In all major socializing forces you will find an underlying movement to gain and maintain power through the use of words. From witch doctor to priest to bureaucrat it is all the same. A governed populace must be conditioned to accept power-words as actual things to confuse the symbolized system with the tangible universe. In the maintenance of such a power structure, certain symbols are kept out of the reach of common understanding — symbols such as those dealing with economic manipulation or those which define the local interpretation of sanity. Symbol-secrecy of this form leads to the development of fragmented sub-languages, each being a signal that its users are accumulating some form of power.
-Frank Herbert
Though this is a quote, I believe that it is so precisely said that it is worth posting on the top level.
Goodguy
1yr ago
If the US military stayed within its own borders except when genuinely attacked in an unprovoked way, I would be more willing to grant that US nativists have a worthy moral argument. But as long as the US constantly attempts to exert its will on the world using force, I see no moral argument for why people from the rest of the world should refrain from trying to influence US politics for the benefit of their own countries or ethnic groups or why they should refrain from moving to the US and enjoying the benefits of living there while having absolutely no loyalty to it and instead just exploiting it for their own purposes.
To be fair, many US nativists are actually in favor of a less interventionist US foreign policy.
It's not our place to belittle those who march off to fight and die at our direction, at the will of the white-collar class.
They sign up to potentially kill complete strangers on government orders, because they believe in the cause and/or for money. They willingly turn themselves into tools of the government. Hence I will belittle and mock them just as surely as I belittle and mock the government itself. If you are fine with belittling and mocking the government, then there is no reason not to belittle and mock the people who willingly make themselves into that government's agents.
The vast majority of the moral harms were committed by careless policymakers and senior officers who committed troops to achieving the unachievable.
100% of the actual harms were committed by the soldiers, not the politicians. If the soldiers did not follow the orders, the harms would not have happened.
Do you want to go and risk getting turned to meat paste by Chinese hypersonics?
Nobody has to risk that to begin with. The US is more than well-enough protected by its nuclear arsenal and, on top of that, by the oceans. If some American decides that going to fight for Taiwan or South Korea or whatever is really important to him - either because he cares about those countries or because he cares about maintaining US global military dominance and economic might - then alright, fine, but I'm not going to pretend that it has anything to do with defending the US itself from a threat of being militarily attacked.
I am not an American by birth, only by residence. I feel almost no loyalty whatsoever to America and am almost entirely happy to exploit it for my own benefit without feeling any sense of duty to it in return. I feel only slightly more loyalty to my ethnic group than I do to Americans (while recognizing that this is an irrational emotional urge), and none whatsoever to the government that currently rules my birth country. I do like Americans on average and feel a good bit of loyalty to certain specific ones who I am friends with but of course, I feel no loyalty whatsoever to the US government or to any abstract notions of "America".
I myself am not advocating for the moralistic argument and am quite content with leaving things at the selfish argument level, I'm just pointing out that US nativists could only be consistent by either grasping the selfish argument and abandoning moral ones or by advocating for non-interventionism.
In general, I simply do not respect borders, rules, or abstract notions of distinctions between nations or ethnic groups on any sort of ideological level. I am pragmatic - in practice, I respect the realities of such distinctions insofar as that is necessary to protect myself from violence, but I do not value borders, rules, or national distinctions in any ideological sense. When I cross a country's border, I have no sense at all that I am crossing some sort of line on a map that requires me to change anything about myself - I simply feel that I am moving from one place on the surface of this big rock, which is dominated by people who follow certain patterns of behavior, to another place, which is dominated by people who follow different patterns of behavior.
At the same time, I will of course not be so stupid as to not avail myself of other people's genuine ideological beliefs in things like borders and nations to benefit myself if it ever proves necessary. For example, I am perfectly happy to avail myself of the benefits of America's relatively strong rule of law while at the same time feeling almost no obligation whatsoever to America as a geographical, ethnic, or legal entity.
