Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5hr ago
Is this supposed to be a reference to something?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5hr ago
Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of a country where a leader rapidly and publicly executed tens of thousands of elites and things went well afterwards (e.g. the country did not descend into civil war and standard of living did not decline substantially)?
Well, the closest thing that comes to my mind is Indonesia under Suharto:
Under his "New Order" administration, Suharto constructed a strong, centralised and military-dominated government. What started as an oligarchic military dictatorship evolved into a personalistic authoritarian regime centered around Suharto.[14] An ability to maintain stability over a sprawling and diverse Indonesia and an avowedly anti-communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of the West during the Cold War. For most of his presidency, Indonesia experienced significant industrialisation, economic growth, and improved levels of educational attainment.[15][16] As a result, he was given the title "Father of Development".[17] According to Transparency International, Suharto was one of the most corrupt leaders in modern history, having embezzled an alleged US$15–35 billion during his rule.[18][19]
Suharto remains a controversial and divisive figure within the Indonesian general public. Many Indonesians have praised his 31-year regime for its economic development, rapid industrialization, and perceived political stability, while others have denounced his dictatorial rule, extensive human rights violations and corruption.[20][21] Plans to award the status of National Hero to Suharto are being considered by the Indonesian government and have been debated vigorously in Indonesia.[22]
From Wikipedia's article on the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66:
Large-scale killings and civil unrest primarily targeting members and supposed sympathizers of the Communist Party (PKI) were carried out in Indonesia from 1965 to 1966. Other affected groups included alleged communist sympathisers, Gerwani women, trade unionists,[14] ethnic Javanese Abangan,[1] ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists in general. According to the most widely published estimates at least 500,000 to 1 million people were killed,[3]: 3 [4][5][7] with some estimates going as high as two to three million.[15][16] The atrocities, sometimes described as a genocide[17][2][3] or politicide,[18][19] were instigated by the Indonesian Army under Suharto. Research and declassified documents demonstrate the Indonesian authorities received support from foreign countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.[20][21]: 157 [22][23][24][25]
(According to Macrotrends.net, the population of Indonesia in 1965 was about 101 million, so we're talking about 0.5-3% of the population being killed.)
How many of those people were "elite," I can't say. And the help from the anti-communist side of the Cold War definitely played a role in maintaining stability while carrying out such a massive purge. But Indonesia did indeed grow more prosperous in the aftermath.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
How much ammo does one need to summon to crush a wounded, pathetic little duckling?
On the one hand, I see this sort of thing in some quarters. Like Neema Parvini declaring that Kamala is a "sacrificial lamb" intended to lose to Trump, and that this whole election proves his thesis about how our elites are "putting the woke away" and actively pursuing Trump's return as "right-wing containment" and a pivot to rebuilding America's force-projection capacity to maintain the global American empire.
On the other hand, I encounter others arguing that this guarantees Trump's defeat, because the only candidate he could even possibly defeat was Biden, and he's utterly doomed against literally anyone else. Further, many of these argue that this is Good, Actually — not because they support Dem policies (far from it), but because they "want to see Trump supporters cry" and think that the sooner "this MAGA shit dies" the better, to make way for their preferred alternative.
And then you have the Dreaded Jim predicting that "Kamala gets one hundred and twenty million votes at three in the morning after all voting centres have been locked down and Republican scrutineers expelled."
(And don't get me started on the opinions about Vance — he's a based neoreactionary, he's an "anti-MAGA" Republican establishment type, he's a race traitor, he's a CIA/Palantir plant intended to bring about digital passports and a central bank digital currency, he's secretly gay…)
I'm really not sure who — if anyone — has the right of it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
The second possibility is more pragmatic: if you think their family is likely to want revenge, then killing off all of them makes sense so you don't have to watch over your back.
I've seen this argument made a few times online. One example being Twitter tankies defending the murder of the Romanov children. Another one is (predominantly Jewish) essays defending the divine command to utterly eradicate the Amalekites by pointing out that Saul's initial sparing of the Amalekite king Agag — for which failure to follow God's command Saul was stripped of his kingship — led to Agag's eventual descendant Haman attempting to wipe out the Jews in turn.
