Planet Reno

@BlackDumpling Every little bit helps to wake new people up to the reality of "rules for thee but not for me" when dealing with race marxists like the leftists in Twitch's content moderation team. Everybody learns at a different pace. Then they can act more informed in the future.

@RealPlanetReno Precisely what do you think "discussion" is going to do?

日本の友人たちよ、あなた方は「ルールの中のルール」を理解することで伝説的です。それらのルールはしばしば口に出さず、外部者には曖昧ですが、あなた方にとっては明白なものです。 極めて人気のあるリバタリアン社会主義系ストリーマー、Asmongold（@Asmongold）は、これを理解していないか、理解していても拒否しているようです。つまり、時としてそうした暗黙のルールが、極端な残酷さを行使したり、混乱を撒き散らしたりするために意図的に使われることがあるということを。 彼は「文盲の第三世界の人々の意見なんてどうでもいい」と発言したため、丸々1週間もBANされました。 彼はさらにこう続けています。「では、アメリカ人の意見を中東についてどうでもいいと言う人がBANされるでしょうか？ もちろんされません。明らかなダブルスタンダードです。」 Asmongoldはダブルスタンダードがあると信じています。しかし、ここには「ダブルスタンダード」は正確には存在しません。むしろ単一の基準があるだけで、彼にさえそれを教えてくれないのです。それを強制しながら。 これが左派のやり方です。彼らには基準があり、それをほとんど宗教のように維持しています。しかし、しばしばその基準を教えてくれなかったり、強制する際に巧妙だったりします。これが恐怖と猜疑心を生み出す方法の一つです。 ただし、彼らはその強制を無差別に行っているわけではなく、非常に意図的に行っています。「天秤に親指を置く」ように、ルールが適用されるべき相手に対してのみルールを適用します。 Asmonは、すべての人が平等に守るべき単一のルールセットがあるべきだと考えています。それが彼の基準だからです。しかし、誰をBANし誰をBANしないかを決めているのは彼ではありません。Twitchです。そしてTwitchの基準は、西洋人は一般的なムスリムに対して、特に左派的なイスラム主義者に対して、服従的な態度を取らなければならないというものです。他にもありますが、現在問題になっているのはこれです。 彼らには基準があります。それに従っています。ただ、彼が思っている基準とは違うだけなのです。

They sound just like leftists. Pearl clutching, 25th amendment. Cornered animals who are clawing at their dwindling credibility and influence.

@pirooooon3 We have mixed feelings about Trump handling Iran.

アメリカ人はトランプ大統領を支持しているのか？

@ConceptualJames You'd probably be less demoralized if you hit the gym for 5-6 months and got rid of the muffin top

I think the most demoralizing thing I've seen yet is the mass emergence of the American Right-wing Pussy.

@tagame Because they are sick and it makes them crave more poison.

なぜアメリカは食べ物をカロリー爆弾にするのか…

@IterIntellectus Yeah you press the "go directly to jail" button.

starting to suspect this is staged, because if it’s real i have to accept i’ve been living in a horror movie this whole time are you telling me the world could be this beautiful? what the fuck you can just press the button and get a developed country

@DrInsensitive At some point it becomes a failure of communication to take such an obtuse route to your point. 1/4 the character count would have been sufficient.

This is the kind of post that needs reposts to get traction, because a repost says, "This is worth reading." That's important for long posts, especially posts like this one, where halfway through I look like an asshole.

