Add it to the list. Might take you a while to find the bottom.

Excellent news! Slava Ukraini!

Huh. For some reason all I see is *******.

Don’t worry. Trump is gonna remove taxes on tips. That’s like, so much money! /s

Also, it’s a terrible idea.

Why would they discuss classified military plans on an app where outsiders could just “add themselves”. That argument isn’t helping their case…

Nevermind. I need to stop thinking about things. The sheer stupidity hurts my brain.

I honestly have no idea what any of this means…

This is absolutely staggering. I’m still trying to process the fact that senior U.S. officials—people at the highest levels of government—were casually texting war plans over Signal, an app that’s not even approved for classified communications. Not only that, but they accidentally added a journalist to the group chat. And then? Just carried on like nothing happened. No one noticed. No one asked questions. They dropped operational details, discussed strategy, named targets, and then capped it all off with high-five emojis.

It’s not just irresponsible—it’s surreal. This isn’t a parody or a leaked TV script. This happened. They talked about military strikes the same way people coordinate a fantasy football draft. And then, as if to hammer home just how broken our national security culture has become, they celebrated the bombing of a foreign country with emojis. Fire, flags, praying hands, muscle arms. Like they’d just won a pickup basketball game.

What’s worse—what really makes my blood boil—is that nothing will come of it. Nothing. There won’t be hearings. No one will be fired. There won’t even be a slap on the wrist. The fact that a sitting Secretary of Defense might have violated the Espionage Act by leaking sensitive war plans over an unsecured app to a journalist should be a full-blown national scandal. Instead? Silence. Shrugs. Maybe a Fox News segment praising how “tough” the response was.

It’s the normalization of absurdity. It’s government by group chat, with the fate of lives—American and otherwise—being tossed around like a Twitter thread. And the most horrifying part? They all seem to think this is fine. Routine. Standard operating procedure.

This is bigger than partisan politics. This is about the breakdown of basic standards—of competence, of professionalism, of decency. If this doesn’t trigger national outrage, if this doesn’t result in real consequences, then we’ve officially accepted that chaos, recklessness, and emoji warfare are the new norm.

I’m furious. And if you’re not, you should be too.

Depends on where you go. America is REALLY big—like, continent-sized big. States still have a lot of autonomy, so the experience can vary quite a bit depending on the region, city, or even neighborhood. It’s not as different as going between EU countries, but there’s still a meaningful shift in culture, policy, and general vibe from place to place.

That said, I totally get the fear and frustration. The U.S. is going through a really turbulent time right now. There’s rising political extremism, deeply entrenched polarization, and yeah—an increasingly authoritarian tone at the highest levels of leadership. For people outside the U.S., it’s not unreasonable to see that and feel like it’s unsafe or unwelcoming to visit. Depending on where you go and what your background is, it can be dangerous.

But the full picture is more complicated. There are millions of people here actively fighting for justice, creating inclusive communities, and resisting that slide into authoritarianism. There are cities that are vibrant, diverse, and far more aligned with global democratic values than the loudest voices might suggest.

So yeah—it’s a mess, but not a monolith. And while it’s okay to be critical, it’s also worth remembering that there are still people here trying to make things better.

Everytime I see this guy, this is all I can think of.

Honestly, I leverage LLMs a lot to keep my conversations balanced and intentional. I usually copy-paste my discussions into a ‘Speaker 1:’ and ‘Speaker 2:’ format and ask for a critique on my tone and consistency. I also spend a lot of time thinking through my responses, often drafting a few versions before settling on one. After doing this for a few years, I’ve streamlined my process and can spot weak points pretty quickly.

I even built a GPT-powered game that generates logical fallacy scenarios for me to analyze. Someone once told me, “When I was in my 20s, I studied logical fallacies so I could tell others they were wrong. In my 40s, I study them to know when I’m wrong.” That perspective completely changed how I approach discussions—I start by making sure my own shit is in check first. It’s helped me navigate arguments with people who rely on fallacies while also keeping myself accountable to the same standards.

