MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
I think honestly we need to renormalize tge idea that not every thing and every place is for everybody. It’s not really workable. If you’re constantly offended, maybe a debate isn’t where you want to be. On the other hand if you chafe at the thought of living in a hugbox where everyone is super nice and gets along, then you want the debate forum.
The internet of 2025 feels much much smaller and less diverse in a lot of ways than the early internet where you might go to a forum for gaming discussion and it might be the kind of place where you need to cite in game books to talk about Elder Scrolls lore. Or you don’t like that you go somewhere else and trash talk about Fortnite and drop lots of Fbombs.
I don’t mind having rules and standards for a forum. You need to keep the discussion under some control just to keep everyone mostly on topic and avoid excessive vitriol. Just make the rules simple and post them so people can read them, and be viewpoint neutral.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
I’m not unsympathetic to the ideas that you present in broad strokes.
Figuring out an exact death count and sussing out exactly which of the stories told are true is difficult because everything seems to be memory and hearsay, not documents, photographs, videos, or other forms of records that can be examined. Many of the stories seem pretty fantastic even for a work of fiction, let alone a retelling of history. Things like medical experiments and torture in odd and grotesque ways seem less like something that happened and more like confabulation or rumors that get repeated as fact. The human mind is actually pretty good about inventing wild stories about gruesome torture and murder. And Theres the issue of Nazis not keeping up with quotas and simply exaggerating numbers so the higher ups don’t fire them or whatever for poor performance. You can do this easily especially with paper records. Just count fictional people, or count the same person several times— thus a Gay Jewish political prisoner counts on three different tables. That’s just the side of the camps.
And the allies both during and after the war have every incentive to exaggerate the numbers, tge stories, etc. which gives them the ultimate heroic story about themselves and their civilization and why you should be on our side. I don’t think most modern people understand just how much of the logic of WW2 has shaped how we think about our moral universe, our political and social systems, and ourselves. It’s basically the “state cult” of the modern neoliberal order. Hitler has replaced Satan as the ultimate evil in the moral universe, more or less. And for nearly a century, most regimes that we must go to war with are in some way like the Nazis. Depending on which side you take on Israel and Palestine, the other side are Nazi-like. So was Saddam Hussein, Slobodon Milosovic, and dozens of other leaders. Often you’ll hear “stories” of Nazi-like war crimes. In the first Gulf War, George H W Bush claimed that babies were thrown out of hospital windows to be caught on bayonets. In Serbia, they claimed concentration camps. It’s an easy way to manipulate people into support for a war by appealing to the founding myth of the modern age.
I certainly think there was a lot of killing of camp prisoners. Probably on a fairly industrial scale. I would put the full death toll at somewhere between 6-10 million, and much of the violence was genocidal. It happened. That doesn’t mean all the stories are true, nor does it mean that the camps had anything to do with why the allies were fighting the war. We didn’t care about them until they became useful to us.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6d ago
I think writing in general, including novels has declined and in part I think it’s down to how we create writers. These are not people who had traveled widely and read, they go to college to learn to write (or make films) they are taught structures and methods, but because everyone is going to the same programs and learning the same methods and having the same experiences, there’s not much to draw on. So you get a lot of people writing without very much understanding of how people react in a given situation, and the dialogue sounds a bit off because the person that’s on the screen is someone’s blind guess at what a person like that is like.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
Honestly, if they weren’t doing that, I don’t think you’d see the blowback. It’s easy to hate things that look and sound like stuff that happens in the movies. If you slam-tackle people in public, throw flashbangs into diners during dinner rush, and so on, you get blowback.
