Sir Ryan Bemrose

Host: [angrytechnews.com](http://angrytechnews.com )
Co-host: [grumpyoldbens.com](http://grumpyoldbens.com )
Iron-fisted Overlord: [noagendastream.com](http://noagendastream.com )

Public Key

npub10usx3fj7rf0l8w86d2zjkxy9cnxrrh4qwt206r72p0q33m5ecxss7np5pu

NIP-05 Address

ryan_at_bemrose.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs87grg5e0p5hlnhrax4pftrzzufnp3m6s8948apl9qhsgca6vurggpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dspfrj3f

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub10usx3fj7rf0l8w86d2zjkxy9cnxrrh4qwt206r72p0q33m5ecxss7np5pu

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-06-08 01:58:47 UTC

- reply

The burden of proof should be on the cheaters to explain how every election they hold produces a statistical impossibility. They're the ones who intend to certify obviously fraudulent results. That's what it means to certify an election. You're attesting under oath that the count is accurate.
@npub1eyu…43gw

2026-05-20 17:52:13 UTC

- reply

> it's what is supposed to happen when the other side is voted in
Nothing is "supposed to" happen when the other side is voted in. Republicans and Democrats aren't in the Constitution. They are the stable equilibrium in our first-past-the-post voting system. Plurality voting has the advantage of being easy to understand and administer, but the disadvantage that it inevitably leads to a two-party system. None of this was intended. Nobody ever asked for a permanent "us versus them" dichotomy.
Every conflict that divides 50% along party lines was specifically engineered that way, by people who have something to gain by the nation being divided.

2026-05-18 18:31:26 UTC

Debate Pro-Tip: If you are making a rational argument that you want taken seriously, avoid outing yourself as a mentally disabled 12yo by putting things like "LMAO" at the end of your post.

2026-04-18 20:09:06 UTC

There are dozens of purely economic reasons why Universal Basic Income would be an unmitigated disaster for any nation that implements it. But none of those reasons is as important as the freedom argument.
There will be a government agency in charge of doleing out the money. There will be a politically-aligned bureaucrat in charge of that agency, with the responsibility to decide who is eligible for money, and who isn't eligible. That person - who is either Woke or MAGA depending on the election cycle - literally gets to decide who is allowed to eat this month. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you call home; that should scare the bejeezus out of you.
UBI puts every human being in the nation into a de facto state of indentured servitude to whomever sits in the dictator's chair.

2026-04-17 18:23:10 UTC

Software development and software testing are two entirely different disciplines. The trend in corporate software to treat them as interchangable or easily combined has caused testing skills to atrophy across the industry. The result is software that is less reliable, less stable, and less secure than a decade ago. Software that needs constant updates just to keep from falling over.
The only group of developers who really think about how to test software these days are hackers and security researchers. And many of them wear dark-colored headgear.

2026-04-10 22:18:51 UTC

- reply

**"But who will build the roads?"** said every statist ever, as they take yet another argument against government waste and fraud and assume that its only alternative is for us all to walk everywhere through the wilderness.
**The motte** is social security, subsidies, government handouts, Learing Centers, sex change surgery for illegals, climate religion, racist DEI programs, megabank bailouts, permanent foreign wars, FEMA preferred vendors, bridges to nowhere, California high-speed fraud, and on and on and on and on...
**The bailey is ALWAYS muh roads**.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/this-is-who-will-build-the-roads/

2026-04-08 21:15:12 UTC

- reply

If accessing your digital library needs an account on someone else's system, it's not your library.
If your digital library only exists for streaming from someone else's servers, it's not your library.
It's amazing how much hard-earned money people throw away to "buy" things that they will never own.

2026-04-07 16:37:24 UTC

- reply

What sorcery is this?
I live somewhere that has very soft water, so I admit I'm uneducated about water systems. But "Hard water is water that has a high mineral content," according to the very first sentence of the wikipedia article. Those images all depict a wire wrapped around a sealed pipe. I'm quite certain they're not removing any minerals at all. At best, they're dropping the minerals out of solution and into the pipe at that location. After that, one of two things is happening: The minerals are being deposited into that small section of pipe (how often will you have to redo your plumbing there?), or the minerals are being washed into your appliances and drinking water anyway.
What am I missing here?

2026-04-05 23:44:54 UTC

- reply

> Dynamic webapps didn’t become the standard because developers said “hey, this is great!”
I don't necessarily draw a causality here, but I did exist within the event horizon of one of those companies at the time. Yes, developers totally did. Especially when you said the magic word AJAX, which, for a while, was the holy grail to solve every problem in computing.
You're right that every company wanting to carve out their own walled garden was a major contributing factor. But it would never have worked if people weren't dazzled by "responsive design" and dynamic *everything*.
Unfortunately, computer users are gnats when it comes to deciding between the shiny thing and the productive thing.

2026-04-05 23:27:23 UTC

95% of what's wrong with the web today started when someone decided that web pages should behave like applications, and everybody in the world just decided that yeah, that's cool, who gives a shit about functionality or accessibility or user control, because hey look, infinite scroll!

2026-04-05 19:04:06 UTC

When the government comes out and says that aliens and UFOs are real, that is how you know for certain that humans are alone in this universe.

