Yeah those are all things USA and other western powers want to invest in but don’t want to get their hands dirty with. They could put a stop to all that or do it themselves but don’t want to

You’re giving Israel the type of credit they want bruh. They are not running a world control conspiracy 😭 They don’t have power over the USA, the USA wants a colonial presence in the Middle East and supporting Israel is the easiest way to do it. Yes Mossad gets up to fucked up stuff, but they are not about to murder famous American political figures and face the repercussions.

What does Netanyahu tweeting even mean as well. He’s not giving you a hint into some grand conspiracy that would require countless lies and people involved. That line of thinking is the same bs that the alt right falls for

I think Kirk was a major reason for an uptick in republican youth voters because he was so famous on social media. I’ve noticed young men my age, who vote democrat, like a reel featuring Charlie Kirk because he “owned a silly lib” in an amusing way. His job was touring college campuses- upon invitation from college students- to spread hate and try to convince young people that their politics and identity were wrong.

I would compare him to Andrew Tate because they spread a relatively similar sermon of hate and individualism, but Tate isn’t a political activist. He doesn’t bring people to the polls like a Charlie Kirk can. Another comparison would be Trump, but Trump can never relate to the youth because he’s still just an old man.

I agree he’ll get replaced and this won’t really slow down the machine, but the man had quite the impact on young people.

No way in fuck they purposely had Kirk assassinated.

1. His job as a propagandist / hate spreader is way too important and influential to stop
2. they could’ve martyred a similarly famous, but less influential, republican and gotten the same response
3. they’re going to go forward with their plan- they don’t need an excuse
4. this happened in a red state, why wouldn’t they pick a blue state?
5. I really don’t think Epstein files matter that much for republicans. A video could come out of Trump raping a child and it would be chalked up to ai and they wouldn’t believe it
6. the news cycle is so short- this won’t remain a hot topic for a long amount of time

It’s a convenient distraction, sure, but it’s been proven time and time again that they don’t need distractions to carry out policy. If there’s any conspiracy to be had, it would be surrounding the (relatively) unanimous rhetoric that his death was a tragedy. When kids die in Gaza everyday, a regular citizen is shot, or someone kills themselves because of financial strain we don’t debate the morals of their unjust death. However when a famous white man is killed he isn’t just a statistic but an example of how awful people can be.

The mere existence of African tribes “violates” a colonial, western mindset. It is the scary unknown that they seek to control and classify.

No. Baby gronk was a sensation a few years ago in like u12 football because he was bigger than all the other kids ie he is a “baby” gronk. His dad promotes him hella on socials and now he’s an internet celebrity. “Drip king” can refer to a lot. Here I’d say it’s how well does he dress and what kind of aura does he have. But it’s a catch all term in this context. Livvy Dunne is a former LSU gymnast who became a huge internet celebrity around the same time as baby gronk, so there was a lot of talk of baby gronk rizzing her up and iirc they met up one time.

“Baby gronk rizzing up Livvy” is also a meme that has been around a couple years because it’s a silly sentence.

real.

Apologies for ignorance, but what changed about them? Is it that they’ve been evolving over millions of years, which is why they can survive in today’s world (even though they look the same).

The car kept going slower and slower as the race progressed 😭 Couldn’t even podium when it seemed impossible for them not to. I guess it’s not a complete shitbox, but their goal is to win. They’re leagues behind McLaren, it requires Leclerc heroics to get good results, and despite their infinite money and resources they haven’t won a single race. They are underwhelming to say the least.

And you’re acting like Sainz wasn’t comprehensively beaten by Leclerc when he drove for Ferrari. Sure, Hamilton is slow this year (and also comprehensively beaten by Leclerc). But as I’ve already said, Hamilton’s name alone is worth so much more than Carlos Sainz maybe beating Leclerc in a race and then losing to him in the championship.

The Ferrari this year is ass, no way Sainz would be that much better. Hamilton is the most famous and recognizable figure in motorsport and he has been for 10+ years. Hell even if he finished last place in every race, he would still be bringing more money into Ferrari than if Sainz had the season of his life.

Don’t get me started on the Amtrak schedule…

But the bridge Amtrak goes over is about 1 mile north of this one and much harder to climb up because it isn’t abandoned lol

Lookup pc music and ag cook, that is the origins of hyperpop. And you have to listen to Sophie, she was the best

Yeah you’re right, there was no such thing as stock markets until 2010 I heard

Before capitalism was invented in 2010 we were just guided by happiness and the pursuit of science and art and improving our livelihoods 🥰

Nah I get what you’re saying. Those are all good things and I agree with pretty much everything in your other comment. I just think that the Apollo missions and other space missions, despite bringing about good, did not occur because of good intentions.

But yeah you’re right that by learning about other planets we learn a lot about our own and how to move forward. A part of my brain just refuses to recognize most of the good in space exploration because the common attitude towards space exploration is similar to our attitude toward colonization.

Why when people describe living on the Moon or Mars do they use the word colonize? To me it implies that these spaces are only useful if we can extract profit. And now there’s talk of exploring other space rocks (sorry for broad term) because they contain precious metals we’re running out of on earth. It’s just gross to think that the only way space can be explored or properly funded is if it makes more money and ends up exploiting someone.

I’m not your buddy either 😡

• want to quote smtn from mla guide on citing sources

• use broad and ambiguous blog post for making a glossary (a collection of textual glosses, click the link to learn what those words mean)

• don’t use a glossary

• profit?

• want to defend my half assed attempt at using thesaurus.com

• tacitly acknowledge that I did change my language as the comment chain went on

as established, I don’t care about your opinion

• keep responding to the antagonizer whose opinion I clearly care about

Calm down please

Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.

The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.

Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”

And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣

Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.

And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)

Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.

Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this

1. My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.

2. The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.

I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.

So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.

I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific

I struggle to see how the scientific advancements required going to the moon

is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?

And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.

Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.

I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.