superladkid retweeted
Funny, the only people upset be this are the media. 95% of fans would be happy if they did away with "sideline reporting" all together.
superladkid retweeted
The other jurors have spent all week calling the lone male holdout an arrogant, uncooperative dummy who didn’t understand the law or follow the rules. Now we come to find out that they were talking about the only black guy in the room this whole time. Leftists have accidentally sided with 11 white bullies against a black man who stood up to them. Just an absolutely amazing twist. You couldn’t script it any better.
superladkid retweeted
I think one of my biggest issues with comic book adaptations today is studios pick the wrong characters to make “R-rated”. It works for characters like Wolverine, Blade, and even Punisher because of how dark their stories can be. I feel that characters like Green Lantern should be adapted in a way adults and younger audiences can enjoy. I hate how much younger viewers are being alienated from characters they know from animated shows because someone wants to be edgy.
superladkid retweeted
I’ve noticed that Dems don’t compare Trump to Hitler as much since they started hating Jews.
superladkid retweeted
America turns 250 today.
Let me read back the resume.
We started by telling a king to pound sand, in writing.
By 1803 we bought half a continent from France for about four cents an acre.
We fought a war with ourselves and somehow stayed one country.
We strung a railroad across the entire thing.
We handed the world the lightbulb, the telephone, and the airplane in about thirty years flat.
Then a man named Willis Carrier invented air conditioning and made half the planet actually livable.
You are welcome, Texas. You are welcome, Dubai.
Twice the whole world caught fire, and twice we showed up and helped put it out.
We split the atom.
We put men on the moon in 1969.
Then we went back and hit golf balls up there, because why not.
We invented jazz, blues, rock and roll, and hip-hop, and the whole planet is still dancing to it.
We put a burger and fries on every corner of the earth.
We built rockets that fly themselves home and land standing straight up.
We flew a helicopter on Mars.
We launched a car into actual space and it is still out there cruising.
We also invented ranch dressing and somehow talked the entire world into putting it on pizza.
Priorities.
We even invented three of our own sports so we could win them.
Baseball, basketball, and football.
Real football, the kind with hands, because we named it and we are not taking corrections.
The rest of the planet can keep soccer, which is fine, we are hosting it in our backyard this summer anyway.
And yes, Canadian football exists, wider field, extra man, one fewer down, and we try very hard not to think about it.
Frankly it was generous of us to invent our own games.
If we put all that energy into soccer, nobody else would ever lift that trophy again.
We would win it so often they would just rename it the America’s Cup and hand us the keys.
You are welcome for the suspense.
And in 2026 we threw a birthday so big a German tourist live-tweeted our gas stations to 750,000 people.
Not every chapter was clean.
We argued, we stumbled, we fixed what we broke, and we kept building.
That is the whole trick.
Two hundred and fifty years in, and we are still the loudest, brightest, most improbable experiment on the map.
Not bad for a country that started as a strongly worded letter to a king.
Happy birthday, America.
🦋
superladkid retweeted
I hate watching old movies because they’re so brightly lit and you can see everything. They hadn’t learned yet to make everything dark so the audience has to imagine what’s going on.
superladkid retweeted
There seems to be some confusion between insults/ridicule and incitement of violence. Here's a little rhetorical quiz for those who are confused. Perhaps it will help.
Trump posts that Rob Reiner was crazy and had TDS after Reiner's death. Who did that incite violence towards?
Gavin Newsom claims that Trump is disappearing American citizens never to be seen again and that Black and Brown people are specifically being targeted and should be afraid. Newsom repeatedly claims that America will not have an election in 2028 and that Trump will use the National Guard to arrest people who try to vote. Who might that incite violence towards?
Trump posts a warning to Iran that an entire civilization may die. Which person did that incite violence towards?
Ted Lieu, without evidence, claims that Trump is guilty of raping and killing children. The entire Democrat party spends a year claiming without evidence that Trump is a pedophile. Who does that incite violence towards?
Trump posts a meme of Adam Schiff with a long neck and calls him a watermelon head. Does that incite violence towards someone?
Adam Schiff spends three years falsely accusing the President of being a traitor and working for Russia. He claims that the President is illegitimate and should not be in office. Does that incite violence towards anyone? What happens if someone believes Schiff's lies?
Tim Walz claims that Trump is disappearing people, having American citizens grabbed and sent to torture dungeons, never to be seen again. He warns people that anybody could be next and urges people to fight. Who does that incite violence towards?
Trump posts a meme with a clip of Obama as a gorilla. Who does that incite violence towards? Were people angry at Obama for being portrayed as a gorilla or were they angry at Trump for posting it?
Biden spends five years calling Trump an existential threat to the world and says that democracy can never survive if Trump gets back in office. He gives multiple prime time speeches as President calling Trump and his supporters a threat to democracy. Does that incite violence towards someone or some group?
Trump calls someone garbage. Biden says that Trump supporters are garbage almost immediately after an attempt on Trump's life. Do either of those incite violence?
Chris Murphy says that we are at war (with MAGA and the right) and that people need to do whatever it takes to win the war. Who might that incite violence towards?
Trump posts that he's glad that Robert Mueller died. Who does that incite violence towards? Do people want to kill Mueller's dead body after reading that?
