Logic is a venerable formal branch of mathematics with well established sets of rules of inference and deduction. There are also formal fallacies within the framework of logic; errors that result if one doesn’t follow the rules of logic. One of the best known and simplest to understand such fallacy is “affirming the consequent” or “converse error”. Simply stated, it takes the form
If A then B; B is true; therefore, A is true.
This inference cannot be made; if A is true, we ‘know’ B is true – that’s contained in the statement “If A then B”. However, “if A then B” says nothing about the state of A given we know B. Therefore, the preceding statement is a formal logical fallacy.
There are many other formal fallacies; but there are more informal logical fallacies as well, those that are not really categorically errors within the rigorous framework of logic. Quite often these might be more readily classified as rhetorical fallacies. One very common such ‘fallacy’ that arises in discourse is the “Slippery Slope” fallacy. In formal logic terms the slippery slope might be written as
If A then B; If B then C; If C then D; …..; If Y then Z
therefore
If A then Z
In concrete terms, it might be something like “If you allow the government to tax the income of the top 1% of wage earners at 3%, then they will want to tax it at 4%; then they will tax the top 2% at 4%; etc; and eventually the top 50% of wage earners will be paying 50% of their income in taxes.” This form of argumentation will often (always?) get labeled as a “slippery slope fallacy” and subsequently dismissed. Here’s the problem – the mathematical statement of the ‘fallacy’ above is NOT a logical fallacy. It is in fact a perfectly valid application of the chain rule. Calling it a logical fallacy in the rhetorical sphere relies on replacing the conditionals in the formal statement with “If A then possibly B” so that each step in the chain is is only a possibility not a necessity.
Will A inevitably lead to Z? Unless one knows that the conditionals are absolutely true, then No. but you can not glibly dismiss (or should not) the possibility as a logical fallacy hence obviating the need for you to think about it and address the downstream implication of each step of the chain. The clean, controlled world of mathematical/logical proofs almost never obtains in any complex system; and human interactions are amongst the most complex systems there are!
Is it fallacious to argue If A then Z if each step of the chain is ‘possibly’ rather than ‘necessarily’? Yes. But is it equally fallacious to dismiss ‘If A then Z’ without examining each step of the chain. Too often, the accusation of ‘slippery slope is a logical fallacy!’ is simply deployed to shut down questions and silence objections via ‘intellectual’ intimidation. Sneeringly saying “Acktually, that’s a logical fallacy, so shut up you unsophisticated rube’ is not an argument. It gets the desired result without having to examine the chain, the accuser thinks it makes them sound/shows them to be smart, and it can short circuit objections from the accused (“it’s a logical fallacy, that sounds very sophisticated, I don’t want to sound dumb and unsophisticated!”)
To get all Bayesian, when someone makes an argument that gets dismissed as a “slippery slope fallacy”, what they are doing, consciously or unconsciously, is applying priors to the conditionals in the chain. Is it “If A then necessarily B”? – no, but given behavior exhibited by similar people in similar situations, it is probably something like “If A then 99% likely B”, so at the end of the day, it is high probability that ‘If A then Z’. Whereas the accuser gets to just dismiss the argument by reflexively repeating ‘logical fallacy’ as if that automagically invalidates every step of the chain. To dismiss the argument properly is to question the proposers selection of priors at each step.
Shorter – Don’t use the ‘slippery slope logical fallacy’ accusation in an argument. It doesn’t make you more sophisticated or smart, it’s just a lazy way of leveraging the appearance of intellectual heft to short-circuit probabilistic (logical) inference that has a decent probability of manifesting in the real world.
If anything has been topical to link….
More seriously — yeah, I always take slippery slope arguments to be more probability based on human history at their core. Good ones (Government will expand beyond initial mission and never regard said mission as complete, therefore think long and hard before allowing any expansion as it will always further The Expanse (until Amazon cancels… wait, not that one…)) fit the historical probability. Bad ones (domino theory) do not.
Or more briefly – very few human actions ever fit a logical condition.
Drink?
To dismiss the argument properly is to question the proposers selection of priors at each step.
Nobody wants to do that sort of Coolie labor.
I’ll bet you don’t even own a doghouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oseqh7SMIvo
Gotta love Norm. I think that’s a statement of the converse error, but not being a logicalitician, I just know it’s funny. All in the delivery. Well, back to work down there to the University of Science.
One of my favorite jokes of his is an elaborate setup about a Canadian Olympian that quit.