The fact that you already recognize your own “shit” puts you in a great category for growth. Keep chasing that awareness and practicing, and you’re gonna be unstoppable!

The ultimate debate strategy: Declare yourself the winner, refuse to read the response, then graciously “allow” me the last word you’re not even going to see. Truly a masterclass in performative activism.

You claim to understand “human psychology” and “tactics,” yet you embody the very behaviors you criticize – making sweeping judgments without engaging with counterarguments, creating strawmen, and retreating when challenged. The irony is almost poetic.

Your approach is perfectly calibrated to feel righteous while accomplishing nothing. You drop vague proclamations about wealth distribution with zero nuance or practical solutions, then flee at the first sign of scrutiny. You’re not fighting any system; you’re just performing for an audience of one – yourself.

What’s truly revealing is how you’ve constructed this narrative where you’re the lone truth-teller surrounded by “you people” who “will not stop.” This convenient framing lets you dismiss any criticism as groupthink rather than examining the glaring contradictions in your own positions.

Your self-congratulatory exit is the perfect capstone – simultaneously claiming moral high ground while ensuring you never have to defend it. This isn’t principled advocacy; it’s intellectual cowardice dressed as enlightenment.

But hey, enjoy your righteous solitude. The rest of us will be over here, celebrating actual kindness and generosity rather than shouting self-righteous nonsense into the void.

Thank you for the last word! I had fun with it ;)

Ah yes, the rare and elusive Schrödinger’s Wealth Argument. The rich guy both shouldn’t have the money and yet you never said he shouldn’t have money. Truly a masterclass in mental gymnastics.

Let me make it clear for everyone in the room: “Rich guy gives money he shouldn’t have” followed by “I never said he shouldn’t have money.”.

If your argument is so airtight, why does it fall apart the second someone repeats your own words back to you? You’re so desperate to sound intellectually untouchable that you didn’t even bother making your position internally consistent.

But hey, if you’re the self-appointed gatekeeper of who “should” have money, maybe enlighten us: What’s the magic number? How many dollars past your personal threshold turns someone from acceptable to villainous? Or do you just decide that based on who pisses you off the most in the moment?

Your argument isn’t about justice or fairness, it’s just self-righteous noise wrapped in a superiority complex. You don’t actually want solutions; you just want to act like the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler: You’re not. But by all means, keep preaching from your imaginary throne, Just don’t be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.

You’re making a lot of assumptions here. Why do you think his neighbors don’t need the money? How do you know he isn’t also donating to people in real need? And why exactly shouldn’t he have money? Did you personally determine the correct amount he’s allowed to have? Sounds like a lot of certainty for someone who probably doesn’t have all the facts.

Oh, how I wish that were true. I wish Republicans had the moral fortitude to throw him out. But sadly, they cheered for Trump—the literal king of inappropriate behavior—as he waved his hand to dismiss the only Democrat who had the guts to stand up to every lie he was spewing.

Ukraine is a US ally. Trump is a Russian ally. Of course he would attack his adversary.

I would just stop using whatever the service is. For as long as I can that is. Not long before our new dictatorship might force us to watch ads for crucial services.

I’m working on transitioning to using They/Them pronouns for everyone since they’re completely neutral and fit every context. If your preference is Xe/Xem, I respect that—but unfortunately, my brain just doesn’t have the bandwidth to keep track of multiple pronouns consistently. You get They/Them.

Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.

An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.

The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?

I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.

You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn’t. In fact, they think they are very smart.

My wife and I own three homes, each purchased below our means so we could invest time and money into renovations while living in them. One is currently rented, and we’re working on the second, with plans to have it rented by next summer.

Balancing full-time jobs with these projects demands a lot of our time and resources, but I take pride in the work we put into each home. I treat my rental properties with the same care and quality as my own home—because they were my homes.

I also expect my tenants to treat the house with the same respect I do.