2026-04-04 18:46:05 UTC

It is not possible to be a leftist and a Christian at the same time, for the same reason it's not possible to be both buddhist and muslim. Religions almost always espouse incompatible beliefs. Eventually you're going to have to decide which one you truly believe in, and which one you're only playing at.

2026-04-01 17:57:54 UTC

AI is not your friend. AI is not your lover. AI is not your therapist. AI is the lovechild of websearch and autocorrect, with a little more attitude and a lot less transparency.

2026-04-01 17:45:21 UTC

- reply

Easy. In your next lifetime, don't trust unaccountable faceless corporations with anything important.
And while you're at it, be a little bit more skeptical about Silicon Valley marketing hype. AI is not your friend. AI is not your lover. AI is not your therapist. AI is the lovechild of search and autocorrect, with a little more attitude and a lot less transparency. Behind the AI is still the same corporate human beings who have absolutely zero accountability, and zero concern for your well-being.

2026-03-31 05:47:39 UTC

- reply

I assume you copied this text from a corporate censorship platform. The unnecessary asterisks are really quite distracting.

2026-03-30 20:44:31 UTC

Vibe Coding is Dunning-Kreuger with an aesthetically pleasing UI.

2026-03-29 04:18:39 UTC

- reply

What would YOU do for fun in the Klondike?

2026-03-26 17:47:22 UTC

A surprisingly effective and totally fallacious form of online rhetoric used by people on both the left and right is to **dismiss an argument as "old" or "tired" or "overdone" without addressing the content of the argument at all**. The technique is a form of bad-faith argument employed by commenters who want to discourage or demean their opponent by suggesting that the argument has been made countless times before.
The implication is that the argument has been repeatedly refuted, and that by making it yet again, you are wasting everyone's time and energy, and everybody would all just be happier if you would **shut up and go away**.
It is bad-faith because the speaker **has no valid refutation at all**. The argument beind ridiculed is valid, but it is one that they would prefer that you just drop because it harms their own position.
Use of this technique often comes with a **false affect of world-weariness or superiority**, used to further demoralize the opponent into conceding. Another much more childish variation is the use of **MiXeD-CaSe sEnTenCeS aNd WoRDs** in order to convey a feeling of immaturity - an example of projection and reversal.
Use of this technique is a strong indicator that the person making the argument is **not here to gain knowledge or reach an understanding**, but rather to spread propaganda. (optionally, just here for the lulz). They will be completely unreceptive to counterarguments. If you find yourself in a conversation with one of these people, then it is *you*, ironically, whose time is being wasted.

2026-03-23 03:47:38 UTC

A really good analysis of what systemd has just done to the Linux community by merging an age verification API: https://www.webpronews.com/systemd-now-has-an-age-verification-api-and-that-should-worry-everyone-who-builds-or-uses-linux/
(Also, yet another reason that systemd is malware, that has infected 90% of all linux distros...)

2026-03-20 16:47:50 UTC

- reply

Do you honestly think you can trust any "opt-out" mechanism they offer? That company has been caught red-handed farming and selling data that they swore was sacrosanct so many times by now, you have to assume anything that passes through their servers is being monetized, regardless of what they claim.
The preferred "opt-out" method is to not use fakebook or whatsapp or instagram or any other product that company is involved in. They have a corporate culture of lying about what they do with your data.

2026-03-18 21:04:07 UTC

- reply

We never started.

2026-03-17 02:54:17 UTC

- reply

Even the hummingbirds know better than to go to the west coast.

2026-03-16 04:25:58 UTC

- reply

Obviously, this kind of waste is egregious. In fact, it literally boggles the mind (which is why most humans have difficulty even reasoning about numbers that high).
But let's not treat it as exceptional. For comparison, the national debt went up a little over 15 trillion during the 8 years prior to 2025. That's effectively money that Congress spent *over and above* all revenue from taxes, tariffs, fines, etc, etc, etc. Back of the napkin math, that means that Congress spent, in the average day, $5 BILLION more than they took in.
The federal government is big. And it is irresponsible. So yeah. DoW blowing 2.5 billion a day is a lot, and should raise eyebrows. But it reads like a biased hit piece on Trump to build a whole article around it without showing how it compares to the $5bn/day business-as-usual waste, fraud, and abuse in Congress.

2026-03-15 19:13:50 UTC

Joseph McCarthy may not have been the hero that America wanted, but it's obvious that he was the hero it needed.

2026-03-15 00:18:41 UTC

Dear right-wing "media":
You exist because left-wing legacy media has become so completely biased as to be without credibility, and someone had to fill the gap. People who read your stories want accurate information that hasn't been run through the same politically-controlled corporate censorship as everything you see on television. Ideally we want unbaised information, but we understand that's hard to come by these days. We're adults, and capable of making our own decisions.
What we are not here for is to be told how to feel about the stories and information. When you put BREAKING, SHOCKING, VILE, TERRIBLE, and other ADJECTIVES in your HEADLINES in order to GRAB people's ATTENTION and tell them HOW TO FEEL about a story, you're behaving exactly like the corporate propaganda machine. When you do that, you erase what benefit that you had over the left-wing media that uses the same tactics. You have become what you swore to destroy.
Stop it. Report the facts. Not the propaganda.