Norm goes on and on about how devastated Canada was.
At the end, Norm found him at Sea World feeding baby dolphins.
When Norm told him how he had disappointed the town he was from by quitting, the man replied. “I think I’m serving a youthful porpoise.”
Swiss would have had a heart attack.
At least he didn’t go into pest control next after the dolphins. Hate to think he’d become an orcan man.
*shakes fist*
The Cialdini Commitment Concept however states roughly that when someone agrees to something small, they are likely to be consistent and go along with a bigger idea later.
It’s basically the idea behind the Atomic Habits book. You make a small habit that’s easy to do and over time you ramp up to larger and more impactful actions.
From past experience, the slippery slope is a fairly accurate prediction of what will happen if A, B, or C is not thwarted.
I am tired of saying “I told you so.” I may have run out of people to say it to.
“Quod erat demonstrandum.”
Yes. I don’t think “slippery slope” is mathematical/logical at all. It’s entirely dependent on human nature, and human nature is to take the mile if they’re given an inch.
I think that’s probably the distillation of what I was trying to say. There is a formal slippery slope fallacy. But it doesn’t really apply cleanly to human interactions. People who deploy it in conversation/debate are nearly always using it to short circuit useful discussion, not actually improve the quality of the discussion.
I would say that someone dismissing a slippery slope because it’s a logical fallacy is committing a category error.
The slippery slope isn’t a logical argument (properly/narrowly defined) at all. If anything, dismissing the slippery slope as a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy of its own.
Logical arguments are true (If A then B). The slippery slope isn’t a logical argument (C is not A). Therefore slippery slopes are not true (C is not B). I forget the name of this particular fallacy, Excluded middle, maybe?
No one is trying to ban smoking/take your guns/ban your ceiling fans/ban your light bulbs/ban your stove/ban your dryer/ban your car/track your every move/use this SSN as an identification…
Thanks, I’ve been trying to think of a way to counter this exact thing. Now I’ll just link to this like the Rube I am.
Make sure to include the embedded link, especially if you’re arguing with MikeS
You can just toss out something about Bro and Firsting and distract him from the whole argument, I would think.
That might make Mike Exit…Stage Left.
What? This isn’t some Fly by Night organization!
When the camel sticks his nose under the tent, chop it off.
It’s basically the idea behind the Atomic Habits book. You make a small habit that’s easy to do and over time you ramp up to larger and more impactful actions.
Do these have to be “good” habits?
It’s descriptive for both good and bad habits. It just seems like developing good habits takes intentionality whereas bad habits don’t seem to take any effort at all to develop.
I’d assume because good behavior tends to be an expression of self control (not seeking short-term gratification including sloth) where bad habits tend to be giving in. Giving in is always going to be the low energy path, hence easier to take that road (and that will make all the difference, Mr. Frost.)
Assume there is some long sequence of possible events that leads to an undesirable outcome.
The slippery slope fallacy would be assuming that the first event guarantees the undesirable outcome (assuming every event in the chain is 100% likely to occur).
People who claim you are using the slippery slope argument are actually stating they are too stupid or lazy to calculate the final probably that event A leads to outcome Z, so they use the fallacy as a hammer to beat their opponents into submission.
Do I have this about right?
More like they’re leaning on the “It’s not guaranteed” as a lazy way of not facing the other argument and not having to actually think about what negative knock-on effects there might be.
People are not comfortable with things that disagree with them, and discouraging disagreement makes their here and now more comfortable.
I prefer to just tell people they are stupid; lazy; or both. Personal attacks are more enjoyable.
And yet so much of the popular culture is people being disagreeable. Square that circle. (I know, I know… narcissism.)
The slippery slope fallacy would be assuming that the first event guarantees the undesirable outcome (assuming every event in the chain is 100% likely to occur).
This is not a fallacy. It follows directly and is in fact the exact opposite of a logical fallacy. If each event in the chain is 100 percent likely, then you can shorten the chain to “if A then Z”; no fallacy at all. The fallacy (rhetorical and formal) enters whenever any element of the chain has a less than 100 percent likely hood – which is almost every human interaction. So anytime anyone makes any inference about downstream affects of any particular action, they are in fact engaging in what could be *formally* called a ‘logical fallacy’. It is a formal fallacy, but that says nothing about likely hood in the real world.
I think that most people that make the slippery slope fallacy accusation don’t fully grasp what they are saying; it’s just something they heard that sounds clever and makes it easy to dismiss someones inference about downstream effects without, as you say, to even think about any probability along the chain.
(assuming every event in the chain is 100% likely to occur).
poorly written.
I said to start with a chain of “possible” events. Then, the fallacy, I assume, is declaring the outcome is certain when it is not.
“So anytime anyone makes any inference about downstream affects of any particular action, they are in fact engaging in what could be *formally* called a ‘logical fallacy’.”
I’m not sure that’s correct. I think to be a logical fallacy, it has to be presented as a logical argument. Probabilistic arguments aren’t logical arguments (again, narrowly defined). It doesn’t make any sense, to me, to say that “I bet the Bears lose on Sunday” is a logical fallacy.
I think you are correct. It’s not a logical argument (due to the word ‘inference’), so can’t be a formal logical Phallus-y (kept meaning to…. insert… that ‘joke’ to get the Bro’s attention, but kept forgetting). I was approaching it from the perspective if the statement is NOT of the form IF A THEN B, one cannot make a logical statement about B and we attempt to that’s a ‘fallacy’. But once we’ve dropped IF A THEN B for IF A THEN MAYBE B, we’re no longer talking logic, so no formal logical fallacy.
Whew. I’m reading back forty years to my logic classes at college here. Glad I didn’t go totally sideways.
Or they already know the outcome, which is what they desire, which they know is unpopular, but don’t want to fess up.
OK. We can add dishonest to the list.
That is far more succinct than what I said, thank you.
You are welcome
The slide down the slippery slope may, at any point, be interrupted by some outside influence, no matter how improbable. The cavalry might come. Politicians might have principles. Therefor, the slippery slope is a falsehood.
.. the thong might ride up, given morning links.
The horse may learn to sing.
Crazy Eddie!
. . . the thong might ride up, given morning links
*Eyebrow arches pervily due to sudden attention being paid.*
Thing is, I agree, the slippery slope is a formal falsehood. But stating what is almost a mathematical/logical tautology is essentially useless when applied to discussion of human interaction/behavior. The accusation is almost always used as a rhetorical trick to dismiss arguments one doesn’t have the data or the mind to actually address and hence avoid having to address any substantive objections to the accusers plans to implement A and B. And C. And D. But we’ll stop at Y.
The slippery slope is silly. What I mean is, to a person not thinking, you can say, A will lead to Z, and they’ll scoff and say, “How?” and then you go through all the steps and spoken, it all just seems so implausible. “They would never do THAT!” your conversant will say. Well, they have in the past. You can offer that up. “Well, it’ll never get THAT bad!” You can’t prove it. The conversation’s probably longer than it needs to be. Tempers are probably already flaring. And your conversant has the attention span of a gnat, so unless you can come up with talking points, he’s emotionally and mentally done with it.
I was trying to tell my brother something Rand Paul did. There was no argument. I said, “Rand Paul did the thing.” My brother demanded, “But did he?” Me, perplexed, “Yes. I just told you he did.” “But DID he?!” “Yes! What—” “BUT DID HE?!” and I gave up because at that point, it was just one big slog of “I know you are, but what am I?”
This is where we are conversationally as a nation.
At least it keeps your toes warm.
A former acquaintance was arguing against the fair tax saying how it would leave the poor people less money. I walked through the numbers, using her selection of poverty line and income, and showed that it would result in the poor people having more money, not less. Her response was, “The math all works, but it doesn’t feel right.”
And that’s the same tragedy of politics that keeps the welfare state going against the tremendous evidence of the harm the programs do to the lower classes they’re supposed to be “helping”. (Not to say some pols don’t know exactly what they’re doing… but a majority of their voters just feel it is compassionate… so here we are.)
Oh, I had a similar conversation on a left-prone transcriptionist Usenet group (remember that? I do, fondly). Someone made the claim (backed up by the NYT, apparently) that poor people pay most of the taxes. So I moseyed on over to my friendly IRS website and did a simple search. No, ma’am, they do not. Somebody else said, “Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun.” I did not get a response to my proof, and I’m quite sure she went on believing what she already believed.
/drops a sig block for Mojeaux
It does interest me that nearly all of the taxes proposed to “help” the poor seem to impact them the most. Such as sin taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, payday loans, and the like.
I actually resent the hating on payday loans. They’ve gotten me through a few scrapes.
Who can forget: alt.star.trek.wesley.crusher.die.die.die ?
It was intuitively obvious by the light of nature that *that* particular USENET news group was completely justified.
“The math all works, but it doesn’t feel right.”
Is the feelz a logical fallacy?
“Appeal to emotion.”
I’m stubborn enough I would have just continued the exchange indefinitely:
“But did he?”
“Yes”.
“But did he?”
“Yes.”
Ad infinitum.
I just couldn’t fathom what was actually happening. He wasn’t arguing in good faith, and I’m like, where did my thoughtful brother go? I actually felt kind of betrayed. Not quite the right word, but close.
“Here’s the article that said he did the thing. Do I need to read it to you?”
Halfway through day four back at the office. Only a couple thousand more to go.
We start our annual maintenance outage tomorrow morning bright and early. Its a big one this year. 16 days of 12+ hour days while we tear this whole place apart and put it back together again. woo hoo
You win.
What was the insight from some Glib kid earlier this week? “Better than not working”?
Sounds like… fun … though. At least you get to put it all back together, hopefully in working order, so that must be rewarding.
Thanks PM, you’re always giving us something to think about. Although by the title, I thought this might be WesternSloper’s autobiography.
I thought WS is more prickly than slippery.
Yeah, but what’s the worst possible outcome? I’ve walked on this ice over and ove…….
I’ve had this discussion with my wife on many occasions.
Her: It will probably be OK.
Me: What if it isn’t?
Her: I don’t know.
Me: How likely is it that something bad might happen? How bad is the bad thing that might happen? This is basic risk management.
The red light is on on the fuel gauge but I think we have enough gas to get to…
Considering the low fuel warning on my car is with about 60 miles to go (highway / reasonable mileage) — I actually have had that exact thought from time to time… “Warning, but next gas station is within 60 miles… I’ll be fine…).
1. People started using the damn light to know when to fill up. Manufacturers decided to make them come on with approximately 25% of the fuel left in the tank while the gauge reads empty.
2. Be careful as most in tank fuel pumps are cooled by the fuel within the tank. My anecdotal data is that folks who perpetually ride down to the E or never fill above half a tank have more replacement fuel pumps.
Like with my phone, if I get below half, I start panicking. (Unless I’m on a long road trip, and then I let it get to 1/4 tank because I don’t feel like stopping that frequently.)
Yup. Mine is at 1/8th of a tank — and I tend to only run it down that low crossing Wyoming / Colorado / Nebraska or whatnot on trips where the gas station stops are typically 200-300 miles apart and I’ve planned for it.
In town, I don’t go below 1/3rd typically.
Lithium ion chemistry in phone batteries will give you the longest life if you cycle the phone from 20% to 80% and avoid keeping it charged at 100%.
Mind you phone companies play games with their charge level displayed so it may not actually be displaying the real charge level. I’ve read the Apple really charges iPads to 80% at the 100% charge readings. Phones, OTH, tend to actually fully charge the battery so they can get the longest runtime for marketing purposes despite shortening the battery.
So far my experiment with this has been positive with significantly lower battery degradation on my Pixel 5A than any other phone I’ve owned.
https://chargie.org/
Had a buddy years ago who insisted you should never run your fuel tank low. His claim was that you’d be sucking debris from the bottom of the fuel tank where it had settled; as long as you keep the tank more full, it will just stay there on the bottom, not in your fuel line/pump. He was from South Africa – maybe gas in SA is full of particulate matter? Or the interior of old car gas tanks are rusting out?
A: Wouldn’t the detritus be on the bottom where the pump is drawing from regardless of fill level?
B: Don’t they line gas tanks with plastic anti-puncture linings these days?
C: Wouldn’t normal driving dislodge any detritus to float around and get drawn in with the current?
If by low he means practically empty, then sure. Otherwise, nah.
That was a man who had no idea where inside the tank the fuel line was drawing from.
“Hey Buddy… give me a match? I think my gas tank’s empty….”
inlet strainers where you fill up and a fuel filter on the high pressure side of the pump are real things.
I think if the pandemic saga taught us anything — it is that there’s an awful lot of people who are evidently very bad at risk management. (Well, risk assessment to be fair to them — if the assessment is crap, they may well be managing just fine — just the wrong things.)
Managing the wrong things well is still a management failure.
Hey, I made a good living at that.
I have a gym bag I bought in 1987. I love this thing. I have need of it. But the zipper is fried, so I’m going to mend it. The zipper costs as much as a bag from a thrift store, and yet, I will spend the money and time to keep my bag. I am so freaking attached to my things it’s almost pathologic.
/carefully hides closet of outdated/spare tech bits
Holy crap — yours fits in a closet? (I really need to figure out what to do with the junk tech room one of these days…)
I moved ~10 years ago, and dumped some of the old cruft then.
I’ve done things like that before. There is some satisfaction in fixing something yourself. And I think you and I have that old school mentality, where we don’t buy into the disposable culture and shy away from buying a replacement even if it’s cheaper.
My son is careless. He really doesn’t mean to be. He doesn’t even know how he broke half the stuff he breaks. He has broken stuff I’ve had for decades and used continuously. I don’t understand it. Most of the time he breaks things in the process of cleaning/organizing and making things better, which he DOES, but there is always a casualty or two.
My daughter does the same. Constant breakage. Drives me nuts. I have stuff that is 30, 409 years old and still in use.
I have been wearing the same Carhart coat every winter since 2005. It’s a little ratty now, but damn have me and that coat been through some times together. My wife has bought me a few coats in the past few years, but they just hang in the closet.
Thanks, PM. I knew there was a way to tell the unbelievers to fuck off.
*slips*
Yeah, well… you tell them to fuck off one day — next thing you know they’re pulling a krill out of Glimmermere on ya…..
The horse may learn to sing.
You misspelled pig.
I’m too lazy to find the singing frog cartoon. But just imagine that I did.
Labor … ENACTED!
thanks
LOL My ringtone is Foghorn Leghorn saying, “Go away boy, you bother me.”
Gotta get me that ringtone.
https://www.barbneal.com/the-collection/looney-tunes/foghorn-leghorn/
Classic.
The accusation is almost always used as a rhetorical trick to dismiss arguments one doesn’t have the data or the mind to actually address and hence avoid having to address any substantive objections to the accusers plans to implement A and B. And C. And D. But we’ll stop at Y.
Absolutely.
“It could (not) happen!” is just a cheap rhetorical crutch; there is no intention of providing a credible example.
Princess Bride: Inconceivable…!
I have a gym bag I bought in 1987. I love this thing. I have need of it. But the zipper is fried, so I’m going to mend it.
My nylon wallet is at least that old. I have tried to replace it three or four times, and have ended up switching back every time. I have pulled out the sewing machine and patched it up a few times.
I’ve found those old nylon wallets in thrift stores. I bought a few for my kids for the amusement park.
Had a buddy years ago who insisted you should never run your fuel tank low. His claim was that you’d be sucking debris from the bottom of the fuel tank where it had settled; as long as you keep the tank more full, it will just stay there on the bottom, not in your fuel line/pump.
That’s what filters are for.
^^This^^
I still don’t run my tank below a quarter full.
My neighbor says the same thing. Maybe it was true at one time. He’s from Mexico so maybe he grew up with crappy gas (not just from the beans) and crappy cars so it was an issue.
My memory from back in the 70s is that there were serious issues with crap accumulating in gas tanks and that keeping above a quarter tank was important.
That was a thing, yes.
Heck, in the 70s there were times when it was hard to buy gas at all, so it made sense to not let the tank get too low.
Lived in Germany in the 70’s, height of the cold war, military dependent. Mom made sure the tank never went below half.
I tend to fill up at around 1/2 tank. Partly because I know or believe that gas will be more expensive the next time and I can save 50 cents today. I just can’t stop being thrifty on so many things. I know, I know false savings but it’s just years of habit.
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of your time and it annoys the pig.”
-Mark Twain
I thought more people would know the reference here:
— Niven/Pournelle in the Mote in God’s Eye
Well, I thought “Crazy Eddie!” was enough of a response — but if you want the full quote:
I knew you got it.
/slides SDF-7 a pint
Why would you think that?
I mean you can’t trust anything Herodotus write, he’s an infamous liar.
I remember a slight variation on that from an episode of a Masterpiece Theater production of The Six Wives of Henry VIII I saw when I was a kid. Can’t remember which wife was telling the story to Hal, but I don’t think she was actually bargaining to keep her head.
1001 nights
Yeah. I was trying to find an original reference (as I knew the story long before I read the book), but all my searches led me back to references to the Niven/Pournelle usage.
Henry only executed two of his wives. He divorced Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves. Catherine Parr survived him, and Jane Seymour died from complications from childbirth. So statistically, his wives had a 50% chance of a comfortable retirement, but only 1/3rd chance of being accused of treason and beheaded.
