86 pointsby shimm7232 hours ago8 comments
  • bananaflagan hour ago
    > Tomahawk cruise missiles are the new AI.

    I'd say AI is the new AI.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/03/iran-war-...

  • neadenan hour ago
    "Some argue this blurriness unfairly implicates those who were simply mentioned in the files. I take the opposite view: It unfairly protects those who abused minors." This seems like a weird distinction to make, and the fact that he sees these as being in conflict kind of ruins the article for me. For instance Ro Khanna revealed six names of people in the Epstein files but then it turned out four of them had just had their photos used in a photo lineup and had no other connection (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/13/four-men-unr...) so obviously yes, there are some perfectly innocent people in the files. Then later in the article he says "There’s a solution to the Epstein problem, and it’s called a perp walk. It doesn’t matter what we get them for, but someone very rich and very famous needs to be seen in handcuffs. It could be Gates, it could be Dershowitz, it could be Clinton, it could be Summers, I don’t really care." Which once again is missing the point, assuming that anyone mentioned there is guilty and worthy of punishment of a public shaming. And while honestly I wouldn't be upset if any of these famous men were shamed that way, the fact remains that's not how justice works. He sees a problem, a lack of justice for these crimes and then instead of coming to the solution as being that we need justice, which includes trials and the presumption of innocence, that we just need to start punishing at random. That not only is a failure of justice, but it also isn't a good deterrent and I think will ultimately fail to accomplish his goals.
  • 12_throw_away42 minutes ago
    Yes, the rich and powerful have increasingly captured and profited from the police and carceral state while being completely free to, for instance, build an island dedicated to the rape of children. Justice should absolutely be served here. Arrest more rich people, arrest more politicians, and hell arrest all of the "royalty" (for this and other reasons).

    But this rant's "solution", which seems to be "let's empower the police state to do more excesses" - yeah, no. Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?

  • outside1234an hour ago
    We are in a battle of top 0.01% vs. the bottom 99.99% where the top 0.01% has convinced us that our enemy is the "right" or the "left" such that we are distracted from our actual oppressors.
    • Caius-Cosades43 minutes ago
      Yeah, remember occupy wallstreet? They got spooked and pretty much whipped up the whole identity-politics thing overnight in response. And unfortunately it did work.
    • meyan hour ago
      This is not an either or issue. There are policy issues all around. The "left" isn't creating an magical "other" in the form of panic about "woke"/"immigrants"/"terrorists cells"/"trans people"/"welfare queens"/"libs"/"gay agenda" etc.

      The US government in general is not prioritizing the reality and needs of the people, it is supposed to be in service to. Instead it is serving the needs of the few, but there are many many fronts of injustice, as there are many different people in power with their own agenda. It's not necessarily a single unified agenda.

      Edit: The astro-turfing in this thread is going to be interesting based on the bot comment just below my comment...

      • juris9 minutes ago
        hah, dang, did i fall for that?
    • tstrimplean hour ago
      Nope. The right explicitly supports the policies that lead to the direct concentration of wealth and power and rise of fascism. If the right constantly sides with the oppressors, they are the oppressors. This should be trivial to see just by looking at voting records. It's all very public and you've got decades of history worth of it to review. Both sides are not the same. The right chooses to align with the top 0.01% making them firmly part of the problem.
      • brutal_chaos_40 minutes ago
        I believe it's a bit more nuanced than that. Both democrats and republicans have had enough power to make meaningful changes to prevent such a wealth gap and thus the wealthy play both parties. I do see democrats trying to help people have a better life (medicare for all, etc), but the wealth gap grew nometheless. Though I do agree with you that republicans don't seem to give a flying fuck about the people these days, which does make it worse IMHO. Regardless, both parties enabled the wealth gap and is why the fight is the 99.99% against the 0.01%. The US needs to kill citizens united and take money out of politics, I think that'd be a huge step forward...and yet, it is basically impossible because the 0.01% have the power.
        • bryanlarsen4 minutes ago
          Hard to blame the 99.99% when only 48% of voters voted for Hillary Clinton who had "undo Citizens United" explicitly on her platform.
      • AntiDyatlov44 minutes ago
        Well, dethroning the 0.01% seems more feasible than starting and winning a civil war against the right. I think the right is not so pro 0.01% as you think, the killing of the United Healthcare CEO had strong bipartisan support, at the level of ordinary people.
        • Quarrelsome5 minutes ago
          the 0.01% have access to both the left and the right. They can fund and lobby both, however electors have considerably less flexibility given the paucity of options and how either of those options are to some extent; in thrall to the 0.01%.
      • replooda35 minutes ago
        Nope, it's 0.01% vs 99.9%. First, because they themselves are at the top — or, what, was Biden some sort of proletarian? Second, the left is okay with left-flavored dictatorships — just think, recently, of poor, poor Maduro. Third, from the outside, the drones kept coming whether red or blue happened to be in power.
      • juris29 minutes ago
        hard disagree

        when you couch it as a left vs right instead of a top vs down problem you will lock yourself (and your immediate circle) up in the hardline media items the people who lobby both sides will control.

        as disclosure: i am socially liberal and fiscally conservative except in matters relating to education, which i believe should be free (and tuition rate controlled). never voted for trump, never will. wanted to write in bernie for the first pass until he dropped, then threw for the queen of england. i didn't vote in the last election. i consider ice to be an illegal and fascist arm of too large a state.

        the most arresting argument i've heard a leftist say (which i agree with) is: there is a distribution of wealth at which a free market fails and we are long past that, especially given our failure to bust monopolies and enforce antitrust law.

        that enables entities who lobby both sides of the policy spectrum to position us against each other. epstein played this well: how else do you get neoconservatives bubbling out of 4chan as an answer to thundercat tumblr kids? it's all divide-and-conquer (and over the most inane issues).

        now, tell me: do you want to support eurasia or oceania? or do you want to put the puppeteers in jail?

