JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
14d ago
Greta flotilla drone attack
Which as I remember was actually some of theirs mishandling a flare (I suspect fun substances were involved because come on, we know who we're dealing with here).
Trump Epstein birthday card
This hoax is much older than last week, Snopes reported on it in July: https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/07/18/trump-epstein-birthday-card-drawing/ which is about when I remember it happening but maybe even earlier.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
I've seen a tweet:
Note: there's not one prominent Leftist anywhere in the West doing what Charlie Kirk did, i.e. issuing an open debate challenge to all comers and saying "Here's my view, I invite you to try and prove me wrong". None of them are willing to subject their views to that scrutiny.
So my question is - is this true? Does anybody know a leftist that does what Kirk has been doing? I know some leftist bloggers - obviously Scott among them - that can argue their points with decent (in all senses) argument and manner. But it's still preaching, a blog is not an equal debate. Are there any debaters around?
JarJarJedi
14d ago
That means that a) either there are some secret repositories of content which a lot of people can access, but somehow nobody ever can publish anything from there and everybody who has access is bound by an unbreakable vow to deny their existence; or b) literally everybody discussing this does it without actually doing the basic thing like watching the content they are discussing. Which is extremely sad.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
What's the point? If you can't find multiple sources with a casual search, then clearly it's not something that had been important about him, either as a person or as a public figure. Most likely he didn't say it, and somebody just invented it or perverted what he actually said to mean the opposite. Maybe he did in a stupid moment and deleted it, who knows. It doesn't matter. This only is relevant if you subscribe to the idiotic "inner demon" theory - which most of the social media peoples do, of course, because it's stupid - where nearly everybody is actually a vile demon, but you can't exorcise the demon unless you have "proof", and when they finally say something that you can attribute to a vile demon, that "reveals" their inner true nature and this is the only thing that matters about them now and forever, and you can ignore everything else, and proceed to the exorcism. You just need to be on the lookout when the demon reveals itself.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
Tyler Robinson trial probably not a lot - what matters for him is what relates to the murder, and the motive is easy to establish based on his own words alone, no need to dig deeper. However if the feds decide to go after his lover as an accomplice, there all kinds of weird shit may show up. Maybe even defense will bring it up - "you see, this guy is getting off looking at pandas, clearly he's bonkers and can't be expected to make a reasonable judgement".
JarJarJedi
14d ago
If it's just general retarded talk then indeed the internets are full of it and the feds aren't going to bother with it. But if it's specific talk like mentioning specific plan, specific weapons and specific discussion, like where to hide the rifle and which way it's better to run away, then participation in such chat may be trouble. Probably not for "never talk to me about this again", unless the feds have a particular reason to haunt this person, because the likelihood of making a case on such basis is very small. But from what I read his pals may have been a bit more supportive than that... If that's true, they may have some unlpeasant time ahead of them.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
From - not really because in general I would never buy anything based on ads alone. But I am using VPN that also had sponsored some youtube channels which I watched. I didn't decide to buy it because of that, but I can't say it didn't influence me in some way - it does have some alternatives which are also acceptable, and maybe if I've seen their ads I'd decide otherwise, hard to know. I.e. in general I'd never buy something I didn't previously know or research just because of ads, but I admit an ad can make me aware of something (which after research may prove worthy of buying, or not) or influence my choice between equally good alternatives. Didn't happen to me a lot but I have one example.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
This is the most depressing part for me. I classify myself as a libertarian, and I disagree with the left way, way more than I do with the right, but I'd completely fine living aside them - including communists, despite my ancestors suffering a lot from the communist regime and me hating all that relates to that - I am willing to set that aside for the sake of having a pleasant, peaceful society. If only the Left agreed to play by a simple set of rules - no violence, no destroying the country, no destroying the culture. I am willing to only "destroy" them like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro did - by showing, with fact and argument, again and again, how utterly ridiculous their views are and how disastrous the consequences of them - including for them themselves - they are. But there's no way I can have this. Every time they feel they are losing the power, they become violent. I don't see how this violence can be dealt with in a peaceful framework.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
Should they have been killed? Probably not
Probably? That's how you know your moral compass is malfunctioning. When you ask yourself "how do I feel about brutally murdering a person that said something offensive to me?" and the answer is not "fuck no, not murder!" but "well, maybe no, maybe yes, he was really annoying so kinda murder sounds right but those people around me say murder is bad... so hard to figure this out... should I err on the safe side? Should I hedge more? It's really a tough conundrum!".