And I do not consider myself immoral for this. I do care deeply about certain Americans - to be precise, my friends and those I view as allies. And in that, I am very much American. How much does the average Democrat care about Republicans? How much does the average Republican care about Democrats? Most Americans, it seems to me, at least the ones who care a lot about politics, which includes most people on this site, in reality operate just the same as I do. Any US-dwelling right-wing Motte poster who feels more affinity to some foreign writer who agrees politically with him than he does to some SJW leftist who was born and bred in the US is just the same as I am.
Getting the media to put its ass on the scale to help you is part of what it means to have an expertly-run campaign. Of course, the media in general leans Democratic, but that shouldn't necessarily be an excuse if you're a political strategist who is getting paid millions of dollars to help the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign strategists have done nothing to grab the narrative away from the Harris campaign ever since she replaced Biden as the Democrats' chosen candidate. It's been several weeks of nothing from them, meanwhile the Harris campaign is full steam ahead. What are the Trump campaign people even doing? What is their strategy?
I think that Trump has a problem in that compared to Harris he just seems old and he has been in people's political attention for nine years straight except for a brief interruption in Biden's first couple of years in office. Trump is still entertaining, but he's no longer the novel maverick, and probably a lot of people are just tired of hearing about him. Harris, on the other hand, is shiny, new, and relatively young for a recent Presidential candidate. There is an element in the voting population that loves shiny and new optics. Bill Clinton playing the sax, Obama flashing his pearly-white grin and talking about hope and change, etc. The Trump campaign hasn't managed to do anything to seize the national narrative away from Harris. I feel like they need to come up with something if they want to win.
Oh come on, there are comments on here dripping with sheer contempt all the time that don't get the authors banned.
Keep in mind, I'm not a leftoid, I just think that most of the rightoids on here are retarded. If we had more leftoids here, I'd tell them that they are also retarded, cause I genuinely believe that.
But the Tomato didn't express himself in a way more obnoxious than what we see regularly here, so come the fuck on, shape up or have this site keep being viewed as a joke by actually smart people.
Right now, this site is mostly just a refugee camp for midwits who overrate their own intelligence because they realize that different races differ in IQ or whatever (Wow! You just have to be a non-retard to understand that different races differ in IQ for probably in part genetic reasons! Congratulations on having a bare minimum intelligence to be worthy of smart people paying attention to you!).
Having the bare minimum of intelligence to be able to see through leftoid ideas of how everybody's on average equal in intelligence or whatever... doesn't take much. It's just like the bare standard minimum. This site is overrun with lame social trads, religious idiots, authoritarians, and so on... all of whose ideas are not rationally obviously correct, but they clearly are pushing these ideas because they have deep-seated emotional (as opposed to rational) reasons for wanting to push those ideas. They often write things that are not rationally justified, and imply that their opponents are all sorts of nasty things when they write it, but I am not calling for them to be banned. So why ban Tomato for writing a mild few paragraphs poking fun at his political opponents?
Edit: Sorry, I was drunkposting and a bit too harsh. Oh well, I don't mind a week vacation.
Goodguy
1yr ago
That's interesting. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard a woman make such an argument around me, even though I live in a heavily politically "progressive" area. Not even the most fervent SJWs have done it around me. I wonder what kind of social circles you are moving in that you see so much of it.
This is veering pretty close to waging culture war and, while not building consensus, assuming consensus.
My understanding of the spirit of the Motte is that when you write on the Motte, you should not assume a background of people who share your political views.
That is, my understanding is that this is not supposed to be a place where you share excited "inside opinions" about how your preferred politics are going.
I say this not as someone who is for the "Yes", but just as someone who does not want more culture war waging here.
Goodguy
4mo ago
There is no real evidence that "they", as in some deep state group, even tried to kill him once much less 2-5 times. As for the color revolution idea, while I hated the 2020 riots, the notion that they were organized to hurt Trump has never made much sense to me. Realistically, such riots would tend to make as many people more likely to vote for Trump as less likely to vote for him.
