@Iconochasm's banner p

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

				

User ID: 314

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 314

Depends on when and how. If you join a club, guys do it into their 80's. If you're trying to hunt on your own, well, how much awkward, ungainly carcass can you personally haul through a mile of woods?

Random tangent: I remember when I was a kid at the hunting club, hearing a pair of adults talk about a third guy who couldn't make Deer Week that season for some reason. And one of the guys says "Damn, you only get 60 or 70 deer seasons in a lifetime."

Just one of those lines that's always stuck with me. There are only so many opportunities.

Do you know what time it is?

That's fine and fair. I more think this is a ripe scenario for thought experiments and teasing the outlines of things, than I am, say, calling for twitter posters to be jailed.

Imagine you were a juror in a case involving this sort of thing. What kind of evidence would you want to see to conclude that a person was an actively bad actor trying to sabotage their own nation? Or do you think idiocy is a fully general defense?

That's the blurry edge. What's the difference between a gullible idiot and someone just explicitly rooting for the other side?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If the claims are literally true, then there would be reasonable value in propagating them beyond being a partisan for the other side. If the claims are not true, and you reasonable ought to have known that (as in, you had to have an AI generate the footage you're purporting to supply as "news" because it just doesn't exist), then your actions are a much cleaner, likely entirely indefensible, fit for "giving them Aid and Comfort".

What about lying about the state of the war to help Iranian propaganda efforts? Say, creating AI videos that purport to show Iran winning military victories against the US and presenting them as real news?

Treason would be literally aiding and abetting the enemy, which despite many people's attempts to claim it is so during every conflict, does not include "Speaking out against the war."

Eh, there's a point where colloquial usage is fair. I would say that if an opposition Senator gave information to the Iranian regime, that ought to count enough for "slander" purposes, even without a formal declaration.

But Trump has a short attention span and no conviction.

Trump has been talking about fucking up Iran since the 80s.

Worth noting that teenagers are a notoriously low propensity voting block. So even if a large chunk of 19 year olds are groypers... how many of them were going to make it to the polls anyway? It's not a Trump vote switching to the Dems, it's a guy playing video games on gummies staying the same.

She was an excellent SoS - she used the position to funnel so much money and influence into the Clinton Foundation. That's what secretary level positions are for, right?

Immigration restriction, sure (although he still refuses to do the one thing that would actually work, which is go after employers who hire illegals).

This gets cited constantly, and it always strikes me as "Please don't throw me into that briar patch" situation. "Oh Mr. Trump, please don't score a massive own goal and shoot yourself in the foot by aggressively disrupting multiple industries that will have clearly seen and felt impacts on regular Americans, I say, I say, please don't do that for sure!"

As an immigration hawk, I'm actually pretty fine with the current strategy of "deport a ton of people (headlining bad optics criminals) while closing the border and squeezing even more out, in a way that gradually and inexorably shrinks the illegal labor base while giving the relevant industries plenty of advance warning that things are changing". That actually seems a lot more sensible and less disruptive, and less likely to allow Certain People to spend the mid-term campaigns screaming at the top of their lungs that some random fruit is experiencing shortages.

For the Groypers to exert political influence, they need to make it costly for politicians to ignore their interests.

How many groypers are voters, and how many are teenagers, or from the third world?

No, it's actually insane schitzo shit.

This is still black and white thinking. You don't have to devote a ton of effort to a problem to acknowledge it exists. You also don't have to openly ally with people who are like a comic book villain exagerration of your hated domestic foes.

Like, if labor organizers were openly throwing protests to support the slavers, then it would be quite fair to question their commitment to the principles of workers rights. Whereas it would be much more reasonable for them to say "Yes, slavery is terrible, but it very far away and not my problem. I wish the slaves the best of luck though."

(well, except for the highway scene that takes forever).

Eh, this feels like a later conclusion. None of my friends complained about it at the time. It was actually quite popular.

After the third, I think a lot of good will and rose tinting was stripped off.

What are they going to do? We got Muslim nations on board against Iran at home.

I saw Reloaded three times in theatres. The action sequences were just sublime for that era.

2003 also had The Last Samurai, Pirates of the Caribbean, 28 Days Later, Kill Bill, Master and Commander, and X2 (which I also went to see three times).

Why be charitable? I've been told my entire life to take responsibility for things other white people did a thousand miles away from my ancestors a hundred and fifty years ago. If she wants to claim to be an American (and represent us in Congress!) then she can publicly flagellate herself for the purported sins of America. If not, then her whining means nothing and she can emigrate back to Palestine.

I'm confident it's a cheap rhetorical trick, because if the form of the argument were used against you, you would call it out as a low grade gotcha. "If you care about X, and Y is bad for X, then you should in all cases oppose Y and support any action whatsoever that harms Y" is obvious nonsense of the highest order. Just substitute "children" for X and imagine all of the policy positions that would result.

It's nonsense because you're going with absolutes. The widespread inability to explicitly think in terms of trade-offs and hierarchies of values is a common leftwinger/Sith mistake. What we instead see is progressive feminists almost entirely ignoring the plight of women under Islam (or British girls being mass raped in the UK) because they have no real ability to engage with the nuances of something having both good and bad qualities under a leftist intellectual framework, which pushes hard in a Manichean black/white, good/evil, oppressor/oppressed dynamic. Muslims are [oppressed category], and so dwelling on their failings is haram.

