Colin Warriner
@colinelmustard
The best thing about a new social network is writing a new profile bio | he/him | LGBTQ+ 🏳️🌈
I’ve paid so little attention to the ASOIAF series, so maybe this has already been widely commented on, but in A Dance with Dragons, George R. R. Martin named three generations of the Tully family Grover, Elmo, Kermit and Oscar? 🤦🏻♂️
So, it turns out there’s been a system error, and that’s why America’s the way it is, but we can fix it if one of us volunteers to be sent to Hell…
I think this might be one of the most incredible, unsettling and symbolic photos of today’s America I’ve ever seen. I can’t stop looking at it. From Reuters, published on the Guardian website.
Currently finding a small measure of joy in these photos of @mayor.nyc.gov and Peppermint at a Pride event 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
The face being pulled behind him is definitely one that I would make if I saw someone trying to condescend that smugly to Senator Warren.
I enjoy when cats are warm enough they drop all pretence at dignity
Met Police: We want to use Palantir. Mayor: No, you can’t. Palantir: Why isn’t the mayor doing more to protect people from being sexually assaulted by the Met Police? Met Police:...um, yeah. www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
PSA: Apparently ‘Scavengers Reign’ is being taken off Netflix after 30 May. If you haven’t seen it yet, I strongly recommend taking the dwindling opportunity to watch a really intelligent, original, and occasionally heartbreaking animated series, which deserves so much love.
The BBC is really burying the lede here if they’ve determined evolution only began 27 years ago.
And finally… “Because we get asked a lot” Oh, don’t make Palantir fash. Don’t make them fash. Well I suppose if they MUST fash, they must. But don’t make them fash. Oh but they can hardly REFUSE to fash NOW, since everyone is DEMANDING they fash.
And then this, right at the end. Noxious, virulent and - for all their fetishising of ‘innovation’ - incredibly old and unoriginal. The Technological Republic has a theocratic, ethnonationalist tumour growing in its guts. And it’s one they *want* to metastasise.
Another tiny violin for the billionaire ‘engineering elites’ that should be ruling us without having to submit to our petty scrutiny. They even name-check Musk. We don’t criticise them *because* they have ideas: we criticise them because their ideas are bad. Or are racist. Or are killing people.
And not just more militarism directed towards crime, of course: a complete re-orientation of the state, commerce and society to serve military aims. (‘Everyone’ sharing the risk and cost always has a way of carving out the ‘right’ people.)
This is why they want to have a freer hand. So much deception and bad faith framing in this paragraph to imply that a ‘Technological Republic’ would do…what, to address crime? I strongly suspect suspend civil liberties, presumption of innocence, due process - the things enshrined to protect us all.
They’re talking about *leaders* - not *workers*. Grace for cabinet members and presidential appointees. Freedom from things like investigative journalism or congressional oversight. They want us to stop examining leaders, and they’re laying the groundwork for more extreme ones to have freer hands.
These are interesting because on their face they make reasonable points. Yes, let’s improve public sector pay and show more grace and forgiveness. Good things. But you start to realise they don’t mean public sector *workers* - this is them back on ‘elites’ again; the elites they like and are.
Read in the context of the rest of this statement, I think it’s forgivable to conclude that the authors think the advancement of progressive values is the ‘imperfection’ they want to fix. And in that light, I wonder how much they actually value ‘peace’. Tweak the tone and these could be regretful.
Paragraph 12 is getting a lot of attention for obvious reasons, but coming so soon after paragraph 4 calling out over-reliance on rhetorical flourish, it reads a bit Blair 1998 (‘A day like today is not a day for soundbites, but I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder’)
First sentence: totally fine; even commendable. Second sentence: hmm. There’s the casual importance given to the implicitly defined social stratum of ‘engineering elite’, but mostly my ears prick up at ‘defense of the nation’: an abstraction that here signals militaristic, not social improvement.
Ah yes, important counterbalances to the president’s petty vindictiveness: sweaty glee and po-faced Christofascism.
Definitely not the main takeaway here and maybe this is me being a geriatric millennial but why is the Metro just quoting random commenters on social media by their first names only? Do we know Peter? Who is Aidan (other than a gobshite)?
Everyone’s rightly talking about his daft rants about windmills and Sharia courts, but I also think it’s interesting that he seems to have forgotten where his father was born. Trump is gesturing to the German Chancellor, but while his father had German parents, he was actually born in New York.
Coming to this excellent post about three months late, but it’s a very good primer on why the drive to reduce jury trials seems misdirected (or even disingenuous). I particularly liked this evocative simile:
Love this ad appearing on the Guardian news feed about the tariffs decision.