Yeah, the plain fact is that most of them don't care about civil liberties in a broad and principled way. They're not classical liberals or libertarians. They're conservatives. They're the kind of people who think that the government should be able to put me in a cage for putting recreational drugs in my body. A significant minority of them would probably institute peacetime conscription if they could because they like the idea of how being in the army transforms young men. In other words, they are social engineers, their primarily goal isn't individual liberty, it is to shape society on a large scale into their vision of it. It's just that their vision is different from the vision of leftist social engineers.
Goodguy
1yr ago
What makes standing for the national anthem important? Like, which one? The national anthem of England, or the one of the traitorous colonists? If in Nazi Germany or the USSR, is it a basic civic norm to stand for the national anthem?
In my book, trying to force kids to stand for the national anthem is practically child abuse. Loyalty to country is a thought-terminating cliche.
Goodguy
2yr ago
I think that violence is, if not necessarily a good reaction, at least an understandable reaction to being forced by the state to spend eight hours a day at a containment center run by a bunch of glorified babysitters. Of course in practice, many school shooters target not just school staff but also their fellow students, often not even because of any justified personal grievances against them.
In my opinion, that might be a good thing for what I value. I would much prefer for some other arm of Tumpism to be stopped, not DOGE, since I value cutting government bloat... but at least it's something. My politics is based on the idea of keeping the left and the right stuck in a stalemate so that neither becomes dominant.
Now that Trumpism and the new right in general have given the woke a number of brutal punches and the woke is on the ropes in several ways, Trumpism begins to seem to me like the bigger threat, so now I turn my attention to strategies for doing some damage to Trumpism.
This would not have come about, other than that the left turned out to be weaker than I expected. I thought they would put up more of a fight, and that the stalemate I wanted would naturally come about, but I was wrong. The left has turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger and Trump's people have been running wild, which was never my preferred outcome. I just wanted to stop woke authoritarianism. So now I pivot yet again and, since the left turned out to be weaker than I had expected them to be, I now, despite having no love for the left, find myself wanting to at least prevent them from being crushed, since although I am neither left nor right, unfortunately the left is the only political force in the US with enough numbers to contain the right, just like the right is the only political force in the US with enough numbers to contain the left.
This might be uncharitable of me, but after extensive experience with 4chan I suspect that the greentext, at bottom, is just the common 4chan theme of "I wish I could just use force to get women to have sex with me", but dressed up in an intellectual argument.
Notice that the author jumps immediately to the idea of war and never thinks about a much less violent way in which men could potentially persuade women to shift their politics. Which would be to simply deny women male assistance unless they have shown that their politics are friendly to men. No giving or selling of goods or services to women if they seem to have anti-male politics. Of course, in the US that would be illegal for a business to do due to various laws and how those laws are interpreted in practice. My understanding is that it is technically legal for a business to refuse service due to a political disagreement, but in practice it is hard to imagine such a decision being ruled legal if it overwhelmingly affected women. But it is much easier for me to imagine men flouting those laws in mass than it is to imagine men literally going to war against the woman-coded side.
I doubt either would happen, though. I think that it is hard for most men outside of a small group of true misogynists to really truly and deeply hate a woman for her politics unless she directly screws you over in some way. If she is your family member, it is hard because she is family. If she is a lover, it is hard because she is a lover. If she is just some random woman, it is hard because women are not as intimidating as men and so they don't push the deep-seated buttons that make a man want to deeply resist the other side.
It is a strange situation because it is true that many women vote for policies that are objectively bad for me, even to the point of endangering my life. Such as soft-on-crime policies. And that is very bad. Yet despite the fact that I know several women who very much are hard-core Democratic supporters, it is hard for me to really feel personally angry at them for it. Instead I generally just feel that they are being naive or stupid, or that they are letting their views about things like abortion override other factors, and I feel that I want to persuade them, not coerce them, into looking at things differently.
