About
This community is about making fun of dumb right wing memes. Here you will find some of the cringiest memes that the right has ever posted on the internet.
Rules
All posts must be memes containing right wing cringe
No unrelated content
No bigotry
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No Exceptions.
Other Communities
Elon is ultimately a victim of his own tragic stupidity. He wanted to believe that he was always the smartest guy in the room and paid handsomely for smarter people to pretend that he was.
But then he bought Xitter and reality caught up with him. A middling intellect with barely surface knowledge of every venture he pollutes with his presence.
The real tragedy is what all those smart people could have done with all those resources if they weren’t being led by a fuckwit.
Supposedly, the companies he bought when they were still very small (Tesla, SpaceX) developed a culture of managing Elon, and new employees would gradually learn how they need to deal with his requests to keep him happy while still keeping the business going.
But because Twitter was already so large and established, and Musk took over and started making big changes right away, they didn't have the culture or the institutional knowledge of how to deal with him. So the damage has been so much worse.
I've been in an org like that, run by an untreated bipolar guy who genuinely was a visionary and very very smart. We also had to work around the guy, but he was also very much the straw that stirred the drink.
Just the fact that companies had to have Elon Rules to prevent sidetracking doesn't necessarily mean he was a net negative if his talents lined up with the company. He is obviously taking a giant shit on Twitter and it plays to his worst instincts though (for fuck's sake, using a picture of yourself in a meme is as lame as wearing your own band's t-shirt).
I'm pretty sure I also remember him firing his PR team right about the time he made the pedo comment to the caver who saved a bunch of kids. Which is coincidentally one of the first instances people started questioning his genius narrative
Wtf is he talking about?
I have asked myself that for years...
In this specific case he is taking about the Jews. And nothing specific to Israel or the conflict in Palestine, but to "The Jews"
Serious question, what is he talking about? Does anyone know? I would like to be enlightened by this insightful, brilliant, genius, strategist and then make my own assessment of his thoughts.
Everyone else is wrong. Caution is advised: I'm being serious and it's a serious problem. He's talking about government censorship of media, specifically Twitter, but the problem is widespread and getting worse.
I'm disappointed that liberals who have been smart for so long can so easily become dumb as bricks because they lack the emotional maturity to criticize their own side/admit that the other side is right on this issue, if only incidentally. At the least one should be able to acknowledge that it's been expedient for the Right to champion free speech because doing so directly protects their interests—and I don't give them any more credit than that—but at least they're unintentionally doing the right thing. The Left unfortunately deserves criticism, not credit, because for reasons it's been expedient for them to censor speech because it directly forwards their interests.
In the end it's folly to think that any side is necessarily better or more just than the other, or to think sides have any important meaning at all beyond logistical maneuvering. It baffles me that the vast majority of adults in America can watch their enemy do a thing and vehemently denounce it, then turn around and watch their ally do something perfectly analogous, if not exactly the same, and stubbornly defend it without giving an inch; without a modicum of empathy, remorse, or self-reflection. Worse is that none of it even fucking matters. People are ready to have a political orgasm when the other side gets caught mishandling secret files, but get bored hearing about how the economy is burning to the ground. Neither side gives a fuck about anything that matters because unless it can be used as political ammo, neither side will bring it up unless they have to.
A little bit of my soul died the day I realized the party I championed wasn't so much better as it was not currently in power (or in danger of losing power), and was simply temporarily more interested in saying and occasionally even doing the right things—the absolute least amount possible—to return to power (or remain in power). Those that think I'm being the least bit cynical should know that they are not qualified to have any kind of meaningful or productive discussion on these topics—they're wasting their breath at best, unwitting tools of propaganda at worst—and their partisan bickering collectively is literally the biggest reason we will never get out of this mess. A lot of you are young and I don't hold it against you, but don't take too long to get your shit straight. The world really is depending on you to direct your energy at the right causes, and Elon Musk isn't one of them.
Can you give me an example of the government censoring free speech on Twitter?
