MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I’d question how well that actually works. The thing I suspect is that much like anything else feeding homeless people would invite more homeless people as word gets around that this particular QT gives out free food.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I’m not sure you could meaningfully enforce a ban on maximally addictive features simply because the entire industry is based on getting, holding and selling your attention. As tge saying goes, “if you’re not paying for it, you are the product.” You can’t really do anything unless you’re going to change the business model. The other option being paid subscription, which to my knowledge has never worked for a social media platform. And absent that, the incentive would be to be as addictive as possible, while avoiding the things the public associates with addictive content. This would be a constant arms race, and likely the social media platforms would win because they can always stay just on the legal side of the line and can deploy new techniques before the regulations can be drafted to stop them.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I think the issue of lost trust has an impact on the park and 3rd space issue. Those places often end up attracting homeless people, criminals, drug users etc. because they’re free to the public and thus nobody can stop them. Which makes nobody else want to really use the space for the intended purpose. And thus when people want a third space that they can be relatively sure is safe for them and their family, the admission charge is a feature, not a bug. The same sort of problem plagues the building of public transit. It cannot go anywhere useful (because people move to good neighborhoods to avoid the kinds of people who ride buses, subways, and trains), and because the public transport itself often invites the criminals and homeless and others. You aren’t going to see either thing take off until the issues creating a low trust society are solved.
I think in some cases it’s why the internet has become the hangout of choice. Watching TV or doing things online doesn’t involve contact with such undesirables or the results of their activities. Buying online is simpler because you don’t have to hunt down an employee to unlock the item you want.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
I think it’s a shot in the dark. I don’t see Bibi deciding to go with the deal because he already rejected it, and frankly doesn’t trust tge Palestinian side to really keep the deal. Given 75 years of “Israel signs peace deal, leaves area” and “to the surprise of absolutely nobody, Palestinians have rearmed and are trying to destroy Israel — again” he really can’t make a deal. It’s either an unconditional capitulation followed by military occupation to prevent rearming, or the situation as it existed on 10/6. He knows it, everybody who’s looked at the history knows it. And so I think Trump is offering the deal because he wants to say he tried.
This is my read. In the 1990s it emerged as political correctness, which worked for a while until the term Political Correctness entered the public consciousness, allowing people the criticize the phenomenon instead of the content. You could say “why shouldn’t we be able to say what we really think” instead of “boo, minorities” which allowed respectable people to disapprove of it without being branded as outgroup. Once that happened, it turned out that a lot of people in the main stream didn’t like the idea.
In 2012 it was Social Justice and SJWs. These guys won until people found ways to mock the movement, again, without having to publicly condemn the content of the movement, thus saving face was possible. You can mock the SJW at home in mom’s basement with purple hair scolding you for saying something wrong, or for not being a good enough ally.
Woke is receding because it’s possible again to hate the movement without necessarily hating those the movement is putting forward. And again this makes it appealing to normies who have to be respectable at least in public. Being able to talk about woke scolds and oppose racial and gender set asides without losing your ability to be seen as good by respectable people is the way to the end of wokeness.
It seems to me that really on whole Jered Taylor is sort of right. The key to beating back various forms of progressive politics is to make sure that you have your countermovement be one that normie whites can support publicly without seeming too out of the mainstream and where they won’t be considered racist/sexist/homophobic for saying that out loud.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
They’re on the left because they value other coalitions they are in. I’m not suggesting that a person can only be in one group, I can be in the NRA and the Labor bloc at the same time. I don’t think you aren’t doing coalition based politics just because a person might be part of several. It’s just that for a bock to win on an issue you have to get enough potential members of that bloc to make that their top issue.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I think it depends on the brand. Companies that cater to left leaning and left coded things or hobbies will likely continue and maybe double down a bit. Things geared to the general public will probably quietly drop DEI, I expect any company that’s right coded will be shouting from the housetops.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I totally disagree. Affinity groups around tribes or causes is how electoral politics work. Labor organizes around unions, Christians organize around various advocacy organizations, AIPAC, various trade groups, environmental organizations, you name it, all of them are to one degree or another affinity groups. What doesn’t work is individual political actors or very small groups, because without a large bloc, and especially a large bloc with big bags of cash, it’s not really possible to get modern politicians to bother.
