@Nantafiria's banner p
BANNED USER: repeated antagonism and bad behavior

Nantafiria


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

				

User ID: 246

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: repeated antagonism and bad behavior

Nantafiria


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 246

Banned by: @Amadan

Gays destroyed the what now rule?

You don't have to look all that far back to remember days where the dynamic you see was, in fact, entirely upside down. DADT was implemented in the 1990's, and was replaced by gays being allowed to serve openly a cool two decades later. When my parents left high school and the male graduates applied at the draft office, the military still undertook serious effort to root out anyone gay - and I live in a nation that is friendlier to gay people than most of Europe is.

Talk about the vacation plans you and your (fellow gay) SO have been making in 1993? You're fired, do not pass go, do not collect $200. You don't get to marry that person, because of course people of the same sex don't get to do that. Local drunks will ambush you if you go for a drink and the police will cackle about this. If you bring any of this up, well, it's really not politics, is it? It's just being a decent person.

Yes, there's excesses in this: call it part of man's desire to have his culture be superior over others. So it goes. But accusing the gays of this uniquely? Please. Many of them well remember how they used to live, they can see places in their own nations where people still do, and they act accordingly. There's nothing odd or particularly wicked about these people, and we don't have to pretend otherwise.

The progressives disagree with you that these spaces were ever non-political, and frankly, I think they're right. I could talk at length about Dutch pillarisation and the funny consequences this had for society, but the people who bemoan politics being everywhere now are people who haven't been paying attention for all that long.

no honest person

You can do better than insist you're only talking to liars, and I'd appreciate if you did that rather than accuse me of lying to your face.

Because, for what it's worth, I'm sure those are the things you believe. And I'm also sure gay people are right to point out that these beliefs, today, are the ones of people who'd love to shove them back down the closet. Until there is a way to distinguish the likes of you from the likes of them, a good deal of them are going to take a dim view of people who bemoan a lost tolerance. A tolerance, I'll add, that they didn't see much of in the first place.

No one cared what you were doing outside the hobby group.

The workplace. The military. Public life in general.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. History didn't start off in the 2010s, and plenty of people cared about that just fine.

So Elon is a liar of a hypocrite you shouldn't trust to keep his word, your opinion on @elonjet nonwithstanding.

It's pathetic, isn't it? More proof for the habitual contrarian theory of Mottizenship.

I get that it's real satisfying to talk shit about your outgroup, but I really don't care about that. I want for policing to be just, and the American custom of anti-white racism just isn't a factor.

Because if the Jews aren't to blame, society's losers - either genuine or just self-hating ones - might need to do some introspection. Since that'd hurt, it's much easier to decide others are to blame for where you are.

Do you ever get tired of posting one-liners that are all heat and no light? No charity, no forethought, nothing but war to the knife.

seeing how annoying you can be before you get banned.

That's not why I'm here, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on, too? The fuck?

Slave states treated (white) people with nothing to their name very differently from those enslaved black people, both before and after slavery ended.

Okay, and?

It's pretty easy if you're not a maladjusted fuck posting on TheMotte like the rest of us, yeah.

I live in a nation where the anti-white racism thing functionally doesn't exist. If anything, it's made the pro-reform block smaller. I just don't think you're right.

I don't understand why getting details wrong about a historical event is a moral failing and that people who do it should be "damned to hell."

I'm mostly with the other incredulous people here, but alright. Let's say your username isn't trolly nonsense and you're deeper down the spectrum than I am, or the median mottizen is.

Put plainly, people really really really hate their enemies. Today's world is a little fraught, and people disagree on who this should be, but in any Western nation you'll find (at least) two groups that everyone really hates: nazis and pedophiles.

Nobody likes nazis. Depending on where you are you'll get taught more or less of who they were and what they were like, but everyone knows the big outlines. Swastikas, toothbrush stache man, holocaust, invading Poland, huzzah. To a median Westerner, the nazis wete evil losers, neo-nazis are evil losers, and they aren't interested in debating this. They have better stuff to do.