2026-03-11 20:22:37 UTC

- reply

> whines about unnecessary drama on fedi
> boasts about using the "block" feature, which is just mute with unnecessary drama added

2026-03-05 17:08:44 UTC

- reply

Often I think these leftist redefinitions of terms come *after* the whitewashing of the original definition. "Democracy", "equality", "diversity", "hate", "recession", "vaccine". In each case, the original definition is inconvenient to their rhetoric, so they just claim it means the opposite for the sake of propaganda and lying.
Then, afterward, some woke self-appointed arbiter of language like Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster quietly updates their official definition as if it had always been that way. It's Gaslighting on a societal scale. And we keep falling for it whenever we use their terms.
"The Party told you to ignore
the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

2026-03-04 22:28:06 UTC

- reply

The word "democracy" in the modern leftist vocabulary has no meaning. It is a made-up rhetorical MacGuffin used as a placeholder for the polar opposite of whatever it is that leftists hate.
No screeching leftist will be able to tell you what "democracy" is, because they honestly don't know. They only know that it is good, and that it is in danger from the bad orange man (or whomever is their hate target du jour), and that it is absolutely critical to be seen "protecting" it in order to signal to the other members of their cult that they are virtuous.

2026-03-04 06:15:52 UTC

- reply

https://bemrose.social/media/4e302dfdb1ab2f4bc06efbc7c46c4b03d64e0a2d06a90083e62cd3c4e7a35248.jpeg

2026-02-22 16:25:12 UTC

- reply

> PCR cycle thresholds are not arbitrarily adjusted to create false positives
Yeah, this claim's gonna need a hell of a lot more proof than "because the Eliza bot says so", if it can even be proven.
Our social media society has become so accustomed to blindly accepting unfalsifiable claims when someone says it in the midst of pseudo-scientific jargon, that even LLMs are emitting this flavor of propaganda, and people just lap it up.

2026-02-14 20:49:43 UTC

The Democrat Party is playing US government like a Bethesda RPG. They looked up online and found the infinite money glitch, and the mail-in-ballots exploit, the gerrymandering vulnerability, and grinding the public school starting zone to farm children for resources. And they're exploiting it every single day to min/max their character sheets. They've even found a way to work around the country's original antivirus - The Constitution - by installing the corrupt_judges.exe malware.
The problem is that, unlike those video games, US government isn't a single-player game. It's a massive-multiplayer arena.
Companies that run actual online multiplayer games know very well that cheaters ruin the experience for everyone else, and if you let that happen too long, everyone walks away and your game fails. **In an actual online multiplayer game, when you get caught cheating, you get a lifetime ban. No questions. No appeals.**
In the political arena, when someone gets caught cheating, we give them a platform to argue from emotion and scream "racism" like that word still has any meaning. We bow and grovel to the crybullies who whine about their feelings and then act like THEY'RE the victim because they cheated, and you CAUGHT them, you horrible person.
Ask yourself why we care so much more about integrity in video games than we do in our own government.

2026-02-14 18:20:51 UTC

- reply

> quickest sun dial I've seen
> wait 15-30 minutes
Yeah, I can think of a half dozen ways to find north more quickly than that.
Besides, this trick doesn't work at all where I live. There is no sun in the Pacific Northwest.

2026-02-13 16:36:38 UTC

- reply

Get them fedi accounts! It's easy to ignore that feed.

2026-02-12 17:40:47 UTC

- reply

If you own a house, that's about three days worth of flippers spamming to buy it, "IN CASH AS-IS"

2026-02-12 04:38:46 UTC

- reply

I mean, I kinda feel like it happened 20 years ago. But I'm Gen X and my (biased) experience is that millennials are dumb as a post.

2026-02-12 04:30:15 UTC

- reply

"research suggests" is modern journalism code for "we just made this up". Receipts, or it's bullshit.
Also, every generation in the history of humanity has been dumber than their predecessors, when you ask their predecessors. I would be entirely unsurprised to learn this article was written by a millennial.

2026-02-10 04:19:21 UTC

- reply

While I don't agree with all of those individual points, I do agree with the seeming impossibility of reversing them.
At the very least, it would require a widespread shift in attitudes among people who've been public-school trained from a young age to believe that every one of those things you seek to eliminate is sacred and must not be questioned. How to do that without engaging in the same kind of centralized indoctrination that got us here?

2026-02-10 03:55:44 UTC

- reply

The last option - and the one which seems at the moment most palatable to me is "kick the can down the road".
It's not a solution per se, but I figure I've got maybe 25 more years left in this world. If the inevitable societal collapse can just wait until 2050, then it all becomes someone else's problem. Selfish, sure, but it's an effective cop-out.

2026-02-10 03:27:01 UTC

- reply

> I thought you had already thought the issue through
I have not. At least not so far as a solution. I'm uncomfortable with the "we have to shoot our way out of this" solution, but that continues to be the only one that I see which doesn't involve the expansion of federal power - a solution I like even less, because of its limitless capacity for unintended side effects. The only other option I see at this point is a national divorce, or otherwise an end to the American experiment, which I also don't like.
Like I said, it's a fair criticism that I came without a solution. I guess I came in hoping someone might propose something I hadn't seen. Barring that, you may simply accuse me of trying to "raise awareness".
My original post came in response to seeing yet another thread about the political theater of the moment, and my thinking was merely that the specifics of what the government is doing with its illegitimate power is far less important than trying to address the fact that the power is illegitimate.

