@PierreMenard's banner p

PierreMenard


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 September 25 03:29:32 UTC

				

User ID: 2675

PierreMenard


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 September 25 03:29:32 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2675

I'd wager it'd just be a pragmatic decision. The majority, wealthiest portion of consumers is 40+ years old, age groups where you can't seriously compete in most sports. People who are both wealthy enough to spend money on competitive sports equipment and in an age range where competition even makes sense are a very small fraction of the population.

I wouldn't be surprised if these brands' marketing started looking more like drug ads 'after my hip-replacement surgery I wasn't sure I would still be able to run, but the new Nike SwiftMax give me just the right amount of support to keep going...'

Plenty of gamers loved playing CJ, an African-American character, in his GTA San Andreas adventures, fighting for his street gang and taking part in various criminal activities per the GTA formula. It's a great game because it mixes good gameplay (guns, cars, open-world which was somewhat new then), and an interesting story with characters that are both colorful, memorable, and also somewhat realistic, with the usual humorous exaggeration of the series.

The player, who is most likely not a would-be criminal from an impoverished inner-city black neighborhood, gets to experience a fascinating (exaggerated, fictionalized) facet of contemporary American life, with hundreds of references to TV shows and movies, music, sports, etc.

And of course, plenty of opportunities to drop the gamer-word while playing.

In this case, what does a black samurai bring to the experience of the game? Do we get some special scenes of the main character experiencing racial discrimination and having to take revenge? Does not sound like a lot of fun to me.

In the best case scenario, they'd bring some flashbacks of the main character's past life in Africa, with some neat well-researched African culture on display. Somehow I'm skeptical, unless they can somehow place the character in a part of Africa that wasn't having a ton of enslaving, public executions and human sacrifices going on all the time.

That's the 'women are wonderful' effect. Everybody loves women. Everybody of any race has some women they care about.

On the other hand, aside from some with exotic racial preferences, people usually want to see people that look like them in the media they consoom. Moreover, adding characters that look blatantly out of place from a historical, common sense point-of-view, takes away from the immersion.

For a lot of (male) gamers, adding attractive women in skimpy clothing is just a bonus. It does take away from the realism, still. The problem these days is that Western content creators have a tendency to pair a 'realistic, gritty' aesthetic with feminist fantasies. So the male fantasy of a scantily-clad (it's magic armor ok) Amazonian goddess turns into a rough-looking, middle-aged, square-shouldered she-man.

Well, I was referring to all people in general. Even for white Westerners, I wager that the effect you describe is driven by a significantly different demographic than the average gamer. I'd be surprised if this was not also a factor in the rising popularity of Japanese/Korean animated media over Hollywood's muddied productions.

The trans wedge has been a good development for anti-feminists.

Abortion is not a woman's choice and it is not an issue that men cannot talk about. Similarly, as the trans tidal wave keeps crashing over the ruins of society, wamen may find out that liberal men offering their physical and legal protection was a mere accident of history, and perhaps going out with a chaperone is a good idea, once there is literally no space free from the towering presence of a trans stasi agent.

I highly doubt that this particular trope would play as well in traditionalists societies. I don't think you can pin this on the WAW phenomenon because it manifests in the exact opposite way in certain cultures: it'd be considered immoral to send women into combat if it wasn't laughable as a concept.

I think there's a significant possibility of disagreement on that point. Wasn't Athena the goddess of war?

I'm sure there are many other examples, from the common witch to the royalty/divinity, where female characters gained the might to defeat men through supernatural means.

Another aspect of it is that having out-of-context female characters opens up different modes of storytelling such as romance, motherhood, which randomly making one of the character browner does not really do.

The problem with a lot of material targeted at kids is how sanitized it all is. Whether it's superheroes or robot-animals or what not, the solution is always some magic or techno-magic, never an actual practical skill that kid-behaving-like-adults would develop.

You'll never learn how to gut a fish or dress a deer by reading an 'adventure in the woods' type of book. You'll never learn how to make bombs or makeshift weapons or how to bribe an official. You can watch 1000s of hours of pirate cartoons and barely learn any strategy or tactics.

What is that meant to show? The fact that there exists an ideology more hated than Zionism does not mean that Zionism isn't hated.

My point was included already:

Well, then that's why you see more white nationalism-adjacent discourse on the Motte than zionist content.

If you want to see less talk of Jews-bad on theMotte, then make Jews-bad talk more mainstream. If SecureSignals could publish his opinions in the NYT, why would it be interesting to post it here?

The infamous 'Nazi punch' was one guy

There was also the whole Charlottesville event when a blue city decided to completely pull police forces from a legally registered protest and let counter-protesters take over and harass the lawfully-protesting right-wingers. The infamous car accident even happened because a driver got confused trying to leave the city, got threatened by a gun-carrying antifa, and then took a wrong turn in a street crowded by illegally-assembled counter-protesters.

Note how nobody at that time dared to publish a headline such as 'Is it OK to run over antifa protesters?' and nobody yet is writing headlines such as 'Is it OK to punch a zionist?', but that may change.

