MayorofOysterville
No bio...
User ID: 3800
MayorofOysterville
4hr ago
Hard agree all the open petty crime shows the US isn't imprisoning enough people.
MayorofOysterville
5hr ago
ever Forget, we all said. Well, I was young. I believed it.
Then Bush got on TV and said Islam is peace. HR and media went into full swing insisting that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam.
What else should they have said? This was useful propaganda. In order to effectively fight the people who had attacked us Al Qaeda the US needed the cooperation of the worlds Muslim governments and the world's Muslims. Obviously the attacks were motivated by an Islamic ideology but equally obviously declaring war on the world's 1.8 Billion Muslims would serve no purpose. You lament that people understood that something "needed to be done about Islam" but what do you propose? What we got was the GWOT with US special forces fighting Islamic extremists globally. What do you suppose should have been done instead the religion has now 2 billion followers and 1.8 billion at the time. What Bush said was strategic to help Americans fight Al Qaeda and channel rage, what good would pograms against Arab shopkeepers in America
I knew better. I knew Islam was bent on conquering the entire world; on taking sex slaves as it did so; on killing anyone who disagreed or wanted to leave its ranks. I knew it was an existential threat,
Contrary to this belief most Muslims and Islamic governments don't act like ISIS. This is a common insistence among conservatives but the world would look a lot different if they did. Most Arab governments are sluggish and corrupt not motivated by fanatical dreams of world conquest and the democratic Muslim countries also don't elect people like that. In the face of that it would seem that Islam isn't bent on those things even if you think they should be. Now I'm not saying that there isn't a dangerous current of extremism running through Sunni Islam that attracts young men to these Salafist ideologies or that we should let millions of unskilled Muslim refugees into Western Countries. But the average Muslim or Muslim politician is not bent on conquering the world they aren't the borg. Also for an existential threat a majority of Arab governments are American allies and far more concerned about Iran then invading the infidel west and taking concubines.
the Dixie Chicks said America had 9/11 coming I noticed that while some people were outraged a whole lot more were not.
By 2010 everyone seemed past it. It's been one of the biggest blackpilling events of my life.
The Dixie Chicks argued aganst the war in Iraq this is the quote;
Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.
And they got cancelled hard for it this was an era when people's blood was up and unmoderated internet comments basically any news story touhgign the wars had people saying we should nuke Mecca and Medina. And the Dixie chicks were proven right,, the Bush administration cynically channeled rage against Islamist extremism into overthrowing a secular dictator do to their own Neocon fantasies. Neocon foreign policy at the time was utterly delusional they thought creating a democratic Iraq based on conservative economics would create a booming new American ally and unleash a collapse of Arab autocracies has had happened with Communism in Eastern Europe. These fantasies were what American rage was channeled towards and the invasion of Iraq ended up being the biggest boon for Islamic extremism possible. It removed a secular check against Iran and provided fertile ground for Al Qaeda and later ISIS to bloom. Introducing any sort of democracy to Iraq naturally made them much more pro Iran, and it had the effect of convincing many Muslims the US war really was against Islam. Not to mention it was an immoral farce a ginned up war of aggression without proper casus belli, and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.
People were over the wars by 2010 because they realized supporting Shia Islamists and child raping warlords wasn't making America any safer. The American security state has good handle on preventing terrorist attacks at home. Such a good handle most of the people they arrest these days is basically entrapment. The global war on terror was bad enough a global war on Islam like you seem to want would be catastrophic.
MayorofOysterville
1d ago
I feel like because of what AI is it does make it easier to detect since people interface directly with a company while typing what they want.
MayorofOysterville
1d ago
I didn't say we should have unlimited Muslim immigration or really any Muslim immigration. Just that opposing polices to help families because it might help the 2% of Muslims is counterproductive.
MayorofOysterville
1d ago
Can you imagine that?
Yeah it's called Singapore. If American police were allowed to police the US like Singapore and we had Singapore style laws dealing with violent crime and drug dealing yes it would be fine. Look at Dubai it's super safe despite being full of Indians and Arabs. Policing can create safe and secure societies if you let it.
MayorofOysterville
2d ago
Well their government has also made noises about using automation and AI to achieve Communism, so they've at least some idea they won't starve in the streets and might actually achieve utopia. Also for most Chinese things have only ever got better so they've cause for optimism.
MayorofOysterville
2d ago
Ok great but there are Somalis here and they have US passports so you have to deal with them. I personally think it's a horrible idea to make policy based on a tiny minority.
MayorofOysterville
2d ago
Well a lot of them weren't going to get married so that's a plus and on the working class side it really does make it easier to have a stay home wife. I really do see it as a benefit for the working class not just the underclass and I actually dont think much of the underclass will actually do it.
MayorofOysterville
2d ago
The dominate narrative is neutral with most focusing solely on Clancy.