2026-02-10 03:07:07 UTC

- reply

While it's true I'm on Pleroma, which affords more than 500 characters, it still doesn't provide enough to make every post a scientifically rigorous treatise, nor did I realize that I was expected to do so. The parts of the fedi that I federate with sport a higher-than-twitter average IQ, but I don't think even they demand that from every opening post.
If you want to engage and don't think I've provided enough information, feel free to ask for clarification before whipping out the gotchas and accusations. If I want to be accused of bad faith in every reply, I'll follow Maggos again.
For all you know, my proposed solution might have been "We need to jettison California and have a stronger country without them".
(Actually, that's unlikely. I prefer not to invoke the name of the Statist God "We", as it too often leads to solutions with high popular appeal and almost no chance of working)

2026-02-10 02:45:31 UTC

- reply

As to the actual question of how to secure elections, the answer is complicated and nuanced, and I don't have all of the answers.
As a rule, I don't tend to favor "nationalization" of anything, which is why I would want to review the details before pledging "support" of such a thing. In general, I think local control - as local as possible right down to the individual where feasible - produces the best outcome.
But there are other solutions that haven't been tried at a national level, such as decertification of elections that aren't secure, or stripping representation from jurisdictions with incompatible laws.

2026-02-10 02:43:15 UTC

- reply

I was prioritizing a problem without offering any particular plan to fix it. I didn't provide details, because I wasn't proposing a solution. You may fairly criticize me for that, but not for failing to give details of something I didn't suggest.
Of course you assumed a solution, then you asked if I "support" your given solution. I'm unable to answer that without either more detail, or some kind of extrasensory mind-reading ability.

2026-02-10 02:22:20 UTC

- reply

The devil, as always, is in the details, and your two-word hypothetical proposal is woefully short on those. What are you getting at here?

2026-02-09 22:50:42 UTC

ICE, Ukraine, Epstein... All bread and circuses. The only political issue that matters is securing elections.
Without that, the public vote is compromised, and cannot be trusted on any issue. Both parties will continue to do whatever the people in power want: Filter tax money through massive fraud machines; Pass draconian laws that infringe rights and further tyranny. They will claim that they have a mandate to do so because without trustworthy elections, nobody will be able to prove otherwise.
And the public vote that should be distrusted most of all is when they argue that the public doesn't want secure elections.

2026-02-09 18:02:23 UTC

- reply

We had them. Most people weren't listening. Then Twitter and Facebook banned their accounts.

2026-02-06 05:27:41 UTC

- reply

It's also your eyes.
Focusing close for hours on end is not good for the eyes. We are built to focus in the distance. The warning sign is eye fatigue and headache, which incentivizes you to take breaks.
Screen time causes the same close-up eyestrain, but it is tricking the brain into thinking you're looking at something far away, so you don't get the warning signs. Staring into screens of any type, for hours and hours every day, has damaged the long-term eyesight of entire generations of modern humans.

2026-01-28 04:12:04 UTC

- reply

Well, shit, if I knew that it was a valid argument to just shout **YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG** louder than the other person, I would've used fewer words.

2026-01-28 04:06:18 UTC

- reply

The "I've had enough" attitude is, at least to the party strategists, a calculated populist response to the pendulum of government moving too far toward special interests. Trump's origin story may be exceptional, and his personality was ahead of its time, but his political playbook is straight reactive populism.
He appeals and plays up to the working class that were abandoned by the other party when their pendulum turned them into the party of war and bankers and globalism. Trump's popularity is a direct result of opposing what the opposition was doing; a tried-and-true political platform if ever there was one.
This is easily transferrable to the right MAGA disciple. The talking points are becoming mainstream, and there are already quite a few who can emulate the attitude.

2026-01-28 03:32:10 UTC

- reply

LOL, have you learned nothing from the past $YOUR_AGE years? Political idols are interchangable. Trump will anoint his successor sometime in 2027 (probably Vance, but who knows who will be in and out of his whims), and when he does, all of the blind loyalists will transfer their admiration like the flip of a switch.
It works pretty much exactly the same way the left does, but with less misplaced empathy.

2026-01-26 01:58:14 UTC

- reply

(Aside: All you touchy-feely crybabies who think words can hurt you, feel free to continue reporting posts like this to the admin of my instance. He's compiling a collection and needs a few more. Meanwhile, if you can't handle real human interaction, go back to Big Brother censormedia like X or facebook and leave the rest of us to think for ourselves)

2026-01-26 01:55:20 UTC

- reply

Those are rookie numbers. Maybe they just aren't killing enough.

2026-01-20 23:26:43 UTC

- reply

Working alone in a delivery van can also be dehumanizing. But I don't improve my mental health by beseeching the handtruck and referring to the windshield wipers by name.
Treating LLMs like they're human is the fastest-growing mental illness in the western world. It's especially dangerous because LLMs mimic human communication very well. It bypasses the intuitive defenses that keep us from making friends with handtrucks and wrenches.
The solution to this mental illness - this "AI psychosis" - is to interact with humans. The solution is not to sink deeper into the delusion with "a little simple courtesy".

2026-01-20 18:11:10 UTC

- reply

Someday soon psychologists will be reporting on a widespread epidemic of AI Anthropomorphism Psychosis.
If you're truly fluent in bash, you could've done that faster by yourself than by "asking" the LLM to do it (including checking it to make sure the thing didn't hallucinate). And nobody ever says "please help me" to a screwdriver or wrench.