I find the opposition to such an idea to be one of the best propaganda wins in recent history. You almost can’t actually have the conversation with people who don’t already agree to the proposition. Everyone else stops up their ears at the mere mention of the idea of a white advocacy group. I’m not proposing that they push segregation or anything of the sort, I’m not looking to disenfranchise people. But even the suggestion that there be a white group with a seat at the table when the ideas of DEI and affirmative action and even other policies around affordability are discussed. It’s like a cognitive kill switch to bring up the idea that they are allowed to have ancestral pride, advocate for their interests, and promote their culture just like everyone else. They might on the margins be okay with Irish groups marching on St. Patty’s, or Germans forming cultural heritage groups to drink beer and eat sausages.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
Assuming they’re racist against nonwhites, yes.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
Well yeah. It’s how politics works for the most part. For rich people it’s a sport and they have tons of free time and money to spend bankrolling things that they can brag about at dinner parties. And for the most part that’s all they care about. Palestinians are a popular cause because the Israelis on TV mostly look like Europeans, and the Palestinians are brown. Besides, saying Islam has a violence problem makes them feel bad.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
I think it’s less a racial reckoning and more about them being pretty much outed as caring mostly about the concerns of the laptop class and their pet causes than actually running the country.
They don’t care that crime and drug use in cities is horrible. They care that nobody mentions it, and that they don’t put too many minorities in prison. This hurts poor blacks quite a bit because they don’t have the wealth to leave and go to lower crime areas. Working class jobs are a bit harder to come by because we’re importing millions of working class Mexicans and Hispanics willing to work for McDonald’s wages doing construction and restaurants and trash pickup. If you’re in that class, especially for blacks who have less education and fewer opportunities, this is a bad thing. But saying that is racist. And when people can’t get legit jobs and earn their money, crime looks attractive, especially if the authorities have outright stated they don’t want to prosecute crimes.
Environmental stuff, in abstract, I think is okay. The problem is that it’s basically being done on the backs of poor people. Costs are higher because we refuse to dig up the oil and coal reserves we have. We put huge roadblocks to development and manufacturing, often in the form of regulations. This might be okay for the elites who don’t care how much anything costs, but if you’re counting pennies, yeah the fact that your gas costs $5 a gallon matters. Tge fact that regulations have doubled tge cost of food matters.
People know that pattern by now. They watch Americans suffer, especially poorer ones, knowing that help is not on the way. At least not for natives. And that’s what hurts democrats. If you’re not needing something that the elites see as important, or you’re in the wrong social class, you aren’t getting help. Poor people in North Carolina are still sleeping in tents hoping to not lose their land. Immigrants in New York get fully funded EBT cards and free housing. And it’s not super surprising that people are turning away from the party of neoliberalism and lazy identity politics is losing support.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
Considering that the main difference between Sunni and Shiites one one hand and Christians on the other is religion, I’m not seeing much of an open question here.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
You and guys like you are always smugly going on about how “PMC liberals” — your ever-present outgroup, whose machinations are directly responsible for every last bad thing in the world — don’t know what everyday, salt-of-the-earth black people are like, so they have to rely on the accounts of grifters pushing an agenda. (An agenda taught to them by, of course, PMC whites.)
They aren’t responsible for literally everything that happens. But what they have is a set of objectively harmful luxury beliefs (for example identity politics), are insulated by their money from the consequences of those beliefs, and because they have much more time to be politically active, and have more money to throw to NGOs that say things they like to hear, they have an outsized influence on politics. It’s the “make middle class women clap” phenomenon that’s been going on for decades. Political leaders listen to them, artists listen to them, etc. because they have time and disposable income.
I don’t think they invented blacks or Hispanics caring about race. They’re minorities, and banding together to solve problems is simply how problems get solved when you don’t compromise the majority of your area. Hispanics do the same. The big difference is that until recently whites were a big enough majority in America and Western Europe that whites didn’t feel the need to do the same thing. Christians didn’t feel the need to band together before because they had a supermajority in elections and therefore their issues were dealt with. The reason so many here don’t like PMC liberals is that the issues that are brought up by whites and Christians are issues that PMCs oppose as backward and uncouth and so on, and they’re thus funding and working for groups that oppose white identity politics.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
To be fair, political parties are clinging to images of themselves that are most likely to get themselves power. They don’t exactly have a loyalty to “the people” except in the sense that in a democratic system, the legitimacy of a government is supposedly conferred by plebiscite. But I don’t think any politician really spends so much as ten minutes a day worrying about the welfare of the people in his own country. They care about winning elections, they care about pushing agendas important to their bloc. But I don’t imagine either one of them care very much about what narrative wins them power. I expect the democrats to drop the blue collar thing pretty soon, not because they’re going to change their mind, but because it’s seen by the general public as false. Nobody sees the democrats as in the corner of the common man. The democrats represent the PMC and fashionable identity politics causes (the kind that the PMC likes, rather than things that make life better for minorities). They represent the manicured hand of the upper classes who only see plebeians through the lenses of Noblesse Obliges. The right represents the blue collar workers.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
I’m not sure it’s strictly a race issue. Arabs are mostly Muslims and Islam has a whole host of really bad ideas embedded in the religion. Even if we don’t allow random Arabs in, conversion is a problem as well because the religion is predicated upon Islam supremacy and imposition of Islamic laws and social structures on any society it encounters. They wouldn’t just impose a Mosque of England and you could live perfectly comfortably practicing your own religion without fear or having to follow the rules. Islam simply cannot accept other beliefs as equal to their own.