Shit dude, there are so many. In my opinion the most egregious example, but also the most politically charged, is the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Even if you don't think the actual substance of the claims is true, the government's attempts to censor it are definitely real. But I'm not here to debate the merits of any specific instance of censorship ad nauseam.
At the heart of the matter in general is the question of whether the government should be allowed not to "make" a company censor something, but to "ask" them to "voluntarily remove" it. Technically, that's all they've been doing—and even if they were doing so strictly only in good faith, it would still be contentious to argue that it's ok for government to "strongly suggest", i.e. exert influence over, what companies should and should not allow people to say—but that's not all they've been doing.
What they're doing is exactly what you would expect them to do if they wanted to subvert the system to stay within the technical limits of legality, while getting away with de facto full-blown censorship: bully the companies with lies and threats of reprisal until they complied—they technically don't have to, but it's in their best interest to do so—or, barring their ability to do that, colluding closely with private "watchdog" companies that are the next-best thing to being government entities (they receive and, importantly, depend on significant federal money, hold regular weekly meetings with relevant agencies to discuss agendas, etc) to accomplish the same thing with much the same tactics. The latter is what happened to Twitter immediately after a court barred the current administration from doing the former, and is still happening to them right now, as well as to Rumble, notable for being the biggest YouTube alternative.
So who was the president when the Hunter Biden laptop “story” was “censored”? You seem to be very interested in which side is doing things, and I just want to understand who was in power during the first example you went to.
Also, here is the actual text of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you provide an example of when the government violated this first amendment in regard to Twitter?
Nah. Trying doing an iota of work to address by arguments instead of trying to convince me I owe you pages of answers for nothing but more fish bait.
I reworked an old phrase because of Musk.
You either die a hero or live long enough for everyone to work out you're a fucking idiot.
You either die a hero or live long enough for everyone to work out you're a fucking idiot.
the real testament example to the statement
Elon is totally right though?
The Jews are a tight knit community of kind hearted, helpful people, but none of them will give me their bagel recipes, even when I scream at them at traffic lights.
They can't keep getting away with this.
spoiler
"Ingredients
About 1/2 cup warm water
1 1/2 Tablespoons vegetable oil, plus a drop more to grease the dough
1 egg, lightly beaten
1 1/2-2 Tbs sugar
1 1/2 tsp salt
1 envelope of yeast
3 1/2 cups (500g) bread flour
1 egg white, to glaze
Directions
In a large bowl, mix the flour, yeast, salt, and sugar well. Then mix in the egg and the oil and add the water gradually, working it in with your hand — enough to make a soft dough that holds together in a ball. Add more water if necessary, or more flour if it is too sticky.
Turn the dough out and knead on a floured board for 10‑15 minutes, until it is very smooth and elastic. Grease the dough all over by putting a drop of oil in the bowl and rolling the dough around in it. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and leave to rise in a warm place for 1 1/2 hours, or until doubled in bulk.
Punch the dough down and knead again briefly. An easy way of shaping the bagels into rings is to roll out the dough to a rectangle about 1 inch (2 1/2 cm) thick and cut it into 11 equal strips with a pointed knife. Roll each strip between your palms into a rope about 7 inches (18 cm) long and 1/2 inch (1 1/2 cm) thick and bring the ends together, pinching them to seal and form a bracelet. Place the rings on an oiled surface, and let them rise for about 1 hour, or until doubled in bulk.
Bring plenty of water to a boil in a wide pan, then lower the heat to medium. Slip in 4 bagels at a time. Boil them for 1‑2 minutes, turning them over once as they rise to the top. Then lift them out quickly with a slotted spoon and place them on a cloth to dry. Do the same with the rest of the bagels. Arrange on oiled baking sheets, brush with egg white, and bake in a preheated 375F (190C) oven for 15‑20 minutes, until nicely browned."
We cool now?
He's right! The science textbook deep state has been trying to teach you for Decades that air flows faster over the top of an airplane wing because the path over the top is longer, and that generates lower pressure, and therefore lift. It's always been nonsense! Airplane wings generate lift by directly, unambiguously pushing air down, by being angled relative to the incoming air stream (called an angle of attack). This is why completely flat wings on balsa wood gliders and paper airplanes function perfectly well.