"You gotta end the bloodline and prevent any revenge killing."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
Given a realistic model of human behavior, that sounds somewhere between "massive" and "infinity" to me.
It wasn't "infinity" when it came to gas attacks in World War I. From the link:
The British expressed outrage at Germany's use of poison gas at Ypres and responded by developing their own gas warfare capability. The commander of II Corps, Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, said of gas:
It is a cowardly form of warfare which does not commend itself to me or other English soldiers ... We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so.
And I'd point out that blood feuds did end. Indeed, the development of "compensatory" law systems like weregild, or Somali xeer law, arose because people on all sides became tired of the costs of retaliation. Same with the European wars of religion giving rise to the Peace of Westphalia. The same with chemical weapons after WWI as mentioned above.
"Unilateral disarmament" is not a path to bilateral disarmament, and it is a path to peace only in that it's a recipe for the defeat of the side that adopts it. Indeed, the Left cancelling the Right would come to an end if the Right ceased to exist. But otherwise, as with the wars mentioned above, the only way out is through — the only way to get the side using these weapons to lay them down is when they're just as tired of being on the receiving end as the other guys.
All that said, I think that this current example is tactically unwise, and not something the right should be pursuing. It's too early, too weak, poorly aimed, and a diversion of effort best spent elsewhere.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
On handling a conflict between political views and one's personal interest given life situations: any ideas what a person who wants to be more politically active should do, when the groups in line with your beliefs, pursuing the goals to which you would like to contribute, simply do not want people like you joining?
(It's a bit like a reverse of Groucho Marx's joke about not wanting to be a part of any club that would have him as a member.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
So, when it comes to ways to meet new people and get experience "talking to strangers," I've more than once been pointed to bars as a place for striking up conversations with people you don't know. And yet, I've been to the local bar a few times (despite my very limited budget and medical reasons for not drinking), and not once in the hours I've spent there have I seen anyone strike up a conversation with anyone else. Just a bunch of older men sitting alone, drinking and watching sports.
The same is true with the "bar" portion of the local restaurants that serve alcohol and have "bar seating." For that matter, I don't think I've seen a conversation start in a restaurant that wasn't among a pre-existing group.
So, is this just me? Just a product of the sort of places I frequent (for certain not-terribly-frequent values of "frequent") given my poverty? A product of Anchorage, Alaska being a particularly antisocial place? Or was the advice not all that great? Are there some better places?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
E: He endorsed Kamala.
So I suppose now we'll get to see what a presidential campaign can be, unburdened by what has been.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
8d ago
As to your two explanations, I expect it's a combination of both, but would say the latter is probably the much larger component.
I find myself once again referring to the "Mrs. Britten's English Zone" page on Characteristics of Puritan Writing
Early literature written by Puritans in America often appeared as first person narratives in the form of journals and diaries. Early American colonists wrote their accounts of immigration, settling in America, and day-to-day life in journals to pass their stories down. Many Puritans also wrote letters to send back to Europe to family and friends they left behind. Very little fiction appeared during this period; Puritans valued realistic writing with an emphasis on religious themes.
…
Puritans wrote with specific purposes in mind. Even the letters they wrote to friends and family in Europe performed more of a purpose than simply communicating about their lives and keeping in touch. Puritans' religious beliefs affected their lives on all levels, and their writing illustrated their religion's values, such as the importance of the church and the influence of God in their lives. Writing often became instructive, teaching Christian values. The Puritans did not believe that literature was for entertainment; therefore, they frowned upon "entertainment" genres such as drama (plays) and fiction novels.
Replace the letters and diaries with emails, chat, and social media, and the Protestant moralizing with woke DEI moralizing, and you've got a rather familiar type, no? And note the skepticism of fiction: works done for entertainment's sake are inherently suspect, and moral messaging is the priority in any communication.
