The movie is irrelevant in all of this, isn't it? I've read that it indeed flopped, then again, any movie where Sweeney is cast but plays a role where she doesn't show her tits off is bound to flop, I guess. Either way, nobody actually cares. Other than that, well, sorry to be blunt, but your comment basically comes off as another variation of the "Relax, it's just a few crazy college kids on Twitter, it'll blow over" narrative.
I guess you're right; at least some minimal explanation is in order, even on this forum. I included a Wikipedia link.
I know this probably counts as low effort, but I suspect it's fair to say the recent controversial Sydney Sweeney interview provides a near-perfect example of Shiri's scissors, doesn't it?
Noted.
I find it sort of an interesting window into our culture's soul why people would seem to prefer it if Tebow didn't live up to his values.
That isn't my point. Either way, I'll probably do the effortpost.
Judging by how their org ended up, how they were treated and what happened to their aims and values since then, I think calling them a sad bunch is warranted.
Yes, they are a completely different group.
Identitarian in the sense that the group was founded on the members' shared identity as Christian men, not simply as Christians.
I was following the latest flame war regarding the human mating marketplace on this board (see here and here, for those that are unaware) with mild interest and was considering posting some dudebro take on the matter by using as an educative example the story of the now largely defunct Christian men’s identitarian group in the US who called themselves ‘Promise Keepers’, of whom I learned a long time ago completely by accident. Then I realized this may not be the best idea, as I imagine only relatively few people are even aware of their (past) existence. So before I decide to proceed I’ll ask this very question: how many of you have ever heard of this particular sad bunch?
Isn't what you're describing basically just the Russkiy vs Rossiyskiy dichotomy in Russian national history?
I see. Thanks. It was a long time ago that I saw it.
I remember seeing LA Confidential but I can't recall any narrative about institutional racism.
russians lost quite a lot of wars
Such as?
And the theory predicts the russian ends up winning
It doesn't. I never claimed that. What I did claim is that it's grave folly to look at the initial blunders of the Russians and then assume it's all they will ever keep doing and thus expecting final victory over them as self-evident.
So, do the americans, or the french, not learn, in war?
Judging by the German campaign of 1940, the French indeed do not learn, and we don't have later examples to judge. With respect to the US, unfortunately we can conclude that learning anything from Vietnam was quite difficult. American politicans also appeared to have learning from the Panama and Kuwait conflicts that making war can be made easy and bloodless, which is also just hubris.
The customary reward of defeat, if one can survive it, is in the lessons thereby learned, which may yield victory in the next war. But the circumstances of our defeat in Vietnam were sufficiently ambiguous to deny the nation (that) benefit. – Edward N. Luttwak
I’m of the view that words have meaning and are, when possible, to be used accurately. Deportations are deportations, and genocides are genocides. There are multiple cases in history of groups of people getting transported before getting genocided, but that do not count as cases of deportation, because a deportation is a different act of the state with a different purpose. It’s also unfortunately true that ‘deportation’ is often the word used in the West for forced national resettlements under Stalin even though the Western definition of it is something entirely different (but also something unrelated to genocide).
in order to destroy their way of life and national identity
They did the same thing to Russians as well, didn't they? The destruction of village communities and religious traditions, forced resettlement for the purpose of industrialization, collectivization, erasure of national heritage and the old culture - it was all done. (With the exceptions of funny Russian dresses, funny Russian music and traditional Russian dishes, of course.) We can't say that the Russians were doing this to the Ukrainians as a whole and other nationalities.
As the linked OP correctly states, Western governments are happily on board with multiculturalism and cultural diversity, as long as that cultural otherness is only expressed in the form of funny clothes and exotic foods. It seems that in this they are not that different from Stalin.
The question is whether this level of abundance will remain sustainable on a level where average women are practically self-sufficient.
Did you seriously ask this question in the Culture War thread?
the eligible men don't poach the femcels too much
I'm skeptical as to the true extent that so-called femcels even exist in modern society but this is by definition impossible.
Wiping out national identity had been the official policy everywhere - everywhere any sense of national identity beyond funny ethnic dresses and composing odes to Stalin in national language had been brutally repressed.
Plus the exotic food and drinks. You forgot about that part. But yeah, it's perverse! Surely we'll never see democratic, enlightened Western nations display such a callous attitude towards cultural minorities. That'd be a scandal!
As I was reading your argument I wasn't sure what it's reminding me of. Then it occurred to me: the Montana Meth Project memes.
This is not genocide. But under Stalin, it is.
This is not a tool of intended mass murder. But under Stalin, it is.
And so on. I mean...really?!
Are you sure about that?
Would you prefer the Democrats to moderate and then appeal to normies?
That 1988 report is somewhat curious. For one, the summary does not even make reference to Soviet Kazakhstan, where the famine mortality rate was regionally the highest. I also suspect that the authors and Soviet officials at the time were simply using a different definition of the word ‘sabotage’. The summary also leaves some questions open. Was there a drought after all or not? As far as I know, yes. Was the official Soviet response implemented after all or was it just BS?
The forced resettlement of so-called traitor nations was done as an act of collective punishment after they were declared to be German collaborators, not as a genocidal measure to dissolve their nationality. Had they been deported on an individual basis and scattered all over the country and not as a nation as a whole, that would be the case, but this is not what happened. Had the regime intended to genocide them, the simple truth is that they would not exist today.
- Prev
- Next

...Yes?
I got the impression that many average white liberal normies earnestly don't understand why she just didn't fall in line, bend the knee and denounce racism. The just don't get it. "All she had to do was say that she isn't racist! The interviewer just gave her a perfect opportunity to redeem herself! I mean, how hard is that?! Wtf??!!" It's incomprehensible, and the only possible explanation is that she's an evil Nazi. On the other side, dissident rightists and Trump supporters see this and earnestly don't understand how anyone can not see that the interviewer was setting up a usual, dishonest, sneaky leftist trap. Like, how can anyone pretend otherwise??!!
More options
Context Copy link