Sociopath Community

ok...i know this sounds bad on the surface, but it's pretty funny. he's going to put a fox news anchor as the secretary of defense?

now to be fair, this guy has military experience. the difference is that he hasn't risen through the ranks. but trump was voted in for an ideological shift. that means that it's more important that he gets someone that is going to line up with his agenda rather than a career pentagon guy. just like trump got voted in for not being a career politician, so he does need people who aren't part of the current paradigm in key positions. as you know it was his own administration that roadblocked him the first time

there is going to be no right wing takeover on censorship. the right wing has been fighting censorship for years, against the ADL, against Media Matters and all the major social media platforms, and with all the advertiser boycotts, and with the deplatforming. so for a leftist to start freaking out about censorship at this point is ridiculous—the left sat comfortably, feeling justified, while all of this happened. but leftist media isn't going anywhere

as for that secretary of defense pick, what do you think really is the worst that is going to happen? i can tell you that all of these guys who are going to be a part of middle eastern policy have a heavy zionist bent. i wouldn't be shocked if we end up giving israel a huge defense budget "parting gift" and let them do what they want to do, just like ben shapiro and the other hardcore zionists have wanted ever since oct 7 (the freedom to act without the american financial leash). but as for everything else, what do you think will happen?

Turncoat said: 

So let me get this straight: 

o Trump has plans to strip left wing news channels of their broadcast licenses. 
o Trump is suing news networks like CBS when he doesn't like their content. 
o Trump Picks Pete Hegseth, a Veteran and Fox News Host, for Defense Secretary. 
o Trump plans to use the military as his own private militia to go after 'The Enemy Within'. 
o Trump is already firing people, and can do so under the claim that they're 'Woke', a vague enough claim to apply to anyone he wants to brand with it. 

Doesn't this seem a wee bit Fascistic, or am I missing something here? While there are many areas where he can be argued to be clearly demonstrating as an Ultranationalist, even the Pentagon and CIA are flipping out over what the above list suggests. 

When I was traveling in other countries, the only US news network I could reliably count on being available on their cable access was Fox News, and now Fox News is going to have a direct line to the US Military and The President while simultaneously trying to censor other news agencies? His own party has piggybacked on conspiracy theories, too, and this seems like it'll serve to exacerbate that. With Elon Musk having Military connections (via Starlink) and Social Media connections (via Twitter), this seems like this risks becoming a disturbing trend. 

Consolidating these areas together gives me a really bad feeling conceptually. This stands to give him a very tight grip over controlling the flow of information more like a dictator than a president, doesn't it? I feel like this would be seen more transparently for the problem it appears to be if it were someone else trying to do it, like when many people in the US opposed the idea of Chinese censorship, or even the Drawing Muhammad scandal. 

Have you heard of project mockingbird?

The main stream media is filled with rogue CIA.

some more acting naive bullshit? who do you think you're tricking tryptamine? I honestly hope that's your intentions and that you are not actually being so daft and retarded out of the desperate need to vindicate some obviously misled beliefs, along with those beliefs being inherently oppressive, petty, sadistic, and heteronormative pronatalist fascistic.

Tryptamine said: 

ok...i know this sounds bad on the surface, but it's pretty funny. he's going to put a fox news anchor as the secretary of defense?

now to be fair, this guy has military experience. the difference is that he hasn't risen through the ranks. but trump was voted in for an ideological shift. that means that it's more important that he gets someone that is going to line up with his agenda rather than a career pentagon guy. just like trump got voted in for not being a career politician, so he does need people who aren't part of the current paradigm in key positions. as you know it was his own administration that roadblocked him the first time

there is going to be no right wing takeover on censorship. the right wing has been fighting censorship for years, against the ADL, against Media Matters and all the major social media platforms, and with all the advertiser boycotts, and with the deplatforming. so for a leftist to start freaking out about censorship at this point is ridiculous—the left sat comfortably, feeling justified, while all of this happened. but leftist media isn't going anywhere

as for that secretary of defense pick, what do you think really is the worst that is going to happen? i can tell you that all of these guys who are going to be a part of middle eastern policy have a heavy zionist bent. i wouldn't be shocked if we end up giving israel a huge defense budget "parting gift" and let them do what they want to do, just like ben shapiro and the other hardcore zionists have wanted ever since oct 7 (the freedom to act without the american financial leash). but as for everything else, what do you think will happen?