Compare that to libertarian or conservatives, who are much more comfortable talking about tradeoffs. You can't trick them into banning swimming pools because ~50 kids drown per year and THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Uncharitable at best. Failure to model your opponents at worst. I think there's definitely an aspect of hypocrisy here but characterizing the situation as psychotic is not true. There are mechanisistic reasons we see this play out. It does have its own internal logic.

The underlying internal logic is "we just hate daddy, I mean the West/America/capitalism/white people". The higher level pretend logic is "Muslims are an oppressed group and we have no ability to consider, much less address, crippling and dangerous flaws in oppressed groups". The highest level is just stop thinking about it, omg

Ahh. So it is just arguments as soldiers then.

Nope. Older waves of feminism won so hard that even most conservatives genuinely think Islam's treatment of women is fucked up. Then they see progressive feminists going apeshit over white men being mildly less than perfect doormats, while refusing to even talk about Islam. Progfems get more upset about white Christians because of the Handmaid's Tale (a made-up story literally inspired by Iran) than the 10k girls raped in the UK.

This is pretty fucked up. And beyond that it is a massive, ruinous hypocrisy, and until it's addressed, it's entirely fair to dismiss surface claims and motivations from people doing it. Anyone can escape that trap just by saying that Islam is wrong about women.

Which won't happen, for the same reason those people can't bring themselves to say itt's OK to be white.

Learn basic stuff like how to repair things around the house, cars, etc. Youtube is amazing for this and a little bit goes a long way. My wife likes to say "A husband is a Daddy you choose" (tongue in cheek, mostly) and whatever you can do to push that button is probably worthwhile. Gets back to masculine confidence.

The strongest relationship among my friend group is not a marriage, but still 10 years in. And I think a large part of that is the way she cleary considers him to be an atom-manipulating demigod. "[Name] can fix it" is a core, fundamental part of her worldview. Either he knows how to fix her car, faucet, beloved childhood electronics, etc, or he will after a few hours on Youtube. The admiration, comfort, and security this generates in her is plain for anyone to see.

My rebuttal was more to the "Trump is easily impressionable" thing. Even if Kushner was willing to trade millions of American lives, he'd have to convince his father-in-law, and I think assuming that is a given is just an utter failure at any kind of theory of mind in favor of Jews/Orange Man Bad.

Kind of a side bar, but it's really interesting watching Democrats openly promise vengeance on all companies who did business with the Trump administration. That seems like a risky tactic.

No, it's more like an attempt by you to satisfy yourself emotionally.

Yes, it's very emotionally satisfying to be proven correct.

To score points fairly you would have to distinguish between feminists who support fundamentalist Islam and feminists who do not, and you show no signs of wanting to do that even though I am sure you understand the distinction.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Can you please point to the prominent progressive feminists who have been more critical of fundamentalist Islam than, say, the made-up, Iran-inspired Christian fundamentalists in the Handmaid's Tale?

Can you point to any who are showing any degree of hope for the current hostilities improving conditions for women in Iran? Or even a single progressive feminist who would rather see [women in Iran become more free plus Trump gets to count a win] than [thousands of women in Iran are massacred by their government, but Trump takes an L]?

Or if you don't like either of those framings, how would you care to distinguish those two groups? I am willing to be convinced that the latter exists. Make your case.

Trump is 80 years old and stubborn as hell. I expect he thinks "nation-building" is fucking retarded. Instead, he wants and expects clean, easy, impressive-looking wins that are over and done. There is no plausible scenario where we "sacrifice millions of Americans", and no reason to think Trump would volunteer for that sort of disaster beyond TDS or some variation of Israeli/Jewish/Epstein Derangement Syndrome.

Calling it a "cheap rhetorical trick" is itself a cheap rhetorical trick to try to dodge a hypocrisy killshot. The alliance between Western feminist progressives and Islamic fundamentalists was always completely psychotic under any ideological framework other than "they just hate the West and don't believe any of their own bullshit". Rubbing their noses in it and taking the opportunity to diminish the extent that anyone takes progressive feminists seriously is points fairly scored.

Report from the womenfolk:

I am reliably informed that the women who are upset about the men's hockey team are FAKE FANS who only care about hockey because Heated Rivalry made them think hockey was GAY, unlike the REAL FANS who have been big into hockey for several years, ever since they discovered a large and expansive sub-genre of HUNKY HOCKEY HETEROSEXUAL ROMANCE NOVELS.

I am also delighted and confused to report that Jack Hughes is apparently my future son-in-law. The delight should be obvious (free NHL tickets, at least some of which will be for the Flyers), but the confusion stems from my prior understanding that my son-to-be was instead Cooper Dejean. When I confronted my daughter on this discrepancy and/or betrayal she hemmed and hawed in anguish for a minute, then decided that Cooper was the superior husbando because he has all of his teeth.

You can literally win eternal Olympic glory and teenage girls will still give you shit because you took a hit. It's rough out there. Stay frosty, fellas.