You’re using “insight” in an interesting way.

That’s a cool thing you did there. Someone talks about problems with governance decisions, and you deflect those concerns, treating them like merely ideological differences. Smart.

Happy? Try ecstatic. A lot of folks think that they’d come out on top in a society whose economy has collapsed and institutions have been broken. Survival, in that scenario, means sticking it to the weenies and the whiners, and that, in such a scenario, is a victory worthy any degree of discomfort to achieve.

I immediately downloaded it... because it’s objectively bad?

“We’ve always been at war with Eatsassia.”

A native English user would call it “tinfoil.” You’re rumbled, comrade. No rubles for you.

Ah, China, right, got it. <wink wink>

You’re beginning to sound like a Russian chaosposter.

Illustration by Daniel Garcia.

Are you involved in any anti-fas or similar community networks here in Boston?

Anti-social behavior is anti-social.

Rule 1: Believe the autocrat.

I would offer that the similarity apt, insofar as my rhetorical question would only be asked by a person who has failed to do any of their own imaginative and empathic mental work on the subject. Unless they were asking disingenuously, which I cannot conclude is the sameness for you.

Along the lines of similar thinking, what’s the problem with separate but equal? It says “equal” right there in the name!

Cool values :)

I believe a national strike has been proposed for the inauguration day itself.

“... my moderate position is well-thought-out and defensible.”

“Yes, I’m a white guy, so my opinion is immediately invalid.”

If this happens, I foresee a lot of paint attacks on smoke-spewers.

Your strategic thinking sounds like the best strategic thinking! :)