 Yeah you see it too. Funny how some people are blind to these issues.

Tryptamine said: 

ok...i know this sounds bad on the surface, but it's pretty funny. he's going to put a fox news anchor as the secretary of defense?

It's only funny to me over my low opinion over Fox News, but I've seen in spite of that how strong of an impact that that station has over world politics and crowd manipulation. 

Fusing that concept with other governing bodies is the kind of 'smart' that is too efficient to call it the same style of governing. The only saving grace is The Internet, but where that can't otherwise be directly governed short of making corporate greed fight itself it instead can be filled with so much information that the discourse becomes too chaotic and scattered to mean as much. 

now to be fair, this guy has military experience.

Oh I know, I immediately ended up comparing it to some of his older hires from the first time around who had no actual experience in the areas he'd appointed them for (like John McEntee). 

The fact that he actually has military experience, to me, is actually the problem. It gives this plan wings, and it serves to connect the media and military interests under one voice, and the way Trump wishes to attack rival news outlets gives me that "kill the poets and artists" vibe to a lesser extreme. 

the difference is that he hasn't risen through the ranks. but trump was voted in for an ideological shift. that means that it's more important that he gets someone that is going to line up with his agenda rather than a career pentagon guy.

We saw this brand of thinking from his first run so it's really not surprising in that respect, but we can't ignore how this connects resources that once weren't linked, and how other world leaders at different points of history took up similar strategies in ways that, overtime, shaped them into something more fascistic in nature. 

While I think it's a stretch when people try to use his quoting Nazi-shit to mean he's a Nazi, we do see him trying to posture based on a model established by other foreign powers. Those he respects and fears are based on the world scale, rather than scaling himself against American values and former presidents. He wants to feel like one of the "Strongmen", able to sit at the table with those he respects as if an equal of their metric, a metric not compatible with American values. 

His interview during his first term with 60 Minutes was revealing. When questioned about Russia he'd immediately tangent to it being about China, then following his meeting with Putin , Trump spoke as if he himself were our last line of defense against these other powerful nations. The guy even admires North Korea, based on very superficial things thank goodness, but it still demonstrates that he wants to become powerful through modeling off of world leaders based on strength rather than cunning. When you compare how they look next to business leaders it makes sense that he'd see it that way, especially when compared to his father's ideals. 

just like trump got voted in for not being a career politician, so he does need people who aren't part of the current paradigm in key positions. as you know it was his own administration that roadblocked him the first time

I feel like him being voted in for not being a career politician is closer to his 2016 advantages, this time around it's more been over comparing Biden's reported numbers to Trump's. If it's not the cultists from either side it's people in the middle who feel like both sides are trying to feed them shit, and that when given two shitty options that they'd rather pick the marginally different one over how it promises "Change". 

there is going to be no right wing takeover on censorship. the right wing has been fighting censorship for years, against the ADL, against Media Matters and all the major social media platforms, and with all the advertiser boycotts, and with the deplatforming.

It's always the underdog that fights censorship, it has shown it's ability to switch parties based on whichever one ends up the one in power. Both sides claim to be against censorship, but when either are asked to show examples they demonstrate only one side of the equation. As someone who has been a part of trans discussions I have seen more than my fair share of both sides feeling as if their voice is being suppressed through the forceful rhetoric of the other side.

The problem I see is that once they ascend to the superior position then they begin to do it themselves as if it's just "part of the game". A true Free Speech activist would be stuck changing sides almost constantly if not stuck adopting a neutral position if it was purely over the philosophy solely rather than any ties to a party. 

so for a leftist to start freaking out about censorship at this point is ridiculous—the left sat comfortably, feeling justified, while all of this happened. but leftist media isn't going anywhere

We're around the same age, you saw the 90s recovery from right wing 80s politics right, which itself was a recovery from the radical 70s? 