I’m not sure what the end goal actually is here. Is he going to go full president Joker? Very Smart People on the left say so. But then again, if that’s true, those same people are behaving very strangely. They’re attending rallies they pre-register for by giving their full name (50501 does this), filming the entire thing, posting symbols on social media, etc. they also show up in full cosplay — Gilead Girls, Leia, various anime characters. I just, if they’re thinking that Trump is going to mass arrest opposition, they’re not only doing everything possible to make sure they’re on the list, but fighting back in ways that simply don’t make any sense. You think Trump wants to arrest the opposition, so you register in advance, apply with the local police (which likely means giving contact information). When you get there, you stand on sidewalks with signs, dressed as children’s TV and movie characters? I can’t imagine anyone would have thought any of it in other states with the threat of authoritarian takeover. I’m sure the people who protested the Nazis did so for a couple of hours on weekends while dressed as characters from Wizard of Oz or Popeye. So either it’s true that Trump is going Joker and we just happen to have an opposition composed entirely of people who stopped maturing at like 8 years old (in which case, we’re going that way), or the whole thing is a combination of Oppression Fetishized, and being used to drum up support and donations.
As I said I don’t have any special insight into this sort of thing. If the end is to take over and disappear Americans, I don’t know what would look different. On the other hand if that’s not the end goal, it would look the same. I would say it’s maybe 30-40% it escalates.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
I think anything taken to extremes is bad, no matter what the noble intentions are. Most “failed trads” are the ones who went from 2024 to 1824 with their lifestyle and then get shocked when 1824 lifestyles don’t work well in 2024. The fails that I saw were trying to live a picture perfect version of a 19th century lifestyle in which they dress like they’re Amish, bake their own bread, homeschool the kids, and so on until they burn out. The people who end up rejecting religion tend to be the unbalanced fundamentalist types who want to get everything perfect rather than try to live in the imperfect real world. They’re the ones researching whether potential common things have connections to “witchcraft and pagan or new age ideas” down to whether or not the logo of Starbucks is Satanic. Nobody can live that way because it’s impossible to maintain.
I don’t think that means give up. The traditional lifestyle is better than what we have now where everyone spends more time with strangers than with family and friends and kids are essentially kenneled in schools or daycare for most of their waking hours. But I think there’s a tendency toward treating the project like a game where the goal is to win by being the most traditional person possible, rather than trying to build a real life that works for you.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
I’ve long suspected that early daycare and full day preschool is at least partially driving the change in attachment. Thinking about it from an evolutionary perspective, in the very early stages of development, a baby needs to fully attach to his parents. The baby needs to know that his needs will be consistently met by parents who are always close by and who care about him/her. Modern parents basically have kids that they only see after work and on weekends (after the 8 weeks of maternity leave). Most actual child care is done by low paid hourly workers who might have 7-10 other kids in their care. The child thus often finds that he needs or wants attention and to attach but the adults around him don’t have the ability to give one kid their undivided attention. So the kid can’t learn to fully trust an adult and fully attach to them.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
I don’t think the issue is that genocide and ethnic cleansing are always fake. I think the issue is that a lot of the history as taught and then used as propaganda are exaggerated and weaponized to create a propaganda machine that uses the mythology to demonize even relatively harmless ideas or to justify wars to destroy movements or to prop up bad ideas. It furthermore creates an idea that there was only one major genocide in human history and it was uniquely evil. It means that any ideology that you can connect to something the Nazis said or did is now to be suppressed and if possible eliminated by “right thinking people” everywhere.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
My greatest fear of all this is that since the records can come back to bite several decades after the fact (in this case the man had been hospitalized 40 years ago) and might not be able to be expunged, this will only discourage people who want to own guns from interacting with the mental health system. It’s bad on both ends — it doesn’t protect the public from crazy people with guns (or at least those smart enough to understand that going to a doctor means losing the right to a gun), and it likewise means that people suffering from those illnesses continue to suffer as they avoid treatment— possibly to the point of self-harm or harming others. There’s no better way, in my view to keep someone from self-reporting a mental health problem than to tell them it will negatively affect them for the rest of their lives.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5d ago
I mean our “satanification” of Nazis and Hitler did quite a lot of harm in the world. It turned them into cartoons, basically, not real people who lived on earth. It flattened a lot of history into black and white thinking where anything a Nazi did anywhere is automatically considered at best suspect and at worst evil. Even things that are seen as potentially leading to ideas that lead to Nazis is seen as a pipeline. Nationalist? Traditionally European? Christian? I’ve seen hysterical reactions to the idea of: men trying to be masculine, fantasy novels, HEMA, traditional family structures, traditional Christianity, trans skepticism, and reading classics of European literature called out as “part of the fascist pipeline.” And since it’s obviously evil, the hysteria often means that people are being told to watch out for such “red flag” activities and materials in their children’s lives. It’s insane. Furthermore, from my point of view, the dose makes the poison. I think it’s perfectly well and good to embrace your own traditions. It’s certainly better than trying to LARP as East Asian or some other ethnicity. Why, if I want to learn a traditional martial art do I have to learn a tradition that has nothing to do with me? Why can’t I appreciate my own culture? American culture comes from England, not China or Japan or Argentina.
