Harjas
@hodz.bsky.social
Update: my friend told me to cover the arrows. Now I feel even more stupid!
May 7, 2025 at 4:30 AM
Update: my friend told me to cover the arrows. Now I feel even more stupid!
I've never felt so humiliated by an optical illusion. Why do the arrows have so much power??
May 7, 2025 at 3:43 AM
I've never felt so humiliated by an optical illusion. Why do the arrows have so much power??
I’m not disputing that domestic insurrections refers to slave revolts. I’m just saying that politesse is indirect!
May 1, 2025 at 3:53 AM
I’m not disputing that domestic insurrections refers to slave revolts. I’m just saying that politesse is indirect!
Are we not in agreement then? It’s indirectly referenced because they did not want to directly say “we’re mad that King George tried to free our slaves!”
May 1, 2025 at 3:20 AM
Are we not in agreement then? It’s indirectly referenced because they did not want to directly say “we’re mad that King George tried to free our slaves!”
I mean, I’m saying it’s indirect because it’s not explicit. If the document literally said “for inciting slave revolts” then I’d totally agree with you, but it instead says “insurrections”. If something requires you to have extra context to understand, I wouldn’t call it direct—maybe that’s just me.
May 1, 2025 at 3:16 AM
I mean, I’m saying it’s indirect because it’s not explicit. If the document literally said “for inciting slave revolts” then I’d totally agree with you, but it instead says “insurrections”. If something requires you to have extra context to understand, I wouldn’t call it direct—maybe that’s just me.
What’s your take as to why the founding fathers wanted it to be obliquely referenced? Just as a compromise between the slaveowners and non-slaveowners? Or for some other reason?
May 1, 2025 at 3:11 AM
What’s your take as to why the founding fathers wanted it to be obliquely referenced? Just as a compromise between the slaveowners and non-slaveowners? Or for some other reason?
Absolutely. The US was built on slavery and genocide, regardless of the directness of their mentions in our founding documents.
May 1, 2025 at 3:08 AM
Absolutely. The US was built on slavery and genocide, regardless of the directness of their mentions in our founding documents.
It does mention slavery, just indirectly. Contrast that with the Constitution, which explicitly refers to slaves and their statuses as not fully people. There’s a difference, and it’s worth pointing out!
May 1, 2025 at 3:06 AM
It does mention slavery, just indirectly. Contrast that with the Constitution, which explicitly refers to slaves and their statuses as not fully people. There’s a difference, and it’s worth pointing out!
I filly agree with you here! I personally think that it being indirect/oblique makes it even worse, because it allows the slave-owners to avoid having to explicitly deny people their rights.
May 1, 2025 at 3:05 AM
I filly agree with you here! I personally think that it being indirect/oblique makes it even worse, because it allows the slave-owners to avoid having to explicitly deny people their rights.
I think it being oblique does make it indirect—which is why I used the Constitution to contrast, since it’s directly and explicitly mentioned there.
May 1, 2025 at 3:03 AM
I think it being oblique does make it indirect—which is why I used the Constitution to contrast, since it’s directly and explicitly mentioned there.
I mean, he could've just retweeted it with a new self-awareness about the fact that he could've just read the Declaration to see if it mentions slavery. (He didn't challenge the Three-fifths Compromise being in the Constitution, so I hope he knew about that already.)
April 30, 2025 at 11:08 PM
I mean, he could've just retweeted it with a new self-awareness about the fact that he could've just read the Declaration to see if it mentions slavery. (He didn't challenge the Three-fifths Compromise being in the Constitution, so I hope he knew about that already.)
I think it's relatively important to distinguish! If I said disinformation, I'd be implying that the authors in the original post were liars or something. I think they were probably well-meaning and just misremembered a fact—so, misinformation and not disinformation.
April 30, 2025 at 11:06 PM
I think it's relatively important to distinguish! If I said disinformation, I'd be implying that the authors in the original post were liars or something. I think they were probably well-meaning and just misremembered a fact—so, misinformation and not disinformation.
www.apa.org/topics/journ...
> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
www.apa.org
April 30, 2025 at 11:02 PM
www.apa.org/topics/journ...
> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
(Also, my point was that the Declaration upheld slavery without *directly* mentioning it, so I still stand by my initial post.)
April 30, 2025 at 10:53 PM
(Also, my point was that the Declaration upheld slavery without *directly* mentioning it, so I still stand by my initial post.)
I see. It still seems to me that Jefferson is complaining about the fact that King George caused an insurrection (and not that King George was trying to stop Americans from having slaves), but I appreciate the correction—this is historical context I didn't know about. Thanks for sharing!
April 30, 2025 at 10:52 PM
I see. It still seems to me that Jefferson is complaining about the fact that King George caused an insurrection (and not that King George was trying to stop Americans from having slaves), but I appreciate the correction—this is historical context I didn't know about. Thanks for sharing!
Surely this refers to King George causing revolts among the American people, right? How would King George excite domestic insurrections of slaves?
Also, you're burying the lede on the utterly shameful depiction of Native Americans as "Indian Savages", which needs no explanation to condemn.
Also, you're burying the lede on the utterly shameful depiction of Native Americans as "Indian Savages", which needs no explanation to condemn.
April 30, 2025 at 10:50 PM
Surely this refers to King George causing revolts among the American people, right? How would King George excite domestic insurrections of slaves?
Also, you're burying the lede on the utterly shameful depiction of Native Americans as "Indian Savages", which needs no explanation to condemn.
Also, you're burying the lede on the utterly shameful depiction of Native Americans as "Indian Savages", which needs no explanation to condemn.
For the record @whstancil.bsky.social, the Three-fifths Compromise and other amendments about slavery does mean that slavery did make it into our founding documents as a foundational principle.
Later amendments corrected that, so I wouldn't say that you're wrong per se, but it's important to note.
Later amendments corrected that, so I wouldn't say that you're wrong per se, but it's important to note.
April 30, 2025 at 10:45 PM
For the record @whstancil.bsky.social, the Three-fifths Compromise and other amendments about slavery does mean that slavery did make it into our founding documents as a foundational principle.
Later amendments corrected that, so I wouldn't say that you're wrong per se, but it's important to note.
Later amendments corrected that, so I wouldn't say that you're wrong per se, but it's important to note.
If you want more detailed poll analysis, I wrote an article on Substack!
open.substack.com/pub/hardlywo...
open.substack.com/pub/hardlywo...
The People are turning on Trump
The current state of public opinion in the USA
open.substack.com
April 25, 2025 at 10:58 PM
If you want more detailed poll analysis, I wrote an article on Substack!
open.substack.com/pub/hardlywo...
open.substack.com/pub/hardlywo...
As of April 5-8, 70% of U.S. adult citizens think that Trump should not attempt to run for a third term. Even among Republicans, only 36% think he should attempt to run for a third term, while 48% think he should not: an approval rating of (-12).
April 25, 2025 at 10:58 PM
As of April 5-8, 70% of U.S. adult citizens think that Trump should not attempt to run for a third term. Even among Republicans, only 36% think he should attempt to run for a third term, while 48% think he should not: an approval rating of (-12).
The public is rallying behind Kilmar Abrego Garcia: 50% of people think that Trump should bring him home, 28% disagree, and 22% have no opinion.
In other words, Trump’s stance on Abrego Garcia has an approval rating of (-22). Abrego Garcia is Trump’s SINGLE BIGGEST LOSING ISSUE.
In other words, Trump’s stance on Abrego Garcia has an approval rating of (-22). Abrego Garcia is Trump’s SINGLE BIGGEST LOSING ISSUE.
April 25, 2025 at 10:58 PM
The public is rallying behind Kilmar Abrego Garcia: 50% of people think that Trump should bring him home, 28% disagree, and 22% have no opinion.
In other words, Trump’s stance on Abrego Garcia has an approval rating of (-22). Abrego Garcia is Trump’s SINGLE BIGGEST LOSING ISSUE.
In other words, Trump’s stance on Abrego Garcia has an approval rating of (-22). Abrego Garcia is Trump’s SINGLE BIGGEST LOSING ISSUE.