You saw 9/11, when many people from both parties felt reason to question if it was an Inside Job. We saw during Bush II the true start of censorship in the media via The Government within US politics within our lifetime, and it's following then that each side expressing their freedom of speech ends up being taken as oppression by the other side. 

As a trans person for instance, it's hard for me to not take how they speak as bigotry when it speaks against my demographic clusters and those adjacent to them, but oftentimes they don't mean it the way it's perceived and even when they do it's moreover a desire to see "liberal tears" rather than commit to actual discourse, which itself I'd argue is an apolitical position based on comedic opportunism. 

as for that secretary of defense pick, what do you think really is the worst that is going to happen?

That they'll tie together Fox News and The Military very closely with the Presidential Agenda, and that based on others he's keeping in his back pocket, like Elon Musk, that it shows a developing trend. It's one thing to manipulate the media, it's another to try to eliminate it's competition while accomplishing a stranglehold over the one(s) you like. Once the US internet achieves further censorship over their own citizens' airwaves with the promise of that invasion granting a semblance of security, what's to stop the US from developing towards a more North Korean or Chinese direction of media? 

It's not wasted on me that our news media is corrupt on both sides, any room to question that goes out the window when both networks report identical news agendas. During times like BLM for example, the only journalist during that time covering anything meaningful was Andrew Callaghan with Channel Five News (formerly All Gas No Brakes) while all the other news outlets, from BOTH SIDES, sucked the cops dicks and even arranged some performance art to push the people further. 

Dragoonback said: 

some more acting naive bullshit? who do you think you're tricking tryptamine? I honestly hope that's your intentions and that you are not actually being so daft and retarded out of the desperate need to vindicate some obviously misled beliefs, along with those beliefs being inherently oppressive, petty, sadistic, and heteronormative pronatalist fascistic.

not sure what i said there that was inherently oppressive/heteronormative/pronatalist

Turncoat said: 

We saw this brand of thinking from his first run so it's really not surprising in that respect, but we can't ignore how this connects resources that once weren't linked, and how other world leaders at different points of history took up similar strategies in ways that, overtime, shaped them into something more fascistic in nature. 

While I think it's a stretch when people try to use his quoting Nazi-shit to mean he's a Nazi, we do see him trying to posture based on a model established by other foreign powers. Those he respects and fears are based on the world scale, rather than scaling himself against American values and former presidents. He wants to feel like one of the "Strongmen", able to sit at the table with those he respects as if an equal of their metric, a metric not compatible with American values. 

His interview during his first term with 60 Minutes was revealing. When questioned about Russia he'd immediately tangent to it being about China, then following his meeting with Putin he spoke as if he were our last line of defense against these other powerful nations. The guy even admires North Korea, based on very superficial things thank goodness, but it still demonstrates that he wants to become powerful through modeling off of world leaders based on strength rather than cunning. When you compare how they look next to business leaders it makes sense compared even to his father

trump got voted in 2016 to "drain the swamp". but electing people who spent their careers entrenched in the legacy system also meant that they were owned by that system and bound by their connections within. this is part of why trump's first term was mired in a fight with fellow republicans. actually getting things done involves elevating people who are going to support your aims. if the laws were somehow changed in a crazy way, then i would understand the concern...but this is what the people voted for. to get rid of the legacy political class

as for american values...this is the candidate who is opposed to supported a war in ukraine. and hopefully with iran. isolationism is a criticism people have of trump. there were no new wars under trump. so it's worth considering what you mean by "strongman". i think people are ok with trump taking the kids gloves off, when it helps us secure peace. under obama, g-20 meetings with north and south korea were a failure. trump was the first american president to set foot in north korea. i consider that a success, not a failure

just like trump got voted in for not being a career politician, so he does need people who aren't part of the current paradigm in key positions. as you know it was his own administration that roadblocked him the first time

I feel like him being voted in for not being a career politician is closer to his 2016 advantages, this time around it's more been over comparing Biden's reported numbers to Trump's. If it's not the cultists from either side it's people in the middle who feel like both sides are trying to feed them shit, and that when given two shitty options that they'd rather pick the marginally different one over how it promises "Change". 

that's maybe how the undecided voters went, but the MAGA folk have definitely been wanting a system change. it's been a long fight going on in the background these last four years as well, with the freedom caucus, the lawfare and all of that

there is going to be no right wing takeover on censorship. the right wing has been fighting censorship for years, against the ADL, against Media Matters and all the major social media platforms, and with all the advertiser boycotts, and with the deplatforming.

