Botond173
10mo ago
What the Christian Right wanted was for teenage girls not to engage in casual sex with the tacit approval of a permissive society and as a consequence not have babies out of wedlock. (They obviously had to coat their arguments with layers of bullshit in order to never draw attention to the fact that impoverished black girls from the Deep South were hugely overrepresented among those teen mothers, but whatever.) What they very obviously did not want was for venues of community life and social interaction to get eroded, social capital be destroyed and addiction to social media be normalized in a secular, atomized society to such an extent that teenagers don't even hang out together and as a consequence don't even have sex and, in turn, do not have babies out of wedlock. (Let's not pretend that the teenage birthrate is dropping mainly because teenagers have somehow just recently learned how to use contraception that has become fantastically effective. This is nonsense.)
This is a very crucial difference. I'm pretty sure you're also fully aware of all this yourself, but I think it bears mentioning here at least once.
Botond173
26d ago
One big difference is that a rich guy can throw cool parties and have lots of people come to hang out at his house.
That'll be a great advantage to him as long as he's strongly an extrovert. There's also the aspect that he'll have to clean the mess all up afterwards or hire some maid to do so, and that his social circle will come to expect him to keep throwing cool parties.
he's pretty much forced to always go to other people's houses for social interaction
If he lives in a community where third places don't exist at all, then yes.
Botond173
3mo ago
but playing up the savagery is fairly new.
It obviously seems to me to be just a reaction to the usual leftist depictions of them.
Botond173
4mo ago
George F. Kennan was rather prophetic about this in his dying years (I bolded the most important parts):
'I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''
''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''
Botond173
6mo ago
The relevant fact is that Turner was provably the real leader of a real slave rebellion.
Botond173
10mo ago
In the Christian patriarchy, every man may only have one wife and not more, premarital sex is not normalized, cheating isn't either, and keeping a mistress is only tolerated implicitly in certain circumstances. This, in effect, represents a tacit agreement among men not to fight one another over women.
Botond173
11mo ago
I present to you some food for thought: a post from the stupidpol subreddit from 4 years ago: Did we ever find out who killed those kids in the CHAZ?
Reading through the comments, the consensus seems to be that there had to be multiple, maybe dozens of leftist activists there, mostly local White antifa, who either witnessed the murders or knew who the armed guards were or knew who recruited and armed them. Had just only one of them ever snitched, we'd probably know about it, because there would have been arrests and interrogations, and the media would have reported it. But no such thing happened, which means nobody ever snitched. Not one of them. And the reason is probably not that this is such a well-organized group.
Botond173
11mo ago
Yeah, it's like the "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon" sentiment back in the days (I know the quote isn't technically real, but anyway). This isn't meant as a dig at the original commenter; this is a simple facet of social life anywere. I'd also add that despairing men have all the reasons in the world to hide their despair in meatspace. Of course we see little of it. Also, the stats prove that the ratio of single, unattached men is growing.
Botond173
11mo ago
The Japanese didn't adhere to Western codes of chivalry, they routinely tortured and executed their captives and generally fought without either decency or mercy. Such an enemy isn't seen as worthy and earns no respect; I think American attitudes towards them during the war reflect that.
Botond173
17d ago
Such modern women do exist but it's generally not that they refuse to act like that. It's that it never even occurs to them that they should act like that in certain contexts, have no concept of it at all in the first place, and don't know how to do it even if they consciously want to. It's generally something nobody ever explained to them, never talked with them about, and had no woman in their lives whom they ever had a chance to emulate in that regard.
Botond173
26d ago
Botond173
1mo ago
I guess it’s just a simple case of scarcity. Women tend to either have well-shaped tits that are small, or big tits that are often misshapen and saggy, and of course get increasingly saggy with aging, which most women are terrified of already. Only a small minority of women have the sort of ideal breasts that earn you a Playboy photoshoot, so small that it’s impossible to fill all titty mags only with pictures of them. Hence the sad and pathetic proliferation of bolt-on tits.