I guess in some ways that is a good thing for the same reason as why it is a good thing to not rage at your family and friends over political disagreements. I don't know. Maybe I should be angry at them for voting for policies that I consider total shit. Not sure what that would help, though. Some man being openly angry at them would do the very opposite of moving them closer to my politics. And in any case, while in some cases these women are quite vehement at disagreeing with my politics, I would not say that they have ever done it in an angry way. Just in a vehement way. I have had a few women actually get openly angry at my politics in the past, but their number is relatively small compared to the number of all the women that I have disagreed with about politics. And I have had men get openly angry at my politics in the past too, as I myself also have with others.
This all reminds me of the famous quote, "Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Don't get me wrong, I probably do have a breaking point. If like 90% of all women voted to literally open up all the prisons and then put a reparations tax on men for centuries of patriarchy, at that point I am pretty sure that I would just pull a reverse Lysistrata and stop fraternizing with the vast majority of them. There is such a thing as too much. I am not there at the moment though. And I am lucky enough that at least the women I am close with are either politically moderate like me or are hard-core Democrats but are capable of having a conversation with me about politics without yelling.
I am sure that with some people, this actually is a moral principle. Tolkien, for example. Based on his works, at least, he seems to have truly appreciated that sort of emotion, something like "I may not be the king, but I wish that whoever is the king is a good and just king who helps his people". There are a number of other such right-leaning (by modern standards) intellectuals who seem to have genuinely been motivated by at least some altruism.
A funny thing though is that on the right, this emotion has long been mixed with something that is very different: an extremely powerful and (mostly) closeted, emotional-sexual complex with overtones of father issues. The anti-egalitarian right has a strong streak of closeted mostly-homosexual eroticism that revolves around dominance/submission. Think of those Nazi uniforms and the Nazi cult of the virile young man, and the adulation of Hitler as some sort of almost living god, for example. and in general, think of the whole Prussian style of life, with its stern fathers and hyper-focus on discipline, social rank, and obedience. Or think of Mishima, whose life speaks for itself. In the modern day, think of the Bronze Age Pervert / Greek statue Twitter style of aesthetic, with its emphasis on toned male bodies and the constant dancing around the fact that many of the actual ancient Greeks enjoyed having sex with men very much. Nothing wrong with some gay sex, but it is funny to see the sublimation in action. Even if they have never heard the word, such people long to be part of a Koryos - although, if in reality they actually did get to be a part of some such group, with its intense hazing and male bonding, they might wish to flee from it quite soon. They have their admiration of masculinity bound up with their psycho-sexual natures. While they might be horrified at the idea of being an older ancient Greek man's young companion who gets both mentored and dominated, maybe even fucked, they long for the softer version of something similar that can be found in Fight Club, or in movies about the tight bonds between soldiers. There is a strong psycho-sexual need for an older brother or a "daddy" of some sort. Now, we all could use a nice older brother or a loving father, but among some of the highly online right it is clear that these archetypes have become fetishized.
Such people often have a powerful obsession with the idea that modern society lacks transition rites to turn boys into men, that it is missing a Koryos of some sort. The modern highly online right has a high over-representation of people who for some reason feel like they need to become men by doing something. Now, normally this just happens as one goes through life. One meets challenges, faces them, sometimes gets defeated and learns something to come back to the fray, at other times conquers the challenge and advances to new heights. Over time, one gains a stronger and stronger sense of one's own power.
Men who, for whatever reason, get stunted in this power process, to borrow a term from Ted Kaczynski, make up a large fraction of the people who get drawn to extremist politics with strong sexual connotations. This is perhaps the grain of truth behind the meme of "young anime-loving autist boy has two possible paths in life: either become a super-leftist transgender with pink-and-blue socks, or become a Nazi LARPer who hates women and posts online going by the name of GasTheKikes1488". In either case, these people seem to have a powerful feeling that something key is missing in their self-image.
