Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 732
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
6mo ago
The sanctity of human life as a bright line between good and evil is an important load bearing principle of our civilization
Are you a staunch pacifist? Do you believe that no human being can ever kill any other human being under any circumstances? Even if your answer is yes, surely you can acknowledge that nearly no other person on earth, including in any nation you consider civilized, holds this belief. The vast majority of people believe that it is completely permissible to take another human life in at least some circumstance. That means that the line you are pointing at is not actually very bright at all, and is certainly not foundational to our civilization.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
For optics reasons, I’m going to be intentionally vague about what precisely I’m imagining.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
10mo ago
I often report low-effort link-spamming by right-wingers in this sub; I would have reported the post in question if it hadn’t already been nuked before I saw it. What I’m defending here is not link-spamming, which I agree is bad for the sub. If you recall, my comments in the kerfuffle about JQ-posting were exclusively in defense of SecureSignals, who is not guilty of low-effort link-spamming, whatever else you think of him. I have never defended link-spammers like Foreverlurker or his alts.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11mo ago
Has the popularity of “prank” shows, starting with Candid Camera and *Punk’d” and then on to the massively popular (and utterly garbage) Impractical Jokers, contributed to a lower-trust society? Or is it merely a reflection of the decline in social trust?
It seems, naïvely, that prank shows like these could not have existed in (at least American) 1940s or 1950s society; the overall sense of propriety in public spaces, and the general expectation that one should be what one purports to be and deal forthrightly and in an upstanding manner with others, seems like it was far too high to permit would-be pranksters to operate without scorn.
It seems to suggest something ugly and mean-spirited about our culture that so many TV watchers apparently enjoy watching pranks played on others, and enjoy watching grown men walk around in public creating mistrust and confusion. I don’t like the idea that people are being rewarded for helping to foster an environment in which one can never truly be sure if the guy they’re dealing with is someone totally different from who he purports to be. If I go to a restaurant or a grocery store, I want to be pretty much 100% certain that I’m not going to be forced to participate in tomfoolery instead of just getting what I wanted and expected based on normal societal functioning. If I get asked to a job interview, I want to be damn sure it’s a real job interview and not some farcical joke.
Am I just being a massive fuddy-duddy? Is my obviously-escalating cortisol level turning me into a dour misanthrope? Is the existence of popular prank shows actually helping to strengthen our society’s inoculation against actual con-men, by cultivating people’s healthy suspicion of the motives of others? Is all of this just totally irrelevant and it’s not that deep?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
3mo ago
The French do not care much for blood. Though one must recognize that genetics are a real thing that plays a real part in shaping who we are, it is not a part of our national conception at this time.
Buddy, this is the same stuff I’ve heard about “what it is to be an American” my entire life. It’s as fake and subversive here as it is in France. If a country has no genetic/ancestral continuity with its founding population, it is a completely new and fundamentally different entity. Just because you’ve been psyopped into believing it, doesn’t mean it’s “true”.
I’m not saying that France should not allow anyone to live here who is not 100% ancestrally French. (And I’m well aware of the complicated nature of what “ancestrally French” means.) But “becoming” French should mean, at a bare minimum, being married to an ethnically French person, having a child with at least two ethnically-French grandparents, and changing one’s name (given name and surname!) to a historically French name. This, of course, means that few if any Arab individuals living in your country are currently French; perhaps they will become French if they truly and sincerely want to be - or at least their children will - but it’s going to take a hell of a lot more effort than what’s being undertaken right now.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
4mo ago
Nobody is willing to countenance just shooting them.
If you’re correct that other non-violent measures are exorbitantly expensive and/or ineffective, I am in fact willing to countenance just shooting them. You wouldn’t have to shoot very many before the rest of them would stop coming. (Or would start openly acting like proper invaders, in which case a lot more people would start being okay with shooting a lot more of them.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
a self-loathing Hollywood Jew like Steve Sailer?
Steve Sailer is not Jewish. His ancestors were primarily Swiss. He has discussed this numerous times. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
a deep and abiding resentment of what the West in general, and the Anglosphere/US in particular has historically represented.
Whatever you imagine “the West” to be, it seems to bear no resemblance to the actual historical reality, in which every important European country practiced widespread, industrialized chattel slavery, as well as explicitly racial conquest of non-white peoples. The men of the West believed for centuries that white people were naturally and manifestly supreme over lesser races, whose backward practices and pathetic excuses for culture needed to be flattened and replaced with the ways of “Christendom” - understood in explicitly racial terms at the time - as part of the destiny of Western man.
