Thankful Potato
@sentientpotato.bsky.social
• pronouns they/them
• spouse @zomduckie.bsky.social
• former poli sci prof (courts & methods)
• (now in med research)
• posts politics, theology, & bad jokes
• be nice & do what you can to help others
• older than you, shake my fist at clouds often
• spouse @zomduckie.bsky.social
• former poli sci prof (courts & methods)
• (now in med research)
• posts politics, theology, & bad jokes
• be nice & do what you can to help others
• older than you, shake my fist at clouds often
Reposted by Thankful Potato
We have moved beyond the question of "Who was President in 2020?" for the more advanced "Who was President in April of 2025?'
November 30, 2025 at 3:14 PM
We have moved beyond the question of "Who was President in 2020?" for the more advanced "Who was President in April of 2025?'
I don't disagree
idk if you could see what I was quoting since they removed it but I was responding to someone who said
❌ learn to code
✅ learn to read
idk if you could see what I was quoting since they removed it but I was responding to someone who said
❌ learn to code
✅ learn to read
November 30, 2025 at 3:50 PM
I don't disagree
idk if you could see what I was quoting since they removed it but I was responding to someone who said
❌ learn to code
✅ learn to read
idk if you could see what I was quoting since they removed it but I was responding to someone who said
❌ learn to code
✅ learn to read
(*this is also separately ridiculous but is less internally inconsistent)
November 30, 2025 at 3:48 PM
(*this is also separately ridiculous but is less internally inconsistent)
Reposted by Thankful Potato
So, finally, you do not deny that it is part of the substantive message, correct?
I understand your argument that highlighting it is counterproductive. I disagree, but at least that is based in fact and reason. Saying it's not about the Confederacy is delusion
I understand your argument that highlighting it is counterproductive. I disagree, but at least that is based in fact and reason. Saying it's not about the Confederacy is delusion
November 30, 2025 at 3:41 PM
So, finally, you do not deny that it is part of the substantive message, correct?
I understand your argument that highlighting it is counterproductive. I disagree, but at least that is based in fact and reason. Saying it's not about the Confederacy is delusion
I understand your argument that highlighting it is counterproductive. I disagree, but at least that is based in fact and reason. Saying it's not about the Confederacy is delusion
Like you are basically just refusing to engage with what the facts are
You had a better argument at "people may not get it", you have absolutely -zero- workable argument of the flavor "well what if it wasn't really about the Confederacy"
You had a better argument at "people may not get it", you have absolutely -zero- workable argument of the flavor "well what if it wasn't really about the Confederacy"
November 30, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Like you are basically just refusing to engage with what the facts are
You had a better argument at "people may not get it", you have absolutely -zero- workable argument of the flavor "well what if it wasn't really about the Confederacy"
You had a better argument at "people may not get it", you have absolutely -zero- workable argument of the flavor "well what if it wasn't really about the Confederacy"
The difference is these people aren't naming military bases after FC Dallas players, as one example
November 30, 2025 at 3:34 PM
The difference is these people aren't naming military bases after FC Dallas players, as one example
It's not about magic words and symbols, it's about what those symbols communicate. Something having a communicative meaning does not make it magic
You can convey an idea with an image as well as a word. Do you deny this? If not, why deny that the image can be part of the substantive message?
You can convey an idea with an image as well as a word. Do you deny this? If not, why deny that the image can be part of the substantive message?
November 30, 2025 at 3:28 PM
It's not about magic words and symbols, it's about what those symbols communicate. Something having a communicative meaning does not make it magic
You can convey an idea with an image as well as a word. Do you deny this? If not, why deny that the image can be part of the substantive message?
You can convey an idea with an image as well as a word. Do you deny this? If not, why deny that the image can be part of the substantive message?
I also think you falsely think I'm saying to center the eleven stars thing to the detriment of the Americanism thing
I said that it was good for people to focus more on that
I just think it's *also* dangerous to let them play dog whistles with impunity, and that's where you disagree
I said that it was good for people to focus more on that
I just think it's *also* dangerous to let them play dog whistles with impunity, and that's where you disagree
November 30, 2025 at 3:20 PM
I also think you falsely think I'm saying to center the eleven stars thing to the detriment of the Americanism thing
I said that it was good for people to focus more on that
I just think it's *also* dangerous to let them play dog whistles with impunity, and that's where you disagree
I said that it was good for people to focus more on that
I just think it's *also* dangerous to let them play dog whistles with impunity, and that's where you disagree
This IS substantive. We're just going to disagree in the end, but that's the piece you don't see in this I think. The eleven stars is an integral part of the message
November 30, 2025 at 3:13 PM
This IS substantive. We're just going to disagree in the end, but that's the piece you don't see in this I think. The eleven stars is an integral part of the message
Oh wait, you said enabler
Then yes, as it relates to this specifically, even if on net you wouldn't say so
Then yes, as it relates to this specifically, even if on net you wouldn't say so
November 30, 2025 at 3:05 PM
Oh wait, you said enabler
Then yes, as it relates to this specifically, even if on net you wouldn't say so
Then yes, as it relates to this specifically, even if on net you wouldn't say so
Unwittingly perpetuating something is NOT the same as being a collaborator even if it is still something that should change
November 30, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Unwittingly perpetuating something is NOT the same as being a collaborator even if it is still something that should change
That isn't what I said
I said that unwillingness to call out dog whistles helps them use dog whistles
I said that unwillingness to call out dog whistles helps them use dog whistles
November 30, 2025 at 3:03 PM
That isn't what I said
I said that unwillingness to call out dog whistles helps them use dog whistles
I said that unwillingness to call out dog whistles helps them use dog whistles
I will refer you back to the fact that JD Vance is in multiple group chats with neo-Nazi teenagers. I think if you think hard enough about that you'll figure it out
November 30, 2025 at 2:58 PM
I will refer you back to the fact that JD Vance is in multiple group chats with neo-Nazi teenagers. I think if you think hard enough about that you'll figure it out
If by "strong floor" they meant anything remotely like a strong floor, this wouldn't be objectionable to me as general policy description, but (A) they almost surely don't, and (B) it's pretty shitty for a rallying cry
No value, no villain, no vision. Sounds like the tagline for the earnings call of a collapsing appliance retailer
November 30, 2025 at 2:26 PM