domain:anarchonomicon.substack.com
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
3m ago
It's the vestigial stub of dueling culture that used to exist in the United States. Legally consensual murder being made illegal brought up the concern that mouthy shits would push the line anyway, so intentionally aggravating bastards is considered to be a mitigating circumstance for a crime of passion.
Bartender_Venator
7m ago
Funnily enough, nowadays it seems like the tomboyish girls from conservative homes tend to swing right (I knew one who showed up for a coffee date holding Maps of Meaning, didn't own a single skirt), because if they go left they, uh, stop being tomboyish girls.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
8m ago
Left-wing media lies like dogs on an hourly basis, and even when they're technically not lying, it's in the manner or fae or Aes Sedai, where the limited sentence fragments are "true" in a narrow technical sense while the overall structure is still designed entirely to deceive and propagandize.
Would you care to drop an essay for the class about how bizarre it is that you guys tolerate that?
ThisIsSin
PC is for progressive-conservative
15m ago
acting with blatant corruption
By that you mean "moral" corruption, and that appears to be the root of the disagreement. Conservatives (and the average leftist is motivated by the same things per Haidt- after all, they [perceive themselves to have at least perpetuated if not] built the system, they are interested in that work meaning something) correctly observe that people who are unwilling to respect their prerogatives of decorum are probably unwilling to respect conservative framings entirely.
For instance, if a conservative redefines X to mean Y "because it's what decent people do" (read: because I make money hand-over-fist; business always marches alongside honor), a reformer might then redefine word X as Z and reject definition Y with prejudice, which will disadvantage and destabilize conservatives that built their fortunes around definition Y.
"Where my country gone?" is a conservative statement, it's just coming from the left now.
We had this really great thing going being not just the most economically powerful but also the most intellectually productive country in the world, and we acted as a vacuum sucking up all the intelligent and ambitious people from around the world and having them come here to build things with us.
Well, as long as they were the correct color. They had quotas for that, just like they did in the '50s, for the same reasons they had them in the '50s.
we’ve destroyed science funding in the country
Science that doesn't replicate isn't science, and the initiatives to do R&D were also suffering from the "so long as they're the right color" problem. I guess it's the age-old dilemma where you can either do science or you can sacrifice it to be anti-racist, just from the right's definition of anti-racism instead of the left's. Naturally, this is moral corruption to the left, just like ending racism the first time was to the right.
we’re letting China and the rest of the world
No, only China. Nobody else invested into the tooling to manufacture the panels for the same reason the US couldn't- too expensive. The West has already lost the battle for renewable energy sovereignty (and already won the battle for forcing Europe into a dependence on American natural gas by successfully provoking a war in Ukraine); the only question is whether we want to pay now to redevelop indigenous green energy generation capacity, or pay later by having to do that anyway when China starts making diplomatic demands in exchange.
Now, are tariffs the right way to do that given how long it takes to spin up manufacturing in a country that has largely forgotten how to do it? Well, maybe not (annexing the country with a good chunk of high-tech manufacturing immediately to the north is likely to be the better long-term plan here). But it does strike me as interesting that the Rs have pivoted into being the party of bad ideas and the Ds into the party of no ideas.
Bingbong
24m ago
The internet celebs are probably safer from their platforms but also have literal years of off-the-cuff streaming that can be inspected for anything crossing the punishment threshold which feels like a bigger issue legally.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
25m ago
Are "fighting words" even still a thing? Or does that only apply when protected classes allege the victims of their mob violence used a gamer word?
gorge
26m ago
Yes. Kimmel's words were not a "micro" aggression, they were a full-on macro-aggression, legally, if someone said to your face they would be "fighting words" under classic constitutional doctrine. Imagine your friend had just been murdered, and one person asks you how you are doing but you don't want to talk about it so you say, "Great" and then change the subject and talk about an addition to your house, and then another person says, "look at this guy, he's not grieving like he lost a friend, he's grieving like a four-year old who lost a goldfish." You would want to punch that guy straight in the face, and legally, the guy who said that would been committing incitement to a breach of the peace.
pigeonburger
28m ago
Maybe they just want to grill Gaben as to when Half-Life 3 is finally coming.