I'm just wondering if you're aware that in that particular crisis the Polish military regime, instead of offering military assistance to the Czechoslovak state to defend itself, actually decided to take part in the partition of it instead in order to pursue irredentist territorial aspirations of its own? They did this even though they were aware that they were the only state capable of realistically offering military assistance to Czechoslovakia in a potential defensive war, and that the Nazi government was staking a claim for Danzig for a long time, which meant that Poland was obviously going to be threatened in the future, that is, they were going to be next.
This is a repeat from 1938, where the Czechoslovakian military potential that could have subtracted the Germany potential, got added to them.
The remaining Czech rump state received no security guarantees or assistance from any great power, it had an enormous armaments sector that was completely intact, and was actually even beyond the range of the air forces of Germany's enemies. The parallel with Ukraine doesn't have legs to stand on in any of those aspects.
Botond173
5mo ago
It was, for example, supposedly his idea to transport oil in tank cars instead of barrels, which nobody initiated as a practice until then.
Botond173
6mo ago
Isn't it normally implicitly taken for granted that your daughter is getting creampied after getting married?
Botond173
10mo ago
I guarantee in the late 19th century there was in fact plenty of examples of massive population changes, even in more rural parts of the country
Even if we accept the moderate estimate that we're talking about 12k immigrants in a county of 110k residents in a span of 2 yrs, I'm pretty sure we're talking about a population influx on a scale and in a timeframe that surpasses any similar example from the immigration wave between 1880-1914.
Botond173
10mo ago
There are so many easy wins to be had against progressivism, from defending the value of markets and pushing back against affirmative action to attacking the bizarre and incoherent ideologies of contemporary critical race theory and gender self-ID.
Haven't basic bitch normie-friendly Republicans been trying to do exactly this at least since the appearance of the Tea Party, over and over, appealing to supposedly present normie sentiments of civic nationalism and economic liberty?
Botond173
10mo ago
To be fair, I'm sure the majority of Hitler Youth and Red Guard members did earnestly feel that they were rebelling against an authority i.e. the existing patriarchal order that was constraining their lives up until that point. It was, of course, ironic to rebel against it in service of a new supreme leader who demanded total obedience, but I guess it wasn't something that went completely unnoticed by them.
Botond173
25d ago
Priests and especially Protestant pastors, influenced by feminist tendencies, often tend to push misandric, gynonormative ideas, even though Christianity as a creed is unreservedly and unquestionably patriarchal.
Botond173
4mo ago
I’d like to reflect on these and these relatively recent comments by @Walterodim and @HonoriaWinchester on the official response to the initial AIDS epidemic in the US and California in particular (I guess).
Not being an American I only have a vague idea about this entire subject. As far as I can tell, the standard Blue Tribe narrative in the context of the culture war on this is that the bigoted and evil Reagan administration, politically captured by Christian fundamentalists and pandering to Southern racists, callously refused to even consider the idea of formulating a federal response to a dangerous epidemic, and missed a good opportunity to contain the spread thereof by allocating federal funds to research and preventive measures.
Fair enough. But let’s assume for a moment that the administration had actually tried doing all those things earnestly, for real. What are the realistic chances that whatever measures they’d have come up with were bound to include the decisions to publicly call upon homosexual men to refrain from a) having unprotected sex with strangers altogether b) donating blood?
Botond173
5mo ago
Since the victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 US Presidential election, there is speculation that the worst of wokeness might now be behind us. History suggests otherwise. Tyrannical ideologies often endure political setbacks, even seemingly crippling setbacks, only to later reemerge with renewed strength.
I'm rather sure that Trump's victory last year is by far not the first setback of wokeness in the US, and arguably not the biggest either. I recall reading the argument from Walt Bismarck and maybe other rightist bloggers as well that the period between Nixon's reelection and the LA riots of 1992 can be interpreted as two decades of racial detente, for example.
With regard to Tate you didn’t address the most crucial factor in all of this: liberal feminists like the Reddit commenters you mentioned that are out for blood are both unwilling to and ideologically incapable of giving actionable, effective dating and sex advice to heterosexual men altogether, and thus act as competition and an alternative to the likes of Tate. (In fact, they cannot give useful advice to women either, but that’s a different issue.) The anger and hostility you see is largely the consequence of this absence. How else would they react? Whatever Tate promotes is merely a dumbed-down, cruder version of Manosphere doctrines that were expressed (mostly) online in detail 10-15 years ago, and the only reason he gained any following is that most of this content was suppressed through the usual liberal feminist tactics of cancelling, doxing, panic-mongering, threats etc., which themselves were tacit admission of the shortcoming I mentioned earlier.
