JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
11hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Israeli_helicopter_disaster - 73 people died. No enemy action whatsoever.
JarJarJedi
11hr ago
potentially in a way that violates federal law and the Constitution
I can't claim I know "federal law", it's vast and incomprehensible. But the Constitution is reasonably small, even with the amendments, and pretty straightforward. How exactly did the military violate it when describing this incident, in your opinion? If you want to expand on the federal law part, feel free to also.
JarJarJedi
18hr ago
Ugh you are right, I misread 400% as 4x.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Race+gender+class+sexual orientation gets you most of the way there.
So if I am a demi-quasi-three-spirit-furro-gnostic-quiddich-alloromantic-onmisexual (a sexual orientation that belongs to me and me alone), I should have exactly the same power as 7 billion or so straight people? I never knew I deserve so much power!
Given that progressives continually make efforts to allow the 72 IQ drug addled rapists what they want,
Nah, they don't even ask those what they want (not if they did they could have gotten any coherent answer anyway). They instead let them roam free and hurt other people if they like to, and then claim power for themselves in their name. Excluding Hunter, there aren't too many drug addicted derelicts in the corridors of power, at least not the open ones (and even Hunter mostly had the power as his dad's proxy). The progressives rule in their name. If you think that billions of dollars allocated for "homeless support NGOs" actually are distributed to the homeless, or the homeless have any say whatsoever in where and how much of that money is going, man I have news for you.
My point is that the progressive system makes it a moral imperative to do so specifically in the direction of lower power groups taking down those with more power.
Again, close but wrong. The direction is progressive-aligned groups taking power from groups that are not progressive-aligned. It absolutely does not matter who had more or less power before. Did you see some progressive complain about women underrepresented in academia? Sure you did. Did you know that women are actually getting significantly more academic degrees than men, and it's not even close? Now, did you ever hear any progressive complain about that or do anything to fix it? Of course not. Because the direction is not towards equality, but towards more power to progressives. If it turns out that certain minority demographic tends to predominantly hold conservative views - the progressives instantly lose any interest in this group being represented or holding any power.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
The fact that this identity matters enough to write about, and that doing so can garner pushback, is itself proof that there is still a lot of work to be done.
Funny how that works. For example, black characters in movies aren't surprising anyone for decades now. And yet, we get black Anne Boleyn, black vikings, black Snape, black Helen of Troy, black Snow White - damn the realism, who needs realism, we need to push representation! Moreover, the more it happens, the more oppression is being claimed, and the more attention is paid to the identity of the actor. It's like the Stalin's theory of class struggle - the more "representation" we get, the stronger and louder "oppression" claims are. Moreover, simultaneously identity does not matter at all (so what if Vikings are black? They are just actors, ignore their skin color and don't be a bigot!) and matters a huge deal (try casting a white person to play Rosa Parks or a straight person to play Harvey Milk and see what happens). As always, this is the sign that the rules aren't meant to achieve result, they are meant to exercise power. It's not for you to decide whether historical or fictional character looks one way or another. It's not even for the author to decide that. The needs of the Party will determine that. And if the Party says Anne Boleyn was black, then she was black, and if you object, that's the proof you are a racist and we need more power to the Party to force you in line.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
The point isn’t that no person should have power over another,
Well, you literally said this: "that no person or demographic should have power over another." But if you admit it doesn't make sense, we can move on to this:
no group (and there are a set number of defined groups that qualify here, not just drawing random lines) has any more power in society broadly than any other.
Where those groups come from? Why those groups and not others? Why shouldn't they have more power? If one group is a single man, and another group is a million women, why the latter shouldn't have more power? I don't think there is any sensical definition of "groups" and "power" that can make this not crazy. Even if we go just numerically - why 100 highly virtuous people, who had broad knowledge, exemplary behavior and excellent morals, should not have more power than 100 crazy drug addicted rapists with IQ of 72? I don't think anybody who is not hardcore anarchist, whatever party he is voting now, would sign up under them having the same power.
It requires those who would naturally be on the bottom of society (or near it) to band together to exert power over those who would otherwise be more powerful.
This is completely vacuous statement though. Of course if some people band together and exert power, the other people would be less powerful than if they didn't. That's just how "power" works, you don't need any ideology to realize that - just as you don't need any ideology to realize gravity exists.