Furthermore, by removing them from humanity, you make outbreaks more likely. People who are like the Nazis know that having those aesthetics turn people off. They know that swastikas and Hugo Boss set off alarms. They simply rebrand. The propaganda looks different. And people don’t want to think that it can or is happening.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11d ago
I’m not exactly surprised by this. As much as people like to pretend to be in favor of the rule of law, as point of fact, nobody, especially those in power, are principled enough to support applying a law fairly. I’m not even sure it’s possible to do so, as the tribal instinct is simply too strong to be easily overcome by mere principles.
Power doesn’t care and cannot care. I’m convinced as I read more of history that our era isn’t really much different from any other. Sure the aesthetics have changed, the means of control have changed, but power is still held and wielded in ways that the old monarchs and emperors would have found fairly familiar. The constitution was never a particularly live letter. It’s not a letter, it’s a legitimacy producing document. It’s marketing. You want to live here because we have rights. Except that when the government really, really wants to do so it can easily get it done despite anything the constitution actually says about your rights. There’s no way that any fair reading of the constitution would allow the full faith and credit clause or the interstate commerce clause to be used to override state laws. It happens all the time. It’s happened often enough that the states have become mere appendages of the federal government. Free speech is mostly limited to approved speech that the mainstream likes. If you get much outside of those lines, then you get punished by the unofficial powers often acting in ways that the government insists they do. Your boss will get sued if he doesn’t fire you for racism or sexism. Social media for a time feared regulation if it didnT curb crime-think on its platform. That’s censorship, but because the people doing it are private individuals or companies doing so at the behest of the government, it’s fine. Free assembly is only free as long as it’s not racist or sexist.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I think in many cases the West has over-emphasized laws to the point where almost every other option for enforcing order. The shopkeepers don’t think about protecting their property because the law is almost certainly going to slam them for defending their property. But it’s a double bind because the same law is unlikely to catch the thief and if they do, the property won’t be restored and the thief gets little punishment for stealing. And so on down the line of crimes. We think “let the law deal with it” and it rarely works.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
7d ago
I think the reason that most institutions didn’t actually stand up against it is that most of them had been infected with nihilistic thinking decades ago, maybe centuries. The idea that nothing really mattered and nothing is really true left the traditional institutions with no footing with which to push back. The churches had long been ecumenical institutions that often hold to nothing as essential to Christianity. They’ve fallen to the point that many of them no longer hold things like the Trinity, Solus Christus, or the need for genuine repentance as essential. Fewer hold that the Bible defines sin or the proper way to live. So from the position that nothing is true or matters, how do you assert that something is wrong?
Academics has been nihilistic and post-rational for about the same amount of time. It’s no longer a search for truth, it’s an opinion laundering operation with a bunch of job training programs attached. How does a professor defend against demands from the woke? He can’t point to facts, he’s long since abandoned them. An institution that cannot defend a definition of woman is not going to stand for much of anything.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
15d ago
That being said, I don't think society is unfixable. I just think that political solutions are pointless. We need what has always been the core of strong societies - a culture that promotes and encourages personal virtue. Without that, you have nothing.