And, of course, you should only talk about punching other people's faces in if you're willing to have your own punched in for your opinions. Yes, I know yours doesn't smell. But that's how it works. I wouldn't accept this deal, I'd rather have a deal where nobody's face getting punched in, but maybe some people enjoy their faces being punched in?
JarJarJedi
14d ago
There's a wide gap between "illegal" and "detrimental to the society", and it is not closeable in any reasonably organized society that allows any freedoms to its members. You have conflicting interests here - the consumers of healthcare want to have maximum care for minimum cost, the providers have limited resources which will never be enough to provide it, and the middlemen want to extract profits. There's not really an optimal arrangement that you could legislate. Even if you make a totalitarian dictatorship fully dedicated to regulating and distributing healthcare, you still will have people who think they don't get enough care, and some of them will blame the providers for it. Sure, you could legislate against some of the toxic behaviors, but you'd get a set of others in response, and another set of people being mad about it. US is not in a great spot here, for various reasons, but there will always be something to complain about.
JarJarJedi
15d ago
Why the selective embracing/rebuking?
Cost/benefit. You can sell that healthcare CEO is a supervillain that deserves death, and some normies could buy it, because US healthcare system sucks, and a lot of people hate it. Selling that the guy whose only thing was to debate anybody who would talk to him was a supervillain is much harder.
JarJarJedi
19d ago
"Unarmed leftist protesters" are prone to physically attacking people, just ask Andy Ngo. And "unarmed" is such a weasel word - if somebody bashes you skull in with a brick, was he "unarmed"? What about metal bike lock? Skateboard? Plain old glass bottle? Or the same filled with petrol and set on fire? Given how easy it is to conceal a knife, is there even a way to know somebody is "unarmed"? Especially when you facing a mob dressed in a way that is specifically designed to make them intimidating? In some situations, where people are clearly behaving aggressively, it's only prudent to assume they may escalate - and take measures to deter then from doing that.
And have you heard about the group named NFAC? Using the initials only to make it SFW. To be clear, I support the right of these guys to own arms as much as any other person, but what they are doing with their legally owned arms is nothing but intimidation. And Black Panthers are know for posting uniformed big guys "unarmed" with clubs at polling places - just to make coming there more fun and welcoming, I am sure. So when discussing intimidation, let's remember that.
But the most important thing is this: if those conservatives would want to intimidate you, they'd say "stay away from me, or else". What the left is saying is different - "shut up and cease to spread your message, or else". And "or else", in this case, is clearly demonstrated as being murder. And the lower ranks of the left explicitly and enthusiastically endorse it. They don't say "how horrible it is that it come to that", they say "what a joyous day, let's murder Musk and Trump next!".
JarJarJedi
21d ago
This is just what the whole 2A/tree of liberty stuff is about.
No it is not. 2A is not for shooting people who try to debate us. 2A is for shooting people that try to shoot us. Or apply other form of explicit, organized and widespread violence. Kirk tried to talk to people, that's what he was shot for. It's the opposite of what 2A is about.
JarJarJedi
21d ago
Of course it's political. We have a party that had been calling all the opponents "Nazis", "enemies of democracy", "worse than Hitler", and thousand more variants, and it had led to a number of murders and attempted murders already (anybody remembers James Hodgkinson?). It's not like it's some kind of random occurrence, a meteor strike out of the blue, a random victim of senseless violence outburst. It's a predictable result of a coordinated and deliberate campaign of hate. Yes, not literally everybody on the left participates in this campaign - but all observable leftist spaces are ripe with it, there are hundreds of examples, and there is no meaningful pushback on it. We know how hard the left can push to drive out an unpopular opinion. This obviously is not one of those opinions. No prominent leftist figure - except for Sen. Fetterman, who is an exception in many cases concerning the left nowdays - had done anything more than rote "oh noes, we don't endorse violence, please keep on keeping on" kind of condemnation. And many of those who is doing rote condemnations now had been participating in the hate campaign days or weeks before. People on the lower rungs of the ladder don't even bother with that - the leftist press if basically "well, he spoke things we didn't like, what do you expect would happen?!" and the masses on social media are like "good job, let's have a celebratory drink, who's next?" Yes, not literally everybody, but enough to see where the dominating vector is pointing to.
So yes, this is a political thing and it's totally appropriate to discuss it as a political thing. It's a political murder.
JarJarJedi
21d ago
It's not Reddit that is a problem. Reddit allows the demons to reveal themselves, but it didn't create them. It's schools, academia, press, Hollywood and other cultural conduits that had normalized violence for years. Look how many teachers are publicly endorsing the murder. They all think it's completely fine, and encouraging more of it. And it's not like it's new - same happened after Trump assassinations and after Thompson murder. It's a deeply sick culture, whose sickness had been cultivated and endorsed for years, Reddit and bluesky just lay it bare for everybody to see.