2026-01-19 07:23:34 UTC

- reply

Please remind me exactly what "wars" the Republicans have started? In the last hundred years, Congress has only declared war once, and it was in 1941. Both sides of Congress were controlled by the Democrat party.
The last time before that was 109 years ago - in 1917 - with a Democrat-controlled Senate and a House that was controlled by a coalition of Democrats and the Socialist party.
So I assume you must mean the undeclared "police actions" since then, which are started by Presidents and not Congress.
Did you mean Korea? Oh, wait, that was started by Truman, a Democrat. Maybe Vietnam... Oh, nope, technically started by Truman, but really the significant US troop commitment was by Johnson (another Democrat). Okay, what could you mean. Maybe the Contra thing? Nope. Started by Carter (a Democrat). No, no no.
What's really considered a war? Oh, I know, the Gulf war. Started by Bush, of the Globalist Deep State party. Okay, I'll give you that. Not technically a Democrat. What's next? Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo? No, those were all Clinton (a Democrat).
Ah, here we are. Afghanistan and Iraq. Totally started by another Bush (still of the Deep State party). This must be what you're talking about. Anything after that? Libya, Benghazi, Iraq, Iran.... Nope, all Obama (a Democrat)
What's next? Peace for four years? I don't believe it. Here we go - Ukraine and Gaza! Oh, nevermind. Started by Biden (a Democrat).
Tell me again how the Republicans are somehow the party of sending Americans off to war?

2026-01-17 07:35:38 UTC

- reply

Giving Obama the Peace Prize in 2009 illustrated that the contest was a sell-out for political favor. Since then, the prize hasn't been worth the toilet paper it's printed on.

2026-01-09 21:24:28 UTC

- reply

> different people want different things
Exactly my point. You used the word "everyone" in your OP, which implies a homogeneity that doesn't exist in humanity.
> build a civics where those desires can impact the compromises we make to build the best possible society
I'm not certain how to parse this, but I think your underlying assumption - that "everyone" wants a "civics" - is incorrect. This statement feels like a euphemism for forcing your rules on people who don't wish to be involved (ie: colonialism and slavery). But we've had that argument before, and don't need to re-hash it.

2026-01-09 21:22:50 UTC

- reply

> you want to be left alone so you think everybody wants that.
To some degree, all adults require agency. It's part of the human condition. People who genuinely crave being controlled and told what they must or mustn't do have not matured to the point of adulthood, regardless of their age.

2026-01-09 19:18:53 UTC

- reply

> Try to have empathy for everyone..
"Everyone" doesn't need more empathy. What everyone needs is to be left the hell alone to live their lives free of coercion and meddling.

2026-01-09 19:18:19 UTC

- reply

> Try to have empathy for everyone..
I'm pretty sure that's biologically impossible. Humans aren't wired that way. I'm pretty sure the attempt would give someone a mental disorder or psychosis.
Then again, I'm also pretty sure that's exactly what's happened.

2026-01-09 01:40:53 UTC

- reply

> American's are being treated like Israeli's treat Palestinians.
Quit your equivocating bullshit. ICE is not after Americans. An American who doesn't want to be targeted has a simple way to do that: Don't attack armed federal agents.
Every single American who is in harm's way is one who chose to put themselves there.

2026-01-08 19:45:16 UTC

Maybe the United States can arrange a territory swap with Canada. We'll take Alberta, and they can have Minnesota.

2026-01-07 08:35:18 UTC

- reply

Holy fuck you're being a hypocrite. What about all that hand wringing and pearl clutching when people talk about leftists as if they all agree on everything and speak with one unified hivemind? Were your objections all just performative?
The way you constantly do that with "hashtag-maga", I guess you're actually cool with being criticized for shit that progressives and commies say.

2026-01-06 06:18:02 UTC

- reply

"If there's a more clear-cut case of eminent domain, I've never seen it." -- *Michael Kitz, "Contact"*
@npub19gv…x4p4
https://bemrose.social/media/98d16d88f78d6caca219009ec60d30333794333a1a930fde50d1ea87ad40f68f.png

2026-01-06 02:55:50 UTC

All drugs are now de facto legal in the city of Seattle.
https://seattlered.com/seattle-red/jason-rantz-opinion/seattle-police-drugs-diversion/4115905
Ever want to shoot heroin, snort PCP, smoke crack, OD on fentanyl, and then go on a meth bender for the hell of it, all while standing naked in the middle of a public street? Come to Seattle, where there's no consequences!

2025-12-30 21:53:16 UTC

- reply

You said "We should rework the economy." I found that to be a ludicrous statement for a couple of reasons, but out of curiosity and benefit of the doubt, I was asking for clarification.
The communism part was supposition, because if that was your proposal, then this was going to become a boring already-hashed conversation.
> but this is what you do almost every time.
More ad hominem. This is what *you* do every time. You have still not answered the original question. At this point, I have to assume you don't have an answer.
> I think you're lying about me
I am not lying about you, at least not intentionally. You seldom provide enough for me to know your position, aside from the recycled Marxist slogans you shout into the fedi but refuse to back up with an argument. It would be easy to simply assume you're like the majority of brainwashed Marxists who loudly chant their propaganda while having never actually thought any of it through. If that's the case, I'm impressed; you're more articulate than most. What am I supposed to do when you refuse to respond to questions or defend your statements, while at the same time, accusing *me* of bad faith?
You force me to make assumptions about your reasoning. I don't have enough information to know if they're lies or not.
> I never start it.
You're right. Only one of us seems to be reaching across the ideological divide trying to understand the other. And it's not you when you respond to every thread by dodging the question and then having the gall to accuse me of bad faith.