It is attempting to neutralize the dog-eat-dog state of nature
In what way? What you described is just "we want to eat dog to, let's eat dog". I mean, fine, if it's about banding together to seize more power - that's natural, but then be open about it. And, incidentally, that's exactly how I described it initially.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Your not trying hard enough, should of tried harder!
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Not equality of number, but equality of power.
Sorry, this still makes no sense. You just said no human can have power over another human. So what other kind of equality you are seeking, but zero power? If that were true, every progressive candidate would call for removing every state and governmental structure, and furthermore for abolishing all property and ownership in general. Not that it would help any. If I am stronger than you or more violent than you, I'd have power over you. In our society, you'd call the police if I threatened you, but police is power of one person over another, so you abolished it. And private security would allow one to exercise power over another, so you can't have any. So how would you prevent somebody stronger from exercising power over somebody weaker?
The answer is simple - you don't. That's exactly what is happening in many progressive-run zones - anarcho-tyranny. Under the pretense of equalization of power, there is absolutely brutal oppression hiding. Oppression that is random, chaotic and total - both law-abiding citizens and criminals are suffering (criminals get robbed and murdered too, of course). Except that since this oppression is condoned by the progressive regime - because if criminals are not punished, there's no oppression, right? - you are not allowed to talk about it anymore. Or, somehow in the society of equal power, you end up in jail.
We're flattening mountains, not flattening individual rocks Harrison Bergeron style.
Yes you will. You are not there yet, because the society is not ready to accept it. But you are getting there. Destroying the gifted education, for example, is classic Bergeron move. There are many other "progressive" moves that are not as blatant as binding dumbbells to people's legs or disfiguring their faces, but are even more detrimental to their lives in prosperity. "Harrison Bergeron style" is literally the only equality you could have, in your model.
(# of people in group1)X(avg power of people in group1)=(# of people in group 2)X(avg power of people in group2)
I am not even sure what this means. So if I am a group of one, and I am compared to a group of a million people, I should have million votes? What does it mean "for every demographic group and subgroup of people"? People can belong to dozens or hundreds of demographic groups. Some groups could be tiny, and some could be enormous. It looks like the more you explain, the more nonsensical it gets.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Heh, I didn't read this comment and remembered the same story :)
But I don't think he destroyed himself by that - he lost a lot of money, but he had quite some left as far as I remember. He died still a man of considerable means. But he surely wasn't happy about losing so much money.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
12% per year over 12 years is quite good actually, that's how much Madoff pretended to make at the time, coincidentally.
I am horrible with market timing, so I won't say anything about that. Just relay one story that I find fascinating. One of the first bubbles in history was the South Sea Company bubble. And Isaac Newton (yes, that one), who was by then doing quite well, invested in it too. Since he was smart, he knew it's going to go down some day, so he made a reasonable profit (about 100% on investment) and exited. But the stock kept going up. And up. And up. And finally Newton couldn't bear it anymore and got in again. And promptly lost 20K pounds (a real lot of money). Biographers say he was salty about it for the rest of his life.
That's why I don't feel bad about being horrible at timing the markets. If one of the smartest people who ever lived couldn't do it, what chance do I have anyway? I'll stick to indexes.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
The progressive project is anti-hierarchy and believes in equality of all humans, that no person or demographic should have power over another.
What you described is called "anarchists", not "progressives", and no progressive actually believes that. Sure, anarchists exist, and some of them (like antifa) are in tactical alliance with progressives, but "no person should have power over another" is definitely not something that defines anything called "progressive" in US politics. Even libertarians - who are close to that - do not actually believer it, they are minarchists, not anarchists.
if all demographics are truly equal then their visible Representation should be equal
That is of course nonsense. That implies there are no other factors that define success except political oppression. There are no cultures, preferences, abilities, inclinations, trends, fashions, even random fluctuations, nothing like that - if there is a demographical difference, that can only be a sign of oppression. Of course, it is a complete nonsense - but it is a useful nonsense, as it allows the progressives claim they would fight oppression, and gain power under that guise. Since there's no oppression to fight, there's no possibility of winning that fight - which is just fine with them, because the goal is not winning, the goal is holding the power.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Never heard about affirmative action for males in areas where female representation was more than male, for example, in academia: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72. One would expect that if equality really held any value.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Taken is so much more of a movie than CV is. It's like a painting by a professional 19th century painter compared to a Reddit meme.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
CV is porn. Not a sex porn, a revenge porn, but the idea is the same. Showing on screen something that some part of us feels good about imagining doing (even if higher brain functions tell us we are not going to do it and likely no people in real life do anything like that anyway). Or maybe not - a lot of porn looks disgusting to people that don't like that kind of porn. The message here is in the fact that this kind of porn appears to be in demand, and why. And, of course, in observing who and for what reason tries to ban it. By itself its of very low cultural value, but as an indicator of where the winds blow it is quite interesting.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
nor do I agree with the claim that "Taken does not code against foreigners".