On a related note I should mention that this narrative about clueless teenage boys getting radicalized online by right-wing garbage human agents of Russian subversion is also a rather popular theme on Hungarian subreddits, which are unsurprisingly leftist circlejerks but somehow manage to be even worse than similar Western circlejerks due to them radicalizing themselves through their own sense of grievance at being self-perceived ideological underdogs. We’re talking about people who absolutely despise normies (because they perceive them as right-wing) and social hierarches and prejudices (because they perceive those as right-wing and authoritarian); but whenever this subject in particular comes up they instantly turn into authoritarian normies with the usual prejudices.
I think this has much to do with the proliferation of suburban environments, which are by nature very blue-pilling and have a socially isolating effect to a great extent. Back when that lame-ass, revolting, manufactured Canadian scandal around supposed unmarked mass graves of indigenous children massacred by the Church was still on the news, I posted the following observation here which is also relevant in this case:
This whole thing reminds me of the news stories about the children's mass grave in Tuam, Ireland, and of supposed mass graves in Tulsa, Oklahoma where racist mass-murdering demons buried the victims of the 1921 "race massacre", or so we're told.
When I try looking at these affairs without bias and prejudice, I try putting myself in the shoes of the average Western middle-class suburban white normie NPC, and frankly I realize that, unless some heretic specifically makes an effort to educate me on this, I'll probably have zero understanding of the following hard facts about the bygone days of the West:
1/ It was normal to bury people in unmarked individual paupers' graves, or even in unmarked mass paupers' graves (in the case of, say, an epidemic, a fire, a mass accident or some similar catastrophe) if nobody claimed the corpse, or if the relatives were too poor to, or unwilling to, afford a proper burial. This, in fact, was not rare.
2/ Back when national economies were yet too undeveloped to produce a surplus to be spent on, frankly, luxuries, there was exactly zero public support for spending tax money* to improve the material conditions of single mothers so that they have the same prospects in life as married wives**.
*Keep in mind, please, that, unlike today, milking the impregnators for child support under the threat of imprisonment wasn't an option either in most cases, because they were either dead, or already in prison/workhouse, or too poor to be milked for money.
**Again, let's be clear about this: back in the days of benighted Papist Ireland, or in any similar patriarchal society, I can assure you there were probably zero housewives willing to tolerate the spectre of the government basically confiscating a given % of her husband's income and giving it to unwed mothers in the form of state handouts. The extent to which Christian societies in such economic conditions were willing to go to look after the downtrodden was basically to shove them onto the Church and leave them to hold the bag, in exchange for them (i.e. the Church) getting a special social status. In the same way, the Church was basically expected to sweep up a portion of single men and women that were unmarriageable for whatever reason and train them to be monks, priests, missionaries and nuns, so that they were no longer a problematic pain in the butt to their own families. This was the implicit social consensus.
3/ Also, a society that poor is also unable to pay for lavishly equipped, professional, extensive police forces. This means extrajudicial punishment, communal vigilantism and mob justice was seen as normal and necessary by most people, at least to a certain extent.
4/ Stray dogs were normally slaughtered and their cadavers/bones were used for producing animal glue and other similar products, because you could be sure absolutely nobody was going to contribute material resources to founding and running comfy dog shelters. (I know this has nothing to do with these manufactured scandals, but I included it because we know that suburban white liberals just love dogs.)
On a different note, after checking the original comment by @Outlaw83, which I don't disagree with in particular, I think something needs to be pointed out: while it's definitely true that "actually, basically everyone was just poor back then", it's also true that a traditional society of strong community bonds and social capital will not tolerate someone just not caring about one's elders. This is not permitted, and earns you social ostracism at least. Frankly I'm even sure there were some laws on the books that made it technically illegal. I'll guess that such social bonds in the USA in the Great Depression era were already frayed by the forces of modernity to such an extent that was became an issue. Also, while it's true that society was willing to tolerate an extreme level of poverty back then, this didn't equally apply to old people, among other groups (say, widows etc.)
More options
Context Copy link