (apologies for re-hashing this nonsense, greater good and all that) and some guy has opinions about his channel, and I chime in along with some other peeps (everyone but me is a dude). Very soon after I enter, this weirdness occurs: