FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
52m ago
This poor gal is mentally ill.
Okay. Now you just need to convince women collectively that sex-positive Feminism works fine, actually, and their ocean of complaints and concerns should be discarded. That they shouldn't actually feel like shit when they get pumped and dumped, that the shame and humiliation are all in their heads and sex really is just an idle amusement with zero deep connection to human psychology that should have no consequences ever.
I haven't done more than skimming the article, but she seems to be laying out how she rejected her religious upbringing and went all-in on sex-positivism, and yet still found that sex-positivism didn't actually deliver on its promises. And your argument is... what? That she should have just gone ahead and fucked and everything would have been fine? What about the women who did fuck, and regret it?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1hr ago
How much is Biden's 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal going to hurt him during the up-coming election?
It won't. Attacking him from this angle would require arguing that the occupation of Afghanistan should have continued, and that is not an argument anyone wants to take on.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
When you are weak it is best to avoid antagonizing your enemy.
Granting for the sake of discussion that Reds are "weak", it seems to me that all Red Tribe victories in living memory have come from actions generally characterized as antagonistic, and no valuable victories have ever been delivered through actions generally characterized as cooperative or conciliatory. Further, given the state of the culture war, it's hard to imagine how this could possibly be otherwise. Many, many Blue Tribe actions, especially in the last decade, seem to me to be strongly antagonistic to the point where a response is fundamentally necessary to retain even a modicum of legitimacy for the existing system.
The worst case scenario is that the bureacracy would just say "no" to Trump's orders, precipitating a constitutional crisis.
What's driving your definition of "worst case", here? Worst case relative to what?
I believe the current system has been engineered by Blues to be incapable of providing redress for Red grievances. It doesn't matter what elections we win, what laws we pass, what norms we follow, what processes we engage with, the output is always failure for our goals and values and victory for those of Blues. If that is the situation, then how would precipitating a constitutional crisis make things "worse"? We've already seen the normalization of organized political violence nationwide, universal violations of fundamental human rights, the partisan weaponization of the security services, and the complete collapse of rule of law. What would a constitutional crisis add to those problems?
I am perfectly willing to see Trump die in jail. Trump is by no means irreplicable, and his value as a martyr could easily exceed his value as a President. It seems obviously worse to me to see the numerous catastrophic abuses committed by Blue Tribe be cemented into durable norms, as was done with their abuses in previous generations. Playing nice for fear of the consequences of conflict is exactly how we arrived in our current predicament. It is past time to fight fire with fire.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3hr ago
If I were Trump, I'd go with option 1.
Why? What successes have come from previous iterations of this option? Why do you believe it would deliver superior results versus prosecuting the culture war to the greatest extent possible?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
This, of course, is exactly the same thing that leftist, or members of any other group, tell themselves -- when They break their stated principles for expediency, it's because They are treacherous faithless hypocrites; when We break our stated principles for expediency, it's because We really need to play dirty to win.
I don't see any assertions about "we" or "they" in the post above. One can conclude that "principles" are no longer maintainable without needing to apply any judgement on the outgroup. All that is needed is a recognition of fundamental conflict.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
I thank you for it. Like I said, I try to keep abreast of this sort of thing. I don't think it changes the fundamental math, but I do want to see this guy defended to the hilt, and I do maintain that the surveillance and enforcement against him is fundamentally illegitimate. What more are you looking for in terms of a response? Do you think that them getting this guy demonstrates that DIY firearms are a genie that can be put back in the bottle?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
In summary, low entropy implies high predictability and low information content.
...Am I crazy, or is this the exact opposite of how the term is used in physics? Like, heat-death is a high-entropy state, right? it's also highly ordered and predictable, right? Did information theory actually flip the sign on the term?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
No argument there. But Reconstruction didn't actually work like it was supposed to, resulting in Jim Crow, and that sowed the seeds for lots of problems we're still dealing with. There's an argument that letting things slide helps keep the peace, but if people start noticing that one cohesive group has its wrongdoings ignored, and another group has even non-wrongdoings hammered mercilessly, that builds resentment.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
I never conflated these two groups in that entire conversation and repeatedly tried to explain that I didn't.
Reading the conversation, it looks to me like you did in fact conflate the two groups.
Destroying the statue was teabagging the outgroup plain and simple. The moderate voice in every statue controversy has consistently said something to the effect of "move them to a museum" which is what happened here. What this event (moving to a museum and then destroying it) shows is that there is no quarter to moderates in the culture war. It's very much in line with the friend-enemy distinction principle.
As a southerner who was on team "move them to a museum", I'm genuinely disgusted.
"the outgroup" in this comment is pretty clearly referring to contemporary people, not the Confederate slavers. The context of the entire comment is about people in the present day.
Your reply:
Can someone explain to me why teabagging this particular outgroup is a bad thing? Drop the moral relativism: some cultures/societies are so execrable that symbolically "teabagging" them is great. The Confederacy/Antebellum south is one of these---one of the worst cases of hereditarian, anti-egalitarian nonsense in modern-ish history.
(bolding mine.) He's talking about one thing, you respond with a line that makes it seem like he's talking about something else. That doesn't make for good discussion. Especially when you follow it up with:
no quarter to moderates in the culture war.
What exactly do you mean by "moderates" here? Not hating a person who rebelled to support slavery isn't what I would call "moderate".
I find it doubtful that you were actually confused by what he meant by "moderate". If you want to argue that such people aren't actually moderate, you can present an argument. You offer a declaration, framed uncharitably. This is building consensus, and it also makes for bad discussion.
You seem to have a habit of writing posts in a way optimized, intentionally or not, for maximizing heat and not light. You also seem to have a pattern of conversation centering on moral outrage that people might possibly disagree with you. If you are actually interested in discussing why someone might not want confederate statues destroyed, or why they should want them destroyed, that's something we can do here. It would help to start from the assumption that people might reasonably disagree with you.
How is "infested with Indian and Chinese tech workers taking over" at all being careful while talking about a group?
It's not, and he has in fact been warned. On the other hand, at least it's not an uncharitably-framed argument over definitions of words. The person you're complaining about is pretty clearly a racist, and they aren't hiding it or being weaselly about it. That's actually preferable to the alternative, which is why we have the "speak plainly" rule, and, as I understand it, is one of the reasons we tolerate significant amounts of vitriol toward parties who are not actually present in the discussion.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
you're knew, so your comments automatically get filtered and the mods have to approve them manually. This goes away once you've picked up some level of net upvotes. We get asked this a lot by new users, and to head off the obvious questions, yes, it really sucks, and no, there isn't anything we can do about it. The functionality is baked into the code package that was used to set up the site, and the owner and his support staff haven't had the time to change it. It's dumb and it sucks, but usually it goes away pretty quickly.
Welcome, by the way.
Whatever you guys might claim to be, this seems to be a place where it's ok to call an immigrant group an infestation but not to say that the antebellum south was an execrable culture.
You have either fundamentally misunderstood or are fundamentally misrepresenting the thread you linked. You are in fact allowed to say that the antebellum south was an execrable culture, and many people have said here it many times before. You can in fact argue that Confederate statues should be torn down, and you can even argue that people who think otherwise are bad; many people have argued that here many times before. You do in fact have to be careful about how you talk about any group here, and quite a few anti-woke people have in fact been banned for failing to do so properly. The objection in that thread, as described to you repeatedly at the time, was that you were conflating people to object to the destruction of Confederate memorials with slave owners.
I think the antebellum south was an execrable culture, and holding the history constant to the start of the Civil War, I prefer our actual history where their society was destroyed through mass violence to counterfactuals where it might have been allowed to fade away peacefully, continuing to perpetrate evil throughout its decline. Further, I think that destroying Confederate monuments is both stupid and evil here and now. I'd be happy to discuss either opinion with you as time permits, as either side of either opinion fit comfortably within the rules here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
As I and many others use the term, "identity politics" refers to politics based on immutable identity characteristics (race, sex, caste, ethnicity etc.). It appears that (with the possible exception of the aristocracy, depending on how hereditary privileges worked at the time), none of the groups targeted by the communist regime meet this description: kulaks can sell their land and immediately become non-kulaks, industrialists can sell their factories.
We are not fighting against single individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in materials you have gathered for evidence that a suspect acted or spoke against the Soviet authorities. The first question you should ask him is what class he belongs to, what is his origin, education, profession. These questions should determine his fate. This is the essence of the Red Terror. -Martin Latsis
The communists considered "kulak", "industrialist", and "capitalist" to be immutable characteristics. Their whole ideology was built on the idea that social conditions shaped individuals immutably. that was the whole point: to create a system which made immutably-good people, which would then self-perpetuate. New Soviet Man.