You decry “progressives”, yet you clearly believe in a very strong form of historical progress yourself. You want to pretend to cherish “the West” as a coherent and contiguous historical/cultural whole, but you clearly believe that the specific part of Western history when Enlightenment principles emerged - sweeping away bedrock principles and practices which had defined massive swathes of European and Semitic history - should be treated preferentially as a wholesale improvement and indeed irreversible replacement of what had come previously.
Aristotle certainly didn’t believe that “all men are created equal”; he wrote reams of material arguing precisely the opposite. Nor did any of the men who wrote the Old Testament, and nor did most of the men who founded the United States. If you want to believe that ideological principles which are less than 300 years old represent the only important legacy of the multiple millennia of European and Semitic thought, be my guest; it’s an entirely respectable and coherent position. But then you can’t really claim any appreciation for “the West”.
And of course all of this leaves aside the fact that you have still never once engaged with the core claim at the heart of white nationalist ideology, which is that distinct peoples - and I mean distinct in terms of language, culture, religion, heritable proclivities, shared history, or whatever other organizing principle you want to pick - function best as a homogeneous polity, free to pursue its own path and tend to its own affairs. It’s the principle that led to the formation of most of the modern states existing in the world today. Slovaks will have the best and happiest life if they can just worry about being Slovenes and taking care of the welfare of other Slovaks, while Czechs meanwhile can focus on being the best Czechs that they can be.
White nationalists simply apply the same principles to distinct racial-cultural groups within their own countries. Some white nationalists want a unified multinational, multilingual confederation of European-descended peoples; other white nationalists viciously disagree, and believe that all of the different white peoples of the world - from the Dutch to the Poles to even currently stateless ethnic groups like the Basques - should have their own distinct states. The only through-line linking these two diametrically-opposed stances is the belief that there are sufficient aggregate differences in temperament and shared history between, on the one hand, people of European descent, and on the other hand, people of non-European descent, such that the optimal model of political organization is one in which each lives apart from the other, and neither is politically responsible for the welfare of the other.
I don’t know where you see “victimhood” in any of this. If you’re talking specifically about the pathological whining about how hapless and blameless whites are being manipulated and coerced by ultra-powerful Jews into ruining their own countries and failing to maintain the former glory of their ancestral patrimony, then I agree with you that this is a flawed and pathetic attitude. This is not, however, an integral aspect of white nationalism. Many more clear-eyed and practical figures within the movement are far more focused on identifying and combating the unique shortcomings and failure modes of their own people - in the same way that any nationalist of any healthy civilization ought to do - than they are with blaming some other people for those failures.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
One of the universe's greatest mysteries, maybe the greatest
It’s only a mystery if you decide, based on faith, to accept the divinity of Christ, based on factors other than his behavior and statements. Otherwise it’s not mysterious at all: he acted like a normal human man because he was a normal human man.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
Downvoting doesn’t have any substantive effect on the visibility of a comment, though. On Reddit, sure, the downvotes are visible to everyone in real-time, and if the downvote ratio is big enough, the comment becomes hidden by default and has to be manually clicked on to become visible. Here, though, the comment “score” isn’t even visible to anyone, including the author, for a full 24 hours, and even after that the comment is just as visible as it was before.
I routinely downvote posts I disagree with - even well-written and effortful ones. I do so not to discourage the author from posting further about his or her views, but because I want that author to have a realistic idea of how relatively popular those views are in this space. I think that this information is useful to me as it pertains to my own posts. I eagerly await being able to see the score on my own comments; not only for the cheap dopamine rush, although that’s certainly a factor, but also because I want to see how well I’m doing at persuading people. If I got a lot of downvotes, it’s probably because I’m not doing a very good job - or, at least, I didn’t with that particular comment - of bringing people around to finding my way of thinking persuasive.
Sure, maybe it’s because the comment was poorly-written or poorly-argued, and maybe a better version of the same comment would have gotten a better score, but as a rule of thumb it’s useful to assume that the score is a reflection on whether or not people agreed with the sentiments I expressed. That helps me, because it means I can craft future arguments around things that resonated with people, and maybe de-emphasize or be more elective about expressing certain ideas that are turning people off.