The 10% of the right that is made up of actual humane intellectuals is simultaneously struggling with the weight of the 80% of the right who have about the intelligence level of a piece of wood, and with another 10% of the right that is made up of raging, messed-up edgelords.
After some of my recent rethinking about violent crime, I have realized that while before, I leant towards a pro-2nd Amendment position, I am now leaning against the 2nd Amendment, at least theoretically (I will explain more about what I mean by this further below). I could be into a more narrow version of the 2nd Amendment that restricts gun ownership to only certain highly vetted groups. However, I think that too much of American public is simply too stupid, impulsive, and/or antisocial to be trusted with guns. For a similar reason as to why I would not give children in general guns even though a certain fraction of them are capable of using them properly, I do not trust the American public in general with guns.
The main reason why I have had a pro-2nd Amendment position in the past was because I believed that the 2nd Amendment is a bulwark against government overreach. However, while the US is to me unquestionably more free when it comes to civil rights than, for example, Europe, I am not sure how much this has to do with private gun ownership. I have also seen the class of people who share my attitudes about the 2nd Amendment being a bulwark against government overreach repeatedly fail to actually use their guns even when they believe that such overreach exists. When I hear that something like half of Trump supporters claim to literally believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, yet I also see that basically none of them used guns to do anything about it, it gives me some doubt about this whole "bulwark against government tyranny" train of thought. And almost needless to say, widespread public gun ownership did nothing to stop NSA domestic surveillance or, long before that, things like the WWI-era Espionage Act. Or, for that matter, slavery.
Now, I do believe in the argument that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Hence the part about "theoretically" in my first paragraph. Changing the 2nd Amendment now would likely be a bad idea for the simple reason that there are already so many guns in the US that there is no plausible way that simply getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would lead to any outcome other than a bunch of pro-social people handing in their guns while a huge fraction of anti-social people keep them. And that would be very bad. Hence I mean, I still support the 2nd Amendment in practice as a defense against anti-social people. But I am questioning whether it might not be better now if the US had gotten rid of the 2nd Amendment say, a hundred years ago or so.
I should make clear that I am not clearly against the 2nd Amendment even theoretically. Like I said, I am just beginning to lean against it. I am no longer convinced that its supposed upsides are worth the downsides.
It is clear to me that the modern Democratic Party is essentially an enabler of violent crime, and that is one of the main reasons why I cannot imagine myself voting for a Democrat. However, I also see how the Republicans' pro-2nd Amendment position has contributed to the problem, and I cannot let them off the hook.
Edit: I should note that I would vastly prefer a hardcore crackdown on violent crime that does not take away pro-social people's guns, as opposed to taking away most people's guns. I believe that only a very small minority of Americans commit violent crime. However, I am not sure how likely it would be for such a crackdown to work in America to reduce the level of violent crime to what I would like it to be (not zero, but something like Japan levels), given the sheer size of the country and the sheer number of guns that exist here.
I just assume that if the deep state actually set up a shooting to assassinate Trump, they would probably succeed at killing him. It's hard for me to believe that they would manage to get a shooter within fairly easy range of him, yet the shooter would miss. The lone wolf theory seems way more plausible to me. In any case, if the deep state has had 10 years in which to kill Trump and they haven't done it, then they are fairly irrelevant as a political force, which is part of my original point.
As for the progressive status quo, I don't know where you are getting that from. I disagree with progressives on a range of issues, including HBD, policing, and the economic consequences of socialism. The average progressive would certainly not classify me as a fellow progressive if exposed to my unfiltered political ideas.
Goodguy
5mo ago
I'm very much not "woke", but I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, in my opinion "Denali" sounds much more awesome than "Mount McKinley". "Denali" sounds imposing, almost Himalayan. And "Utqiagvik", although I don't know how to pronounce it, at least looks better on the page than "Barrow". I don't see the benefit of replacing cool, exotic-looking foreign names for such places with Anglo names.