Hence the criticism of much current "woke" media, and of many attempts at right-wing "anti-woke" media, both paralleling the classic criticism of much "Christian media" of the Veggie Tales sort: that they put The Message above storytelling, above quality, above being entertaining. If your show or your music or your writing isn't ad maiorem DEI gloriam (if I may be forgiven this horrible wordplay), then what does that say about its morals — and thus your morals? If you're not constantly displaying Christian virtue in your words, and exhorting everyone else to do the same, then you're not really a proper Puritan, are you? If you're not signaling how "woke" and pro-diversity you are, and reminding everyone to check their privilege and practice tolerance, then how do we know you're not secretly some sort of reactionary bigot?
Didn't Scott have a post where he made a point along these lines, about how this is what we get when people with "hectoring Church Lady" personalities grow up in secular Progressive spaces?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
11d ago
These episodes from The Outer Limits (1995 - 2002) series
I had to remind myself of those episodes, because it's been awhile since I watched the show — not since back when it first aired.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
11d ago
I'd class that more in the "post-apocalyptic" genre — more "mass death" than "population decline."
Does anyone have any recommendations for sci-fi works involving population decline? I ask because most late 20th century — and even early 21st century — works I'm familiar with assume continual population growth, and frequently an overpopulation crisis. (Even the grimiest dystopian cyberpunk seems to take for granted that people will somehow keep popping out kids, enough to more than replace all the people getting gunned down by megacorp hit squads or torn apart by psychotic cyborgs.)
The only exceptions I can think of are works involving sudden plagues of infertility (Handmaid's Tale, Children of Men) or are Japanese (Yokohama Shopping Log). Anything else out there?
Edit: I'm talking less the "post-apocalyptic" genre, where the collapse has already occurred and the focus is rebuilding, but during the decline — particularly a slower one like Yokohama Shopping Log.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
12d ago
Really, try arguing that makes Booth in any way like a modern Democrat or "woke."
"Normie" Republicans like my parents do just that quite often, by way of DR3 arguments: 'the Democrats were the party of racism then, and they're the party of racism now; the only difference is that these days they want to keep blacks trapped on the welfare "plantation",' and suchlike.
It may not be a good argument, but in my experience it's a common one.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
12d ago
trump posts bail
Bail is for pre-trial custody. He's already been convicted of multiple felonies, he just hasn't been sentenced yet. Once the judge gives him jail time, there's no "posting bail" to get out of it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
At this stage Trump could literally set up an alternative government in exile in Moscow
Except, how's he supposed to get from a jail cell to Moscow
and the majority's of states would support him.
Support him how? Beyond symbolic "moral support" and "not my president" rhetoric, I mean.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
My personal, immediate reaction was "we're going to bomb the shit out of whoever did this."
I remember my dad's first words in response to seeing the news: "Well, we're going to war with somebody now."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
The glass fragment from a teleprompter is the stupidest cope I have ever seen.
Have you seen the 'Trump has friends in Hollywood, this was all faked via special effects to boost his popularity' takes yet?
Maybe you added that last bit as a joke,
Nope. I've been looking at responses like the comments at this Reddit thread. Bits like:
What upsets me is his rage that he projects... where if you disagree then you are literally labeled by him explicitly as a treasonous enemy of America, which itself is so unamerican and dangerous to the country.
He has made this country more dangerous and fractured by the day ever since he started his political rhetoric way back against Obama.
He creates the situation that makes politics dangerous in America, whether it is crazy right wingers killing their imagined enemies or bringing out crazy left wingers who have been told they are an enemy so they feel like they have to attack their enemy in kind.
and:
Amazing, the Republicans, who have developed a list of 350 political opponents that they believe should be incarcerated and/or put to death, and assert they have the right to be violent to achieve their goals of overthrowing our government, have the nerve to complain of political violence tonight. 😡
and:
I wonder if this will be my generations Reichstag fire. Now more than ever he needs to be kept out of the White House so he can’t take his anger out on opponents
and:
The right is already blaming democrats. Marjorie Trailer Park Greene is blaming democrats and the media.