Yeah, sure, it’s a bummer when a comment I thought was a banger gets a lot of downvotes, but I’d still prefer that to one that got very little engagement, positive or negative, at all. Ideally the downvoters would accompany their votes with an argument, but realistically people don’t always have time or anything profound to say, so the downvote is just a way to casually express “your idea is not popular here, if people like me have any say in it” and move on. I do this myself. It’s not the greatest use of the forum’s mechanics, but it works well enough.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
10mo ago
Right, so, this is something that I wanted to touch on in my post but started brushing up against the character limit. I understand that different societies have varying cultural norms around nudity. We can see it most obviously when it comes to pre-modern African and Polynesian societies, but I’m also aware that parts of Europe have norms around social nudity that differ significantly from America. Perhaps if I was constantly exposed to the sight of naked breasts in a non-sexual setting, I would not form any erotic association between breasts and sex. As I mentioned in my post, I’ve grown up in a time and place where it is normal to see women’s hair and to not be aroused by this, but presumably if I grew up in a society where every women wears a hijab, I would find exposed hair arousing. It’s difficult for me to imagine not being turned on by a nice pair of breasts, but I acknowledge that it must be at least theoretically possible.
Now, I would have to do more research into the state of Irish society at that time in order to draw any conclusions about the larger social causes and consequences of such a relaxed attitude toward nudity. My naïve sense is that Ireland was a very dysfunctional and hardscrabble society in many different ways during that particular time frame, so it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me that behavioral norms which we now associate with the third world would prevail in such a place.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1d ago
Their civil liberties are being violated by being pushed through a system that de-facto requires them to confess without trial, regardless of whether they are actually guilty or not.
Nobody is forced to take a plea deal. If someone actually is totally innocent of the crimes in question - as in, there’s no murky questions of intent, evidence that could be interpreted either way, etc. - taking a plea deal strikes me as a very poor choice. The fact is that the vast majority of people who take plea deals do so because they are in fact guilty, or at least they’re adjacent enough to a crime that a reasonable jury could assess them as guilty.
I knew they didn’t because I never committed the crime, but I was under enough pressure that I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in my shoes took the plea deal anyway.
Why? It sounds like you didn’t take a plea deal because you were certain there was no evidence of your guilt. Why would someone in that type of situation take a plea deal, short of being a person who lacks good judgment?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
1mo ago
Have you considered why white identitarians are not moving in greater numbers to white European countries?
I will use myself as an example. Right before Covid, I started looking into the possibility of becoming certified to teach English abroad. I was trying to figure out a way to get out of the U.S., at least temporarily, and to make a decent living while doing so. It seemed like one of the few ways for a non-highly-skilled immigrant to Europe to contribute positively, in a way that would not actively compete with or take jobs away from local citizens; my English fluency was something I could bring to the table that the average Eastern European can’t, and I could contribute positively to a local economy and culture.
However, the Covid lockdowns and their effects on travel decimated the TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) industry, and even if they hadn’t, the reality is that very few Americans can successfully get long-term well-paying jobs in Europe, due to EU labor regulations. I would have had to have invested in a Master’s degree in Education to have any hope of earning a stable and long-term salaried teaching job anywhere in the EU; without it, and without an established background as a professional teacher in the U.S., my job prospects in Europe would have been pretty entry-level. This is fine for recent college grads taking a “gap year”, or people who are just that desperate to get a chance to live abroad, but for someone like me, in my thirties and needing to earn a real living with the opportunity to save money, it just wasn’t financially realistic. And of course it would have been even less realistic if I already have a family and kids that I needed to bring over there and support.
There is also the issue of having nearly no established English-speaking expat community in many of those countries. The prospect of becoming fluent in Latvian, or Slovak, or Serbian, at this point in my life is quite dicey; I would be a very obvious foreigner, too late in life to truly assimilate into the local culture, for the entirety of my life in whatever country I’m moving to; if my entire stance on immigration is that it’s bad for people to move in large numbers to a country, despite not speaking the language and not being able to assimilate, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to then go and be exactly one of those immigrants.