07mk
33m ago
This seems to be to be a very different ideological position from the belief that protests are very important and if the government's support of them is suspect, then it's better not to have them intervene at all than to risk their suppression. A moral stance of "I would rather (n) murderers walk free than have one innocent man behind bars" is not the same as support for murder.
That only works if you support actually investigating and prosecuting murderers and have credibly demonstrated that if the murderer is your friend murdering your enemy, you will stamp down on that murderer just as hard as the other way around. Blackstone's formula certainly can justify complete non-investigation of all murder - this will guarantee that no innocent man goes behind bars, at the cost of all murderers walking free. It's possible that these protests-turning-into-riots is a case where this applies; however, anyone who agrees with the protestors is obviously necessarily too hopelessly biased for making a reasonable judgment call on that, merely because they're human like the rest of us. This reality about bias is pretty much common knowledge, at least among the educated, and as such, anyone who's educated, supports these protestors, and trusts their own judgment that these protests are so important that it's worth letting riots happen so that legitimate protests don't get stamped down is someone who has figured out a way to support rioting without affecting their conscience.
chooky
35m ago
It is strange that these shows would be so expensive. The content is largely free given that they are publicity vehicles for actors with new films and so forth.
dev
37m ago
Varies widely. I'm sure some relationships are completely hands-off, but then you have cases like owner Bob Kraft and Tom Brady where they lived near each other for 20 years and saw each other outside of football and Kraft has said he loved Brady like a son.
bolido_sentimental
39m ago
I've gone on drives recently where I counted the number of other drivers I could see on the road who had their smartphone in their hand. It usually only takes me a couple of miles or so to get into the double-digits. I understand that defensive driving has always been necessary, but when I first started driving it didn't feel as much like every journey was a potential accident.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
41m ago
Tangential question: How often do NFL owners directly interact with the players? It seems like it could be pretty hands-on or aloof and only talking to the coaches.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
45m ago
Their bottom lines and viewers are still aligned with their platforms (yt, twitch). Reddit is a whole another discussion.
The House Oversight Committee has invited the CEOs of Discord, Reddit, Steam, and Twitch to appear at a hearing next month. I doubt anything directly comes of it, but I expect some embarassing hay-making from the right quoting posted site rules and asking if [the most objectionable moderator-approved posts] fall within them, and why [milquetoast removed by mods posts] didn't.
Also not sure about Steam on that list, but I don't use almost any of its social features.
WandererintheWilderness
50m ago
WandererintheWilderness
51m ago
This is a fair counter to the innocently-unaware angle, but not to the more layered second option I presented, where people were aware that there was violence happening, but thought it should be tolerated for the sake of the protests, because allowing the government to use the excuse of the riots to suppress the (purportedly historically important) protests themselves would be even worse.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
53m ago
Side note, I identify this that grief reaction entirely. When my father died people would try to talk to me about it, and I couldn't possibly change the subject fast enough. Maybe I seemed like a psycho, I don't know. At one point a coworker cornered me before a 3 hour long meeting, and tried to make me talk about how I was doing. It set off a chain reaction, and I spent the next three hours stuck in a meeting incapable of focusing on anything except the grief I'd been running from the last few weeks. I couldn't excuse myself, and I was just fighting to keep it together.
Once again, I must have seemed like a complete psycho.
WandererintheWilderness
53m ago
In the most literal, straightforward way, supporting protests while excusing the times they devolve to riots as understandable excesses is basically the central way for someone to support rioting.
I wouldn't think so. There are certainly more radical, revolutionary types who actively support riots qua riots, violence and all, as the just deserts of white supremacy yada yada. This seems to be to be a very different ideological position from the belief that protests are very important and if the government's support of them is suspect, then it's better not to have them intervene at all than to risk their suppression. A moral stance of "I would rather (n) murderers walk free than have one innocent man behind bars" is not the same as support for murder.