She’s linking criticism of Trump to instigating this attack.
If Trump wins and it looks like he will, he will definitely try to go after all media that doesn’t praise him. He will do exactly what putin does.
and:
Trump will say Biden tried to kill him and if he doesn’t, Fox News will to try to win the election. These people are horrible.
and:
America the democracy is done. Nobody who isnt a white Christian will be safe
and:
I hope Biden’s team really tightens up their security. There are enough crazies in MAGA to believe he’s behind this and retaliate.
That's the whole "frontlash" idea — the real issue is all the innocent people who will be hurt by the likely "backlash". To quote a 2016 tweet from the late Norm Macdonald satirizing this view (in the context of Islamic terror attacks):
What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?
The problem, says this narrative, isn't that someone tried to kill Trump, it's all the horrible things he and Republicans are going to do to innocent people when they lash out blindly in retaliation.
Edit: add on this bit of sarcasm:
Okay, so who’s gonna talk them down from making a dictatorship? We all know that republicans are totally reasonable and don’t justify mass shootings at all, or claim climate change isn’t real, or try to involve religion in school, or try to discriminate, or control people’s bodies.
Yeah, we should just let them go on. It’s not like I want to live on a planet that isn’t on fire.
I’m sure that the people who downvote me aren’t complete bigots who want their Glorious Leader in power. I’m sure they respect women and minorities and think that the corporations SHOULD have massive power over their livelihood. I’m sure that most of America isn’t diseased by the republicans and want to completely overthrow democracy. I’m sure they don’t ignore the most obvious points about how republicans are making the world a worse place. Because they’re nice and friendly and totally don’t want to resurrect the Nazi Regime
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
If we should be scared of Nazis, then why is "Naziphobia" a problem? Shouldn't we all be "Naziphobes"?
I don't think that one would be enough anymore - not on its own.
Well, my experience IRL is that there do indeed exist people (mostly elderly) who've already been put off of voting for him again because this time he's "a convicted felon," and thus I expect jailing him will move even more in that direction. Plus, it would definitely prevent any repeats of the debate disaster, wouldn't it?
Edit: I also saw this comment blaming the assassination attempt on the failure to have jailed him already:
I just want the Trump convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to prison for his crimes. Not saying what happened today was right, but this is the kind of thing that happens when people lose faith in justice.
(Emphasis added)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
There are a lot of people who are very worried and scared about Nazis.
And what I'm asking is the reason why they shouldn't be. Is it because there aren't really any Nazis (the "Satanic panic" model), or that the Nazis are real but aren't really something to be scared of (the "Islamophobia" model)?
I, for one, think that everyone who talks about how this means a surefire Trump win is seriously underestimating our media institutions' skills at narrative management.
I mean, beyond the people claiming this was a false flag — our Reichstag fire, even — there seems to me to be an increasing prevalence of "frontlash" arguments: that this means it has only become more important than ever to keep Trump out of the White House, to protect the many innocent people who will be hurt by Trump (and his violent, bigoted supporters) when he lashes out violently in Putin-esque vengeance against anyone and everyone he happens to perceive as an enemy the moment he retakes power.
Edit: I also find quite rich the narrative that this indicates Trump is a threat to himself, because it was "his rhetoric and manipulation of people's emotions in a dangerous way" that caused this, and that if the shooter was left-wing, then he only did it because of "crazy right wingers killing their imagined enemies" thanks to Trump causes people on the left "who have been told they are an enemy" to feel like they have no choice but to "attack their enemy in kind."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
Maybe he'll be finally motivated to do something about the antifa and their solid connections to media and seeming impunity..
This implies an ability to "do something" about antifa. Like what, exactly?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
13d ago
is that leftists are only really permitted [insured] property damage and the occasional murder as the contained scope of their violence.
Permitted by who? And why can't that change?
In any case, one more turn on the escalation spiral.
Doesn't an escalation spiral require two sides escalating? If the right doesn't escalate in response, is there a "spiral"?
Why wouldn't "brute force" be effective tactic enough?
More options
Context Copy link