And if Latvia did decide to open itself up to large-scale immigration by Americans, and to make its culture more accommodating to such people, the types of people who would come would be, overwhelmingly, liberal cosmopolitans who would immediately set about dismantling what made Latvia so functional and appealing in the first place. I was always aware that by coming over to Latvia to teach their children English, I would, as a matter of practical reality, be giving those children the tools to move away from Latvia, or to open their minds up to the poisonous ideology emanating from the Anglosphere and to sever them from their roots. In one sense, I would be selling them a valuable product that they desire, but in the other hand I would consider that product quite likely to be deleterious to them and to their native culture in the long run; I’d be little better than a pornographer or a drug pusher.
For white racially-aware individuals to start moving to European countries en masse, there would need to be clear reasons to believe that this would not lead to them being a ghettoized and distrusted population in those countries. Perhaps some right-wing European billionaire (do any such people exist?) could open a bunch of schools that would teach European kids English, but at the same time also teach them conservative Eurocentric values? This could maybe employ some smart DR guys like me who are temperamentally suited for teaching, but it’d still have to find some way to pay us a decent enough salary to make it worth it. Past that, I just don’t think the jobs are realistically there for most of the guys who’d be theoretically interested in them.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
4mo ago
This is just demonstrably untrue. Have you considered that some of us believe that current levels of mass immigration are an existential threat to the future of this country? That whether or not DEI and affirmative action programs expand or retract will have a measurable and significant effect on the efficacy of our institutions and infrastructure? That one presidential candidate is more likely than another to create the conditions that will plunge the country into a large-scale war?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
5mo ago
You continually vacillate about your justification, though. Sometimes you actually come out and admit that you want Europe flooded by poor third world immigrants as a punishment, because you blame them (rightly or wrongly) for the plight of the third world, or because of more petty personal vendettas. (They expect you to drink at social functions and this makes you uncomfortable, don’t they know you’re better than them, etc.) I do wish you’d at least stick with that, instead of occasionally lapsing into pretending that this is somehow for our own good, or that somehow we’ll come out of this total societal collapse with a better and more sustainable set of moral principles.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
A patrimony is any thing of value which is passed down from person or family to the direct descendants of that person or family. Used more broadly, it can mean a thing of value that is passed down within members of a particular society or group of people to those whom they’ve designated as the inheritors of that thing.
If your complaint is that the fact that families can own things of value and that a father can choose to exclusively transfer ownership of that thing to his children, rather than to the stranger whom you deem most “deserving” of it, then I simply say that you and I have wildly different moral foundations. It’s okay for parents to favor their own children, rather than the children who are “objectively the most meritorious”. When my grandfather died, he transferred ownership of his home to his daughter - not to the person whom he thought would “do the best job” of cultivating its value or improving it aesthetically or whatever you think his criteria should have been.
I am simply extending the principle of family inheritance to societies and ethnic groups as a whole. People for most of history did their part to improve their local polity not simply for the benefit of their own individual children and grandchildren, but also the other future inhabitants of that same polity. If that polity were then, say, conquered or abandoned, and then some new group of people were to inhabit the same place and appropriate the existing things of value for themselves, such a state of affairs would obviously be contrary to the wishes of the previous inhabitants. (The new inhabitants would not be morally wrong in having taken something from someone else - the history of humanity is one long story of groups taking things by force from other groups - but it is clearly desirable and of vital importance for one group of people to endeavor to not suffer the fate of having its valuable things taken by another group of people.)
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
I’m assuming you’re not very familiar with my posting history and my views, if you believe that I’m currently an “ally” to progressives, or that I’m moved by your accusations that progressives “divide people by race”. It’s an easy misunderstanding based on my (true) statement that I’ve spent my entire adult life in heavily progressive social spaces; however, a quick perusal of my posting history in this forum should help you understand where I’m coming from. My worldview at this time is very, very far from progressive, and I’m far more guilty of “stoking racial division” than any of the progressives, white or otherwise, with whom you’ve incorrectly lumped me in.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
10mo ago
Nah, I’m not gonna do any more of your homework for you. If you actually had any interest in verifying the accuracy of any of the claims you were making, it would be very easy for you to research this yourself. You don’t, so you won’t. I’m not gonna continue to this exchange any longer. I have been very open about where I live, and about some of the terrible professional and educational decisions I made in my twenties which have made it more difficult for me to relocate to a more suburban lifestyle without simultaneously tanking my personal income in the process. I’m not rehashing any of that with you today.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
10mo ago
while you are all cheerfully pretending the discussion developed organically
If a post is allowed by the mods to stay up, and it’s relevant to my interests or provides what I see as a useful opportunity to carry on an organic conversation, I’m going to capitalize on that opportunity. I also make effortposts of my own that have no connection whatsoever to the user(s) that you’re up in arms about.