It's always the underdog that fights censorship, it has shown it's ability to switch parties based on whichever one ends up the one in power. Both sides claim to be against censorship, but when either are asked to show examples they demonstrate only one side of the equation. As someone who has been a part of trans discussions I have seen more than my fair share of both sides feeling as if their voice is being suppressed through the forceful rhetoric of the other side.

The problem I see is that once they ascend to the superior position then they begin to do it themselves as if it's just "part of the game". A true Free Speech activist would be stuck changing sides almost constantly if not stuck adopting a neutral position if it was purely over the philosophy solely rather than any ties to a party. 

well i would change my mind if i seen the right actively trying to suppress leftist voices. but i don't see where or how. only hysteria, like when the media mill churned out this story about elon banning the words "cis" and "cisgender" on X. well anyone can just hop on the platform at any time and see that this clearly was never true. it’s also important to note that the MAGA movement is a rejection of the neocons, and they were the “right” that launched the surveillance state. well that’s been outsourced to palantir in a nonpartisan way at this point

so for a leftist to start freaking out about censorship at this point is ridiculous—the left sat comfortably, feeling justified, while all of this happened. but leftist media isn't going anywhere

We're around the same age, you saw the 90s recovery from right wing 80s politics right, which itself was a recovery from the radical 70s? 

You saw 9/11, when many people from both parties felt reason to question if it was an Inside Job. We saw during Bush II the true start of censorship in the media via The Government within US politics within our lifetime, and it's following then that each side expressing their freedom of speech ends up being taken as oppression by the other side. 

As a trans person for instance, it's hard for me to not take how they speak as bigotry when it speaks against my demographic clusters and those adjacent to them, but oftentimes they don't mean it the way it's perceived and even when they do it's moreover a desire to see "liberal tears" rather than commit to actual discourse, which itself I'd argue is an apolitical position based on comedic opportunism. 

i think people are mostly just tired of all the gay shit being force fed. like you can't have a commercial without a rainbow cast of skin colors and two women holding hands, then a girl boss coming through at the end to correct her dumb oaf of a husband. there is very deliberate cultural programming which people are lashing out against. but this will pass after people find a baseline. maybe hormones will be harder to get...maybe they won't, because there will still be a competitive market

as for that secretary of defense pick, what do you think really is the worst that is going to happen?

That they'll tie together Fox News and The Military very closely with the Presidential Agenda, and that based on others he's keeping in his back pocket, like Elon Musk, that it shows a developing trend. It's one thing to manipulate the media, it's another to try to eliminate it's competition while accomplishing a stranglehold over the one(s) you like. Once the US internet achieves further censorship over their own citizens' airwaves with the promise of that invasion granting a semblance of security, what's to stop the US from developing towards a more North Korean direction of media? 

It's not wasted on me that our news media is corrupt on both sides, any room to question that goes out the window when both networks report identical news agendas. During times like BLM for example, the only journalist during that time covering anything meaningful was Andrew Callaghan with Channel Five News (formerly All Gas No Brakes) while all the other news outlets, from BOTH SIDES, sucked the cops dicks and even arranged some performance art to push the people further. 

i would just have to see actual moves being made where competition is being eliminated. because from my perspective it has been a constant attempt to throttle the right and kill it, with advertiser boycotts and tech censorship. and the tech censorship only really stopped recently with elon's acquisition of X. so trump has hired ppl associated with fox. they aren't exactly using imperial mandate 1488 to shut down cnn headquarters

Tryptamine said:

trump got voted in 2016 to "drain the swamp". but electing people who spent their careers entrenched in the legacy system also meant that they were owned by that system and bound by their connections within. this is part of why trump's first term was mired in a fight with fellow republicans. actually getting things done involves elevating people who are going to support your aims. if the laws were somehow changed in a crazy way, then i would understand the concern...but this is what the people voted for. to get rid of the legacy political class

It's not going anywhere though, and he's fine with it when they agree with his ideas. I have a very hard time seeing him as a freedom fighter rather than him demonizing those who stand in his way. 