James Comey posts "8647." Might that incite violence towards someone?
Trump posts a meme of Hakeem Jeffries in a sombrero. Who does that incite violence towards? Do the people who are angry about that meme want to hurt Jeffries?
Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly says that the biggest threat America faces is MAGA Republicans. Who does that incite violence towards?
Trump says "there are very fine people on both sides, but I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and white supremacists, they should be condemned totally." Who does that incite violence towards?
The entire Democrat party and virtually the entire MSM spend years claiming that Trump said that nazis and white supremacists are very fine people. Who does that incite violence towards?
Trump ridicules Rosie O'Donnell. Did that incite violence towards O'Donnell?
A journalist reads on national TV from a manifesto of a deranged would be assassin who wrote that he was angry with pedophiles and then asks the same President who was the target of said assassin if the manifesto was about him? Who would that, if anyone, incite violence towards?
Trump tells the journalist who just read the manifesto accusing him of being a pedophile that she should be ashamed of herself. Who does that incite violence towards?
AOC says that the country has become nazi Germany, compares Trump to Hitler, and claims that Trump is putting people in concentration camps. Who would that incite violence towards?
I could go on and on. Maybe these questions will clear things up a bit for those who do not understand the difference between insults and incitement of violence.
superladkid retweeted
Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.
Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.
Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.
Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.
Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.
À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.
Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.
Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.
Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.
Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.
Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.
Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.
Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :
"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
superladkid retweeted
The Mailbox Test, like the breakfast test, is an excellent way to tell who you can allow to wield power in your society.
Goes like this:
If someone is hurt trying to destroy someone else's stuff in order to take pleasure from their pain, do you sympathize with...
The aggressor because he got hurt?
Or with the guy who owns the stuff, because he wasn't the aggressor?
You can have people in your society who fail the Mailbox Test. That's okay... they can work at hospices, or shelters for orphaned kittens, or something.
But you cannot allow them to vote, or otherwise wield political power. Because if you do, they will open the gates of the city to the enemy.
I am personally tired of everyone pretending that people who enjoy ruining things for random strangers are just kewt smol beans who are only aggressive because of all the complex socioeconomic factors and lack of resources.
They knew someone would be hurt by what they did. They knew that someone had done literally nothing harmful to them. And those two ideas, in combination made them feel pleasure. And they went and did it.
That is the sign of a rotten soul.
Defending ourselves and our property is not just a right, it's a moral obligation. Otherwise, we just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, someone who may not be able to defend herself.
I don't care if a vandal breaks his arms trying to destroy my stuff. Because I value my stuff more than a vandal's arms. And the fact that he tried to destroy somebody else's stuff shows that he, too, values his arms less than the opportunity to hurt somebody.
We cannot allow such people inside the city, and we cannot give the keys to those who would open the gates for them.
This post is an excellent litmus test for understanding of just war theory.
Despite the fact that I can see how effective this would be, I must oppose it because the damage it would do to my enemy (who bashes in my mailbox) would far outweigh the good of saving my mailbox. Its disproportionality is opposed by our duty in charity (and even justice) to watch out even for the good of our enemies.
(Yes, by the way, I have had my mailbox bashed in by random vandals.)
superladkid retweeted
I’m just going to say it
If the left are prepared to sacrifice their own children on the alter of diversity you bet they’re prepared to sacrifice yours
superladkid retweeted
This is exactly how subtle media bias works.
Look at the word they chose: “rant.”
That’s not neutral reporting. That’s framing.
“Rant” tells you how to feel before you even know what was said. It suggests the comments were irrational, emotional, and not worth taking seriously.
That’s not journalism. That’s opinion baked into a headline.
A fair report would say “comments” or “remarks” and let YOU decide.
Pay attention to the language.
That’s where the bias usually hides.
superladkid retweeted
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:10
BREAKING: The Chicago Bulls are waiving Jaden Ivey after he spoke out against the NBA for promoting 'Pride Month' and unrighteousness, according to ESPN.
Ivey recently announced that he was alive in Christ.
"They proclaim Pride Month in the NBA. They show it to the world. They say, 'Come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness.'"
"They proclaim it on the billboards, they proclaim it in the streets, unrighteousness."
He said nothing wrong.
superladkid retweeted
X please add these buttons
☑️never show me that meme again
☑️wait what was that go back to that
☑️mute all with pronouns in profile
☑️hide likes from whores
superladkid retweeted
I’m an adult who loves a lot of IP’s that are originally created for kids which I grew up with. I hate to admit this but it has gotten to a point now that a lot of people in studios and in the fandom don’t want kids included anymore. They want it all to be dark, gritty and very adult. They don’t understand by pushing kids away there is no future for the IPs.
Most of the responses I have gotten over my Lanterns criticism is “screw the kids”, “HBO has always been adult”, “It’s a darker take”.
My criticism is why can’t it be for both? If Gunn wants to do a variety of tones then he should pick characters that fit them. Green Lantern is a group of characters I feel shouldn’t be limited to just an adult audience . Gunn’s mistake is he is so all over the board that characters appearing in kid friendly stuff then appear in adult focus content. Hate me for this but I feel some characters should not be made into explicit adult content in mainstream media.