ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
police claiming they saw the footage and it proved X but it went missing is highly suspicious.
It is, but these are twitter anon claims backed by no documentation. There's just about enough evidence tobmake theirbstory plausible (local media posting stories about additional arrests of unnamed adults), but it could still be a sophisticated hoax.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Thanks for looking into it, and for your opinion. One thing that doesn't sit right with me is that it does clearly state "concussion". Maybe it's like you say, and I just put what the patients were complaining about without really looking into it. Happy to defer to self_made_human.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
The impulse behind woke was that everyone wanted it except for a few backward people on the internet.
Uh, no... The correct way to phrase it is that everyone in power wanted it, but wokeness was never popular among the wider population. This was confirmed in the early days by the woke themselves, endlessly whining about being spammed with criticism, or having their audience being flooded with critical videos in recommendations, every time they upload something. I think surveys that actually asked about specific ideas showed that woke beliefs are supported by something like ~10% of the population (I wish I had links, but this is something that came up in the subreddit ages ago).
The point is that "people aren't having kids" is a strong statement that's clearly evidence of some kind of catastrophe, which is presumably why you framed the question that way. People having one or two kid instead of two or three is less clearly so.
Not really. Yeah, literally zero kids is "extinction event within our lifetimes (or should I say, just barely after)", < 1 / < 2 kids, depending on were you live, combined with mass migration, is "replacement" the very idea he was mocking. So no, it has nothing to do with why I framed it that way.
Unfortunately that's the most recent chart I could find for this.
You might still be right, but it might be a bad idea to so confidently deny my claim then.
Literally who?
Huh, I always took you for a fellow Euro. And if you are, that's an odd thing to say. Maybe you're just a bit younger than me.
His party has zero seats, so this is another point in favor of the people OP is criticizing not being popular.
Maybe he should have tried being a right-winger then, might be a bit more popular now.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
No, they don't. 86% of women aged 40-44 (as of 2016) had at least one child. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
Yeah, we can quibble over the precise formulation, if you want, but the birth rates are what are. So I'm not sure what point you're making here.
Also... the statistics you cited are from nearly a decade ago for some reason?
Despite the screeching, none of the far right parties want to throw homosexuals off rooftops, strip normies of the franchise, or 'conscript wombs'. That's why they are popular.
Sure. I'm not exactly one of those types either, but his criticisms targeted a much larger group (like people worried about capitalism turning into neo-feudalism, which would include that well-known far-rightwinger Yannis Varoufakis).
Anecdotally, a surprising amount, a lot. The majority of my coworkers approaching 30s, myself included.
Statistics tell a different story, though.
It’s just funny to see those grand declarations and nothing else. Speaking to the in-group only, reinforcing the feeling of doom within the in-group, exactly the same way the leftists do it. I’m probably much closer to “a normie” nowadays, so the internal rhetoric feels jarring, detached from the reality of my own life to a tremendous degree.
Funnily enough, I don't see much connection to reality in this criticism. Why is everyone screeching about "far right" parties performing well in Europe? Why is Europe adapting it's laws to enable more online censorship? Why is the UK arresting comedians for tweets? Those are not things that happen when a group is out of touch with the normies.
My life’s pretty good!
Yeah, mine to. I don't understand why you think this is a good argument
People around me are living normal lives, with the usual ups and downs, but nobody’s miserable to the extent the workers in UK were during the Industrial Revolution.
How many people are having kids?
I say the same thing both to the suburban Maoists and to the fascists: if you see it, go do something about it instead of writing yet another blog post.
We're trying. What's wrong with writing a blog post sometimes?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5hr ago
Reference to the sororitas paradox. "Coherent" isn't a well-defined idea. You can come up with a definition to make anything coherent or incoherent. I'd rather speak in terms of degrees-- accepting that any social target is going to have to be fuzzy, and working to keep it useful over trying to define hard boundaries.
Fuziness does not imply incoherence, my approach is pretty much identical to yours, and you're just arguing over semantics. What I said was that with "over-exclusion is worse then over-inclusion" approach, you will turn the category of the nation useless.
The same thing that currently happens. Escalating levels of social sanctions followed by criminal punishments.
Well... do you mind providing some details? General rules as to what kind of transgressions would meet with what kind of sanctions? Examples?
That's accurate.
You're really not making this easy... What is? My description of your views, or the statement that I misunderstood something? If the latter, could you put some effort into bridging the inferential gap? Where do you think I've gone wrong?