There are 169,000 Somalians according to Wikipedia. Basically all of them live in Blue Areas the vast majority in Minnesota. Opposing a policy that would help a ton of Republican families encourage the birthrate and family formation. Because it would help the 0.0005% of America that is Somali is just cutting your nose off to spite you face. I never said we should have more of them or that they'd be net taxpayers or that integration hasn't failed. Just opposing a policy that's great for tens of millions of conservatives because it might help the Somalis is just asinine.
So, yeah, I am personally in favor of gibs to Republicans. If we can't take away the blue gibs, then all sides must have gibs!
You'll never get gibs for Republicans if you can't pass any because the Somalis might get some. And also them being married and having families is better than them not doing that. Marriage has a civilizing influence on young men.
Somalians - they're just like us! Good family people, really. Once planted on the magic soil of America they will soon be starting businesses, waving flags, and maybe, gosh darned it, even voting Republican.
Bush got a majority of Muslim votes the first time. Family values and all.
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
It does seem like subsidizing STAHPs would help lower income men support a wife though. I think plenty of working class people could benefit from this especially because it's $9000 instead of paying for daycare.
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
This seems like a very good policy and it's nice to see Republicans actually do something for families for once. Republicans really could do a lot more now that concern for birthrate is on their radar. The fact that it's Democrats who talk about free school lunch and paid maternal leave seems very counterintuitive.
My only other complaint here is if Trump and JD Vance are primarily concerned with boosting the overall birth rate alongside helping working families, targeting male income and raising it should be paramount.
This is really hard to do on a policy level compared to directly supporting STAHPs though. I'm not sure what policy levers that could be pulled here outside of banning DEI and more gender blind civil rights law enforcement.
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
Do you want to promote marriage and families or do you just want to hurt Democrats?
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
Ideally the policy would be to promote marriage and family formation and not just give Republican voters gibs. I don't actually see the problem here do you view reduced Black single parenthood as a bad thing? Having on SAHP requires more than just a marriage it requires coordination between parents and I imagine the amount of people who would abuse it would be less than you think.
So what if it benefits Somalis? Even in a totally cynical realpolitik way there are not that many of them and Minnesota was going Blue anyway. But more realistically making sure a Somali never gets a dime is such a bad policy priority. I thought we wanted to encourage marriage and families?
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
I don't think so; and to the degree that this might technically be true it doesn't matter unless those moral codes were influential enough to stop the practices at scale, which they clearly were not. Where they did exist, they generally applied only to the ingroup. When it comes to rape, well, a lot gets lost in cultural understanding of what that means. But the Christian insistence that the woman must consent to a marriage is probably worth thinking about.
It didn't though at least for the period of Colonization. Europeans had huge and horrific slave empires working people to death in Barbados and treating the New World like personal Westworld. Seriously reading some of the conquistadors early antics really reminds me of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Where regardless of how much they follow their own religion "often not very devoutly" they feel free to rape and murder the natives at will because they are godless heathens. Do you really think only Christianity says a women has to consent to marriage? Again there are innumerable marriage practices culturally.
And even if, hypothetically, several of these systems could have worked, we may observe that only one actually did.
Modern enlightenment philosophy is doing a far better job then Christianity. Though again I'd argue this is more a function of modernity. Despite being subject to almost no Christian influence the Chinese don't expose their infants and women are free to marry who they want.
I think we do. I think even in the West it's becoming a lot more popular without Christianity. Why would I expect non-Westerners to not do it when apparently even we can't manage that?
Except neither Westerners nor non Westerners routinely kill babies anymore.
Because they are personally dependent upon their relationship with the West, yes, obviously. Do you think that rhetoric will hold longer than the very instant it is once again advantageous for them to rile their people up to take territory from the kafir? Has it ever, historically?
You misunderstand what I meant, them riling up their people and going to take territory from the Kafir would be entirely inline with historical Jihad. Modern Islamists/Jihadis trying to overthrow Shariah compliant monarchs to implement theocratic republics and blowing up random buses in dar al harb are as far away from historical Jihad as the idea of Jihad only ever meaning peaceful struggle. Historical Jihad was, as you say. It wasn't random extremists taking a ship to Venice and suicidaly hacking down Kaffir with a sword.
MayorofOysterville
3d ago
I'm sure they do. But calling him a MRA/Repdiller is not the dominate narrative on reddit.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
Ok that's utterly horrifying.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
Yes that's what I was referring to. I know states all have those carveouts.
