Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
User ID: 137

I don't think that Sam Hyde is all that well known, or at least much thought of, among the American left. I just checked and there's not even a Jacobin or Current Affairs article about him. Most of the people who do know about him would probably consider him yesterday's news. I recall some mild cancellation attempts during CumTown era on this axis but evidently they didn't much back then, either.
Whatever the attack, I'm fairly sure that a larger amount of people engaging casually in rhetoric described above are suddenly going to indicate that they didn't mean it that way than say that yes, that's exactly what they meant. Or do what other gun rights people do regarding McVeigh: indicate that the perp was a fed or that it was a fed false flag attack some other way.
There's been a lot of cases where the shooter has deliberately targeted immigrants (in a mosque, a place frequented by immigrants otherwise etc.) and the logic, if cruel, is obvious: create an atmosphere of fear encouraging other immigrants to return back to where they came from and discourage new immigrants from coming in. Some shooters have indicated as much. The same logic as when Hamas continues to shoot rockets seemingly at random or encourage civilian attacks: create fear to discourage aliyah and encourage yerida.
Or "Western countries are about to be overrun by invading immigrants, it's already a civil war, unless we act we are going to be enslaved by Muslims in a short time" and then breaking kayfabe when someone takes up guns and starts fighting the said civil war form the nationalist side.
The pro-Russians tend to outwardly go for a more "rational" style of discourse and pro-Ukrainians for more "emotional", but these are just chosen styles of discourse, they don't actually indicate that one side is more rational and the other more emotional. I still remember how the "rational" pro-Russian warbloggers and -tweeters spent weeks declaring that there's not a slightest chance the Ukrainians would get the city of H'erson back or push Russians out of the Kharkiv oblast and then dropped the whole topic like a hot potato when that happened without any indication of why they were wrong.
Pro-Russians have been shouting about the imminent nuclear war and crazy Ukrainians being on the brink of WW3 for three years now in a row every time that Ukrainians pull a successful operation of some kind (and also between the operations). Isn't it a bit tiresome when WW3 once again fails to happen?
To be fair I'm mostly referring to local discourses, I'm not sure if "vapaa kasvatus" that was the bugaboo referred to here is the exact same thing as free-range parenting even though it's a fairly close translation.
In any case I'd say it was less safetyism and more a concern about whether kids would be getting properly civilized and steered into proper members of the society.
I seem to recall that free range parenting was heavily dunked, particularly by small-c conservative types, in the 90s as hippie bullshit where negligent parents were allowed to turn their kids into unsupervised, uncivilized little menaces that would go on to terrorize their fellow citizens without reprimand. Surely discourses of that sort were one factor why we've swung so heavily into the other extreme.
It might also contribute as much, if not more, than child safety concerns: free range parenting dismissed not so much due to the potential harm to child but the potential harm to the rest of the society. (Many fond memories of childhood spent outside on bikes without supervision often do include tales of mild or not-so-mild vandalism and other lawbreaking in it, after all.)
Yes. Finland-Swedes are ethnic Finns, with some elements of historical immigration from Sweden. Essentially until mid-1800s there was a trend towards Finns rising up in societal ranks to adopt Swedish as language, which was then followed by a trend towards Fennicization, leaving the current 5 % as a remnant.
Also, almost all Swedish-speakers expect those from Åland and maybe the deepest Swedish-speaking countryside tend to also speak native-level or almost native-level Finnish, Linus Torvalds included.
Gaza activists believe that Palestinian lives, lots of time, are on the line right now, which is indeed at any given moment true to some degree (tens? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?). They also believe that the West has, within it hands, power to stop Israel on its tracks right now, though typically this doesn't go all the way to promote a direct military intervention. Climate activists, even the most fervent ones, tend to believe in longer timescales - even if they believe that climate effects are killing people now, they acknowledge that any law that might be passed due to their actions will only have an effect within a longer period, and that effect will be at most something that blunts the effect, not stop it completely.
I tend to feel the odd one out in these discussions, since tattoos (at least in standard locations, in standard amounts, with standard designs) have never bothered me, even though I don't have any. I've considered it at times but it always then seems like a thing where there's just better personal uses for my money. My wife has a couple and I mostly tend to forget they even exist unless a discussion like this specifically reminds me of them. Excessive piercing is another matter, though.
Getting tattooed in a big way seems to be a Millennial thing, I don't see as many tattoos in younger generations, though of course it also takes time and money to get a major collection of tattoos going.
