@Misembrance's banner p

Misembrance


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 November 22 14:49:13 UTC

				

User ID: 1912

Misembrance


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 November 22 14:49:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1912

I have to go off on this. The trend (and it very much is a trend) to have a personal, unique set of food “sensitivities” is very annoying to me, and makes hosting guests near impossible

I recently invited an acquaintance and his wife over for a homecooked dinner and was informed he had a gluten “sensitivity”. Not celiac or a deathly allergy mind you, just a vaguely termed sensitivity. It occurred to me how selfish this is, in a way. Because if more than one person has such non-overlapping sensitivities you pretty rapidly reach a point where the intersection of acceptable foods is empty. If one person is gluten free, another vegan, another paleo, another won’t eat seed oils, what exactly are you supposed to cook?

Any meal can only really support one such person before a home cook has to just throw up their hands and say that there won’t be a meal and everyone should just eat on their own. So by making such a claim you are claiming that one spot for yourself and more or less destroying the meal should anyone else dare to do the same

It especially annoys me because these claimed sensitivities usually just cause the person to “feel lethargic” or some such vague nonsense. Can you not suck it up for the sake of a social gathering once in a while? There was a maybe 6 year period where I was vegetarian, but I would eat meat if at someone’s house for Thanksgiving or some such, it just would have been rude to stick to my diet

when two or more candidates appear to be equally qualified, and one belongs to a historically marginalized group, that candidate should be chosen

Just like how euthanasia is only ever used for 95 year-olds with terminal brain cancer and Alzheimer’s, right? The reality is that black students get the equivalent of over 300 bonus points on the SAT last I checked.

Mr. Kehoe, who was 30 at the time of the 2018 stabbing, had a record of 33 prior offences as a youth and as an adult

I feel like every time some crime gets in the news, the criminal has some absolutely ridiculous number of prior arrests. Yet it is completely accepted common wisdom with anyone you talk to that our judicial system is ridiculously harsh and overly carceral, lenient on white collar crime by comparison and doesn’t offer enough opportunities for rehabilitation. This would seem to be a complete fiction, given that such cases do not seem to be at all unusual.

How is this myth maintained so effectively? Or is there truth to it and my perception is being warped by a small number of examples salient in my mind? I’m not sure what quantifiable data could clear this up for me. Maybe I would be interested in seeing how much average sentences actually are affected by prior convictions. In my mind an ideal justice system should dramatically adjust sentences based on priors. If you have a DUI, an assault and an armed robbery all in separate incidents you should probably be executed IMO. The system needs to be more responsive in classifying people as completely antosocial destructive forces

This sort of macho attitude is just going to lead to a death by a thousand cuts through unilateral disarmament.

Your response could equally be pointed at white women. After all, they have it pretty good, hardly much to complain about. And Jews too, they’re ultimately doing fine so can’t the ADL just chill out? Neither of these groups have disarmed their constant advocacy despite lack of any substantive complaints.

This kind of flex is frustrating to read, because there’s really no response that doesn’t sound uncool by comparison to your “git gud bro.” Of course it seems cool to never be bothered by anything, but that sort of response could basically shut down any and all discussions we have here. Abortion? Who cares dude, women still have it so good here compared to Iran. Affirmative action? Bro just study harder. SBF? Brah just don’t make stupid investments, not that hard.

Even if “the pendulum is swinging” (which I have been hearing every year), all the media has to do is gin up another George Floyd. Will these “reasonable” hackernews progressives have the fortitude to keep their cool in the face of the next outrage du jour, having learned from these excesses? Will they actually vote Republican? Doubtful imo

  1. Racially conscious whites generally are not asking for handouts, they are asking to be left alone and given an even playing field without a thumb on the scales.

  2. If it is wrong to point out how affirmative action (for example) is fucking us over, what do you want? You want us to never discuss how it’s fucking us over? Never vote for politicians that will act against it? What is the complaint here? It seems suspiciously convenient for leftists that your advice amounts to: never discuss how any policy hurts whites, never make advocate politically for putting an end to policies that hurt whites.

FiveHourMarathon seems to be giving the exact same advice to whites an anti-white leftist would: vote for policies that directly hurt you and if this bothers you, you are just a loser that needs to work harder. This honestly feels like the anti-white left’s dream response.

Up to this point any kind of race consciousness among whites has been completely taboo. So up till now we have been following your advice. Conservatives have let affirmative action come to rule every school in the country and the only advice you could give a white kid is “work harder”. If this approach hasn’t worked so far, why do you magically think this will work now?

They believe in what they are doing for moral reasons but back down when pressured enough. Happens all the time. My wife’s public university offered course credit to protest Kavanaugh but backtracked when it got media attention. That clearly wasn’t a publicity stunt.

This idea that nobody actually believes in this and it’s all a plan to drum up controversy annoys me. It’s reminiscent of “it’s just a few kids on college campuses.” Or suggestions that cancellations are just cover for severing ties with people for business reasons. Why is it so hard to accept that there are lots of true believers out there?

Al Franken was not a strategic move but true believers going crazy. A&E canceling all their most popular shows in 2020 was not a tactical business decision it was a moral panic. There are lots of believers out there in legit positions of authority.

This feels somehow wrong, because despite occasionally producing SBF or Theranos, Palo Alto is still a nice civilized place and the same can’t be said for the black murder rate in places suffering from that. SBF had zero tangible effect on me, black crime has made entire neighborhoods and cities no-go zones.

One for one, a single SBF may produce more total harm than a single murderer, but for every one SBF there are probably thousands of murders, and innumerable assaults and lesser crimes.

