Iconochasm
All post-temple whore technology is gay.
No bio...
User ID: 314
"And have you stopped lynching the black people?" the genocidal tyrant asked smugly, as he washed in his daily bloodbath squeezed from more victims than the entire history of the KKK.
And the current paradigm is that if your goal is something other than "killing enemies" then you should use a different tool than the "enemy killing organization". Using the Enemy Killing Organization for non-Enemy Killing purposes is often ineffective and inefficient, and degrades the ability of the Enemy Killing Organization to kill enemies.
I'm confused. How many people in the US would be actually surprised/outraged if we got into a hot war and someone bombed a military base, which also had a school on it?
Plenty of people. It's just that there's very little overlap with the set of people who are upset about the bombing of this school.
Because your take is pure Arguments as Soldiers. When I saw the NYT article on the topic, clawing at implication and carefully phrased vagaries to push a narrative as hard as they could with extremely limited facts and knowledge, it just made me recall the old line "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." Remember, the only source we even have for the casualty count is the Iranian government. How much do you trust them? The US has hit Iran with thousands of bombs and the general level of precision is terrifying sci-fi absurdity. There's Iranian doctors purportedly reporting that literally every single casualty they've seen is non-civilian. Meanwhile, Iran responded by flinging missiles willy-nilly all over the region, including a bunch of civilian targets that no one cares about because it's just brown people failing at killing brown people.
Focusing all your attention on the single incident that might possibly have been the US hitting a civilian target is so obviously bad faith that it requires years of brainwashing and hyper-selective framing to take your performative outrage seriously.
"The US fired 3000 bombs and only a single one was possibly a misidentified target or misfired. That means the US has less shit happen during war than any other army in the combined history of humanity. Maybe that should make them much more comfortable going to war than any other polity that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Christ.
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.

I actually found myself nodding along with him. America has never been fully settled, such that it's occupants are forced to turn viciously on each other in red status games. Americans have always had PVE as an outlet, as a way to foster trust and self-regulation and prosocial behavior. We're built for PVE, and we're so good at it and it's so rewarding that when we try our hand at guild war PVP, we roflstomp.
Compare that to a "late stage" civilization like China or India or Persia where the only way to get ahead is to screw over someone else. There's only so many spots in the civil service, so every Chinese kid who makes the cut necessarily means another doesn't. This creates an environment where being good or competent in an objective sense is less important than outperforming peers. To them, we look like little kids who haven't internalized tiger mom knife-fighting.
To us, they look like savages stabbing themselves for pitiful loot because they don't grok "trust".
Or at least, that's the rough sketch of an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.
More options
Context Copy link