We Rescue our Pilots Because Soldiers are Afraid to Fire their Rifles In WW2, the US Army was dismayed to discover most soldiers were not firing their weapons, because the muzzle flash would give away their position, drawing enemy fire. That's why we must rescue our downed pilots. Before I try to justify that claim, let me steel-man the opposing view. (That is, I will start by stating the contrary position in its strongest form.) Here are the reasons we should NOT have rescued the two pilots: 1. We risked far more than two lives. It appears that no US soldiers died, but that was sheer luck. Soldiers were injured, perhaps severely, and an A-10 pilot was shot down. We could easily have lost 20 men trying to save two. In fact, on average, it seems likely that heroic rescues like this one will kill more Americans than they save. In my opinion, this objection is factually correct. 2. We lost hundreds of $millions in equipment to save two people. The hard truth is that one American life is only worth about ten million dollars, so this operation was a net loss. In my opinion, this objection is also factually correct. The Iranian rescue was a net loss, even if we are so feminized that we only care about preventing American deaths. We could have saved more than two lives, at least on average, by spending $300 million dollars elsewhere, perhaps on disease research or on improving body armor. 3. Finally, this rescue operation sent the wrong message. The message was, "Our only goal is to protect our soldiers." That is feminine thinking, and it saps American vitality. If we cannot embrace the concept of "Acceptable losses," then we cannot achieve anything of consequence. Those are the reasons this rescue was a mistake, and they are, in my opinion, kind of reasonable. So why did we do it? In my opinion, the best answer is ironically the least coherent: We did it because we are Muricans! Rescuing our pilots is who we are! Apparently, "Who we are" is a bunch of myopic retards who will risk the lives of 20 people we don't know, to save two people we do. Here is why that is the right move: Research shows that "Identity" is the strongest form of persuasion, after fear. In other words, we are not rational, so statements like, "We are the people who never leave a soldier behind" motivate us beyond all reason. If you are wondering WHY we should motivate our soldiers to act foolishly, just bear with me. I'm getting to it. Of course, psych research is mostly bullsh!t, so let's look at a real example: Why does a man stop to help a stranded motorist who will never repay him? Personally, I do it because "I'm that kind of guy." I don't claim this is rational. Far from it. Nonetheless, I like it. Why do you tip a waitress in a restaurant you will never return to? I think you do it for the same reason you stop to help a stranded motorist: You do it for no rational reason; you just like to believe you're that kind of guy. I am glad you're that kind of guy. Why did we pay so much and risk so much more, just to rescue two downed airmen who by all logic we should have abandoned? Because, and this is the crucial bit: "We are the kind of guys who stand by our comrades." Note that I did not say, "We never leave a soldier behind." That's just how we camouflage our motive, so our soldiers won't recognize the real persuasion trick and guard against it. We rescued our downed airmen to persuade ALL of our soldiers that "We are the guys who stand by our buddies, even when it's risky." We don't pull this persuasion trick just for rescue operations, which are rare and likely to be a net loss. In my opinion, we persuade our soldiers to stand by their comrades because in EVERY military operation, our soldiers must risk their own personal safety to advance the mission. Unfortunately, "the mission," even a mission we believe in, rarely feels important enough to risk our life for. Thus most soldiers in WW2 did not fire their rifles, because the Nazis and the Nips just weren't that important. But our comrades DO feel important enough. A special operations team who sneaks into enemy territory to blow up an antiaircraft radar dish does not risk their lives to advance the mission; they risk their lives because the bomber aircrews are counting on them. We don't let our buddies down, because we are the guys who don't let our buddies down. Don't feel guilty for tricking our soldiers this way. It is absolutely in their best interests, for the same reason Spartan mothers told their sons to come home with their shield, or on it. If a soldier dropped his shield and ran, all of the soldiers were likely to die. 2,500 years later, that military calculation has not changed. Yesterday's obscenely expensive Iranian rescue operation was an investment that will pay off in every single military operation, every time a soldier must decide if he will fire his weapon and reveal his position to the enemy. He will fire his weapon because his buddies are counting on him, and we are the guys who don't let our buddies down. We proved that in the Iranian rescue. A modern Spartan mother would tell her son, "Come home with your magazine empty, or don't come home, because my son is the kind of guy who doesn't let his buddies down." And that's why we rescued those pilots, because we are the guys who don't let our buddies down, even when it's dangerous.

@MelonieMac I can tell with that honker who is a jew

Jesus was a Jew

@mini_me_E @tacowasa2nd Even fewer voted against him, if you want to lay it out like that.