Admittedly, that’s two more executed wives than the average English King.
So the odds are in Camilla’s favor?
Chuck already has heirs.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
CAJACC.
Not sure I would call Catherine of Aragon’s retirement “comfortable.” He was uncharacteristically generous to Anne of Cleves, though.
Well, okay, he did later give away CofA’s palace.
Inertia’s not just a Physics thing.
Yes, the slippery slope that begins at A doesn’t necessarily mean that all the steps to Z will happen.
But after several steps have happened, some kind of psychological/mental/emotional inertia effect can definitely set in. Call it a trend, or zeitgeist, or whatever, but you get what I mean. A series of events that gets up some steam can keep itself going. People give in to the trend, assume things are inevitable, etc. So once you get down the slope, then yeah, maybe it only takes one break in the chain, but those breaks can seem very hard to make.
I thought more people would know the reference here:
Huh. I probably read that (forty years ago or more). I remembered it not.
I re-read Mote at least once every couple of years. I think I’ve read the sequel once… which probably sums up my impression of it, unfortunately.
Bidenomics
Have you experienced sticker shock at the gas pump recently? The average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.78 across the country as of October 4, 2023, and it went as high as $5.02 a gallon in June, so it’s hard not to think, “Jesus, that much?” when filling your tank. But despite appearances fanned by self-serving political rhetoric during an election year, in practical terms, gasoline is cheaper than it was in most people’s personal “good old days,” and only marginally more expensive than it was during the best time in US history to buy gasoline.
——-
When you start comparing adjusted-for-inflation wages of workers in 2023 vs. workers in 1992, the difference in the price of gasoline nearly vanishes.
In 1992, during the golden age of gas prices, the average US worker earned about $56,684 a year when adjusted for inflation, or $27.16. an hour, so it took about five minutes of work at $.45 a minute to purchase a gallon of gasoline that would take you 19 miles. That’s about 16 seconds of work for each mile traveled.
In 2023, the average US salary is $59,428 or $28.34 per hour, or $.47 a minute. So it takes about 8 minutes of work to buy a gallon of gas that will take you 26 miles. That’s about 18 seconds of work per mile. While it’s true the average worker has to work two extra seconds per mile, if that matters to you, you can drive a hybrid—an option not available in the 1990s.
Stop snivelling.
Or, you know, we could compare against say, 2018 or so.
Why go thirty years. Five has fewer confounding factors to deal with.
history starts when i say it starts
FUCK! OFF!
…And a giant comment from a lefty spouting verbal diarrhea down below. Look kids, I lived through the 70’s. Shit was cheap and living was easy. Shove all those comparisons and math up your ass.
Said diarrhea pointedly ignoring that the energy-hostile policies of the Fed and the ever-increasing gas “sin” taxes of their favored “move away from fossil fuels!” mantra are a big reason for the jump since 2019… not because people have a collective amnesia about 2020 and 2021. People account for the pandemic disruptions — but they’re also not stupid, and an administration that moves us from energy independence and low energy prices / hot economy to energy dependence, ever increasing energy prices and the cool down / price increases across the board that HAVE to come with that (because it takes energy to produce, energy to transport, etc.) can’t just wave their stupid fucking KJP hands and say “It isn’t our fault!”.
That shit really irritated me, sorry…
Me too. Back to work for me. I have a lot to do before tonight.
Back to Work Again!
Now this is how you get people’s attention. And I hope they start waking up.
Army-Navy game hotel reservations canceled due to influx of migrants in Massachusetts
The tax money they extracted from you through threats of force at work.
Biden Unveils Cool New Look And Campaign Slogan ‘Make United States Superb A Second Time’
I had this thought.
https://babylonbee.com/news/california-senator-grateful-for-new-job-with-short-commute-from-home-in-maryland
That’s awesome!
At publishing time, Governor Newsom had once again assured Senator Butler that the residency issue would not be any kind of problem, since no California senator has actually represented the interests of California residents in decades.
Legitimate LOL on that line.
My LOL line:
The fact that she’s a gay communist is a major bonus.
But then I cried. Because of the communist part. And the fact that it’s true. And it’s not just her. Sigh.
The Bee has been absolutely destroying it lately.
The last line is priceless: At publishing time, Governor Newsom had once again assured Senator Butler that the residency issue would not be any kind of problem, since no California senator has actually represented the interests of California residents in decades.
Oops, need to refresh more often.
My college let us take logic instead of higher math, thank God. Very useful.