There are then two kinds of people who will go and doubt the dominant narrative about the Nazis anyway. The first are - obviously - their ideological descendants, who want to look good. The second kind of person is the sorts you'll readily find in here: the sorts who never got over being the smart kid in class. Reflexive contrarians who have never held a conventional opinion in life, because those are the normies' opinions and ohmygod they're so dumb.

A normal person, or even a smart one, isn't really going to notice or care for the distinction. They rightly know the Nazis killed millions of innocents. They rightly know national-socialist ideology is an evil one that has only brought misery to all those involved. They know this, they know their friends know this, they know their loved ones know this, they know every good person they agree with knows this. Every single one.

The people who loudly profess to disagree or question this are all, at the least, Nazi sympathisers. There's a lot of reflexive contrarians, but most of us have still the modicum of shame and social regard needed not to delve into holocaust denialism as the cause to espouse. Holocaust denier club isn't fifty truth-seekers with a couple Nazis around, it's fifty Nazis with a couple autistic kids who genuinely ought to seek their intellectual masturbation elsewhere.

The result is that the average person, or even a smart one like Prager, doesn't care to ponder just why someone might question the Holocaust. Not even the staunchly leftist atheists Prager hates like or will defend Nazis. No normal person will. But he knows that holocaust deniers fall into three rough groups: Nazis, smart people who should know better, and idiots who ought to listen to smarter sorts.

Does that help? Or are things still unclear to you?

by their nature they like things the way they were or at least the way they were when they were kids

No? No. Hell no. Absolutely not. The past conservatives point at is always idealised and through no coincidence happens to align with their views perfectly. When the day that conservatives will be glad to return the union membership rates, societal wealth distribution, teenage pregnancy levels, alcohol consumption, the mother fucking housing policies or other issues yet from when they were young, I will in fact believe them. As-is, their link to the past is as tenuous as it's suspiciously convenient, and I'll have none of it.

One hundred thousand fewer people on active duty, in an army of over a million, the cause of which the statistics (obviously) won't tell us.

If that's it, I'm going to keep filing this under the non-issue drawer, yeah.

No differently than before, if the numbers are anything to go by; I see no dropoff in the slightest after 2011. Are the numbers wrong, or are you?

Then you can say that, rather than list an anecdote that doesn't look very related and leave your post at that.

Anyway.

Yeah, people lie. Lots. Oldest problem in the world. I'd appreciate if we might all be sincere as much as the next autist does, but we've got to live with the world we have. So it goes.

I, too, was around for that era of the internet - and I, too, miss it dearly. It died once the internet stopped being for nerds and started being for everyone. Neither of us are getting those days back.

Well, besides refusing to consider ultimately-accepted Irish border inspection measures for several years, selective laxening of migrant enforcement across the channel, coordinated media campaigns, grouping in various European projects the British were already paying members of that don't require EU membership to renegotiation as part of the broader trade deal negotiations, immediate objection on safety grounds of standards that were still in alignment at arbitrary cutoff dates, and deliberate demands for politically unviable demands that led to the collapse of the entire pro-EU British establishment when they tried to actually deliver a Brexit-in-name-only but which were dropped afterwards.

Yes, the EU could've gone out of its way to offer favorable stuff to a nation leaving the union. For no reason, nor any gain to itself. A painful Brexit could well have gone further than close existing deals and have the EU dip out, which (again!) is precisely what the British public voter repeatedly asked for. I will not blame the EU for giving the Brits what they asked for, nor will I blame them for failing to go out of their way to put on the kid gloves. 'Not maximally lenient' does not painful equate.

As a project to actually keep Britain in the European orbit, as was initially attempted by trying to offer an exceptional number of 'you can change your mind' avenues and the May BINO terms while heightening the prospects of departure with numerous techhniques, the EU position was a bumbling failure of trying to not-lose one of their most significant strategic-relevance contributors, and ended up in the impressive result of starting with a Parliamentary practical-majority of Remainers to negotiate with at the start changing to a hard-Brexit wave. As a secondary effort to try and keep the EU together, it was a decent success, albeit missing the obvious third order effects for how Euroskeptical states would adjust policy on the expectation of staying in the EU.