From my experience, you can apply in person to entry-level, wagie jobs, and they may want you to work there, but if it's not a small business, you will still have to painstakingly submit an application online anyway. Some kind of humiliation ritual, perhaps.

The best part is that the people in charge of hiring you will also struggle with the process, as the devices they have in their grocery store have awkward hardware, the 3rd-party app (successfactor) is complicated or constantly changing, and they don't actually perform that process very often.

The technology was supposed to make hiring easier, more convenient, practical, but it is questionable whether that was actually achieved. I'm sure some metrics were improved, corporations have better awareness of who was hired and when, and they can do more background checks, penny-pinch wages and target workers for layoffs more accurately, they can optimize diversity scores to manage unionization risks...

On the other hand perhaps 'old-school hiring' wasn't so bad. Perhaps somebody can still be a good employee despite having used the n-word in 2008 or being an ex-con in some other state.

The mods were just following orders. Is it really anybody's fault that no one but Nazis can seem to follow pretty simple rules?

And plenty of contexts where it's no problem at all or even a given. Not quite the same thing as being a White nationalist. Is it OK to punch a Zionist yet?

There are absolutely places where being a Zionist will get you punched.

When was the last time these billionaire Zionists got punched? Anybody doxxing them like Supreme Court justices?

No, it's not as radioactive as white nationalism, but so what?

Well, then that's why you see more white nationalism-adjacent discourse on the Motte than zionist content.

People who want to defend Israel's right to ethnic cleansing can just do so on TV panels, government offices, billionaire whatsapp groups, Fox News ads, SuperBowl ads, etc...

Meanwhile Tom Cotton has the audacity to suggest that perhaps the violence in American cities should be contained and everybody freaks out.

A few days later, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Cotton titled "Send in the Troops", arguing for the deployment of federal troops to counter looting and rioting in major American cities. Dozens of Times staff members sharply criticized the decision to publish Cotton's article, calling its rhetoric dangerous.[89][90] Following the negative response from staffers, the Times responded by saying the piece went through a "rushed editorial process" that would be reexamined.[91] Editorial page editor James Bennet resigned days later.

Mainly at the level where I think, boy, it'd be really nice to read the Motte without the same two or three people every time yelling about the Jews.

I agree with you! I can't wait for anti-sionism to be so mainstream that Jews are afraid to publish their pro-Israel opinions and have to get together on obscure pseudonymous message boards to dare express that 'perhaps Jews have a right to self-determination'.

A strange backwards situation in which the feeble try to tell the mighty what is allowed.

Interestingly, when one considers the relationship between the US and Israel, a straightforward interpretation is that the mighty would be the US.

Yet who is telling who what is allowed? Whose billionaires are broadcasting Superbowl ads and emptying their government's coffers to fight whose wars?

Was mid-century Germany justified in telling the feebler Eastern-European countries how to treat their civilians?

Well this is an English-language website on a European-created internet, populated with educated people familiar with the Western mindset. Antisemitism was historically very common among that group.

If we were sitting in a circle in Papua New Guinea then the pros and cons of cannibalism may be more common.

You'll have to forgive me if there's something a little counter-intuitive in the idea that the best way to decrease the number of rants about the Jews is to have more rants about the Jews.

No, there are other ways to decrease the absolute number of rants about the Jews, obviously, but we're talking specifically about the Motte. If you're sick of reading this content, there's still plenty of space on the wider English-language internet that is more or less curated of Jews-rants (for now). It's too bad for you that people that have interesting things to write about also seem to have a strange obsession for Jews-rants.

Perhaps we could have a separate Culture War Roundup Thread where talking about Jews would be allowed. We could have all the Ukraine, Gaza, NYC, Biden admin, Trump lawfare discussion in that thread, and for everything else, keep it in the Jew-rant-free thread, with the occasional link to a comment on the other thread if an user somehow thought that a discussion would be improved by adding an appropriate Jew-rant.

The right of self-determination of Ukrainians is first and foremost not to be sent into a meatgrinder by conscription officers. The women of Ukraine have this right, and like a lot of modern people in that situation, they simply choose to live somewhere else.

To the most liberal, Western-minded young Ukrainians the 'special military operation' has been a great bounty. They finally were able to obtain a visa to Miami, NYC, Los Angeles or any European capital. They'll probably pay lip-service to the 'cause' to assure their status in their local circle of liberals, but they might not be thinking of ever going back.

Perhaps the middle-aged Ukrainians who have not grown up with Western propaganda online and feel unable to learn a foreign language go either way, they are attached to their country and see Russians either as enemies or former brothers in the Soviet Union.

Then there are the retirees who are (probably?) exempt from conscription, and may still feel nostalgic for the glory days of Bandera and think perhaps the wrong guys won the 'Great Patriotic War'. I'm not sure how they reconcile that with a desire to join NATO/EU or even voting for Zelensky.

Either way I think the most important development in all of this is that post-internet, nationalism cannot really be a thing. It's hard to convince the youth to die for your government after years of telling them that the people who just arrived have as much of a claim to the country as they do.

What's the difference if Russia takes Ukraine? That's like a change in government. Before it was Trump, now it's Biden.