I'm not quite sure what "egoistical" means, but aiming to minimize your suffering in a way that does not in fact minimize your suffering and quite possibly maximizes it seems like a pretty good example of a self-defeating strategy.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
That doesn't seem like a very good goal, and judging by your interactions here, it doesn't seem to be working for you all that well. If you are not currently suffering quite badly, you're faking it really well.
predictions are one of the best ways available to debug one's own cognition. In this case, it seems very unlikely to me that Rittenhouse will, in fact, be dead before the next inauguration.
I'll even do you one better: not only will he be alive on inauguration day, but no attempts on his life will have been observed.
And we can go even further. Not only will he be alive, and not only will there be no attempts on his life, but he will not be prosecuted or persecuted to any extent greater than the default blue-tribe discrimination in employment. None of the self-defense cases from the Floyd Riots were killed by left-wingers; Gardner was harassed into suicide, and others were successfully prosecuted, but none of them were actually murdered, and they've already taken their shot at Rittenhouse from a legal perspective. If you want to solve a problem, it helps to not catastrophize that problem out of all proportion. The situation is bad enough without needlessly embracing despair.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
I'm legitimately not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not. The argument would make sense either way.
at some point, 'oopsies, we made yet another misleading statement totally accidentally and also fought to avoid admitting it for months and also here are better, more innocent explanations for why evidence has been tampered with' should adjust your priors in meaningful ways as opposed to handwaving "reduced credibility" which doesn't actually affect the way you evaluate any of this
...You appear to be making the above argument about "oopsies" in this case. But of course, the agency in question has an absolutely horrifying history of previous "oopsies". @gattsuru covers a small selection of recent cases, and as he mentions, those aren't even top-ten contenders.
The FBI has been a deeply corrupt institution since the day of its founding. We actually know quite a few details about the sort of leader Hoover was, and the sort of organization he built. We know how that organization operated six decades ago, five, four, three. And then, somehow, the magical trustworthiness always appears for the current agency whose behavior we can only incompletely analyze, so they always get the benefit not only of the doubt, but of willful ignorance.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
I always deeply resented the sort of "wisdom" you're describing, and that hasn't really changed. I resent the fact that our political establishment has insulated itself from any form of legal accountability, and one of the reasons I continue to support Trump is because I want the contrast as stark as possible. Prior to Trump, one could claim that the insulation from legal consequences was at least impartial, because both sides enjoyed it. Now we see that both sides enjoyed it because they were part of the establishment, not because the system was actually impartial. The common knowledge is useful for coordinating defiance to that establishment.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Judging by precedent, studiously ignoring them seems to be a popular option.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10d ago
They are literally tracking all the online purchases of people buying 3d printers, checking them against social media and reports by leftist informants, and raiding people at 3am.
Could you provide a source for this? I like to keep abreast of current developments on this front.
In any case, what do they do if you have a 3d printer and no social media?
Thinking about "revolution" is insane with the kind of tyranny you're facing.
I suppose that depends rather heavily on how you expect a revolution to work. Some are easier to execute than others.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10d ago
Certainly they are not.
Certainly they are. The guns are never, ever going to go away. Registration is not going to happen. Confiscation is not going to happen. They're still trying to go after the manufacturers and dealers, but DIY manufacturing gets easier and more accessible every year, and we're well past the point where this process can be stopped or even meaningfully slowed. Enforcement on any of this, whether against the gun culture or against criminals, is a complete joke.
Meanwhile, the Gun Culture has learned to actively erode existing laws through malicious compliance and technological innovation, and are doing an excellent job of radicalizing the community as a whole to reject the legitimacy of gun control laws. The Fudds are all but extinct, and the people who replaced them are moving from "I lost them in a boating accident" to "I didn't lose shit." I am pretty sure I'm going to see the NFA die in my lifetime, one way or the other. Concealed Carry continues to steadily expand. And as fantastic as all that is, we've barely started on the low-hanging fruit. There's beautiful avenues of practical lawfare/tech development just lying around, waiting for someone to pick them up and thus further beclown state and federal laws.
Yes, it's easier for the blues to violate the letter and the spirit of the laws they don't like, thanks to their stranglehold on institutional support. But it is not only possible to do as they have done, it is inevitable.
There's also the part where the execution is quite explicitly not the President's job, and that framing a withdrawal order as something that required presidential micromanagement to not completely fuck up raises some extremely serious questions about the competence and professionalism of our military brass. I'm pretty sure the withdrawal fracas burned out the way it did because actually litigating the question would burn a whole lot of people, none of whom are named "Biden".
More options
Context Copy link