Bernoulli has nothing to do with it!
... at least I assume that's what he's talking about. I guess it is Elon, so it's probably nonsense of some kind.
It's my understanding that this is a point of no small contention between knowledgeable theoreticians of the subject.
It's extemely easy to make gliders with and with angle of attack, and with and without curved top wing surfaces. Simple experimentation demonstrates that I'm right, fully apart from early aircraft designs that didn't have different curvature on the top and bottom surface of the wing.
Uh, okay. Airfoils experimentally outperform flat plate wings, even though it is true that flat plate with a suitable angle of attack does indeed provide some lift independent of Bernoulli. The contention I referred to was in regard to the relative proportion of contribution of either factor.
Planes can fly upside-down without plummeting into the ground, which implies to me that angle of attack dominates.
Listen, this is how modern-day-flat-earth and birds-aren’t-real type shit starts.
Let me just nip this in the bud with one word:
DRAG*
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
*No I’m not a man in women’s clothes. There aren’t any pockets there.
It's my understanding that both elements play a role, that the relative role of each element varies conditionally, and that the precise relativity is not a solved problem.
Listen, the actual physical process is neither airfoil or angle of attack; what is actually happening is the wings are pushing the earth itself to move to the desired location of the aircraft. The aircraft itself doesn’t move at all. This is why airplanes and helicopters can’t fly in outer space .
Right... I'm saying that an airfoil without angle of attack on a glider will plummet, and a flat plate with angle of attack will glide, because air won't move faster over the top surface of the wing just because the path is longer - instead, angle of attack causes the air on the underside of the wing to slow down, and the air on the top of the wing is not slowed down (in the reference frame of the aircraft).
Flat plate wings are not preferred because there is turbulent flow induced by its movement, not because it doesn't provide enough lift.
All I said was that it's a point of some contention.
I'm just gonna go with NASA on this one:
There are many explanations for the generation of lift found in encyclopedias, in basic physics textbooks, and on Web sites. Unfortunately, many of the explanations are misleading and incorrect. Theories on the generation of lift have become a source of great controversy and a topic for heated arguments.
Lift occurs when a flow of gas is turned by a solid object. The flow is turned in one direction, and the lift is generated in the opposite direction, according to Newtons Third Law of action and reaction. Because air is a gas and the molecules are free to move about, any solid surface can deflect a flow. For an airfoil, both the upper and lower surfaces contribute to the flow turning. Neglecting the upper surface's part in turning the flow leads to an incorrect theory of lift.
I think the two of you are having different arguments together.
You're saying it's a contributing factor and they're saying it's not the cause. Both of these things can be true.
We are taught in school that planes can fly because of the shape of the wing. That isn't necessarily true even if it does have influence. It can happen without the wing shape. It may happen more effectively with it, but that wasn't the claim.
You can both be right here.
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.
The science textbook deep state has been trying to teach you for Decades that air flows faster over the top of an airplane wing because the path over the top is longer, and that generates lower pressure, and therefore lift. It's always been nonsense! Airplane wings generate lift by directly, unambiguously pushing air down, by being angled relative to the incoming air stream (called an angle of attack). This is why completely flat wings on balsa wood gliders and paper airplanes function perfectly well.
Bernoulli has nothing to do with it!
The claim I see here is not that the Bernoulli effect isn't the primary source of lift, but that it isn't involved at all. They double down later saying that airfoils are used over flat wings exclusively to combat turbulence.
And my claim was simply that there has been some debate on the topic among experts, because there has.
I'm mad Elon lied about the feasability of the hyperloop in order to kill competing public transport options in order to boost Tesla sales.
So according to himself, I'm justified in being mad at him?
Also I gotta improve my filters, his useless garbage is coming through to my feed.
the old filter setting wont work you got to download the new filter called mastodon another good filter is called gnuSocial
Using himself as a meme like a dork.
Le sigh. What is space Karen mumbling this time about?