Yes, the EU did not go out of its way to be maximally lenient. I don't want it to become a second Canada, where the Quebecois can extract cash and prizes by holding the rest of the nation hostage - I would much prefer the Brits don't get theirs either. This doesn't require hurting them, which the EU still didn't do. It just requires you don't let them keep the spoils while shedding the burdens, which still isn't putting on the hurt. Any whinging on the Brits' part they got no special concessions is just that - whinging.

Of course not. It was just formal policy by various European leaders to show that exiting the EU would hurt anyone more than staying in, while taking multiple efforts to undermine confidence in the departed member's business environment, maintaining various European Union media campaigns continuing cultivate Brexit messaging themes years after macro-economic trends surpassed it, and post-Brexit attempts by the German and French governments to try to centralize power in European institutions they collectively dominated in the absence of British obstruction.

This doesn't read as a strong condemnation to me. An organisation... Wants to convince people they're better off with than without? Don't want those inside to leave? Want not to be the single most centralised monstrosity int he world?

If this is the EU working to hurt Britain, it is the most benign institution known to man; the very weakest level of wrath ever conceived of. If this is the EU being evil, eurosceptics are the most ornery of men for finding the absolute horror that is an organisation not caving for defectors intolerable in the face of generations-spanning peace.

Or maybe, this one time, we needn't treat the EU as a big boogeyman. The British asked for something, did it again, had years to figure out themselves, and got what they wanted. Good and hard, as they saying goes. I wish them good luck, I sincerely hope they do well for themselves, but speaking ill of the EU for not giving them more than they got and calling it hardball is silly as silly gets.

the French and Germans made a very deliberate policy choice of making Brexit, and implicitly any other exit, as painful as possible

If Brexit is painful, it is because the British public made the demand that it be so - repeatedly. The EU has done remarkably little to make Brexit 'painful', and any pain the Brits suffer is somewhere between an unforced error and a deliberate choice. The EU very much could have done more to put on the screws, and didn't. The obvious consequences of leaving the EU market are not, in fact, some shadowy Franco-German plot to hurt those who leave.

Yeah. Cool. And if the pro-reform block didn't do these things - such as they don't here, because white people are (even more of) a majority of people around, they'd still get nowhere. It's a red herring. Take away BLM, take away the Bezos-sponsored Huffington post-tier editorials, take away the identity politics, and you still don't get reform. It just isn't the kind of cause normal people are going to identify with, because the chief victims of this injustice aren't average people so much as those down on their luck.

I'll grant you the smart addendum, insofar most people here aren't dumb. Point granted. Smarts are no virtue, though, and the contrarianism reminds me of myself at age fifteen enough that I've seen what it's like, lived it, and want no more of it.

Surely, surely you trust the users on this site to assess arguments on their merits and not just adopt the position with the most upvotes?

The short answer is that I kinda don't. The slightly longer answer is that no, I don't think people judge things by their merits all that much. This place is one of proverbial Christians who lost their faith in God, and turned into satanists rather than atheists: that is, take the views of the NYT, the average Reddit moderator, the college professors you hate, and flip those views upside down. Scott's barber pole view of fashion would be the model here.

If Mottizens would only accept and upvote the most innocuous takes and ignore/punish stuff that seemed screwball, esoteric, or facially incorrect then what the hell would be the point of this forum at all?

It could be for any level of discussion that isn't finding a some retarded article written by a rando struggling to get by in NYC and getting wildly upset at its quality. Slavoj Žižek has made a bit of a name for himself arguing the most innocuous takes in thoroughly screwball fashion. We get none of that. We get all the SJW cringe compilations dressed up in more autistic language and robot-like tones, instead.

'I can easily see' is the very weakest phrasing known to God and man alike. Is that all you've got?

The staunchest pro-gay activists I personally know are people who had to cut ties with just-about their entire social circle on account of being gay. This is one reason, I think, LGBT activism has kept going so strong: the community gets an ever-present supply of people who hate those who'd oppress them with extreme zeal.