@tacowasa2nd My friend I agree that America is like that, but only 24.6% of the country voted for him, just math wise. It’s still insane that less than 1/4 of our country voting for a madman has destroyed not only our country but every country the US is bombing and attacking

トランプはクソだけど、意識高い系のリベラルが｢我々の国であるアメリカはあんなじゃない｣って言うのも何か違う気がするのよね。 だって現実に4割強の人間が投票したからトランプが大統領なわけですから。 つかアメリカって保守派もリベラルも揃って自分達が思ってる半分も善良じゃないと思うね。

@AntSpeaks Uhh based department

Theo Von on Instagram: "Grateful I got to spend Easter with my friends. Thank you God for filling my day with so many wonderful people. And thank you for giving me a place to bring the parts of me that feel broken." Here is one of the pictures of some of the people who were present 👇. Do you think it is a coincidence that Theo holds the skewed geopolitical opinions he does when Candace is among the people he calls “wonderful” and thanks God for? As for Brett Cooper, I will never understand this blind loyalty toward Candace. It goes beyond simply having a differing opinion. Brett, Theo, they are free to keep company with whoever they choose, but I suspect there will come a moment when they will have no choice but to confront their blind loyalty to a woman who calls everything she dislikes “satanic,” generalises entire groups of people, and has even gone so far as to blame that group of people for the transatlantic slave trade, along with other clearly insanely distorted perceptions of reality.

@donguriweb I played a lot of sports as a kid and baseball was my favorite. I still like to watch a game with friends and family at the stadium but I don't follow sports except disc golf. I hope baseball stays popular though. A great American game

アメリカの兄弟たちと話してると、どうやらアメリカ国内のスポーツの中でMLBは衰退して行ってるみたいなんだ。同じ野球が好きな国として悲しいな😢 日本？日本は大丈夫さ。阪神タイガースの今シーズンのチケットはもう完売してる。

@encrypted_past @BitcoinBoomer12 @learning_yohei Bro it's an obvious joke. Don't be so autistic

@BitcoinBoomer12 @learning_yohei You're an idiot. No.

日本からこんにちは😄🇯🇵最近、英語を勉強しています。アメリカ人に質問があります🇺🇸どうしてアメリカ人は人と会った時に「ハウ・アー・ユー？」と言うのですか？なにか特別な言葉なのですか？アメリカ人にそれを言われたら、僕はなんと答えればいいのですか？😵‍💫

@tattoosbyjon @TwoRulesOfWar @ISAF118thMobius @TommyFaceOnFire I haven't seen syrupeans before, that's a great piece of kit. So good

@TwoRulesOfWar @ISAF118thMobius @TommyFaceOnFire And the Syrupeans

”アメリカ人は最近大変だなぁ”ってツイでアメリカ人と交流が出来て楽しんでいたら 案の定、外国嫌いやアメリカ嫌いが飛んできて「うるせえよ」ってレスしてたら 「まあまて。翻訳で無理にレスバしなくていい、あいつらの相手は俺らに任せろ友人」 って言ってくれたアメリカ兄貴、大好きだよ(*'ω')ｂ

@BridgesSisco @panda_pouty @HeithNakamura Thanks for sharing

@RealPlanetReno @panda_pouty @HeithNakamura Yeah, I'd hate to see the world deprived of such bangers as x.com/i/status/20396…

アメリカのMAGA関連のツィートはとってもよく飛んでくるけれど、民主党関連のものはとても少ない。ってことはエコーチェンバーだけではなく、意図的にアメリカのMAGAと日本のネトウヨの自我を高める設定がされているのだろう。エコーチェンバーだったら、私のTLはもっと左翼っぽくなっているはずだ。

@panda_pouty @HeithNakamura In 2017, half of the right wing accounts I followed had been banned. Twitter before Elon constantly banned and surprised discussion that wasn't within the leftwing progressive frame. Once the brakes were taken off and we could speak freely, the left thinks they are supressed.

@HeithNakamura Ever since Elon bought twitter, the algorithm prioritizes right wing accounts and posts. Trust me the rest of America hates maga and trump with a passion

@ConceptualJames @RubinReport Bro just hit the gym and clean up your diet. The soft pudgy form will fade in time.

