cowboyinbrla.bsky.social
@cowboyinbrla.bsky.social
Reposted by cowboyinbrla.bsky.social
Neologism:
Pedantophile.
Noun. One who argues a little too enthusiastically to demonstrate they understand the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
Pedantophile.
Noun. One who argues a little too enthusiastically to demonstrate they understand the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
February 1, 2026 at 11:01 PM
Neologism:
Pedantophile.
Noun. One who argues a little too enthusiastically to demonstrate they understand the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
Pedantophile.
Noun. One who argues a little too enthusiastically to demonstrate they understand the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
Sadly, it's all about the money. Between monetizing the accounts themselves and promotions for their OF/JFF accounts, which enable them to reach all their semi-closeted "fans" willing to pay money to see gay sex. Especially the ones willing to pay for an account there. Gross.
January 27, 2026 at 9:38 PM
Sadly, it's all about the money. Between monetizing the accounts themselves and promotions for their OF/JFF accounts, which enable them to reach all their semi-closeted "fans" willing to pay money to see gay sex. Especially the ones willing to pay for an account there. Gross.
To be fair, Schoolhouse Rock only covered the congressional process, and that only superficially (no mentions of majority leaders or Speakers refusing to move bills, for instance). Each state has its own rules for bills being signed/vetoed/becoming law without signature/pocket vetos.
January 20, 2026 at 8:24 AM
To be fair, Schoolhouse Rock only covered the congressional process, and that only superficially (no mentions of majority leaders or Speakers refusing to move bills, for instance). Each state has its own rules for bills being signed/vetoed/becoming law without signature/pocket vetos.
That may well be. But given that Army v Navy is almost certainly going to be on at least one non-OTA source, the idea that Hair Furor can do anything either by executive order or FCC pressure to ensure it has no football competition in its time slot is as delusional as most of what comes out of him.
January 20, 2026 at 2:04 AM
That may well be. But given that Army v Navy is almost certainly going to be on at least one non-OTA source, the idea that Hair Furor can do anything either by executive order or FCC pressure to ensure it has no football competition in its time slot is as delusional as most of what comes out of him.
Almost none. The reality, I suspect, is the households with only OTA are among the poorest of the poor, and they don't tend to be die hard sports watchers, probably because most of them are working during the games.
January 19, 2026 at 8:58 PM
Almost none. The reality, I suspect, is the households with only OTA are among the poorest of the poor, and they don't tend to be die hard sports watchers, probably because most of them are working during the games.
Meaning, the number of households with ONLY OTA - the only kind of "broadcast" the FCC can reach - is miniscule.
January 19, 2026 at 8:40 PM
Meaning, the number of households with ONLY OTA - the only kind of "broadcast" the FCC can reach - is miniscule.
That same article puts the number of OTA households without a streaming video on demand (SVOD) service or a virtual multichannel video programming distributor (vMVPD) at just over 4%. And some of those households undoubtedly include cable or satellite TV, which are neither SVOD nor vMVPD.
January 19, 2026 at 8:40 PM
That same article puts the number of OTA households without a streaming video on demand (SVOD) service or a virtual multichannel video programming distributor (vMVPD) at just over 4%. And some of those households undoubtedly include cable or satellite TV, which are neither SVOD nor vMVPD.
Bear in mind that 18% stat is only "households with at least one OTA equipped television." Many of those exist only for emergencies. For instance, we have one, but only bother with it during longer Internet outages, like following a hurricane. Our generator keeps enough power on to watch OTA news.
January 19, 2026 at 8:40 PM
Bear in mind that 18% stat is only "households with at least one OTA equipped television." Many of those exist only for emergencies. For instance, we have one, but only bother with it during longer Internet outages, like following a hurricane. Our generator keeps enough power on to watch OTA news.
They're for woke pussies.
January 11, 2026 at 6:37 PM
They're for woke pussies.
You too! Always happy to engage with someone else who's thoughtful online.
January 9, 2026 at 10:24 PM
You too! Always happy to engage with someone else who's thoughtful online.
Apology accepted but not necessary - I figured out that's what you meant. And I don't think you're blocked (I can see this) - but it's not like I post a plethora of received wisdom on here that you'd be missing anyway :)
January 9, 2026 at 8:10 PM
Apology accepted but not necessary - I figured out that's what you meant. And I don't think you're blocked (I can see this) - but it's not like I post a plethora of received wisdom on here that you'd be missing anyway :)
Really? Because saying that opinions can be wrong is itself misinformation.
Again: an opinion is a subjective belief, not subject to falsity. That's inherent in the definition of the word.
You can have as much contempt for a bad opinion as you want - as do I - but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Again: an opinion is a subjective belief, not subject to falsity. That's inherent in the definition of the word.
You can have as much contempt for a bad opinion as you want - as do I - but that doesn't make it "wrong".
January 9, 2026 at 7:49 PM
Really? Because saying that opinions can be wrong is itself misinformation.