JarJarJedi
21d ago
They will not moderate, they will double down. Their base demands it. All bluesky is now alight in celebration of the murder. There are a lot of reports and posts in public of people celebrating, many more just do it privately. And I am not so convinced they will lose. Madmani seems to be doing pretty well, despite his open support of political violence and his absolutely nutty plans of building New-York SSR. I don't think we have revulsion to political violence as a common value anymore.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
Yes, I certainly agree specific groups can be evil and pointing it out on specific basis is not only not racist but also entirely correct thing to do, even it it concerns people of some specific racial background. What I object is a blanket characterization like "Asians form groups that do evil things". It loses specificity to the point it becomes useless and stupid.
then why is it good to cap them artificially?
Because importing foreign workers in massive amounts have costs. Assimilation capacity is not infinite. And breaking assimilation processes - and the host culture - has societal costs that everybody is going to pay. Cultures have value, and breaking them has costs. Immigration is not quantity-neutral. One immigrant is not going to cause any significant strain on the system and in general case will contribute to the society and increase general welfare. One million of immigrants, brought synchronously into the country are going to cost non-linearly more, and may cause profound changes in the society, which may not be for the better. That's why you need an "artificial" cap - it's only artificial if you don't consider externalities. The process is not linear and not neutral towards time scales - it's like I asked you to drink 100 gallons of water. If it's over a year, you probably would be healthier for that. If you try to do it all at once, you will die. It's the same water, but not the same rate.
but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs
I am not sure that's actually true. Even for the market I have the most experience with - computer programming - looking for a job, if you aren't ok with shitty job that pays peanuts, it is a very frustrating and nerve-racking experience. Having to answer the question "why should we pay you X if we can hire a cheap foreigner for X/2" does not make it any easier. And in my experience, getting cold-hired by a company that does mass outsourcing, without knowing somebody on the inside, is next to impossible now. In most cases, they won't even bother to talk to you. Even if you know you are much better worker, the people who make hiring decisions just don't care. They tell the public they have massive shortage of talent and need thousands of H1Bs, but try to send them your resume, and they won't even bother to read it, it goes straight to the reject pile. Sorry, I don't believe it anymore, I think it's a con. H1Bs are just cheaper and easier to handle, that's all. I can only imagine how much worse it is in places where prices are the only thing you can compete on.
we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it
You're saying it as if any of the key industries have a slightest idea about how to measure efficiency. I know for a fact in my industry, nobody has a faintest clue how to do it. It's either "if we hit the deadline - which has been invented arbitrarily based on what some marketer promised to some analyst bigwig because they had one too many cocktails while golfing - then we are golden" or "we're making money? Cool! Let's make even more money!". There's no some "efficiency" science behind it and nobody has a slightest idea how to make it. It's all done by the seat of one's pants, and people that by either luck or talent can pull stuff out of their asses that is better than other get billions and people that are unlucky don't, and that's how it goes. Let's not pretend we have some science behind it, nobody does.
But that's a discussion with some hard tradeoffs is it not?
Yes, but not in a way you present it. It's not uniform, as I mentioned. Accepting a small amount of immigrants is almost always going to be net positive, especially if selected by any sane criteria (skin color is definitely not one of the best, but even that could work up to a limit). With increased quantity, costs raise non-linearly and the tradeoffs become more and more hard. There is a wide area where the net is still positive, but this area is not infinite. Eventually it comes to a point where a select few players reap all the benefits and the rest pays massive, sometimes society-breaking externalities. It's not uncommon - a lot of modern politics is based on emphasizing benefits for select few and covering up externalities for the rest - this is one of the prominent examples.
JarJarJedi
22d ago
There's a huge difference between somebody being a legal alien worker and being mistakenly deported as illegal and somebody being definitely an illegal with a final removal order who gets their lawyer to declare the entire Western hemisphere is itching to torture him, activist judges playing along because nobody can ever be deported no matter why, and ICE needing to find some country that is not on the list lawyers managed to push through. I mean, we have to follow the law, and that at times includes tolerating lawyer tricks that everybody knows are tricks, because that's the only way to make the process work at scale, but conflating these two situations is bullshit. There's nothing in common between Garcia - who is definitely illegal alien and no court doubts that - and some hypothetical situation where ICE thinks a legal alien or a citizen is illegal. These are two completely different things.
JarJarJedi
23d ago
I didn't claim the whole continent, my forefathers did, and then asserted that claim. They, and I, are native sons of this land.