This is why our politics is broken. The political machine has borged almost everything, and thus the other rival institutions have become rumps of what they would be in a healthy society. Education has been swallowed by the state in the form of mandated curriculum and state testing. Churches have little influence on culture as they have been mostly reduced to the few things that don’t touch politics and then trying to avoid the IRS crackdown for even broaching the subject of some politicized issue. Families are weakened because now that mom works 9 hours and commutes for 1 hour, her children are raised by daycares and the school system, with the parents as minor players in their kid’s lives mostly for a couple hours on weekdays and then on weekends. When politics is everywhere and running everything and no other institutions can match it, people hyperfixate on politics. When it’s not something most people deal with, nobody but us nerds care.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
Honestly I expect the “resistance” to Peter out pretty quickly once the gloves actually come off. I just don’t see anything that makes me believe that these people understand power, strategy, or even real desire. It’s like they’ve almost decided that Trump is going to get away with it anyway so other than making noises so that people don’t mistake them for supporting Trump. But there’s no real drive there.
Chuck Schumer writes “strongly worded letters” that do nothing and mean nothing. He had not, however used the filibuster to block any of Trump’s legislation or nominees. He didn’t refuse to raise the debt ceiling when that came up. Corey Booker sat on the steps of the Capitol for a day, telling everyone how much he wanted to save Medicaid. He also voted for Trump’s nominees even when it wasn’t required. No Democratic legislators have introduced impeachment or contempt of Congress charges, they’ve held no hearings to investigate the supposed crimes. Even Newsome is pretty much rolling along. He could have easily as governor ordered the National Guard to stand down. He didn’t try it. This isn’t a group of dissidents willing to do whatever they can to stop something they see as an evil regime marching towards authoritarianism. This is a group mostly miming opposition while doing nothing.
And the protests are much the same. These are not spontaneous protests brought on by genuine outrage. These are planned protests, short in duration, carefully crafted such that they are short, easy to get to, and coordinate with most people’s schedules. Holding a planned demonstration from 11-2 on Saturday is pretty weak sauce. Holding a protest like that without making any concrete demands is a joke. We are here, clear, and only doing this so long as it doesn’t interfere with work, chores, or Billy’s little league game. What’s the point? How does this demonstrate power? Resolve? Anything? But 3.5% showed up on a sunny weekend day in June so according to them the Revolution will succeed. Again, I very strongly suspect that this movement is less about Trump or anything Trump is doing and more about having learned in school that they’re “supposed to oppose this” lest history judge you complicit. It’s not about Trump, or ICE, or anything else. It’s the nagging fear that their grandchildren in their horror scenarios will ask them why they didn’t do anything. So they’re making a public show of opposition they don’t actually care about. Because how will anyone know they’re the good ones if they don’t hold up a “honk if you don’t like fascism” sign.
But since nobody is serious about anything they’re saying, it will absolutely fade under real opposition. A few sidewalk protesters thrown into prison, the arrest of a political figure who defies Trump, cutting funding for a pet project for their district, whatever. They won’t continue fighting when it has a real cost. As such Trump can do pretty much anything he wants to.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I tend to agree with this. I think also that in any case, “freedom” is more of a marketing strategy than a reality. No one is actually free, or at least anyone who is actually “free” lives naked in the woods somewhere. If you are powerful, you are unfree because the wolves and the jackals hunger for your position and any show of weakness is at least a road to losing power. The weak are not free either as they need protection from the strong and they need to survive in the world the powerful created. The rich need you to make them richer, but if you want to eat, you’ll have to do whatever your bosses want.