Looking at who he's reaching out to, he doesn't want to drain the swamp so much as empty it out and refill it with different brand of scummy bog water. 

as for american values...this is the candidate who is opposed to supported a war in ukraine. and hopefully with iran. isolationism is a criticism people have of trump. there were no new wars under trump. so it's worth considering what you mean by "strongman".

I mean each time he's used the quote himself in interviews as a term of respect, and who he's linked with the word. 

He wants to be a "strongman", and admires those who've done it first. It's like trying to join the cool kids table for him, similar to that of multiple business executives meeting to discuss the little people. 

i think people are ok with trump taking the kids gloves off, when it helps us secure peace. under obama, g-20 meetings with north and south korea were a failure. trump was the first american president to set foot in north korea. i consider that a success, not a failure

People are just tired of Biden, tired enough that many leftists abstained from voting this cycle while others questioned their footing. It's not really more complicated than that so much as the passive runoff and implications of their vote, followed by feeling offended over accusations that, while they may apply, they weren't actively factoring into their opinion yet. 

From a leftist POV that isn't going hardcore Red Scare right now, it's easy to see it as two right wingers duking it out over the female rights situation and little else. 

that's maybe how the undecided voters went, but the MAGA folk have definitely been wanting a system change. it's been a long fight going on in the background these last four years as well, with the freedom caucus, the lawfare and all of that

MAGA, rather than Right Wingers overall, just want Trump. I've spoken with enough to see it goes beyond party lines for them, it's about TRUMP. There's more than enough cases where someone asks if they'd approve of a leftist candidate doing a Trump thing, then are asked again if they'd be more okay with if Trump did it, showing a contrast between the two answers. 

The guy's handled as a radical celebrity, a political rockstar, one where people are conditioned to expect him to fail so far that they've learned to trivialize it. As another I know put it: Kamala has to be Flawless while Trump has to be Lawless. 

It's always the underdog that fights censorship, it has shown it's ability to switch parties based on whichever one ends up the one in power. Both sides claim to be against censorship, but when either are asked to show examples they demonstrate only one side of the equation. As someone who has been a part of trans discussions I have seen more than my fair share of both sides feeling as if their voice is being suppressed through the forceful rhetoric of the other side.

The problem I see is that once they ascend to the superior position then they begin to do it themselves as if it's just "part of the game". A true Free Speech activist would be stuck changing sides almost constantly if not stuck adopting a neutral position if it was purely over the philosophy solely rather than any ties to a party. 

well i would change my mind if i seen the right actively trying to suppress leftist voices.

You don't see shutting down woke discourse and embracing liberal tears as suppressive? You don't see removing the ability to talk about leftist concepts in schools as suppressive? You don't see them being told over and over to "get over it" while being told their ideals are fucked up, degenerate, and disorderly as suppressive? 

This to me looks like a script flip: Rather than Leftists talking over seperation of Church and State, we're now seeing Righties talking over separation of Sex and State (and to a lesser degree Race). 

Both sides aim to censor the other under the name of their own human rights, and neither side wants to be told to shut up. The problem to me looks more like it's over how people haven't gotten over it yet, as we saw similar things happening when Gay Rights were being fought for prior to this development. 

i think people are mostly just tired of all the gay shit being force fed.

See, that's what I've found odd to watch; overtime I've been seeing The Left trying to distance from this. There's a good number of them tired of this shit too, even as a trans person I'll still fight for it but I am among those tired of the conversation. Overtime it's become Right Wingers explaining how The Left behaves far more often than seeing a Leftist act on it, repeating the same stories over and over long after The Left learned to see it as cringy to continue the course. 

I'd argue both sides are tired of hearing it while The Right can't shut up about 'Wokeism' in an ironically Woke way via it's original protest definition; Making sure to keep repeating this shit over and over so no one can forget about it or move past it. What makes it different however is where blame can be directed; Rather than growing tired of and complaining about how it keeps being said to them over who keeps saying it, both sides bringing up the same shit directs them towards one target. 