That wasn't me commenting earlier. I don't think it's a women issue. You won't see any black women supporting her. As for JK I think that's an entirely different line as in that's political/culture war issue in a way that this isn't. This cuts across political lines and
You have both left wing and right women on tiktok going nuts with conspiracies' about how she was framed by her evil husband, or about how she was failed by the evil doctors or just can't be held responsible because she's crazy. And that's the main thing no matter what Lindsay can't have been responsible. There's a resistance to responsibility and misandry that runs through it. What it's not is an actual defense of child killing. If a man or fat ugly black woman did this they wouldn't care one iota. It's similar to other true crime tempests like Casey Anthony or Madeline McCann, except this one shows some really ugly beliefs that have been simmering under the surface.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
The ones that got totally curbstomped by Christian societies intent on enforcing Christian values, and who desperately recast themselves to be more palatable to Christian superpowers?
No I think most societies had stopped routine exposure of infants the time of colonization. And places like China never made themselves pliable Western clients and they still don't have it.
"don't kill your children" or "rape is wrong" or "everyone should be treated with basic dignity."
There are dozens of independent moral codes that have come up with these rules, you don't need Jesus to ban these. Also when you look at the old Testament God gets pretty flexible on some of these.
Also, plenty of Islamic societies absolutely do allow child murder, especially in cases of e.g. honor killings
And that's fucked up but killing a 15 year old for having premarital sex is an entirely different phenomena then infanticide' and I didn't say no place ever kills children just that I don't think we needed Christianity to end the practice given that o one does it anymore expect maybe some far out hunter gatherers.
You know, like when they say "Jihad just means personal internal struggle, lol"
This isn't just some line to feed Westerners. It's not like the Gulf Monarchs are pro-Jihad they try to get their own population to by it and work with the CIA to crush Islamists everywhere. And also while Jihad "just" meaning internal struggle is obviously overthrowing your Monarch who rules based on Shariah to implement some kind of theocratic republic or suicide bombing random "infidel" civilians are also pretty novel interpretations has history goes.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
How can one possibly say that abortion is under threat in the US?
The fact that some jurisdictions have banned it? I agree the odds of abortion being banned in California are essentially nil but pro-choice activists in America fear an abortion ban in the US in a way they don't in Europe and all that matters is that they believe it. I think the more restrictive laws in Europe show this kind of radicalism is not actually inevitable.
Per the "same, Lindsay" trend, many of her supporters are expressing empathy for her by admitting that they've personally felt the urge to murder their own children.
I think they think they are being cute and cheeky and not actually literally supporting child murder. No I agree this kind of things is totally unacceptable and shows how our society refuses to hold women accountable and especially a certain kind of woman refuses to hold someone like Lindsay accountable but notice the aren't saying "yeet your kids slay queen!" they are saying someone like Lindsay couldn't be responsible for something like this, it must by the husband, or psychosis or evil doctors it's just extreme in group bias and lack of responsibility. Next time a man kills his kids they'll bring out the pitchforks because the principle isn't super late term abortion。 It's middle class white women can never be responsible for anything bad so it must be someone else's fault.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
Don't you find it at least interesting that feminists are willing to support women even when they murder their children, but not when they say the gamer word? "I support women, even when they use racial slurs when their blood is up" seems like it could be an equally effective costly signal, and yet it wasn't.
I think it's intensely interesting as a phenomena but I think you are missing some of the factors in her support. The core of her supporters are suburban white women, not feminists. specifically a kind of overly online, true crime brained suburban white women. The type of people who watched Nancy Grace back in the day. This first and foremost a white women phenomena more than it is about left right politics and indeed these type of suburban white women aren't particularly left coded, and while I'd guess a majority of her supporters are some flavor of liberal, there are plenty of apolitical and right wing supporters of her as well. And a huge portion are outside the Overton window the tiktok astrology girlies are not respectable liberals
As for why not Shiloh Hendrix because women don't care about the gamerword I'd hazard more liberal men have used it then conservative suburban moms and it's not like suburban conservative moms are ok with their sons saying slurs on Xbox live either. And it's just not a salient issue for women it's in the name gamerword. True crime on the other hand is of an issue to women and like catnip or crack to some women this case is more similar to like something like Casey Anthony then a left right political issue. I've heard this described as Qanon for white women which I think covers it and this is truly a gender war thing rather then a left right political thing. Her supporters are literally entirely white women motivated by entitlement misandry and true crime brain. I do think it shows the depths of the women are wonderful fallacy in our society and I've seen a lot of otherwise party line liberal men utterly flabbergasted by women's reaction to this case, so I'm curious if this will lead to any backlash or long lasting effects.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
Considering the non Christian societies that exist now don't allow child murder I thin we'll be alright.
MayorofOysterville
5d ago
All of those things had high status people openly advocating for them in the 60s. No one now is arguing killing your kids is ok.
How would nuking the holiest site of a quarter of the global population, not to mention more than two million innocent men women and children. In an American ally no less for the actions of a few thousand radicals in the mountains of Afghanistan save the US trouble. It would turn the world against America. And easily be a worse atrocity than anything Muslims have done in recent memory. It would be a great evil and barbaric tribalism. Not mention stupid seeing as the Saudi government is a cooperative ally of the US.
More options
Context Copy link