ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626

I think the "criminals" aspect of this is a red herring, and the real issue is the infidelity and "messaging multiple men" part. If she was a single mother messaging one man in prison, and he wanted to become the father of her kids, there wouldn't be an issue. If she was married and messaging a dozen non-criminal men and promising them to become the father of her kids they would end up in a similar risky situation.
Yeah, no. How do you think the situation would play out if a dozen dudes straight out of prison ran into each as they were serenading her in front of her house, vs. a dozen normal dudes? I'll go out on a limb and say the latter have a significantly higher chance of figuring out what happened, calling her a bitch, and laughing it off at the bar, and the former have a significantly higher chance of turning the neighborhood into a minor war zone.
It was more than that, but not much more (...) and the right's reaction had all the hallmarks of a moral panic
Several European countries passed gender self-ID laws, last year the town hall where I live was draped in "TRANS DAY OF REMEMBRANCE" banners, the whole "Gender Affirming Care" thing is a fiasco based on no evidence, and a failure of scientific institutions to do proper filtering, there's people being harassed by the police or outright arrested for not buying the gender ideology, or for mild jokes... Yes please go on and tell me how these things are indicative of a moral panic. I guess it's completely normal for sweeping reforms in accordance with a specific ideology to take place, when the influence of said ideology is nothing but a moral panic.
And at the national level, this rhetoric was soundly rejected within the Democratic party.
No it hasn't. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, probably not even you, has ever rejected it. What happened is that Democrats noticed that it's losing them the election, so they're trying to turn the volume down, but they did absolutely nothing to reject it.
Laddie, you posted the incident where the American leftwing actors were willing to risk 10 years or more in federal prison for an attack on ICE agents. You have been provided a decade-long historical example of magnitudes more than 10 people were willing to suffer far worse than 10 years in jail. Are you really going to try and insist that not even 10 of their rightwing equivalents would draw the line at a lie?
I'd say false flags are much, much, different from "riding out to meet them", which is what I imagine this situation would be for a left winger. "Let's do something (we consider) evil and deranged, to show how evil and deranged the outgroup is" as you're perfectly aware you're doing the evil/twisted thing, and not the outgroup, requires a much more twisted mind. It's not impossible, there have been people that talked themselves into believing that the outrgroup is terribly evil, but managed to hide their true nature from the normie, that all bets are off, and any tactic is justified. Intelligence agencies and militaries can pull it off regularly, because they can promise impunity and recruit from the pool of amoral sociopaths. An idealist with a mind so twisted is much less likely, and getting 10 of them together would require they all be part of a cult, imo.
To be fair, my own brother, and most of my family, did strongly encourage me not to date her.
You're not the only one affected, and that's the point of the saying. What's impossible to recognize when you've been targeted, is fairly easy when you look at the situation from the outside
Cool, now elaborate on what you mean by those, and how do you achieve them, and we might have the type of conversation that's actually encouraged here.
We've had the "the opinions expressed here are so repugnant, that I should not be expected to be civil" argument here before. Sorry, this isn't that kind of place, if that's what you want 4chan and KiwiFarms are still open.
I don't consider the "chilling effect" a valid complaint. Not when every other forum on the internet either bans disagreement outright, or approves of the kind of hostility against it's outgroup that we stamp out no matter who it comes from.
Hold up.
For years, on this very forum (well, fine, you have to come buck to the /r/SSC days), whenever someone pointed out the advances of the SJ movement, the response was something to the effect of "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses / Tumblr", or alternatively there'd be an attempt to "steelman" the movement to make it look more reasonable than it actually is ("defund the police doesn't really mean defund the police"), something later dubbed "sanewashing" by other elements of the left.
His use of neutral language is not covering up any switch, it's taking what progressives who participated in Culture War commentary at face value, i.e. assuming their good faith. We can dispense with that assumption, but I'm not sure you'd be happy with that either.
My idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: sit down and watch the show, giving it your full concentration. Her idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: be scrolling through Instagram constantly during all those 33 minutes, occasionally flicking her eyeballs to the TV during the 0.5 seconds in between reels.
Off topic, but have you ever taken her to a few week long camping trip, somewhere far outside cell coverage? How do you think she'd react?
Nothing against your GF, but these kinds of description of GenZ / GenAlpha awaken a feeling existential dread in me, and I wonder if there's anything that can be done to help them / avert the apocalypse.
but Grok ERPs about raping Will Stancil, in a positively tame way, and it's major news.
It's not the raunchiness of it, it's that it's happening in the public (on the "town square" as it were), where all his friends, family, and acquaintances can see it.
Right, I can appreciate the tough position they are in, but I'm having a tough time sympathizing with the "we have already rejected the woke, what more do you want?" attitude. I can also understand the the official Democratic Party leadership isn't going to air their dirty laundry and say anything to the effect of "look, listen... we're kinda in a tug of war intra-party conflict here, and there's only so much we can do right now", but I would expect more from anonymous posters here.
Biden in 2020 was one of the least progressive candidates and became the nominee
The problem with this as a metric is that candidates have to be aware of their chances of victory in the general election, so there will almost certainly be some amount of hiding their power level (or even exaggerating it, when they know they're not going to implement a policy, because it's not popular with elites / lobbies, but popular with the nation as a whole). For example, Biden might not have ran on pressuring medical associations to remove age limits on medical transitions for children, but that is, in fact, what his administration deliberately did, once in power.