Weren't the bad guys there Albanian mafia or something? That's pretty foreigner coded as far as I can see.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
and ratings on these things are like eBay seller ratings in which anything less than 4.8/5 is considered a red flag
There's a simple reason for that. Imagine you come to a store and there's 50 brands of candy. And you just learned one particular brand has a 0.1% chance of giving you horrible diarrhea. Would you buy this brand? Of course not - there are 49 other brands, why take even a tiny risk? Even if you realize that one bad review out of 100 is probably complete bullshit - there's no incentive to take the chance.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
That's why a dating app should be made by the government with tax dollars.
That makes sense. Why make an app which appeals only to a tiny circle of nerds, if we can make an app that appeals to literally nobody and actually has no incentive whatsoever to appeal to anybody?
JarJarJedi
3d ago
and every indication that the dishes I'd want would need cooking
Yeah that's how Korean BBQ works. I love Korean food, but I don't usually go to such kind of places because I am lazy and prefer more traditional form of restaurant, but it can be fun as a family activity. The supplies are usually optimized for being cooked this way, so it comes out ok, but it's for people that like that kind of setup.
JarJarJedi
3d ago
Nobody really thinks like that. It's just how it works - if you want to say there's nothing in Spanish, you say "no hay nada", because that's how you say it in Spanish. Nobody analyses it and builds philosophical foundations under it - neither native Spanish speaker nor newly learned one - people just learn how it's done in a particular language and do it. Language is not ruled by mathematical logic, it is ruled by pattern recognition. That's why people say "I could care less" - the pattern looks similar enough to the original "I couldn't care less" and they know this pattern means "I do not care", so they use it.
JarJarJedi
4d ago
The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
It's not only the GOP as such. Any person who would be lauded as "representing" if he toed the party line, instantly loses the shine if they veer off the message. The Representation is only good when it serves the real goal - which is increasing the power of the Party. Be it political power, cultural power, financial power or any other power - but never diminishing any of it.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Is Representation a primary goal of the progressive project?
No, it's the means to an end. The goal is power, by means of eroding and destroying the current structure of society and replacing it with one that has them (who are "them" is debatable, though each individual participant naturally sees oneself as part of "them", nobody goes to a gulag voluntarily) on top. For the more cynical, this is the ultimate goal. For the more romantically minded, this is an intermediate goal, in the quest to establish a more just, more moral and more optimal (by whatever criteria) society - which is, obviously, impossible when the wrong people have the levers of power in the wrongly structured society.
By itself, more diverse workforce is not bad. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is neutral. But the progressive project has nothing to do with it - DEI, which they promote as a vehicle to achieve representation, is not aimed at that, it's aimed at capturing power and rerouting it to progressive goals. If you want evidence for that, count how much the progressives celebrate minority representatives that do not subscribe to progressive views. Does US left love Clarence Thomas? Did they support Vivek Ramaswamy? Is Tim Scott their darling? Do they see Rubio, Cruz, DeSantis, Raul Labrador and others like them as role models and trailblazers? Do we see any pattern here going all across backgrounds and jobs?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
That's probably for Europeans to decide. How much do they want the access to US technology? Lately, they are big on "digital sovereignty", just as the Russians are, so maybe eventually they'd decide to wall themselves off, like Russians (and Chinese before) are doing. I guess it may be concerning for those US companies who want to sell services to Europe. For others, I don't see a reason to care.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
If that were true, in countries with free or near-free higher education and/or with nationalized healthcare the youth would be significantly less leftist than in America. I don't think this is the case though? Are European students much more right-wing than US students?
Also, young people do not have a lot of exposure to the healthcare system, especially the most problematic parts - expensive, long-term, multi-faceted health problems that require dealing with the shitshow bureaucracy in all its glory. They may have heard from someone it's a problem, but they have not experienced the problem by themselves.
If we were at real war, it'd be operating. But since they can very well do without it, nobody wants to take a risk, so everybody is covering their asses and crossing the t's and dotting the i's. That's very different from being "destroyed" or even substantially "damaged".
More options
Context Copy link