Again: an opinion is a subjective belief, not subject to falsity. That's inherent in the definition of the word.
You can have as much contempt for a bad opinion as you want - as do I - but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Again: an opinion is a subjective belief, not subject to falsity. That's inherent in the definition of the word.
You can have as much contempt for a bad opinion as you want - as do I - but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Granted, in all likelihood. But I believe in calling out stupidity, especially when it's a stupid mis-statement of fact.
January 9, 2026 at 7:47 PM
Granted, in all likelihood. But I believe in calling out stupidity, especially when it's a stupid mis-statement of fact.
"Opinions can be wrong". JFC. By definition, an opinion CANNOT be wrong; it's a subjective belief. Opinions can be ill-informed; they can be stupid; they can be idiotic. But they can't be *wrong*.
January 9, 2026 at 7:40 PM
"Opinions can be wrong". JFC. By definition, an opinion CANNOT be wrong; it's a subjective belief. Opinions can be ill-informed; they can be stupid; they can be idiotic. But they can't be *wrong*.
I mean, I *suppose* you could have the majority and minority leaders simultaneously count the votes, but you'd have to count on Senate rules faithfully implementing the idea behind the secret ballot - rules that the majority can change at any point.
January 8, 2026 at 7:09 PM
I mean, I *suppose* you could have the majority and minority leaders simultaneously count the votes, but you'd have to count on Senate rules faithfully implementing the idea behind the secret ballot - rules that the majority can change at any point.
The problem I see with the secret ballot on impeachments is, what's to stop, say, a future Mitch McConnell in the future from announcing the "result" of such a secret ballot contrary to the actual vote? Unless you're talking about actual paper ballots that are marked and deposited into a box.
January 8, 2026 at 7:09 PM
The problem I see with the secret ballot on impeachments is, what's to stop, say, a future Mitch McConnell in the future from announcing the "result" of such a secret ballot contrary to the actual vote? Unless you're talking about actual paper ballots that are marked and deposited into a box.
Would your wooden bowls meet Amazon standards so that they could be sold on there, reaching a wide enough audience to make that an option? 😁
January 8, 2026 at 3:20 PM
Would your wooden bowls meet Amazon standards so that they could be sold on there, reaching a wide enough audience to make that an option? 😁
I see the name and assume he'd look like Scatman Crothers in a large-scale plaid suit.
January 2, 2026 at 10:19 PM
I see the name and assume he'd look like Scatman Crothers in a large-scale plaid suit.
And what that means, in practice, is that whichever side is more convincing wins. So "proof" amounts to "more than the other side has", which may easy or difficult, depending on the facts of the case.
December 29, 2025 at 7:48 PM
And what that means, in practice, is that whichever side is more convincing wins. So "proof" amounts to "more than the other side has", which may easy or difficult, depending on the facts of the case.
You couldn't prove you were not a prostitute *by criminal standards* - that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is one reason that the burden of proof that one DID commit a crime is on the prosecution. For a civil action, the standard is generally "a preponderance of the evidence."
December 29, 2025 at 7:48 PM
You couldn't prove you were not a prostitute *by criminal standards* - that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is one reason that the burden of proof that one DID commit a crime is on the prosecution. For a civil action, the standard is generally "a preponderance of the evidence."
Unlocked for the holidays?
December 19, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Unlocked for the holidays?
Lutnick would have fired anyone working for him who tried to use that kind of mathematical expression.
December 18, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Lutnick would have fired anyone working for him who tried to use that kind of mathematical expression.
True. But there are dozens of places putting up signs making it clear ICE won't be admitted without a warrant. If this place has enough of a client base that even looks to be of a "suspect" ethnicity (in ICE eyes) I'd have thought they'd be more proactive.
December 15, 2025 at 9:01 AM
True. But there are dozens of places putting up signs making it clear ICE won't be admitted without a warrant. If this place has enough of a client base that even looks to be of a "suspect" ethnicity (in ICE eyes) I'd have thought they'd be more proactive.
I certainly hope not. But given that ICE has been clearly telegraphing its intent, I can't imagine any restaurant (or other public gathering place) in a targeted city not having a plan to bar ICE from even entering without a warrant - if they wanted to prevent things like this.
December 15, 2025 at 1:46 AM
I certainly hope not. But given that ICE has been clearly telegraphing its intent, I can't imagine any restaurant (or other public gathering place) in a targeted city not having a plan to bar ICE from even entering without a warrant - if they wanted to prevent things like this.
I don't want to make assumptions but I find it hard to believe the restaurant wasn't cooperating in this. If they opposed ICE they could have ordered them to leave or even called the local police about blocking the exits. Has there been a statement from the restaurant?
December 14, 2025 at 8:49 PM
I don't want to make assumptions but I find it hard to believe the restaurant wasn't cooperating in this. If they opposed ICE they could have ordered them to leave or even called the local police about blocking the exits. Has there been a statement from the restaurant?