ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Money makes for poor munitions.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
And again, nobody is answering the real question I am genuinely asking: what is the perfect ratio for society? 50/50 male/female? Majority male?
I'm mostly sitting this one out, but I've seen several people answer you: no one knows and it doesn't matter, just stop tipping the scales. What's your answer to: why is this question supposed to matter at all?
It's also a bit strange watching you fight on this particular hill, given how often you make a point of how Catholic you are.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
All I can tell you is these are the things that seemed to make the right upset when a Democrat was doing it. To the point that from this side it looks like them being mad when a Democrat did it was outrage bait.
What do you want me to say, "first time?" I remember when the war in Iraq was the most important issue ever, right up until Obama got elected. Or the surveillance state. Or antisemitism. People do this stuff all the time, and the idea that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in that regard seems baseless. What's more, if we accept this argument it would mean that Biden and Obama are the Demicratic crazies.
Point of order: it's not my view that your average Dem/Rep voter is covering for crazies
I know. You were trying to show how, if we take the right-wing arguments seriously, it would mean that the broader right-wing is there to cover for it's crzies, the same way they accuse the left of doing so. My point is that this argument doesn't work, because there is no symmetry in the conduct of the two sides.
Not entirely analogous I admit, but I remember Al Franken. And yes people on the left have in fact been fired over Kirk comments. Or here's an old issue I remember about a lefty making an edgy joke about Africa.
Not only is it not entirely analogous, most of these examples are missing a critical component, other than the cancellations over Kirk, these are examples of the left cancelling itself for things offensive to other parts ot the left, not the right. Even the Kirk example is missing the other component of left-wingers jeering at the left wingers that just got fired.
This ties into group culpability.
I'm sorry I'm not seeing how anything in this paragraph connects to whether or not people of the Motte hate left wingers for saying "who cares" about their crazies.
That's not how politics work.
Deterrence works almost exactly like that in war, and war is part of politics. The mechanics might be a big different during timesnof peace, but I'm not seing any fundamental issues with it working there as well.
and never admit wrongdoing.
Isn't that literally what you asked me to do earlier?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Either that or we've gotten incredibly popular in China over the last week.
Prepare to be assimilated into DeepSeek.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Would that take strike you as so odd if we had a 7 zillionth relitigation of creationism vs. evolution? Things become tedious when we go over the same arguments over and over again, and that happens when at least one side doesn't incorporate the responses it already heard into the dialogue, and that happens when they don't have a good response to begin with. If one side wasn't obviously wrong, you'd see people hashing things out, and the conversation going forward. It wouldn't be tedious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Disagree. Even from a right-wing perspective, he lies habitually. Republicans may be protectionist, but his trade policy constantly changes. He's weirdly deferential to Putin (whereas the median Republican might not want to get involved in Ukraine but still admits Putin is bad), and his Ukraine policy is incoherent whether you think we should be involved or not. There's pretty much everything relating to RFK. He's pardoning corporate fraudsters. People are completely silent on his own blatant lawfare.
...and let's not forget, winning the Republican primaries with 80% of the vote.... Whatever you think of him, most Republicans either aren't all that bothered by it, or think the Neocon wing is worse, therefore it is them that are the "crazy Republicans", not Trump.
Sorry I'm confused what point you are making here. Could you rephrase?
The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant of infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.
But let's say yes anyway, because that is my criticism of the left. That they do so is in fact what I think is why The Motte hates the left so much. So why would you do it yourself?
Well, I think you're wrong about who is hated and why. I don't hate the people who say "who cares" about their crazies, I hate the crazies. The people who say "who cares" only start being annoying when they acting outraged over me saying "who cares" over my side's crazies, and thus demand that I hold myself up to a standard they never followed themselves.
My point rests in how exactly one keeps score. It's relatively fine to say, "I'm keeping track of the bad things both sides do, and I think side X is worse." It's another thing to say, "I'm going to keep counting the score of my opponents, and stop counting my own."
To be honest I don't really want to keep score for either side. Historical memory is good when someone starts acting like whatever media-invented outrage is unprecedented, but my goal in punching back isn't equalizing of scores, it's deterrence. If I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to get sucker-punched again, because I taught a belligerent a lesson that I can hold my own, I don't need to leave him with the exact same amount of stitches he originally gave me. But we're nowhere near this point, I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong, let alone incapacitating their crazies so it doesn't happen again.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
- A leftover from the Drama codebase, I guess
- Custom CSS, or an adblocker.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Cool, so now that your question is answered without contradicting anything of the theory you criticized, it seems like it holds up pretty well.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Go ahead, explain how this isn't pro nazi
It was explained several times in the thread. Why do you keep taking quotes out of context, and ignoring answers given to you?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
If rule of law is so masculine, why do men keep breaking it while women follow the rules all around the world?
Because rule of law was specifically designed to deal with the problem of men's anti-social behavior.
If rationality is so masculine, why do men keep gambling away their money, driving drunk and get fat?
Higher male variance.
And if they're more dedicated to truth then how do you explain male dominated politics being so untruthful and so corrupt?
The goal of politics is not the pursuit of truth.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I don't think that changes anything. Neither the bigots in your example nor the people overusing the word "Nazi" are blameless.
This feels like haggling over the price a bit. I'm happy to accept that at the each person's decisions are their own, but my point is indeed that neither side is blameless.
Casting the blame outwards, as if our actions are mere cascading effects of the people with true agency, is to concede we have none. It's an intoxicating idea. It frees us of the burden of temperance and good judgment. But without that burden we are nothing but machines following a routine.