Do you genuinely not see it, or this some sort of balancing of the scales for your oppression by society?
I’ve never claimed to be oppressed by society.
Do we have to tolerate your blatant, daily astroturfing to compensate for your censorship elsewhere?
Please be specific about whom you mean by “your”. Are you accusing me of having some involvement with the link-spamming? I can say with declarative certainty that I don’t know who any of these accounts are, nor if they’re even on my side. Several people here have expressed suspicion and concern that these low-effort right-wing link-spams are actually the work of someone trying to make either the sub in general or right-wingers/identitarians look bad. Or maybe it’s just the work of someone looking to start shit by baiting people into acrimonious arguments. Or, yeah, maybe it is some recruitment agent for some white nationalist organization or website or grift. I genuinely have no clue.
All I can do is report posts that fail to meet the bare-minimum threshold for good-faith engagement. Cake did manage to reformulate his post in order to get it over the threshold, which means it’s fair game to use as a springboard for actual discussion. Do you think it’s my solemn duty to refuse to engage because I don’t totally trust the provenance of the original poster?
It may surprise you to hear that I basically agree with you! I want to clarify that I myself don’t answer to the term “white nationalist”, and part of the reason is basically what you’re pointing at. If white nationalism means total opposition to all marriages between any person of European heritage and any person of non-European heritage, then I fully agree with you that such a project would be DOA in America. It would have been successful - it was successful - even a hundred years ago. But, after sixty years of mass non-European immigration, the demographic horse has already left the barn. Marriage between many white people and many non-white people is an irreversible reality in this country as of the 21st century. Marriages between whites and Hispanics are not going to stop. Marriages between whites and Asians are not going to stop. To the extent that white nationalism as a movement cannot figure out a way to work within the constraints of this reality, I agree that it will not be sustainable outside of Europeans countries that are still 80+% white.
However, you yourself have now linked multiple posts of mine which were brought to your attention by @HelmedHorror. (Thank you to him for plugging my work while I was completely occupied by my day job this week.) In those very posts, I explicate my somewhat idiosyncratic and very broad framework for what I mean when I say “white”. In those posts, and in other of mine in this forum, I’ve said that Asians are welcome within the big tent of whiteness. I also see the necessity of integrating mestizo Hispanics into this tent, which will be a complicated but not insurmountable project. Much as modern-day Europeans have genetic ancestry from three distinct populations - Western Hunter-Gatherers, Neolithic Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans - I think it’s likely that the globally-dominant human population in 2,000 years will probably have some combination of European, East Asian, and probably Hispanic ancestry.
Remember that the big division that I care about is “black vs. non-black”. It really is just people with substantial sub-Saharan and Negrito (Australian/Oceanian Aboriginal) ancestry that I think the rest of the world’s populations need to remain separate from. (Arabs represent another major sticking point, and I’m still figuring out exactly what I think the optimal outcome would look like regarding that population and how/whether it could successfully integrate with other populations.) Now, certainly there are people right now with at least partial black ancestry who I could definitely imagine a successful white-centric culture managing to successfully embrace and integrate. (Is Blake Griffin “white”? Is Aaron Gordon? Is Mariah Carey? Sure! If they truly want to be!) This would require those people to relinquish any cultural/emotional/political affiliation to blackness as an identity and to marry and reproduce with people with zero black ancestry, in order to dilute the percentage of black ancestry in the future population to as small a number as possible.
Since the vast majority of blacks will not do this - and to be clear, that’s not an indictment of them, but rather a simple acknowledgment that for the vast majority of people, identity is centrally important and it is completely natural and healthy to relate to, and to value the welfare of, people who physically and ancestrally resemble you - and since only a small percentage of blacks are truly capable of integrating successfully into first-world civilization, it is going to be necessary to exclude them. Right now, in this country, people of mulatto (half-black, half-white) ancestry overwhelmingly relate more to their black ancestry and seek to be accepted by black culture. One can propose paths forward to a future in which the reverse is true, and I’m open to hearing them, but my money is on this continuing to be the case for a very, very long time.