I'm not sure how else I'm suppose to interpret it. If the main contingent pushing the idea of a creedal nation are the liberals / the left, you strongly disagree with their creed and how it should be enforced, but "think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed", how specifically would you prevent the importation of a sizable Muslim minority if that idea gained traction? This isn't much of a hypothetical, by the way, actually existing 90+% Catholic countries ended up going the "mass migration with no creed enforcement" route because they drank the liberal Kool-Aid.
Being confident in God isn't incompatible with working hard toward virtuous ends. "Faith without works..." etcetera etcetera.
Yeah, and carrying weapons large enough to punch holes through a small moon is not, strictly speaking, incompatible with a peaceful mission through the cosmos. It does say a lot about what kind of universe you believe you're living in, though.
It's not about being afraid of Muslims, it's about, it's that going to (a proper) church is a strictly good thing, for both the individual and the community. Rather than impose it because I'm afraid of an enemy group, I'd impose it because "getting people to do good things" is one of the main purposes of a community.
And if it can be shown that a mosque is a proper church, with similar advantages for individuals and their communities, you'd be ok with that, and you'd enforce your rule by forcing people to go to EITHER a mosque OR a Catholic church?
If I'm wrong about having the best (most beneficial) beliefs, then I have no fear of adopting better beliefs. You're missing the point by focusing on "truth" here. Of course, I also believe that my beliefs are true, but that's noncentral.
What was the point of the "truth is an asymmetric weapon" thing then?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
Want to let me know a "default" charity pick for if and when you win, in case I can't track you down then?
Right now it would either be Genspect or Themis Resource Fund, I think the latter should stay relevant even if, god willing, the whole trans mania finally blows over. If not, some kind of uncucked Free Software org, but I don't have specific recommendations here, since they tend to be subject to corporate and progressive takeovers.
You?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
But they also 'knew' that people aren't the kind of stuff that can fly.
Did they? Or is it one of those self-congratulatory narratives written by their opponents, decades after the fact?
"They didn't ACTUALLY transcend nature so it wasn't real vindication of hubris" looks like moving the goalposts to me.
I don't think so. There's a few levels to this:
- Reproducing something we know can be done, but is out of our reach. Aerial flight would go into this, but to take a current example, let's take warp drives. We know space does bendy things sometimes, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility to master that phenomenon, and turning into a method of transport. It is beyond our reach, the requirements to reach it might be absurd given our current understanding of the universe, but it doesn't particularly break any mechanics.
- Doing something that, as far as we know can't be done. Let's say time travel. Ok, I don't remember if this goes into the "theoratically possible" bucket or it breaks mechanics, but let's just go with for the sake of argument. Sure, I'll accept that as a good curve ball, but it doesn't matter because:
- We're talking about transhumanists. Their claim that uploading your consciousness into the cloud will constitute it's preservation in any meaningful way is a metaphysical one. Even actually achieving it does nothing to prove or disprove it. It's literally a belief in a soul.
Transhumanist thought, as I see it, lacks the inherent reverence that the religious mindset comes packaged with. (...) In the end religion is not about entering Heaven or Hell, it's about using the promises of those states as a tool for society-building. I do not think transhumanism is about society-building first. I think transhumanism is about entering Heaven first (or Hell, according to doomers).
I don't think a lot of religious people would agree about their religion being about society-building first, and I'm pretty sure that if any belief described itself as "entering Heaven / Hell first" they would instantly recognize it as religious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10hr ago
Just like last year, I will point out that the server costs continue to be borne by about 25 patrons, making us the Internet's leading (possibly only?) independent user-funded (ad-free!) open political speech forum.
Petiton to pimp up Quincy, change the caption to "bitch better have my money", and equip him with that patreon link.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
Imane Khelif, however, seemed to have really redpilled a lot of people. The sight of an obviously male person punching a female person and being rewarded for doing so triggers an intense emotional reaction which probably has a long standing evolutionary basis.
Nah, way before that there was Fallon Fox, an actual transgender, rather than male with DSD like Khalif, literally cracking an opponents skull.
You're not going to find a neat explanation, why this incident and not another. They just ran out of mana.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
He was originally unnamed. I think there was a brief moment when his country of origin was known, but not his ethnicity, or name.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
You're setting the threshold of "norm" precisely at, "taking control of the supreme court by refusing to confirm qualified appointees was Fine but taking control of the supreme court by adding more justices would be Bad." One heap is bigger than the other, but they're both heaps.
If you think packing the court is fine, we can begin right now. Many Republican presidents could have done so during a number of years in the past. Isn't it odd they didn't?
You're clearly defining "norm" in a way that benefits your political interests
I don't see how I'm doing this. The way I'm defining "norm" might benefit my political interests in a specific case, but a simple look at the historical record will yield many cases of it benefiting my opponents.