Also, this isn't motivated primarily by ethnic tribalism, it's motivated by wanting to save the downtrodden from harm, hence the 13yo example.

Come on. And what was the ethnicity of that 13 year old carjacker? When we are discussing 13 year old carjackers in the US, we all know exactly what ethnicity we are talking about. Also, white people aren’t allowed to be considered downtrodden. Too much charity here

Have you seen the documentary Dear Zachary? This was almost exactly the reasoning used when keeping Shirley Turner out of prison after murdering her boyfriend, that she was unlikely to hurt anyone else. Of course she went on to kill her son.

Yea, reading this ymeskhout’s reaction seems bizarre. Like he is coming from some alternate universe where baseless woke smear campaigns are actually punished as opposed to rewarded. Like, what does he imagine the consequences will be? Does he foresee Chanda Prescod-Weinstein being fired? Does he think her next campaign will just be roundly ignored and dismissed with derision?

Perhaps a more realistic hypothetical I have seen discussed before: Imagine a pill is invented that “cures” transgenderism, as in eliminates dysphoria and causes your gender identity to painlessly conform to your birth sex. Would leftists support this? It seems undeniably good, even if you support gender affirming care as it is the perfect treatment. But I have a hard time imagining leftists actually supporting this, which I think reveals that transgenderism is actually a preferred state tk cisgenderism

Why do leftists seethe at the mere existence of a tiny irrelevant forum where people might be saying things they don’t like? We had to move off Reddit, eventually the userbase will dwindle and disappear and we have no larger cultural influence.

You never step in the same river twice. Conditions will never be perfectly, exactly equal or ideal for comparisons. And for the ideologically motivated, this will always give enough wiggle room to dismiss the data. Your reasoning sounds good to me. But this discussion seems pointless. Even if you convincingly win on the poverty argument, he can always retreat to the motte of “legacy of slavery/historical oppression” of which only the specific and unique conditions of some groups count, while others don’t due to river stepping sophistry

You get plenty of reactions like this in the reddit comments:

But the problem originates from being way too hard on people. The US got more prisoners that any other country in the developed world. Why?

There is already a memetic response for this kind of thing. We let him out early and he committed more murders? Well we should have let him out even sooner and it would have surely fixed everything

Who is Big Serge and has he predicted anything correctly?

I really don’t understand this comment. If the meeting takes 1 hour it takes one hour of your time if it starts now or if it starts 10 minutes late. In fact, for all the other attendees it may now take 1hr10m of their time.

If the meeting is just wasteful and could be accomplished in 10 fewer minutes that is a separate problem.

But sticking to a schedule minimizes wasted time for everyone involved and thereby maximizes family time. This comment is the Motte going full-retard anti-PMC/bullshit jobs hot take

A thief and felon, who somehow managed to convince the right people to let him on the ballots

I think the process here is key. Was any voting necessary? How was this decision made?

This seems like a legitimate failure of the local Republican party worthy of criticism, with proper perspective of course not as an indictment of the party nationally. This post is like an inverse “Republicans Pounce!”

The government doesn’t need my consent to ask people about where I was on the night of the murder, I don’t really see why they should need my consent to check the sample DNA against my relatives. Even in that case, wouldn’t it be your relatives’ consent that matters, not yours?

How is this different from a suspect being described as 6’5” and blonde with a peg leg, and the police rounding up all such guys in town to interview? The trace DNA left at the scene is effectively just a witness description (fallible, but substantially less-so than eyewitness reports), and the testing is just a way of finding people that are close matches to that description. It seems like a strict improvement over the previous scenario I described. I just really fail to see what is wrong here

Your second objection regarding potential contamination really has no relevance here. Because a test is occasionally wrong we should ban the test? Do we have anything better? Are eyewitness reports more reliable? No. Even these days confessions are viewed as frequently coerced and unreliable, so what do we have left? Sometimes it feels like anti-authoritarian types just want all forms of investigation to be banned snd have no suggestions of how it should actually be done

Those quotes say nothing more than “I’m right but people won’t listen to me.” Just because something is dressed up as “The Parable of the X and the Y” or is quoting someone from 2000 years ago doesn’t really make it fundamentally different from just leaving it at “I’m right you’re wrong”

Companies don’t do that in my experience. You want controversy? Just get the CEO to say nigger or something. Controversy is the easiest thing to generate in the world and companies mostly seem terrified of it. Also I have never worked at a company where they said “Let’s do something that will piss off all our customers to generate controversy”

Oh gosh, oh no, the wicked vixen talked me into having an orgasm and ejaculating inside her. Oh woe is me! Whatever could I have done to avoid this?

A fine attitude to have as long as it is applied to women as well, which it never will be

Your question is worded as if nobody on The Motte is pro-Ukraine and we have only perhaps talked to such people. Also you seem to fail to consider genuine belief that Russia is in the wrong here. Just a bizarre lack of comprehension of a very normal, widespread opinion

but given that these situations are very rare, I don't think it really matters that much

Well, given that these perfectly equivalent candidates are so vanishingly rare that any effects of such decisions are trivial, how about we just not do any affirmative action? It’s so rare it doesn’t really matter after all, right?

Women use virgin as an insult. Women are disgusted by male virgins. They don’t necessarily like male promiscuity per se, but they like the validation from other women that their man is desirable and high value.

No man insults a woman by calling her a virgin. A man might be interested in sex with a promiscuous woman. But all else being equal he would prefer to commit to/marry a virgin/less promiscuous woman. You don’t want to marry a whore