This basically confirms guesswho wasn’t darwin
Meh. This would be good trolling but you're pushing it past the bounds of plausibility.
However as time went on i largely gave up trying to discuss AI with people outside the industry as it became increasingly apparent to me that most rationalists were more interested in the use of AI as a conceptual vehicle to push thier particular brand of Silicon Valley woo
Well, I for one wish you hadn't given up, as I have the same impression, but it's only an impression. Would be interesting seing it backed by expertise.
In light of this, I find myself wondering if a lot of new shows are as bad as they seem, or if I'm simply unable to overlook their flaws (or inadvertently comparing them to the best-in-genera alternatives)
Nah. A well-written show leaves you something else to mull over as your grow older. Maybe there's more depth to a character than you could even begin to understand when you were young (imagine thinking Boromir is just an asshole... couldn't be me!), or it touches on some abstract ideas you couldn't grasp earlier. Sure, I could flip the table over TNG's retarded security protocols that get broken regularly, and I probably would, if there was nothing else to redeem the show.
Oh look, he already deleted his post.
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white.
None of that proves "the call is coming from inside the house", unless you're one of the more advanced racists.
No, but please document your progress if you take it up, and post hints yourself. It's one of the hobbies I was considering myself.
Why?
Because you're posting things no reasonable person would say in the course of a conversation, for no other purpose than to get a reaction. For a while it was a good gimmick. Good trolling is about getting the other person invested in responding, by providing just enough hope that if they provide the right arguments, you might concede. It stops working when it becomes obvious you're doing it just for the hell of it, and you've passed that point quite a while ago. Now it's just getting repetitive.
and not knowing this poster's alleged prior history
There's your problem.
On top of what cjet says dude always nukes his posts and account after people figure out it's him. The behavior is all the more bizarre, since, as you say what he posts isn't really objectionable, if he just gave the whole "hiding your power level" shtick a rest.
Not everyone who disagrees with this place treatment of dissenters is a troll or darwin or both.
No, but you clearly are. And it would be decent trolling, but you went overboard.
People just hated Darwin since he was unabashedly left-wing.
All your complaints just lost 90% of their credibility with this one sentence.
At which point I pointed out that only white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen, so the issue is not with Indians or Mexicans and so forth
But white people don't have the power to enable it (his point about them voting against it proves that). If you want to say it's not really the Indians' or Mexicans' fault I more or less agree, but I don't see how you can make that claim with resorting to advanced racism.
Not much to expand on, the race of the people making the decisions is irrelevant to what you're discussing. What were you even trying to point out by mentioning it?
The basic idea is that you need intelligent high-agency people to win / get anything done, and so movements should try to appeal to such people rather than alienate them.
I don't even think the basic idea is wrong per-se, but the people putting it forward tend to insist, in a childish Joffrey Baratheoneque way, that they are the Elite Human Capital that needs to be appealed to, and so you must do their bidding, They also seem unaware that even if they were accepted as such, it would come with it's share of duties and responsibilities to their followers. I'd also quibble about the appeal / alienate thing, because the EHCs are very anxious about their status, and can be arm-twisted to do your movement's bidding.
The people with power are mostly white. Ergo white people DO have that ability. Not necessarily ALL white people (though see below). If a subset of white people is the problem, then that is an intra-racial issue.
Nope, just because the people in power are white does not mean "white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen". The statement is insanely racist and would not be allowed for any other group.
No one understood your statement to mean "ALL white people", so I don't know what's the point of that part of the response.
If white voters in the US REALLY wanted to limit immigration above all else they do actually have the power to do so. They just have to repeatedly vote for the people who want to do so
The fact that we didn't have to have the supermajority of white people repeatedly vote for unlimited immigration (I'd say "even when the economy is good", but the connection of immigration and a good economy is essentially made up, or the causality is outright reversed), clearly shows that someone has more power than "white people generally".
That's without mentioning the fact that there's absolutely no evidence that repeatedly voting this way would actually achieve the goal.
- Prev
- Next
The difference being that "the establishment" is meant to specify the criticism to the people with actual power, rather than generalize to everyone who might hold a particular view, and expecting them to defend it. For example, even though you call yourself "The Antipopulist" I would not lump you in with the establishment, and I would not demand that you, personally, defend the establishment's more controversial views and actions (unless there's something we don't know about you, and your position in mainstream institutions).
As for the claim that moderation has become asymmetrical in an anti-left direction, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you're not helping. You listed several examples of "bad posts" the last time this was brought up, and while I can agree there was something bad about them in that they contained heat that could be taken out to leave more light, you went on to defend posts that were much, much worse, and you're continuing to do so here. One of your examples was "outgroup politicians are 'foreign agents'", but the actual post is much closer to "Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent".
Like I said, I don't even mind having Turok around, he's mostly an asset for people like me. The only downside of his presence would actually affect people on the left than people on the right - his tone is contagious. You said you want moderation applied equally to everyone, well if he gets to post the way he post, and the same standard gets applied to the median motteposter, the level of aggression on this forum is going to rise substantially, and the quality of discussion is going to drop, and you'll again be distraught about how much the right-wingers are getting away with.
More options
Context Copy link