But I think in answer to the question, a lot of position-jealousy is that people tend to over estimate other people’s benefits while discounting their costs. So a woman who thinks men have more freedom than they do see things like more interesting work, being able to go out and golf on weekends, or whatever. What they don’t see is the work behind it, the stress of needing to chase after promotions to things they don’t really get the luxury of thinking about whether they even want the next job, or even enjoy the work they do because they have to feed, house and clothe the family. When you see the benefits but not the cost, you think they have a good deal. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has a lot of cool cars, multiple palaces, jets, and goes on lots of vacations. Of course, he has the sole responsibility of running Saudi Arabia, and fighting jihadists and trying to thread the needle on trading with rich Jews in Israel while not pissing off the good Muslims supporting Palestinian people. The people who think those on benefits have it easy have never had to live in poverty.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
12d ago
The metaphor itself has been a part of ancient Western culture for millennia. Gnostic thought goes all the way back to Plato. The gnostic gospels are nearly 2000 years old. It’s hardly surprising that a movie playing on those themes is going to resonate with modern western people raised with the idea of a separation between the mind and the body and who quite often react with surprise when they find out that biology influences your mind both from birth and because of the environment. We think of ourselves as minds driving bodies and not as a whole being that contains a brain that is biologically wired to produce your thoughts. It’s hardly surprising that Marxists and other gnostics can appeal to this pre Christian myth to push their beliefs.
We actually have a lot of those pre Christian myths in our culture. The myth of the perfectibility of human kind — which should have died the day we discovered Auschwitz’s gas chambers — has been going strong for centuries. This is another piece of the liberal system of thought. If only we could teach people to be good, they’d actually be good. If only people had more money they’d stop being criminals. If only we could give people what they say they want we could have utopia. It’s never worked that way.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
12d ago
I find this true with a lot of moralizing movements. They never really think about how many barriers to entry the6 put in front of people who want to do these things. And really the thing that would change farming (just for an example) is millions of plant-based eaters who might include fish and eggs and cheese rather than 5000 hard core vegans studiously reading labels for obscure food ingredients that might have come from an animal of some sort. 5000 people is a rounding error, a million is a movement. And for most Altruistic movements, they have such high barriers that nobody can take on unless they have high enough income and enough time to actually do that. Normies have lives and don’t have extra money to search for and purchase the “pure” foods that would make them “pure” vegans. If you throw in organic on top, you’re restricting the movement to the comfortable middle class to upper middle class who have the money to purchase food that costs 33% or more over the normie food they’re eating now. It would be much more effective to have those people choose to limit meat consumption to a side dish or veggie heavy casserole or a veggie burger with cheese than to play purity games.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
I’m in total agreement here. There’s almost no upside to going into the medical mental health system, which doesn’t even work that well anyway, and is pretty much used by the state to keep people from exercising their rights.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8d ago
I think you have to consider the type of person who would even consider doing something along these lines. If you’re willing to uproot your life, perhaps lose your career, abandon your community for any cause, you are absolutely not a casual person. Most savory people are rooted enough into their own community that they’d rather stay put, live quietly, and perhaps support the cause quietly, but not in a way that a hard core supporter would.
Ideological possession in any form tends to be a symptom of some sort of unresolved mental issues. It’s why even if I don’t agree with JBP politically (or at least not all the time), I absolutely agree that you should not be politically active until you’re in a mentally stable and healthy place. It becomes a person’s entire life because it’s not about the political issue, it’s about basing your identity on something that gives you the thrill of moral superiority, a cause to base your self worth on, and a virtuous reason to treat others badly. Such people will be unsavory, no matter how good the cause itself might be.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
24d ago
I don’t really think that “food insecurity” which is how im understanding his bizarre ideas about controlling colored people with food, is a neutral or red idea. I’ve really only heard it in blue leaning areas. As is his concern about said colored people as a group separate from poverty issues. Reds don’t tend to do that, they tend to talk about poverty as a problem and solve for poverty, with a pretty strong allergy to bringing up race in most contexts. It’s almost a useful heuristic at this point. A person who brings up minorities unbidden when talking about an unrelated subject is likely a blue.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
25d ago
I think the trope exists because most fantasy is based on D&D over anything to do with medieval times. It gets particularly irritating when the characters in the story act like modern people with modern concerns and attitudes rather than anything that someone living in the actual Middle Ages would have believed.