        • tstrimple9 minutes ago
          This is such a fucking stupid argument because the "right" explicitly aligns itself with the 0.01%. If they are cheerleading it and voting for it and celebrating it, what the fuck makes you think they are on the side of the 99%. It's counterfactual. There is no evidence of it. Look at their support for Trump for fucks sake. He has made over $3B from his presidency ripping people off, and they fucking love him for it. They are on his side, not ours! Again. Look at how they consistently vote before pretending they are any sort of ally.
    • zetanoran hour ago
      Nope. The left explicitly supports the policies that lead to the direct concentration of wealth and power and rise of communism. If the left constantly sides with the oppressors, they are the oppressors. This should be trivial to see just by looking at voting records. It's all very public and you've got decades of history worth of it to review. Both sides are not the same. The left chooses to align with the top 0.01% making them firmly part of the problem.
      • tartuffe78an hour ago
        This is good satire
        • OGWhales42 minutes ago
          There is a real argument about the rise of fascism and the equivalent about the rise of communism is too silly for the bit to work
  • DivingForGold2 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • Neywinyan hour ago
      I just want to be very clear in understanding you: are you saying that these women (who are known and named) who were victims when underage (factually, not ""), should not be viewed as victims because it's a way/fact of life that powerful people will abuse girls?
      • poloticsan hour ago
        our friend "DivingForGold" has clearly hit a whataboutism bonanza here. Can you also tell us about CO2 on Venus?
      • libertinean hour ago
        I think the case he's making is that it should not be viewed as victims because it's "normal" or traditional in underdeveloped third world countries.

        It's of course one of the most messed up things to read, but it's a common thought process of people influenced by propaganda from those countries regimes, or are actively spreading propaganda: the framing of "so called western countries/first world countries/etc" is the first red flag.

        And then of course the angle is that western countries are decadent and are denying traditional values. This is a common thread of the Russian regime propaganda for example... Because when the regine destroyed everything else, with no prospects of a good future, it's traditional misery that has to make up for the rest.

        So to sum it up, OP is actually making a case for the false traditional values of the regimes from the most corrupt and broken societies - where sex trafficking and marrying underaged children is part of the status quo, because it's "traditional ".

        Somehow this propaganda works with some people in the west lol

    • close04an hour ago
      I keep rereading your comment and every time I understand that you think the problem isn’t that the girls were underage but that “Western democracies” needlessly criminalize this when they could be more like Russia or Muslim nations where you think that’s fine.

      My most charitable interpretation is that you are justifying such sexual abuse of children.

      But don’t get too excited yet (pun intended), in many parts of Russia or the Muslim world getting caught sexually abusing a child will make you wish for jail.

      • Jordan-117an hour ago
        smdh at these woke moralists and their virtue-signaling opposition to checks notes child sex trafficking.
    • vpribishan hour ago
      yikes
  • poloticsan hour ago
    Indeed just heard that "Epic Fury" is an anagram of "Epstein Files" (FBI-redacted I guess)
    • giancarlostoroan hour ago
      That does not make sense.
      • poloticsan hour ago
        Yes it does: Epic Fury is the name of the operation that's been started on Saturday. Granted, it takes some nimble to keep up.
        • bs7280an hour ago
          Do you know what an anagram is?
          • Rooster61an hour ago
            It was a pun...NO WAIT! Whats that thing where it spells the same backwards and forwards?
            • nektro21 minutes ago
              palindrome
      • outside1234an hour ago
        He is being tongue-in-cheek. To explain the joke, Trump is fumbling around for anything to distract from the fact that he is in the Epstein Files.
  • flyinglizardan hour ago
    Sometimes the wrong people do the right thing for whatever reason and the war in Iran is precisely that.
    • cryzingeran hour ago
      This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t

      https://theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mi...

      • flyinglizard5 minutes ago
        You can see by the Iranian violent reaction that’s spread far and wide over most of the Middle East countries about what exact kind of stability it brings to the area.

        Amongst the countries attacked by Iran now are Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait and Saudia Arabia; indirectly, it’s dragging kicking and screaming into the conflict also Yemen (surely soon), Lebanon (already) and Iraq (already).

      • morkalorkan hour ago
        The authors really nailed it on the timing if you look at when ISIS peaked
    • Analemma_an hour ago
      How about we wait more than three days to see if this really was “the right thing” before rolling out the Mission Accomplished banner, yeah?
  • Animatsan hour ago
    It begins to look like Citizens United [1] cost us democracy.

    "That government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich shall not perish from the earth."

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

    • deathanatos3 minutes ago
      I know people hate Citizens United, but to me, if the debate on this is ever to progress: what's the alternative? Say I and a bunch of my friends donate money to promote some cause; let's say "Black Lives Matter", for the sake of argument. Is that also off the table? Is there to be no ability for people to associate & collectively argue for change (e.g., by buying an ad to raise awareness)?

      Or, is it fine when I do it, but not when others do it? Where do I draw the line, between what association for the purposes of political advocacy is fine, and what association isn't fine?