What does "push" mean here, concretely? Generally, in cases of ethnic cleansing, it means "threaten people with lethal violence unless they move", which is why the term is often just taken to be mostly equivalent to genocide. If the Gazans say "hell no, we won't go", what happens to them?
People calling them "shots" or "jabs" (like for Covid) instead of vaccines probably has less to do with anything like that and more with it being shorter to say words with one syllable instead of two.
The implication with "Wuhan flu"/"Chinese flu" etc comparisons was that it was comparable to the Spanish flu, which is our primary modern point of reference for a communicable disease that kills a lot of people.
On the other hand, this was probably the first time in history when technological development (mainly the things enabling WFH including studies from home, also tracking etc) would have even allowed movement restrictions like the ones implemented from time to time, which is probably one of the reasons why it was only suggested and then implemented now.
Again, I'm not sure why people are insisting on this. Is there something particular gained, apart from - again - the geopolitical interest?
Not to forget being primed before that by loads of disease-related apocalyptic fiction (sure, that stuff generally doesn't show lockdowns as something that works, but there's still indications that they would work if you just locked down earlier and harder).
The closest comparison here is the influenza vaccine, and I don't recall anyone saying that the influenza vaccine makes you immune from influenza.
I'm not sure why there are so many people insisting that we should have used a more inexact name for this disease just because it fits a certain naming scheme (or geopolitical interest).
You can see all this commentary about how the aesthetic of the happy smiling white family is racist, fascist, possibly nazi - it comes from the left. I've yet to see any right-wing critique of such imagery. Discourse about liberating women from the burden of motherhood comes from the left, while discourse about the 14 words and fear of demographic replacement comes from the right.
While anti-natalism is indeed generally left-oriented, this is a bit of an odd argument. Have a happy smiling mixed-race family or an immigrant family in the West, and the negative commentary is going to come from a different direction. Fear of demographic replacement is related both to non-natality of one group and (often over-perceived) natality of another group. Heck, "billions must die" is a far-right meme.
I think it's just personal deep depression compared with some form of a myopia that makes you think everyone else is suffering and joyless all the time too and is just faking otherwise. Psychological condition expressed as a figleaf ethical view.
If you go through Wikipedia's anti-abortion violence list and take bombing literally, that would appear to be 2012. The chief method of anti-abortion violence/vandalism since then appears to have been arson.
Again, I don't think it's as much "the right" as a political movement as it is evangelical religious communities, which are of course generally often related to "the right" but not the same thing.
Also, probably the most Eurovision thing at yesterday's contest, and in long time generally, was the Baby Lasagna / Käärijä interval show.
There genuinely has been concerted, ideological voting for Israel in this and previous Eurovision, I don't know how one could deny this. At least last year, people were organizing "vote for Israel" campaigns in evangelical Facebook groups at least here with indications that many of those voting didn't even watch the contest. The primary motive isn't as much political as religious, ie. Christian Zionism, though of course politics and religion overlap here. This is helped by Eurovision allowing people to vote as many as 20 times for their favorite.
At least last year's Israel entry was quite good musically. This year's was the height of mediocrity.
This year Finnish media didn't even focus on Israel that much, as the main topic of interest was the fact that there were in practice two Finland entries as far as the media was concerned - Finland's own entry Erika Vikman and Sweden's entry KAJ, sung by a group of Finland-Swedish comedians from rural Ostrobothnia. This was actually a topic of a mini culture war, contrasting Erika Vikman's hypersexualized "feminine empowerment" style favored by liberals with KAJ's national-stereotype-oriented light rural comedy favored by more conservative/normie types, though the entrants themselves got along quite well at the contest.
I'm also pretty sure the jury votes were rigged to favor the Big Five funder nations. Nothing else can predict UK's absolutely dire entry getting so many jury votes. I also lost a bet on this exact topic.
One page, I'd guess?
Probably not.
Even if you don't take the actual hobbies into account, concentrating on hobbies as a way to attract a male audience is utterly tone-deaf. When thinking about politics, men tend to be attracted to political tendencies that conceive politics, or world as general as a struggle - class struggle appealed very strongly to young men during the ascent of socialism, national struggle a bit later, individuals struggling to make a fortune in the market even later than that - and hobbies are what you do when you aren't struggling, even (especially) if they involve a simulated struggle, like video games and sports. "Fight for your right to party" is never an actual platform.
More options
Context Copy link