2025-12-30 20:33:20 UTC

- reply

Yes, yes, I'm sorry. I always forget, it's all ad-hominem all day with you. You're constitutionally incapable of answering a simple question when it comes to the so-called "values" you're always spouting.
Your so-called "liberal values" are worthless, so long as you can't back it up with the least amount of thought or justification. It's much easier to assume bad faith on the part of anybody who asks a question.
But go on, keep attacking the messenger. It prevents you from having to realize your ideas are so weak they can't even hold up against Freshman-level analysis or questions.
When I ask questions like this, I'm trying to reach a deeper understanding. You prove yourself to be full of shit every single time you answer with ad hominem instead of intelligence, but in my unreasonable optimism, I keep thinking "Hey, maybe one of these times, he has an actual point. I'd like to hear more about it."
So go aheard and continue to call that "trolling". No wonder I'm the only thinking person remaining who still attempts to converse with you.

2025-12-30 20:13:05 UTC

- reply

> We should rework the economy
Rework it? Is that all? It's that easy, is it?
Let's put aside the incredible disruption, hardship and suffering "we" would create by attempting to do such a thing, especially considering it would almost certainly happen at the barrel of a gun, and let's just focus on the other question: **Rework it into what?** What kind of system do you propose that has decentralization and no billionaires?
How much is a question of degree. The fact is, human beings aren't equal. Some work harder than others. Some are more ambitious or greedy or charismatic than others. Eventually some will acquire more wealth or resources than others. Whether this means "billionaires" or merely "millionaires" is a matter of degree, but the inequality will always exist as long as you have humanity and freedom.
So how do you enforce equality on a species that is inherently unequal? The classic answer is usually communism (or socialism, which is the same thing with better propaganda). These systems ultimately use force and violence to make everyone "equal". But that explicitly fails your "decentralization" criteria; it requires some centralized entity to wield the violence against the public.
So I really want to know, what economy do you envision that produces both equality and decentralization, and works with humans?

2025-12-19 22:53:23 UTC

@npub103r…zsz0 @npub1xld…9wzl And the evidence just keeps mounting.
Anybody who is paying attention with an open mind is certain by now that Democrat Party not only engaged in widespread election fraud in 2020, but also did sufficiently in the six key swing states to have changed the election outcome.
Sadly, this changes nothing, because there will never be any amount of evidence or proof that will be sufficient for Bolsheviks like @npub1hmq…rlex on the other side of the "culture war", who refuse to see anything that might harm their fragile worldview in which the DNC is honorable and innocent of all wrongdoing, and that all of the problems of the world must ultimately be Trump's fault. It's easier for leftists to start a civil war than it is to admit they've been lied to by the their own Party.
https://notthebee.com/article/fulton-county-georgia-admits-they-illegally-certified-315000-ballots-in-2020-election
#note1k4g…fg67

2025-12-18 03:50:54 UTC

- reply

> some free speech about leftists being hateful and violent
> "I'm so glad that you're already on the FBI watch list"
Yeah, you're pretty much making his point for him.

2025-12-17 23:45:11 UTC

I recently found myself having to choose a new primary doctor. Apparently, they take you off the rolls of your old one if you don't visit for more than ten years.
Anyway, the new doctor probably didn't know he was interviewing for the job, but he passed with flying colors. His face was unencumbered by a cloth diaper. He wanted to talk about the food I eat before discussing pills. He offered a seasonal flu shot, but quickly dropped the subject when I declined. And he never once used the word COVID.
Yeah, maybe it's not much, but after going in with low expectations for corporate network doctors, I was pleasantly surprised.

2025-12-17 23:19:25 UTC

> An Aggressive New Flu Variant Is Spreading Across The US – Dr. McCullough On What You Can Do
---
The same thing people did for hundreds of years before the propaganda behind world's greatest hoax made throngs of gullible sheep deathly afraid of the common cold:
**Eat healthy. Go outside and exercise. Go about your life. If you happen to catch it, stay at home and rest until you're better.**
Follow me for more pre-2020 common sense.
#note1y07…6vnv

2025-12-17 23:07:44 UTC

- reply

That you seem to assume the discussion can be oversimplified into some kind of archetypal left-versus-right struggle tells me that this line of argument is not going to uncover any profound new insights or understanding today.
@npub1vlu…xzzu @npub1kzl…h23m @npub1nfa…rjl3 @npub1rsq…33yg

2025-12-15 20:37:06 UTC

- reply

Shhh! You're not supposed to ask questions that weren't in the press release.

2025-12-15 01:23:10 UTC

- reply

I don't see why you're turning this into a left vs right thing. She's a smart independent thinker who is unafraid to speak out for what she believes is true. That's a disappointingly rare trait in today's oversocialized world. Whether or not I agree with her, I very much admire her for that.
But that said, I can't take credit for the original tweet. It was originally posted by @ILoveAmericaNews@noauthority.social . I merely reposted it.
@npub1vlu…xzzu @npub1nfa…rjl3 @npub1my0…d6ft

2025-12-14 21:51:15 UTC

How to solve the border crisis:
**STOP HANDING OUT FREE TAXPAYER-FUNDED SHIT TO NON-CITIZENS**
The "social safety net" (a euphemism for redistribution of wealth) should be only for citizens, and NOT for people who cross the border looking for a free handout.
Once you fix the broken incentives, I promise you the flood of useless people will magically slow down or stop.