Mexicans are okay people, and generally seem to be taking up labor jobs, which I think is why Trump did so well among black men who might be competing for those labor jobs. Whites don’t care so much unless they’re in the trades because they aren’t around them as much.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
It seems like an isolated demand for criticism. The left spent 4 full years refusing to talk about Biden having dementia, getting lost during conferences, etc. were they afraid of authoritarian Biden? Or were they circling the wagons in an attempt to maintain power and credibility?
I think this is why the conservatives aren’t keen to criticize Trump. Not because they’re afraid of him, but because the current moment of American politics is basically warfare. They know that the left will take anything negative said about Trump or MAGA and use it to attempt to drive wedges and discredit Trump. Giving the enemy a way to build a narrative against them is stupidity. If they disapprove of him doing something that the left considers “authoritarian”, that will absolutely be used. That’s what happened with Liz Chaney. She said that what Trump did on 1/6 was a coup attempt, and her participation fed that narrative and was used to justify the hearings that later to provide backing for the law fare. If dissent is necessary to prove Trump isn’t an authoritarian, but any dissent proves Trump is an authoritarian, there’s no point.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
I think even here, I’m not completely sold on the notion that every single incursion into every country is a threat to international order. The results of this are not obviously better. We’ve replaced colonial rule with protectorates where the target country can sing a national anthem, compete in the Olympics, and design a flag. The country is still effectively controlled by forces outside itself, but it has to “choose” to do what we’ve decided is in the best interests of the RBIO (Rules Based International Order). Even internally, groups that for whatever reason don’t like RBIO or the results of that system are suppressed. And it still hasn’t lead to fewer wars, or us getting less involved in said wars. We’ve been involved in wars for most of the post WW2 era, and as many peace activists have pointed out, the road to “we’re about to bomb the shit out of someone” is always talk about two things: Human Rights, and Hitler.
To me this is the gift that keeps on giving (to arms dealers). Disputes will always happen, and a good number of them will be over territory. And some of them are legitimate concerns. But even if most of them aren’t, getting involved in every dispute just means more shooting.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
7d ago
I think we can agree on that. Influencers are not so much about their fans per se but mostly an avatar for a movement that attempts to publicly dunk on the other side either by arguments or slick presentation or by making your side feel more glamorous or cool. I watch Vaush a good bit and it seems like his niche is to try to put a nerdy face on left leaning politics. Others are trying to put a posh face on right leaning politics. Or whatever the case may be, the influencer is mostly involved in packaging the idea in ways that appeal to different audiences. If you want leftism in nerd-face, you want Vaush among others. If you want right wing nerd-face, it’s Mentis-Wave and that sphere.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
7d ago
I’ve always been skeptical about the argumentum ad hitlerum style of Western discourse especially in the international arena. It’s really meant as a cognitive kill switch, something that is meant to completely disarm any opposition to whatever war or war aid positions that the elite are taking at the moment. And the result of this style of argument is that to put it bluntly, it takes none of our business off the table once it’s invoked.
The real impulse behind the hagiography of the White Knight Westerners defeating basically Satan incarnate is a sales pitch to unaligned countries— we’re the good guys who defeated a crazy genocidal madman. And, thus, the pitch goes, you should join our block because we’re going to protect you and other weak people or groups. The first part is true— the holocaust is obviously real and happened, and millions were killed by it. The problem is the second part. We never actually cared about tge genocide except as propaganda. The USA never expanded its immigration quotas from Europe or made it easier for European Jews to flee to our shores. And likewise we made no effort to stymie the ability of the Germans to ship people to camps. We basically didn’t care at all. Our reasons for being involved were mostly political and economic. Honestly we’d probably have gone to war with Hitler even if he’d never attempted a genocide.
The problem is obvious. Because we’ve set ourselves up as the Empire of Freedom, Theres very little to keep us from intervening in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Often dictators exist for a reason especially in unstable countries— they don’t have enough social trust to be able to coexist with other ethnic groups, so either you get a strongman or you get lots of intertribal warfare. Removing Saddam almost certainly set back the people of Iraq even if he was a brute as the alternative turns out to be Sunni brute’s murdering Shia brutes and society coming apart as people attempt to live in the chaos. In other cases, it’s a bad idea because any war will cost millions in treasure and a good number of lives — men either killed or maimed on both sides, infrastructure destroyed leading to civilian deaths, etc. and quite often the gain we get for this is small. Not every war is worth it (unless of course you’re in the arms business), feasible, or a good idea. But because of the anti Hitler branding of NATO, there’s no easy way to make tge case that maybe there’s no good reason for us to get involved in a conflict.