Also, I don't really mind getting rid of using Robert E. Lee's name on anything that is run by the government. I would be annoyed if the government was naming things after a man who fought to keep my ancestors literally enslaved just 160 years ago. Of course there's a slippery slope, because then one can argue we should also stop naming things after Washington and so on... but in any case, I don't think that it's unreasonable for blacks to ask that we stop naming public things after literally Bobby Lee, the top general in the Confederacy, just like it was not unreasonable for Latvians to want to get rid of Lenin statues after the USSR fell apart.
Not sure where else to put this so I'll put this here as an addition to what I have already said about Holocaust deniers elsewhere in this thread.
Holocaust deniers present a real challenge to free speech loving forums and, on such forums, largely create their own problems by turning people against them.
The challenge, at least for US-hosted websites, is not that Holocaust denial will bring the "Eye of Sauron" on the forum or anything similar. The Motte, for example, is in no danger because it hosts Holocaust deniers. 4chan is still merrily chugging along even though Holocaust denial is almost the norm there.
The actual challenge is that Holocaust deniers are a very highly motivated group of people who swarm to free speech forums because they are instantly banned in most other places. And the majority of them, whether they consciously realize this or not, are not really interested in having a real debate - they want to proselytize. And the majority of them have a poor understanding of history and/or poor critical thinking skills.
The combination of these things means that when a large enough group of them come to any given forum, they tend to mess up the place by derailing as much discussion as they possibly can into the service of their own interests while also not actually making particularly good arguments. In this, ironically, they are similar to the woke.
Free speech forum participants usually have an eclectic range of interests. Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, are usually highly passionate about Holocaust denial, not very interested in other topics, and their beliefs are highly coherent with the beliefs of other deniers, so once enough of them have come to a site one's experience there becomes similar to fighting against an army of bots.
Some might laugh at this, but I remember that 4chan's /his/ at one point a few years ago was actually a relatively decent (by 4chan standards) place to discuss history. Most of it was typical stupid 4chan-tier discussion, but there was also a decent number of intelligent participants. But the board kept getting constantly shit up by wave upon wave of Holocaust deniers. So the typical state of the board would be a bunch of small threads about eclectic stuff, and then a few 100-200 reply threads full of repetitive arguing between Holocaust deniers and other people. Almost all of the deniers were firmly unwavering in their beliefs and I doubt many a mind was ever changed. I have a theory that over time, the board got significantly worse at least in part because a lot of the intelligent posters got bored/tired of the deniers and stopped engaging as much.
Imagine that you are running a history forum and you are firmly devoted to the cause of free speech and "no topic is off limits". But imagine also that it so happens that the Internet has a strongly motivated, passionate, and fairly large contingent of people who are convinced that Napoleon never existed and was actually just a hoax. You want to allow people to discuss whatever they want with no restrictions on their speech - however, then you notice that now 20% of your board is made up of people who claim that Napoleon was a hoax, have a poor understanding of history, are impossible to persuade, and constantly accuse those who disagree with them of being part of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. The constant debates between the Napoleon deniers and their opponents are sucking all the air out of the room. What do you do?
Personally I am not in favor of banning Holocaust denial. I am pretty staunchly in favor of free speech!
So why did I write all this? It is to explain why, to some of us who have been discussing history online for a long time, Holocaust deniers are just so utterly tiresome. We have debated with them a hundred times on a dozen different forums. That is why when they show up, our response isn't to think "Oh goody, what an interesting new take on this historical matter!". Our response is "Ah man, it's these people again... Here come the same repetitive, pointless debates that I've already seen so many times before."
I don't think the statues should be destroyed if someone wants to take them, but I also do not think that it is reasonable to expect black Americans to be ok with there being official statues of people who enslaved their ancestors just 150 years ago.
