Spartacussin
LightNews LightNews
spartacussin.bsky.social
Spartacussin
@spartacussin.bsky.social
120 followers 7 following 3.6K posts
If you're here because you've been explaining something to me, please stop.
Posts Replies Media Videos
spartacussin.bsky.social
I agree, which is why my criticism of the post was the actual transcript of what he said.
September 13, 2025 at 3:08 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
The more people claim that I'm transphobic based on a random label someone put on my account with no supporting information or accountability, the more I think a) leftists are just reactionaries with some slightly different buzzwords and b) they were right all along:
August 15, 2025 at 3:54 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
How did I know
July 21, 2025 at 11:18 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
July 19, 2025 at 7:33 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Then why do you care which Democrats endorsed some council race? (BTW you forgot to scroll down on that webpage). If they're all irrelevant than why were you mad at your own mistaken belief that no Democrats endorsed this one random progressive that *you didn't even know existed* until I told you
July 19, 2025 at 2:06 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
July 18, 2025 at 10:13 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
July 18, 2025 at 1:38 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Oh, this piece of paper with words and images?
July 16, 2025 at 5:07 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
I wondered when they'd figure out how to criminalize ICEBlock
When first introduced, the Dignity Act provided tens of billions of dollars to the Border Patrol to build new border barriers, hire agents, and deploy technology. With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which provided much of that funding, the bill no longer provides additional money. However, it still makes a number of significant changes to the border enforcement process. Criminal penalties for illegal border crossing would increase significantly, and the bill creates new crimes for “illicit spotters” who track Border Patrol movements for smugglers. In addition, DHS would be granted new legal authority to waive certain legal requirements prior to constructing and deploying new border walls and technology. Along with these changes to immigration enforcement, the bill would mandate E-Verify be used across the country, with severe penalties for employers that do not adopt the program or fail to verify the immigration status of their workers. The bill also requires that any sponsor of an unaccompanied child be put through a full biometric background check.
July 15, 2025 at 9:51 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
OK even I didn't expect it to start already
July 8, 2025 at 3:12 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
July 8, 2025 at 12:32 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
For another, this is the extent of the article's evidence that she "supports crypto"
Though Harris is less hyperbolic in her support, she’s also emphasized her backing for the industry. She says her administration, should it come to pass, will “encourage innovative technologies like AI and digital assets.” And she has told big money donors she will ensure a “safer business environment” for investors in the currency.
June 25, 2025 at 12:04 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Deferring to officers’ judgment when they reasonably fear for human safety is sound policy because they regularly must make split-second, life-or-death decisions in highly stressful situations; but many pet shootings occur when officers mistake the behavior of a friendly, curious dog for aggression. Further, some animals have been deliberately shot and killed under questionable circumstances, including through doors or while tied, running away, or hiding. Studies show that some officers shoot pets unnecessarily, recklessly, or in retaliation, and that subsequent civilian complaints are investigated inadequately. Moreover, not every animal that police officers shoot is a large dog that may be more likely to pose a genuine risk to human safety—or even a dog at all. Police claiming a threat to human safety have shot puppies, Chihuahuas, Miniature Dachshunds, and domestic cats, among other pets. In some tragic cases, bullets missed their nonhuman targets and injured or even killed human bystanders instead.
June 24, 2025 at 5:00 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Since he blocked me immediately (and frankly good riddance), here's the comment:
June 18, 2025 at 2:12 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Imagine being a dude so complacent about his imagined superiority and not knowing how to fucking spell "outright"
June 17, 2025 at 11:07 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Holy shit h/t @thepmann.bsky.social for finding this article that shows Roose has been an idiot for at least 10 years web.archive.org/web/20151006...