What you see almost endlessly from Tucker Carlson, "Comic" Dave Smith, Theo Von, etc., and the rest of the blackpillers amounts to a Critical America Theory. I'm not making this up. I'm explaining. Critical Theory was developed by neo-Marxist Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School in 1937. In an interview in 1969, Horkheimer explained what the Critical Theory is. He said (closely paraphrasing): "I developed the Critical Theory because we [Western neo-Marxists] realized we cannot articulate the good or ideal society on the terms of the existing society. What we can do is criticize those aspects of the existing society that we wish to change." In other words, a Critical Theory believes everything is so captured and corrupted by power and those who benefit from systems of power that it isn't even possible to talk about a better situation in clear terms. All that's available is criticism of why the system/society isn't better than it is. This activity has come to be known as identifying or "making visible" the various "problematics" in the existing system. A Critical Theory OF SOMETHING would focus this general mode of engagement into a particular domain. For example, a Critical Theory of Race in America would believe that racism is so endemic to a society and embedded within its systems to the benefit of whites that we cannot articulate a true "antiracist" vision on the terms available to us. All we could do is identify where "racism" manifests and criticize it for being there. We call that program "Critical Race Theory" because it is a Critical Theory of Race. What it does in practice is (1) identifies "hidden racism" in everything (criticizing those elements of the existing (racial) system they wish to change), called "identifying problematics"; (2) induces more people to think this way; nothing else. What a Critical America Theory would look like is not being able to articulate what a good or ideal America would look like on the terms of the existing America but criticizing those elements of America as it exists that we wish to change. That is, it would look for everything America isn't doing perfectly according to some ideal standard that doesn't exist, probably cannot exist, and cannot even be articulated and "make those problematics visible" in the hopes of changing the system. Leftists, including the whole of Critical Race Theory, do this endlessly. From Derrick Bell's (founder of CRT) 1970 book, Race, Racism, and American Law, forward, it is a relentless racial Critical America Theory. That's why it exported poorly and often hilariously to other countries that don't have the same law or racial history. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (1980) is another example, a very naked example, of a work of Critical America Theory. Specifically, this book goes through every chapter of American history, from pre-founding (Christopher Columbus) to the present (1980 at the time) and catalogues how America cheated "the people," mainly workers, indigenous, racial minorities, and women (the intersectional coalition). What I'm telling you is that the blackpillers of Podcastistan and X, etc., very notably including Tucker Carlson, are doing a socially conservative variation on Critical America Theory. Whether Carlson or "Auron MacIntyre" (nhrn) from The Blaze, the undertone of every message is plainly "you don't hate your (real) country enough" as compared against an imaginary ideal that doesn't, can't, and won't ever exist. The Blackpill Comics all do the same thing, relentlessly identifying "problematics" and alleged hidden systems of control that delegitimize the country as it actually is against a standard that isn't even real. The thing is, Critical America Theory is a Critical Theory of America. That is, it is a Critical Theory. That is, when you participate in this slop, you are taking on a critical consciousness about America. Having a critical consciousness is being WOKE, by definition (of Woke). This slop is Woke. When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially Leftist slant, we call it Woke Left (or just Woke). When this Critical America Theory slop takes on a socially conservative or Rightist slant, we call it Woke Right (which is just Woke too). They are both Woke. They are both toxic. They are both false enlightenment into a kind of terrible darkness, entitlement, malice, despair, hatred, and failure. Reject Critical America Theory. Love your country. It's great, and it's worth it.

@zundamotisuki Deport.

世界中の皆さんへ ここはどこだと思いますか？ イスラム教国ではありません ここは日本の大都市、大阪です この光景を見てどう思いますか？

@hoshizorarock Beautiful, it looks cozy

アメリカ人の皆さんに質問です。 日本には「大正ロマン」と呼ばれる、西洋と日本の伝統が融合した芸術様式があります。アメリカ人の方々には、このスタイルはどのように映るのでしょうか？ 個人的にはこのスタイルがとても好きです。😊

@nikutaberuru Northern Utah

親愛なるアメリカ兄貴たち 日本人は綺麗だったり 壮大な景色を見ると 興奮する生物なのです。 アメリカ兄貴たちの国には そのような景色が たくさんあると聞きました。 アメリカ兄貴たちの知る景色を たくさん見せてくれたら嬉しいです。