You, of course, realize that these two sentences are contradictory. You can not "claim" territory that you are the native of. "Claiming" only applies to territories you previously did not inhabit. Irish never "claimed" Ireland - they just lived there. Chinese never "claimed" China - they are Chinese because they are in China, and had been there since forever. There's no need for "claiming".
And, you seem to have a mighty broad ancestry if your ancestors claimed all the territories of the continent, including Mexico and Canada. The only problem that "claiming" them does not do anything - Mexico and Canada are still there. Are you going to war with them to liberate your ancestral territories anytime soon?
but if you have 0 ancestors in the british colonies in 1776, or no ancestors in the United States in 1789, when that document was written, then I don't consider you American in any way.
Too bad for you almost every American - or at least vast majority of them, by now - is not American for you. Good thing is nobody cares. America just had elected a non-American president and he's doing a decent job so far, and it will continue going in the same vein, without regard to weird pureblood claims. As I said, your worst case scenario had long past happened, so you need a new one now.
ADOS and the Indian tribes are also native, but they are not American.
ADOS are definitely not native - they were brought in against their will and this process is well documented. People that were by hilarious mistake named Indians are natives, and if they are not American natives, then what they are natives of I wonder? Narnia?
JarJarJedi
23d ago
So, the current theory is the DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin was lying and he wasn't actually arrested for suspicion of assault? Or you are ready to admin that your example has nothing to do with ICE errors and you are 0:2 as far as supporting your claims with evidence goes?
JarJarJedi
23d ago
A lot of people, when asked for example of when something happened, do not immediately reach for an example where there's no information available whether something happened or not, and present it as their example of something happening. Because if they do it, other people might conclude they really do not have any better examples.
since ICE hasn't commented at all on it
I guess this report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/cannabis-farm-worker-in-california-dies-day-after-chaotic-federal-immigration-raid.html saying:
George Retes complied with federal officers when he arrived to check on friends and colleagues who might have been affected by the raids, but instead he was arrested on suspicion of assault, according to immigration officials.
is just my hallucination? Or they lied claiming immigration officials told him that? Why, in your opinion, CNBC would lie about something like that, and what is your source for accusing them of lying in this case? How do you know ICE hasn't actually commented even though CNBC claims they did?
JarJarJedi
23d ago
we descendants are native to this continent
You aren't, that's not what the word "native" means (and awfully bold of you to claim the whole continent, I think Mexicans and Canadians would disagree but screw them, right?). But at least I can see what you mean now. OK, so Trump is not a "white native". Too bad for him I guess, but that's at least some solid foundation to start with. A bit of a problem you'd have is not only Trump ends up out of the game - you'd end up with about 10% of population of purebloods, and the rest of the populations would be mudbloods - descendants of people who immigrated after 1776. Since you are further qualifying it as "white" the percentage is probably even less - you will need to eliminate anyone who had non-white blood - and mixed marriages, while not common, weren't exactly out of the question. Since anybody who came in after 1776 must be deemed irreversibly insidious and affected with inborn desire to plot to overthrow the "white natives", which can not be overcome - I don't think your case is looking good. The "demographic replacement" that you are so afraid of happened long, long ago, and you are not the American people anymore. I don't know how to call this group other than "purebloods" but being such a tiny minority it certainly can not pretend to represent "we the people" as a whole. The best you could hope for is a protected minority status.
And, of course, I am not aware of any intent for the Founders to adopt this stance - that only purebloods are considered true Americans (or "natives"). Otherwise there wouldn't be such thing as "naturalization" which confers the same legal status on an insidious mudblood as previously was available only for purebloods. Why put such things in the Constitution if they thought like you are? There's no reason. Because they did not. They saw it as a political and social project, which anybody who identifies with the goals of the new nation, its laws and its customs, is welcome to join, not some breeding exercise. And they certainly did not think anybody who didn't jump in by the time the United States was formed is forever an insidious enemy of every American.
JarJarJedi
23d ago
Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.
Yes, I must admit, I never understood Trump's love for greasy fast food. Those Germans and their Teutonic ways...
Welcome to our universe, stranger from far away realms! No, not in our universe, Qatar has never been friendly to Israel. Qatar was a major sponsor and enabler of Hamas instead. Qatar has been playing a game where they try to make themselves useful by serving as a middleman to Hamas, but there never was anything friendly in it.
That's another part of the game. They try to be useful, in a hope that this excludes them from the consequences of their actions - such as hosting and supporting Hamas, which is engaged in active warfare with Israel. Turns out they aren't useful enough.
More options
Context Copy link