07mk
56m ago
The issue isn't the oppression calculus, it's the micro in microagression. A microagression, by definition, is a behavior that, to a neutral and fair observer, looks indistinguishable from an entirely innocuous, possibly even positive, action towards someone, which is judged only and purely by the person receiving the action as being bigoted in some way. If it were actually identifiable by an unbiased party as being an act of aggression, it would just be aggression, not a microaggression.
Misleadingly misattributing the murderer's political ideology to one's political enemies is something that people would tend to recognize as an aggression, which disqualifies it from being a microaggression.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1hr ago
This has a 'fired with cause's smell to it. Firing a part-unionized crew with long term contracts is tricky. When someone is fired with cause, the potential followup lawsuits are easier to deal with. See how messy Colbert's firing became. Don't need that.
It has a 'never waste a good crisis' smell too. I suspect legacy media executives has wanted to rehaul the legacy TV for some time now. This is the perfect excuse to do it. Kimmel, Oliver and Colbert were hired for the ascendent woke era. Then woke died and executives were left holding expensive contracts. They have outloved their boom cycle. Kirk is convienient cover for long overdue cleanouts.
There is pressure from Trump, but more importantly, there is pressure for customers and the bottom line. It's why I think internet celebs like Destiny and Hasan are safe. Their bottom lines and viewers are still aligned with their platforms (yt, twitch). Reddit is a whole another discussion. Reddit is the last bastion of the wokes. From CEO, employees to users, they're very blue. Power mods are being shackled. But that's to normiefy Reddit, not because of Trump. That's also why I am not worried about other internet platforms. Tiktok, YT and Instagram are already normiefied. The polarization of Blue sky, Reddit and Twitter helps their bottom line and suits their users. Trump has no play for them.
The quote above is the pre-amble for the actual "joke" -- https://x.com/suayrez/status/1968464780940673083 For those who don't want to watch, Kimmel shows a clip of reporters asking Trump how he is holding up and Trump saying "I think very good" then pointing to construction of the White House ballroom and boasting about it, to which Kimmel makes the actual "joke": "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,"
To judge whether this is appropriate, imagine this in a more politically neutral circumstance. Imagine the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys had just been murdered by a deranged Eagles fan. A journalist catches Cowboys owner Jerry Jones at some random moment and asks him, "how are you holding up?" and he says "just fine" and points to a new improvement to the football stadium. Would it be in the realm of appropriateness for a late-night comedian to take a shot at Jerry Jones for this response? No. People have all sorts of responses to grief, he might have just wanted to change the subject because he did not want to talk about it with the journalist, he might have been trying to put on a brave face. Telling a national audience that "this is not how an adult grieves his friend" and saying this man who just suffered a traumatic loss "is acting like a four year old" would be considered a terrible thing to say, far beyond the pale. Any broadcast channel comedian would have faced a suspension for a joke that off-base.
It was absolutely a cheap potshot by Kimmel, and it shows that Kimmel is a lot more concerned with taking potshots at Trump than he cares about the fact that the political climate is heated enough to produce this kind of assassination.
If I was in Trump's position, being publicly insulted and told I'm grieving like a four-year-old when my friend and ally was just assassinated would fill be with a hot rage and I would want to use every tool in my disposable to destroy the person who insulted me. George Washington had his seconds kill people in duels for less than this.
It is said that a republic requires a virtuous citizenry. Well, "don't make cheap and nasty insults at the leader when they are assassination the murder of their ally" is part of the virtue needed to maintain a republic where free speech exists.
I have hinted vaguely exactly once. You are free to review comment histories just as I did. The shift in a month from "I'm a classical liberal 20something who wants to engage with ideas" to "presenting arguments constructed for maximum partisan convenience" is the kind of thing that gets detectors pinging.
More options
Context Copy link