The second problem is that the meme is so deep in the Western mind that in order to question the current situation, you have to “deconstruct” the hagiographic narrative of WW2. And that often ends up meaning that people blame the Jews for the narrative, and in order to create the case for the “X=Hitler, therefore bomb the crap out of X’s country either directly or indirectly,” being wrong, it’s almost necessary to rehabilitate the Axis.
I’m more or less a political realist. My thoughts on war are: it has to benefit us in some way, it has to be probable that us getting involved will mean achieving the results that benefit us. To me this is simply a saner way to think about going to war. If it’s not going to create stability in the region, it’s not going to get us a good trading position, or access to minerals or oil or things we need to build our economy, or securing vital industries away from rivals, it doesn’t make sense. Dictator = Hitler is not a reason. Bad images on TV are not a reason.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
I think some of it is a size issue. Reddit is so large that even a single forum on Reddit can have 15K followers, and you never get to know anyone. In the old forums, you’d have maybe 2K users, and you get to know them fairly well, and enjoy hearing what people I actually sort of know think about things. Or get advice from someone I know and have some sense of where the advice comes from. On bigger corporate forums, it’s less talking about an issue and more *decamping the reply button to get a short pithy response in that might, maybe be read but that would not get a response. In bigger places you shout into a void, you don’t really have a conversation.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
I think the anonymous thing is kinda a joke. You don’t even need that much “anonymous” datapoints taken together to figure out who someone is. The time and location where you post, the people you follow, the exact configuration of your browser, put enough details together and anyone with access can find you pretty easily.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
I mean unless you consider such things as assimilation, gainful employment, speaking the language as requirements for first-class citizenship a minor change, or required proof of criminal background checks for entry to be a minor change, we absolutely are talking about a major change here. Right now, basically if you manage to put a finger on the dirt of your chosen country, you’re in, and will be supported by the government of that country for as long as it takes for you to get on your feet (and given how good the benefits are, the immigrants aren’t in any hurry), with no requirement that even the bare minimum (speak the language, adapt to the culture, be a law abiding member of society) are required. Just show up.
Also, if you try to block by country, I think what will happen is that people will quickly spread the word and suddenly every person trying to enter from Central America will claim to be from Southern Mexico or Columbia or Venezuela or whatever they need to say to get it. They’re probably already lying about everything else, lost their passport (or never had one).
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
Most people to be honest don’t actually care about either one. The people who care, for the most part care for the reason that the prosecution on 1/6 is overboard and despite the whining from the status quo elites probably did almost no damage to the public at all.
What has done damage to the median American is the status quo. They’re paying a lot more for goods, having to tighten their belts. Often their city is less safe than in years past, and they’re more concerned with the education their kids are getting in their schools. I think even had the 1/6 event resulted in 4 more years of Trump, the general public would be much more concerned about mundane concerns like gas/food prices, indoctrination in schools, the money shipped to Ukraine, Ashville and the hurricane relief, and dozens of other real world concerns.
To be brutally honest, I think that very few people actually care what form of government they have or who runs it. What they want is peace, affordable living, safety, and freedom from too much intrusion into their private lives. If they could get that with democracy, they’d enjoy it, but if ending democracy made their material life better, they would not care.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
I’ve never understood people who believe that the purpose of backing up your images in any form wasn’t about anything other than Apple trying to become another entry for the Eye of Sauron. It’s a huge cost to create software whisking your photos into a server, labeling them etc. and at least according to theory, the idea is totally not to get the feds involved or to maintain privacy while doing so. Especially given that the bad solution they used to have was “what’s on your phone stays private on your phone because we don’t download it, look at it, or label it. It’s just crazy because doing nothing would have continued to give users the privacy that Apple claims to be all about, while protecting Apple from liability for not finding crime-think images. Now, because of the downloads, I could theoretically sue Apple for not catching images of my rape or of my ex holding a gun he then tried to kill me with — they have those images, they’re tagging them, and if they’re potentially hinting a crime, them not reporting it would risk them being an accessory to what was happening in those images.
Long story short, anything that doesn’t remain completely off the internet servers is public at this point and the only way to guarantee that is to use analog cameras and write on paper.
I hope they do. The frustration of the whole thing is that because Hamas survived and is getting a deal, they’re going to use this plan again. It essentially worked. They’re getting their prisoners released, most of who, are members of Hamas, the Strip will be rebuilt, and they not only get to keep power, but because they have the sympathy of the Arab world, can rearm easily.
At the same time, Israel has essentially capitulated. They get nothing except the hostages. They are also much more hamstrung as to what kinds of action can be taken when Hamas rearms for another round. The propaganda networks are in place, and the Palestinians have learned to play PR rope a dope by making sure that anything Israel does is seen as genocide.
More options
Context Copy link