The history is too recent. It is like expecting Latvians or Poles to not want to destroy statues of Lenin.
You would probably feel the same way, I think, if you were part of a racial minority living in a country where the racial majority had enslaved your ancestors 150 years ago.
Of course, if you want you are free to take a position of political selfishness and just say "screw them, I only care about white people" or "I only care about descendants of the English" or "I only care about my own friends and family", or whatever level you want to take it to.
Political selfishness is of course immoral by any standard definition of morality but it at least has the benefit that unlike every single political ideology, it is internally consistent.
Of course, don't expect people who are not part of your in-group as you define it to back you up if you are honest to them about your political selfishness.
For thousands of years people also "knew" that the Earth was the center of the solar system. I too think that the conventional notion of men and women maps better onto the actual distribution of human characteristics than the trans activist notion does*, but appealing to common sense is not a good argument for it.
*With the caveat that it is actually a distribution rather than a pure binary distinction. However, the distribution is so dominated by the two clusters of "men" and "women" as traditionally understood that the conventional notion of men and women does not lose much from a pragmatic perspective even if it is not technically accurate.
Goodguy
2yr ago
Many people here get really fucking cringe whenever the topic of sexuality comes up. This comment thread reminds me of that one about Aella from the other week. Just a palpable sense of barely disguised seething towards women from some commenters.
It's possible. The Secret Service are humans, not superpowered ninjas from a movie. They are good at what they do, but the reality is that there are probably like 30 million people in this country who would happily kill Trump if they could do it and get away with it. The Secret Service has managed to successfully protect Trump for 10 years, through hundreds of outdoor rallies and so on. They're not perfect, so it's rational that they eventually fucked up. One might argue that it's weird that the two assassination attempts that we know of that even came close both happened shortly before the election, but that can be explained by the fact that just before the election is precisely when random lone wolves would be most motivated to try to kill Trump.
It might seem weird that the Secret Service would not do anything in reaction to someone telling them they see a guy on the roof with a gun... but at the end of the day, it's a job for them. We all have bad days on the job when we're tired or whatever. Besides, if I my job was protecting Trump for years and having to stand around in all kinds of weather conditions listening to him ramble for hours, and someone told me that there was a reason to think Trump might be about to get shot, I can easily imagine even as an elite Secret Service operator being like "fuck who cares, I'm tired of all this shit".
Goodguy
9mo ago
Granted, I've never been a father, but I don't see why it's supposed to be automatically humiliating or horrible in some other way for a father to know that his daughter is having sex with dozens of guys. Seems strange to me. As a father, as long as she's safe while doing it, why should I care? I like promiscuous girls, they're usually more interesting to talk to than non-promiscuous girls, and it's easier to get laid with them. I don't look down on them compared to non-promiscuous girls. It would be hypocritical for me to judge my daughter's promiscuity based on different standards than I use with women whom I want to fuck.
That you wrote six paragraphs to vent a simple emotion that you could have stated in one sentence does not lure me into thinking that you are making a rational argument. I am not that much of a Motteizen. Plenty of people disagree with your idea that the greatest current failure of American civilization are the violent homeless drug addicts. There are so many other options. For example, the endless foreign interventionism... the NSA domestic surveillance... the war on drugs...
You are a Singapore-style authoritarian but I am not. If you want to move to Singapore, I doubt that it would be difficult.
"Lock the addicts up, slaughter the dealers, forget about the problem."
Aha... but in this authoritarian utopia of yours somehow you think that The Motte would still exist? You think that a government that literally kills people for selling substances that people consensually want to consume is going to... let people post on a forum that allows free speech?
"Lock the addicts up, slaughter the dealers, forget about the problem."
...
"Lock the free-thinkers up, slaughter the spreaders of dissident thoughts, forget about the problem."
No, fuck you.
More options
Context Copy link