Some things I think were beneficial and should be brought back. Communitarianism, connection to friends and neighbors, belief in God. In a lot of ways I think that lifestyle is much more appealing as it gave everyone a place and a purpose with mutual support and respect.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
26d ago
I mean, ideally all of this would happen organically. Subculture is how you get new ideas, new insights. But because of modern technology and our understanding of psychology we managed to basically take artificial control over the engines of culture. Music used to come from seedy dive bars where local artists would work on their sound before being discovered by labels. They’d sound unique because the isolation from the mainstream music scene allowed them to experiment and invent new and interesting sounds. New ideas tend to come from the fringes where an idea can be worked on and perfected away from mainstream culture.
The internet and especially social media have changed all of this. Those hidden pockets of creativity are now put online where the concepts are put online and co-opted or destroyed before they can be refined enough to stand on their own. Worse, the internet has created a situation in which everyone is almost constantly being bombarded with content (read:propaganda) all the time. You think like everyone around you unless you take special care to unplug. But especially in politics, this means it’s almost impossible to come up with something new, unless you’re pretty much a radical. Everyone else is reading the same script, the one that doesn’t work anymore because it’s not 1982 anymore. Most of the apparatus of politics runs on inertia a dead system that ran on Consensus, on very carefully crafted campaigns and old tired bromides and ideas about politics that were invented for your grandparents or great grandparents. We have AI and fentanyl, we’re possibly approaching WW3, and our traditional ways of thinking about politics was laid down when digital clocks were the height of modern technology, Spock was on TV, and kids hid under their desks because the commies were going to nuke us.
Give me the radicals, even if they’re wrong. It’s the only defense against total stagnation and irrelevance.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
To me, the “he faked it” argument doesn’t really pass the laugh test. No one sane is going to hatch a plan in which a guy climbs a roof and shoots a real bullet at his head. No sharpshooter is going to attempt that shot especially outdoors where wind and glares can be a factor. It’s not a reasonable theory because the shot probably 99% of the time ends with the target hit rather than grazed.
The SS wanting a failure I could be convinced of. The reports by rally attendees over at least an hour that went completely unchecked is a pretty big failure. As in any sane person trying to protect a famous person would have at least checked it out sometime between the rally goers reporting the unknown guy on the roof and the actual shooting. I’m completely at a loss for an explanation that isn’t either “these guys are incompetent” or “they set him up.”
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I tend to agree with Aristotle, but I don’t think it’s just IQ, but things like conscientiousness, decisiveness, courage (both moral and practical). Most people behave more like herd animals in a sense, carried along by the greater society, or base impulses, or other forces. They don’t choose a lifestyle they want, they float along doing whatever the path of least resistance sets before them. Furthermore, most people have little to no actual leadership ability in the sense that they can plan an action, follow it and get others to go along with it. They need some sort of guidance to tell them to want useful, productive things, to live In non destructive ways, to basically not be a burden to everyone else.
But it doesn’t matter what the person’s IQ is. There are lots of geniuses who rot away working obscure arcana that no one will ever care about, or who burn out and end up living in squalor and memorizing the lore of TV shows, video games, or books. Are those people any less in need of guidance?
We used to know this, and actually corrected for it by creating formal etiquette that required that people obey their betters and do productive things and learn to hold polite conversations about topics without turning them into mini lectures on stuff no one cared about. And we used to basically require some sort of skin in the game to participate in society. I think we could be well served by doing so. At minimum, a person should be a net taxpayer if they want to vote.
I just don’t understand why the journalist community is just incapable of self-correction here. The reason right-leaning news is growing is that it at least tries to get the facts right, and is open and honest about what it believes in. People like FOX and Joe Rogan because they’re trying to get things right and when they don’t get it exactly right, you at least know where they’re coming from. CNN pretends to be neutral but skews left and everyone is fairly aware of that.
I mostly go with AP and BBC when I’m trying to assess whether or not something is factual. Rogan is at least trying and has the virtue (increasingly rare in traditional news media) of letting the guests actually speak without interruption even when he clearly disagrees with them. And because of that, listeners at least get a full understanding of what that guest is trying to say. I find the practice of constantly interrupting the guests on a show to be annoying. If a conservative goes on CNN, he rarely gets to speak a complete sentence before getting cut off to make the counterpoint.
More options
Context Copy link