That's why this whole "norms" business is pointless in the first place. It's just a useless definition game.
Ok, cool. So let's a stop with this nonsense of telling me how orange man bad, because muh norms.
How many grains of sand does it take to form a heap?
How's that relevant to anything I said?
"Coherent" is, ironically, an incoherent target. Rather than create a few hard rules, it makes more sense to define a number of overton windows and accept that they're going to shift over time... but within a self-correcting framework that advantages particular kinds of evolution.
Well, I think that's a recipe for having your creed undermined and completely subverted over time, but that's beside the point. I'd like to know some specifics. What happens to people who stray outside these overton windows? What specific self-correcting mechanisms are you talking about?
Assuming I had a creedal nation like I wanted, there would be particular mechanisms in place to enforce that creed, which people against that creed would likely be unable to tolerate. but if muslims really want to come to a country where you have to attend church on sundays to be able to vote, then I'll take the win with grace, and welcome all the soon-to-be-converts.
That's great, I think it would work as well. However, you said that even though you disagree with leftists and liberals on matters of creed, you "think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed" and went on to say how you're confident truth will win out in the end. This would imply that you'd be fine with importing a sizable Muslim minority even if you didn't have the ability to force them to go to church, and that the costs of excluding the tiny amount of Christians would outweigh the costs of excluding the Muslims, even under those circumstances.
Have I misunderstood something?
???
I think God is willing to personally intervene on behalf of my religious community... and you think it's strange that I'm confident?
Correct. Catholics aren't known for just letting it go, because they're confident the truth will win out in the end. They are known for a highly organized church, a highly formalized dogma, and putting significant resources into their maintenance, and proselytization. It's like that quip from Star Control "peaceful missions through the cosmos rarely require weapons large enough to punch holes through a small moon".
The truth is an asymmetric weapon.
Yes. It's not the only one though, and the other ones might have the advantage depending on the situation. You wouldn't be considering forcing people to go to church otherwise.
And if I'm wrong... then I should have no fear of being set right!
Huh? If you're wrong about the truth winning out in the general cosmic sense, you should have no fear of being set right? Wouldn't that be your absolute worst case scenario? If you actually had the truth, but it lost, because you refused to fight for it?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
The screenshot is right there in my original post, but the source is the anons following the case, so it still could be a TracingWoodgrainesque hoax. I wish the local media could get the girls' side of the story but they're all awfully quiet on that.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17hr ago
If she'd taken off while Lola was arming herself, the video more or less adds up?
If this happened they way the anons / crowdfunders describe, I'd guess she took off after Lola showed up. The dude was tormenting Ruby, Lola comes back armed and tells him to leave her alone, he turns around, takes one look and says "oh, ain't that cute, let me get my phone, I have to record it".
The question is whether, after you've wrecked her, you're going to find you've got an artery gushing out.
And his answer is "no". Guys... I used to be a shoved-in-the-locker nerd, and the stuff people are saying here makes me want to start shoving people in lockers. We're talking about early-teenage girl here. Sure, if she goes into berserker mode, loses all social inhibitions and fear of pain, taps into some forgotten animal instinct that tells here which vulnerable spots to go for, she just might get lucky and do actual damage. Now look at the actual video, none of these things are likely to happen by my estimation, but even if they did, I'm putting my money on the adult man kicking her teeth in, and walking away without a scratch.
The most likely way for the guy to get hurt would be the "feigning vulnerability" route that Iconochasm mentioned.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
Her behavior. I don't know how to describe it, but she's not acting like the sort of person that has it in her to stab someone.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
Of course, how on Earth does one retrieve weapons fast enough to return before the end of a scuffle between a 13 year old girl and two adults?
If she lives in a flat that faces that playground, it could be a matter of about a minute or two. I wasn't retrieving knives and axes, but I've done this sort of thing plenty of times as a kid.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Ma'khai Bryant is an existence proof of immature girls with a melee weapon being a legitimate lethal threat,
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying the Scottish girl doesn't seem to fit the profile for that sort of thing, that I built up over the years. That said I'm just going with my gut.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I'm taking bets at this point. Most girls don't behave that way, and the ones that do don't look and act like her.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Yeah, I'm sorry, even if you're right, so what? How about: it's wrong to assault little girls, no matter how "low class" they are? How about: it was insane to believe this girl, who can barely hold these tiny "weapons" in her hand, was a part of some migrant-harrasing chavette gang?
So what's diagnosis, doctor? "Long wait times" makes it sound like could be fake, "documentation would take 30 minutes max, and might not even be counted" sounds like it could be plausible. What does it add up to?
More options
Context Copy link