This, on the other hand, assumes that everyone, including the illiberal villains, share your moral framework. If I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, I'm not casting blame on anyone for my actions, I'm just pointing out the conduct of liberals snapped me out of my stupor and made me reassess my positions. I don't think there's much I need to temper (or rather - there are things I do, but they are character traits, not positions I hold), and I believe I'm exercising good judgement.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
TBH, I'm more annoyed with magicalkittycat than I remember being with Darwin.
And it's the complete opposite for me, I don't know if that counts as evidence, but I don't think it's him either.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Okay, people are accusing you of being Darwin.
I'm voting "no", the style is quite different.
Does the right exist to provide reputational cover for every crazy Republican, up to and especially Trump?
Why is Trump supposed to be the crazy wing of Republican? The wokes being called crazy is a result of the moderate Democrats not wanting to be associated with them, but Trump being deemed crazy is purely the result of outgroup slander. Honestly, I'm a much better example of a crazy right-winger than anyone in the current administration, and as to whether the right exists me to provide reputational cover - I dunno no man, half of them are doing some weird "neener-neener" bit about the YR kids getting fired, can you provide a similar example from your side?
does that give me license to just dismiss any complaints about the wokies with "I don't care?"
I don't know about you personally, but hasn't the majority of the left, in fact, taken that license?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
That's not answering my question. You've been caught several times omitting essential context, or misportraying things from your own links. When it's pointed out, you promptly disappear, only to start another post where you do the exact same thing again. Why?
Could it be then that the answer to all these "what do you mean by 'Nazi'?" questions is "Nazism is just the friends we made along the way"?
All to say, as a liberal I view all illiberalism as evil. And this view is to some degree a matter of faith.
Don't worry about definitions then, I think this answers my questions better than any encyclopedia could.
I think each paragraph you wrote here could spark a fascinating conversation all of it's own, but I'll try to stick to the subject that started ours. If we change the scenario somewhat, to be about your fargroup, rather than your outgroup, would it change any of your calculus?
For example if a mostly secular Arab moves into a western Christian town, is met with rejection and bigotry, runs into a Wahhabi mosque that welcomes him with open arms as a brother, would you not say the westerners share some blame for his radicalization, even when the final decision is on him?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
Why are we here, just to suffer? At work they at least pay us for it, but then we do it to ourselves in our free time...
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I don't know Unreal, but I'm getting the impression that objects you're spawning have child/subobjects, could it be that some interaction between the child objects sends the root node flying?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
I don't know if I can make a case backed by any specifics, but my subjective impression was that there was a qualitative difference between the moderation style of /r/TheMotte and /r/SSC, even when the former also had it's biases / failure modes.
I do remember when it was both everywhere and tedious.
Again, the reason it was "tedious" is because the left-leaning side wasn't satisfied with "maybe it's true, but I oppose doing anything about it on moral grounds", and had to own the chuds on factual grounds as well, which just left a huge opening for a handful of autists to slap them down over and over.
Arguably it could be no other way, as it's something that struck at the core of unspoken rationalist premises, and possibly even liberalism itself, that's why we couldn't help but pick at that particular scab. Trusting The Science, and following Reason and Rationality was supposed to be The Way to manage society, and The Way was specifically supposed to result in progressive social democracy. Suddenly it turns out that Trusting The Science makes you racist, and distrusting The Science undermines the foundations of your own legitimacy, so there was nothing left to do but SegFault over it.
I suppose the other option is to act like the conversation is tedious, and it's just evil chuds going through a wave of an obsession for no reason at all.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
My understanding is that the HBD crackdown (more often just: conspicuous non-moderation of rule-breaking anti-HBD posts) was a project by the "bourgeois right" leaning (right but emphatically not alt-) mods, in the class of Amadan or Hlynka (PBUH), rather than the handful of more "left" ones such as netstack.
If memory serves the episode I referred to happened on /r/SSC, where neither of the people you mentioned were mods. Hlynka and Amadan started in /r/TheMotte, Netstack only became a mod after we moved here.
I'm also not talking about mere toleration of rule-breaking coming from one side, there was at one point a literal moratorium on the subject.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
It's actually still bad to be a Nazi (or fascist) even after being called one a whole lot, even if by very powerful institutions, even if over long periods of time.
Can you break down what "being a Nazi (or fascist)" is supposed to entail here? If you mean "wanting to gas the Jews" I agree, if it's "losing faith in liberalism" or "wanting out of the multi-kulti salad bowl", I'm not really seeing the badness of it.
It's also actually still bad to be a commie, even if it's the chic, avant-garde, fashionable thing that all your friends are into.
I even disagree with that. I believe that given human nature communism is doomed to turn people evil, but there's nothing inherently bad about believing in the superiority of centrally planned economies, or something.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1mo ago
My opinion is all these folks should exit public service, if they are in it, for 5 years or so, to mature.
In a perfect world, where this is a society-wide norm, maybe.
But why though? We can see the hand applying pressure to the scale, we know the exact force with which it is doing so. We don't know the weight of the object being weighed, so we can't tell you the result you'd see sans the extra force, but we can tell you pretty precisely what the force is. We can measure it in subsidies for feminist projects, in women-only scholarships, in quotas, in anti-discrimination laws that don't apply to men, etc.
But no one here seems to want to target specific ratios. If you get rid of the specific measures people are complaining about, and the ratios don't change that's absolutely fine.
Right, one of the thing that attracts me (back) to Catholicism is how it has honored roles for both, but from what I understand it's also pretty clear about men and women having different natures (hence the exception you had to head off right from the start).
More options
Context Copy link