2025-12-14 20:59:19 UTC

- reply

https://bemrose.social/media/3c824c11f1352013fd9ef7817de28e999307f074b035ff0d295f62a2513e7f4a.png

2025-12-09 22:57:36 UTC

- reply

I didn't know about the Murkowski and Collins thing, but it supports my point about the Powers that Be only allowing RCV in places where it won't impact their power. Alaska is guaranteed to elect a Republican, so there's very little risk by letting people experiment how to choose which Republican gets in. Likewise, NYC will always elect a commie, so there's no harm pacifying their base with a little theater about which commie gets elected.
I mean when the Party owns all of the candidates, it's completely inconsequential which one gets in, or how they get selected.
I don't expect to see any fundamental moves away from plurality voting in a contested or battleground district. Not in my lifetime.

2025-12-09 19:48:18 UTC

- reply

No argument about that. I've always been on board with moving away from plurality voting toward something multiple choice. It doesn't frighten me like it does a lot of non-leftists, because I understand the math involved and why it improves fairness.
Unfortunately, it has a lot of adoption hurdles in the way:
- Ranked Choice is complicated and unintuitive, as compared to FPTP. The math alone requires a longer explanation than most folks have the attention span for.
- It enables the election of radicals, hard-liners, and fringe candidates, which turns off many independents and moderates - people who are used to always getting their way under FPTP
- Ranked Choice is only being tried in blue districts, which is making a lot of people think it's some kind of a progressive thing. Combined with the above point, it's developing a reputation for favoring radical leftists (eg: Mamdani), further reducing support from non-leftists.
- It ultitmately suffers from the same susceptibility to corruption in the counting room as any other system, but it's more difficult to audit. This further erodes trust.
- Most importantly, Ranked Choice is a threat to the entrenched power of the incumbent parties. This alone will prevent meaningful adoption in most cases.
Like I said, I support the idea of moving away from FPTP. But there are a lot of things blocking any meaningful change, and I don't see the current system being replaced any time soon.
A few minutes ago, you accused me of living in some libertarian utopia where real-world problems can be brushed under the rug. Ranked choice is your version of that dream.

2025-12-09 19:10:29 UTC

- reply

I like this argument a lot, because one's choice in soda is a personal choice that shouldn't affect anyone else, and it's perfectly reasonable for different people to choose different soda, yet in your hypothetical, 49% of the participants can have their dinner ruined by the other 51%, just like when the government provides things that should be provided by the free market.
#ThisIsWhatDemocracyLooksLike

2025-12-09 06:16:58 UTC

- reply

I assume this takes into account that $300k will buy about two month's worth of groceries in 2044, assuming there will be at least one Democrat administration within the next 20 years.

2025-12-06 06:10:19 UTC

- reply

It's not the size that matters.
It's how much of a monthly subscription fee you have to pay to sign-in to the required cloud account to enable downloading the forced automatic updates needed to unlock the optional freemium software packages like "steering" and "brakes".
I want nothing to do with any car that treats me the same way the software industry treats people who pay for their products.

2025-12-06 05:30:39 UTC

- reply

Denying food to a citystate because its leaders won't capitulate to some demands. This is literally what a modern medieval siege looks like.

2025-12-04 20:56:36 UTC

- reply

Nope, because that was made illegal by people (coincidentally on the left) who like to use government as a cudgel.
Every government action inevitably comes with unintended consequences. Every one.

2025-11-30 21:50:16 UTC

Theft is the engine that drives communism and socialism. Proponents of these systems promise far more that any self-sustaining system can produce, under the assumption that there is some wealthy "other" whose money, property, or labor is a bottomless resource pool that "the people" are entitled to take to support the unworkable promises.
This system only works until you run out of other people's money. When the pool of stolen resources dries up, the system inevitably collapses.

2025-11-28 17:49:36 UTC

- reply

What I understand is that you are very good at accusing others of what you do. For example, I think that on some level, you're vaguely aware that Darren and I are not the same person. I wonder if you may be intentionally conflating us so that you can then get indignant at all the folks who assume that every TDS-addled lefty cultist is the same person as well.
And don't think I haven't noticed that You still haven't answered the question. I specifically asked what YOU think the distinction is. There is no wrong answer to that question.
Besides, I already think that your ideology is warped and separated from reality due to your close alliance with communist progressives (but I repeat myself). You can't really make me think you're more wrong than I already do because of your repeated dodging the question.
Honestly, I was just trying to find a common definition from which we could have a rational discussion. But clearly that's not something you feel you're capable of, which is why instead you lowered the tone by being a glib asshole.

2025-11-28 17:25:32 UTC

- reply

Your sarcasm and glibness is noted. But I know how to look up what some self-entitled expert thinks it is. I asked what YOU think the difference is. YOU are the one making points about the topic right now.
If there is a blog post or wikipedia article that details exactly the opinion of William Maggos on this topic, then I apologize, but without evidence, I continue to assume there isn't. Hence my query. This is how conversation works. Try not being an arrogant asshole for six seconds and get over yourself.
(Or is this your way of telling me that you don't engage in thinking for yourself, and that I can reliably get all of your thoughts by reading whatever passes for Marxist academia these days? In that case, what the hell are you even doing online?)