Would an American zoomer care if China bombed the local strip mall, apartment complex full of Somalis and Venezuelians, the Indian-owned gas station, the gender-correction clinic etc? Perhaps they want to die for 'transkids'? Maybe if China bombed Instagram's or Netflix' servers and made it go dark they'd care? If the situation is too dire they can always move somewhere else (if somewhere else is at peace, that is), after all they were told they would own nothing and they'd be happy, so why here specifically?

Who on this website would go die in a trench for their government and under what circumstances? This is the first step to clear before allowing yourself to symbolically vote for somebody who wants to 'ear-mark' money for these foreign wars.

the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes

That's one way of finally ending the blatant sex discrimination in the criminal justice system. After decades of loud protest for 'equality', life, uh, found a way.

If you embrace a belief in "shadowy gray cardinals " sitting in a room somewhere deciding what will happen this month, you can make everything fit that theory.

Well that's the point of beliefs, that they fit the observed world. It'd be weird to have a belief that does not adequately address what actually happens.

Unfortunately I'm not aware of a website that tracks media lies over time to reliably be able to provide receipts for what I consider as evidence in this case.

One such example would be for example the response to the Steele dossier. My understanding is that a number of media outlets all came together with claims of leaks from US/Western officials of a mysterious dossier circulating among the 'experts' in intelligence that would implicate candidate Trump in nefarious immoral or anti-American acts. Such media reports were riddled with quotes from 'anonymous sources' and such.

Another example would be the coverage of the Jan6 protests. For example the NYT made the incorrect claim that a police officer was killed by protesters:

A few days ago, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot.

I saw recently somebody claim online that these protesters killed a policeman, which shows that the strategy of 'lie loudly then quietly retract' had the intended effect of priming the mind of people who don't pay attention.

A third example would be the reaction to the NYPost article detailing their finding of Hunter Biden's laptop containing materials implicating him in at best in highly promiscuous activities with many connected socialites and at worst in international corruption, influence peddling, potential incestuous pedophilia... The reaction was of course to censor, dismiss, diminish as much as possible, using the same previously discredited 'anonymous intelligence' sources as for the Steele dossier, or the WMD in Iraq story... Why'd they stop using the same gimmick when it still works?

I believe that there are 2 underlying facts behind these examples:

  • media professionals have a narrative that they're trying to push (duh)
  • they coordinate together to either push false narratives or kill true but embarrassing ones, along with intelligence agencies/government operatives and social media companies, especially when it matters most right before elections

Does this involve "shadowy gray cardinals"? I suppose you could call the people in charge of media companies that, as well as the government officials they interact with, as well as the coordinators at the social media company level. Can the room be an email chain? Or a zoom meeting?

Perhaps when they wipe the servers they use to communicate confidential information on, they do not use acid, and Hillary does not personally smash them with a hammer.

Is it still a conspiracy if they're not literally wearing capes and bathing in blood?

Also Russia is exhausting itself at a very small cost to the American taxpayer.

Idk inflation is pretty high, young Americans can't afford buying houses, nobody wants to join the US military to die for Israel or for Hunter Biden's business deals, 'Democrats' apparently feel the need to prosecute their political opponents, bridges are collapsing and planes barely going up in the sky, cops and judges don't feel like prosecuting (non-political) crimes...

According to the theory that every single bad thing that happens in the US is due to Russian agents, this war is not exactly cheap.

Do you support sending billions of dollars to help prop up a regime that conscripts people then?

I don't have an exact number, probably between 10,000 and 100,000, maybe more, it's still ongoing. Here's one recent injured that made the news.

The conscription officers are the media agents, the Civil Rights judges, the CPS workers, the National Guard as in the picture, the cops...

Pic of soldiers holding civilians at gunpoint from the incident that made Biden reflect that he doesn't want his children to live in "a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point." A race war meatgrinder so to speak.

You people are so great and superior. Aren't you worried that by reading and posting on this website you are contaminating yourself with the filthy Westerner mindset and that your customs and traditions will be lost?

If not you, your sons and daughters.

This is what I think is going on:

  • like all women, feminists want to be 100% safe at all time
  • yet they want to partake in fornication, which is a very unsafe activity
  • additionally, they are not interested in men who follow feminist principles, ie constantly asking for consent is not something they associate with an attractive man

So perhaps what we can deduce from these observations is that the 'don't rape' seminaries are in fact shit tests (Usually unconscious effort by a woman to test man's worthiness and social status).

They do want the men that they are not attracted to not to make any kind of conventional romantic gesture (ie 'rapey' attitude or 'pre-rape' or what not), which is completely understandable.

They also expect the men that they are attracted to to be bold enough to push past these rules. After all, 50 shades of Grey is a best-seller.

In essence, the 'Hello HR?' meme, institutionalized. Plus it's a nice grift.

The men smart enough to fall for the training will eventually find out that successful men disregard it as needed, that's not gonna help with the I.N.C.E.L. terrorism, such as ;

More women report being randomly attacked while walking in New York City

Are they at war or just LARPing online?