To me, I see far more Right Wing people going on about trans shit than The Left does. Still though, what are those who ascribe to "the gay shit" supposed to do here? 

Yeah at the start it was about preaching tolerance while intolerant about it, but I've seen the LGBTQ quieting down their intensity for a bit now. By contrast The Right keeps appealing to before this happened as if it's all that's going to happen. Even looking at Right vs Left Wing commercialism it was only The Right going on about Wokeism... while The Left was either quiet about it or outright spoke against that message in their ads. 

Trans rights wasn't a good look anymore, so they focus-fired on female rights instead. We're outright seeing these fringe demographics going more Right Wing, either over a misconception about them having learned to tolerate them, over focusing on how their own party made them feel abandoned or betrayed, or through trying to ignore the issue entirely. 

like you can't have a commercial without a rainbow cast of skin colors and two women holding hands, then a girl boss coming through at the end to correct her dumb oaf of a husband. there is very deliberate cultural programming which people are lashing out against. but this will pass after people find a baseline. maybe hormones will be harder to get...maybe they won't, because there will still be a competitive market

We've been seeing this for a long long while now. Fairly Odd Parents in 2001, The Simpsons in 1989, and many other shows played into this sort of approach over how writers couldn't get away with writing housewives to be Edith Bunkers anymore. 

The problem in writing became over how social censorship was not allowing for flawed female characters anymore, but those flaws had to be written somewhere. Through being stuck with feeding those traits to male figures it gave across an overall impression. 

i would just have to see actual moves being made where competition is being eliminated.

Trump has publicly stated that he wishes to rid left wing media of their broadcasting licenses, and has already found an alleged excuse to target CBS. Granted, him targetting CBS could be more ego-motivated: His own interview on there with 60 Minutes left a bad taste in people's mouths and he's accusing them of editing their interview with Kamala to make her look good. 

The question to me isn't over if he'll succeed, it's over if he has the desire and the will to try. I hope it fails, but the writing seems to be plainly enough on the wall to have members of the CIA and Pentagon like 'oh shit wtf'. 

Turncoat said:

Tryptamine said:

well i would change my mind if i seen the right actively trying to suppress leftist voices.

You don't see shutting down woke discourse and embracing liberal tears as suppressive? You don't see removing the ability to talk about leftist concepts in schools as suppressive? You don't see them being told over and over to "get over it" while being told their ideals are fucked up, degenerate, and disorderly as suppressive?

Even if P25 doesn't end up enacted, what does it say when those who work alongside Trump want to claim Trans people are 'pornographic' in nature, and then say that said 'pornography' is banned from schools? The aim is to handle trans people similarly to that of the Animals in Wicked: 



How are trans teachers, parents, and children supposed to respond to this? It's hard for me to not see this as suppression, or at the very least the attempt towards it. Mob behavior has been showing emboldened 'out of the closet' behavior where even the word 'Fag' is beginning to retrend. 

With the direction of suppression bound to hit schools during these next four years, there's teachers who outright won't be able to answer what it means when a man wears a dress without worrying about losing their jobs, in spite of children potentially seeing crossdressers more regularly. If they can't get these answers from their teachers or their parents, they're liable to go towards trans people themselves or browse the net. 

Again, acting like this didn't exist until recently is pure lunacy when it's been embedded into US culture for around 160 years now. People act like it wasn't there before because people were silenced from speaking of it: "If being 'gay' is 'bad', then how 'bad' must it be to be 'trans'?". For those present among artists and the non-kinkshaming communities, they have been well aware of these people for a good long while now rather than purely a byproduct of political information and trans-trending, and it sucks to see us take a step backwards. 

What's to stop them from backtracking and removing the right for gay people to get married? The Williams Institute estimates that only 5.5% of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+, and now Leftists have less sympathy for them based on the current political climate, some Terfs even blaming trannies for the loss. Even for non-trans people they ought to be expressing some level of sympathy, but instead trans people are met with pro-Trump Rally-types who yell the word "Faggot" en masse.