2025-11-28 17:16:46 UTC

- reply

Please explain to me again exactly what you think the fundamental difference is between communism and socialism, outside of degree and nomenclature.

2025-11-28 16:51:14 UTC

- reply

https://bemrose.social/media/a3b90662722900b385d350ebb715f97a912deb3baeb13478f27cc2bfef41f9c9.png

2025-11-27 17:11:08 UTC

- reply

Open borders work perfectly fine and comport very well with liberty. What nobody here is taking into account is the system that lets immigrants into the country and *directly into taxpayer-funded social safety nets*. Nets which would NOT be supported by a libertarian.
Revise the system to end the free handouts and make everyone responsible for their own groceries, housing, jobs, jail time, etc, and you'll see the number of immigrants go down, as the average quality of immigrants goes up.
#IncentivesMatter

2025-11-26 23:22:59 UTC

- reply

A flawless argument! So independent thought = "elitism". Thus, the only way to not be an elitist is to shut off your brain and participate in groupthink - to let a political party do your thinking for you. Game, set, match!
I guess you can count me as an elitist too under this stellar leftist redefinition of terms.

2025-11-26 23:00:24 UTC

- reply

Someday, William, you are going to realize that in the 2020s, "liberal" and "leftist" are no longer the same thing. You're eventually going to be forced to choose which one you really are. On that day, you'll become a much wiser man.

2025-11-26 22:02:40 UTC

- reply

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember back when Trump and all of those evil hashtag-MAGA conservatives were censoring people and getting them fired from their jobs because of widespread mass-hysteria about the common cold.
Oh, wait, that wasn't hashtag-MAGA Doing it. Who was it, I wonder...
(It wasn't that long ago either, but it may as well be centuries for people training their attention spans by fervently reading every single post on social media)

2025-11-26 21:14:48 UTC

- reply

> I'm sure you will say you didn't see that
Yeah, just like I was sure you'd claim to have said that while I was asleep or otherwise not tuned into the All-Maggos Channel.

2025-11-26 20:32:52 UTC

- reply

Yeah, see my point about meandering word salad...
I know that you love to go back to that well of "Oh, but Ryan, you didn't say anything bad about Trump so you must be a Trump lover". It's part of your inherent need to avoid the message at all costs and only discuss the messenger.
I don't need to criticize Trump. Half of the Internet is constantly spewing hate about Trump's existence, and criticizing everything from his immigration policy to his word choice when rebuffing a disrespectful journalist. It's already been said. What could I possibly say that would add to that discussion?
When you add to the chorus, you look like a brainwashed madman. Think for yourself for ten seconds and say something I couldn't hear a hundred times over by accidentally clicking on a bsky link.
I'm not asking you to "speak up bad about Dems". I'm asking you to use some goddamned objectivity and original thought.

2025-11-26 20:23:08 UTC

- reply

Okay, one more reply. I'm never quite sure exactly which meandering unfocused part of your posts you want me to respond to, but I guess you wanted the reply to the heel part.
I agree he is playing the heel. 47 is quite a bit worse than 45 in that regard, and I suspect it's largely in response to the shit he's had to put up with to get here. I'll spare you the full enumeration of the illegal and unconstitutional bullshit that he's had to put up with from the party of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but it starts with constant unceasing libel from the media, turns into a three-year hoax about Russia, two unwarranted impeachments, an FBI raid on his family, lawsuits and indictments from corrupt AGs, and ends with him literally getting shot in the head. You'd be a bit miffed too, if you were in his position.
Sure, it'd be nice if people could play along. But nobody on the left will ever give him the benefit of the doubt, and no one will ever be civil to him. So I can totally see why he's shed the civility himself.
Am I okay with this incivility? It really doesn't affect me. I'm not in the room with him, and I don't watch 24-hour news. I'm far more concerned with what he does than what he says.
Policing tone while not bothering to address actions is a weak argument.

2025-11-26 20:08:25 UTC

- reply

Coincidentally... That you think it is somehow worse for the country to have a President say mean things than it is for one to collapse our social safety nets by flooding the country with foreigners on the taxpayer dime... That is strong evidence of your cult membership.

2025-11-26 19:59:59 UTC

- reply

That you think Trump is the first person worthy of disrespect to occupy the Oval Office is strong evidence of your illness.

2025-11-26 19:41:34 UTC

- reply

Your mental illness is so fascinating.
https://bemrose.social/media/6af4007f759cefed96931b5b954ac24297cfd0e541a77d255843e9e79b96d843.png

2025-11-26 17:36:07 UTC

- reply

I came into this "internet" thing decades ago with a healthy skepticism of everything I was told. It infuriated my teachers and professors, but left me in a pretty good place to evaluate new claims and things online.
AI company marketing keeps trying to position AI as a trusted friend you can count on. We should be treating it more like a shady corner drug dealer. Yeah, he can get us what we want, but the price is high and never doubt he'll throw you to the narcs in a heartbeet when the cops show up.

2025-11-26 17:22:50 UTC

- reply

This would be huge if true, but I can't find anything about it, and it smells like AI hallucination or wishful thinking. Do you have a link? Or the name of the case?