Now, regarding AmRen’s claim that Chris Rufo’s marriage to a Thai woman makes it basically impossible to trust him as a reliable ally to this movement given current political and philosophical realities, is simply a descriptive observation, rather than the prescriptive/normative claim that you’re interpreting it to be. I think it’s a demonstrable fact that most people who are in mixed-race relationships are going to be extremely turned-off by any movement which they perceive as remotely threatening to those relationships. Whether their perceptions are accurate or not is not ultimately all that relevant. For example, a friend of mine from high school - historically a pretty conservative/libertarianish guy, skeptical of the left - was posting on Facebook a few years ago about his support for BLM, his opposition to any “racist” or “nativist” or “anti-black” political forces, etc. This guy is white, but married to a (very light-skinned, evidently of at least partial white ancestry herself) Filipina friend of ours, with whom he has two children. He told me that as a father of mixed-race children, it’s crucial for him to support pro-black causes in order to oppose “systemic racism” that threatens his family. This argument involves total non sequiturs, as far as I’m concerned; what does supporting a black communist organization that seeks to appropriate non-blacks’ resources in order to enrich blacks and prevent black criminals from being punished have to do with the safety of hapa children? But for a great many people in mixed-race relationships, they apparently currently perceive the only two choices as “white nationalism” (scary, bad, unacceptable) or “total unwavering loyalty to a coalition of non-white identity groups who oppose any attempt by whites to exert political will on their own behalf”. Cutting this Gordian knot of branding and public perception is the key struggle of white nationalist/identitarian movements, and in America at least they are fighting an uphill battle.
That’s one of the reasons why, for me, it’s so important to draw clear distinctions and explicitly communicate that we don’t have any big problem with white guys marrying Asian women, or even “thicc Latinas”. It’s not our ideal world, but the ideal world is no longer attainable given current (and seemingly irreversible) demographic trends. We need to work with what we’ve got, which is why some form of Castizo Futurism needs to be the way forward in America, while still fighting hard to preserve overwhelming white demographic dominance in any and all European countries in which that’s still even a remotely achievable possibility.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7mo ago
Okay, I too have come to believe that unobservable spiritual forces probably do exist. I have no idea how you get from that conclusion to “Yeshua Ben Nazareth, a 1st-century Galilean carpenter and mystic, was the literal incarnation of those spiritual forces, and therefore it is very important that I analyze his teachings and model my own life after those teachings to the best of my ability.” There is a whole world of other possible religions to believe in - including any of the various extant strains of Judaism, if you’re so convinced that the Jewish people specifically have some particular connection with, or part in, this spiritual realm!
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
8mo ago
You think I’m going to quit my job, drop everything I’ve got going on in my life, and subject myself to considerable physical risk, all for the opportunity to get a one-time payment of $20,000?
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
Okay, well, to be honest I’m not really interested in getting you to buy it. I’m comfortable with the fact that a great many people on this sub, and obviously a far vaster number of people not on this sub, are fully committed to seeing this liberal democracy experiment through to the end. Maybe I’ll crack the code at some point and figure out the best method to dissuading these people, but I am humble enough to recognize that right now I’m simply not going to be able to make an effective enough case to persuade dyed-in-the-wool liberal democrats. Obviously I used to be a liberal democrat myself, so one would naïvely think it’d be as simple as reverse-engineering what arguments led me to change my mind and then deploying those to try and change your mind; however, it seems not to really work that way.
Much of my writing here is targeted toward people who are already at least part of the way along the journey away from liberal democracy the same way I am. The goal of at least trying to get people such as yourself to see people like me as somewhat palatable, or at least not obviously crazy and requiring immediate censorship and destruction, is a secondary goal.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
9mo ago
I just don’t think this is remotely true. Sure, I think when you refer to “football names” you’re talking about something like Jaxtyn, or Nevaeh, or Shaeleigh, etc. But I find it very hard to imagine working-class (as in, gainfully-employed and expecting their children to be the same) blacks would name a kid LeJarius, or Kwanteeshah, or Quondray, etc. Those just scream “rap sheet starts at 15 years old” to me and, I imagine, every prospective employer in America.
To me that is the worst part about it; it means that it can’t be sung communally by a group of normal untrained people without sounding like absolute shit. Personally I would prefer an anthem that is accessible to the common man, rather than being essentially an operatic aria which we all need to stand around and solemnly observe an elite trained singer perform.
More options
Context Copy link