Driving should be illegal by Kevin Roose October 05, 2015 11:09 a.m. Imagine for a moment that, one day in the future, a major pharmaceutical company released a new miracle drug that radically and instantaneously enhanced human performance. Everyone who took it immediately became significantly faster, stronger, and more efficient. As a result, millions of people began taking it daily. The gains enabled by this drug quickly transformed society—entire industries sprung up to take advantage of the productivity gains it afforded, consumption patterns changed, jobs were created, and a significant portion of the U.S. economy came to depend on its availability. Now imagine that this drug was discovered to have severe side effects. Namely, it killed people. Lots of people. Some people died directly as a result of taking it, while others died at the hands of people who flew into murderous rages after reacting badly to it. Still others were killed more slowly by poisonous vapor that leaked out of the skin pores of everyone who took the drug. Overall, more than a million people died every year as a direct result of the drug’s availability, and tens of millions more were severely injured. This is, to a first approximation, the situation we currently face with cars. We tend to forget that despite their central place in global transportation and commerce, cars are toxic, inefficient killing machines. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 1.24 million people die every year in traffic accidents, and between 20 and 50 million more sustain non-fatal injuries. Pollution from cars has covered entire cities in smog, and made the earth immeasurably less habitable. In terms of lives lost, cars are one of the most destructive inventions in human history, rivaled only by gunpowder. Luckily, there is a solution. Self-driving cars, currently being developed by Google, Mercedes, Tesla, and a handful of other companies, are on their way. Collectively, over the last few years of testing, self-driving cars have navigated millions of miles of roads, and they already appear to be safer and more efficient than human drivers. A self-driving car hasn’t caused an accident. (They have gotten into accidents, but all of those accidents were caused by human error.) Self-driving cars won’t completely eliminate car pollution, but they will likely be better for the environment than human-powered cars. The cars’ hive mind will help eliminate traffic jams as they can re-route to maximize available roads and be programmed to move at a slow, steady speed rather than the herky-jerky start-and-stops of unpredictable human drivers. Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the University of Maryland estimated that self-driving cars could reduce fuel use by 15 percent by using more efficient driving patterns than humans. The most important thing about self-driving cars is that they are utterly inevitable. They are too superior, too obviously beneficial to humanity, and too technologically feasible not to eventually overtake human-piloted vehicles and become the default standard of transportation all over the world. As Buzzfeed’s Mat Honan put it, “the efficient, unemotional, necessary logic of cars that operate without human error and instability is unquestionable.” Decades from now, our descendants will react in horror when we tell them about car culture. “You mean, you used to drive those things … yourselves?” Some researchers estimate that, by the middle of this century, self-driving cars could prevent a million traffic deaths a year—making them as important a public health achievement as vaccines. And yet, the road from here to there is long, winding, and filled with potholes. Self-driving cars will be prohibitively expensive at first. Taxi drivers, long-haul truckers, and other people who will be made obsolete by automated vehicles will rise up to defend the status quo, and traditional auto manufacturers will lobby for protectionist laws to save themselves. Privacy advocates will worry about the tracking of human beings that will be a side effect of the cars’ need for massive data collection. The first glitch in a self-driving car—a hack that renders a car dangerous, a kid who is killed by a car whose software was incorrectly patched—will provoke enormous, sustained populist backlash. The political and regulatory battle over self-driving cars is going to make Uber’s war for survival look like a slap fight. There is only one way to assure that self-driving cars become ubiquitous, so they can begin saving millions of lives as quickly as possible: Driving must be banned. If Congress passed a law banning driving tomorrow, automakers would be incentivized to put reliable self-driving cars onto the market as quickly as possible. Funding would pour into autonomous driving R&D efforts, the cost of production would nosedive, and affordable self-driving cars could become a reality far sooner than expected. Ideally, these policies would mean self-driving cars will be available to all, not just the upper class. By outlawing driving and facilitating a switch to autonomous vehicles, we would make a significant and lasting impact on global public health. Thousands of lives would be saved in the U.S. alone, and those people’s families would be spared unthinkable tragedy. (We would also make cities like Los Angeles and New York eminently more livable by dramatically reducing traffic, but that’s another argument.) Congress wouldn’t need the driving ban to kick in immediately. Like the Affordable Care Act or the Dodd-Frank Act, the No More Driving Act could be phased in in over a period of several years, to allow car makers to perfect their technology and achieve mass production. Perhaps in 2017, companies that produce self-driving cars could receive a tax credit, and consumers could be paid to trade in their old, human-driven cars under a “cash for clunkers”-type scheme. Low-income families may require subsidies to make the switch. In 2018, drivers would begin to receive small fines for driving on public roads. In 2019, the punishment could become more severe—perhaps $500 citations for traveling in a human-directed vehicle. And in 2020, we could achieve full criminalization of driving, with penalties equivalent to those you’d get for bringing a bazooka to a schoolyard.
June 17, 2025 at 6:52 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
On Earth 1 nobody ever fell for this disingenuous bullshit and we're just starting the first term of Kaine/Ocasio-Cortez after eight peaceful if somewhat boring years of Clinton/Kaine

(Harris is part of senior leadership in the Senate by 2024)
June 17, 2025 at 6:13 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
I wouldn't bother responding to them. They're very, very much an antisemite
June 14, 2025 at 2:47 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Since they deleted already:
June 14, 2025 at 1:32 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Ye olde meme: i.imgur.com/N5yoW1x.jpg
June 13, 2025 at 7:04 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
One startling example of this was the gallows pictures from the J6 riot (which to be clear, was a riot and did kill people). If you look at most of the pictures of it, it looks a bit rickety but built for purpose. And then you see its actual size...
June 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
I was not in fact speaking to you
June 11, 2025 at 3:59 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
I hadn't heard of this game and your posts made it sound interesting, so I looked up a review and the first item the guy comes across is uh... well let's just say this game is gonna be a no from me dog
June 10, 2025 at 12:08 AM
spartacussin.bsky.social
Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever needs to hear from men like this, who enjoy covering for child pornographers and who smugly tell you they're profiting off of your anger. He's quite literally worthless.
June 7, 2025 at 2:09 PM
spartacussin.bsky.social
I looked up the photo referenced in that last sentence and a) this shirt is hilarious and b) her swimsuit is fine, it's just that she's a bit chesty and I'm sure the press at the time were in a tizzwozz over that
June 5, 2025 at 4:16 PM