Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
User ID: 137

Kirk apparently said the following:
I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I've thought about it. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.
This is, in fact, as far as I've understood, a very, very radical view in the American political sphere on a key issue, one which some might call the defining issue of American politics. It's not the one that would have been shared by the Trump admin: when Trump issued his anti-affirmative-action EO, the framing was that CRA was good and that the things he was banning were going against its spirit. And as the quote says, Kirk himself calls it a radical opinion!
Of course, for many or even most of the leftists celebrating Kirk's demise, the point is not any of the race-based stuff but his strong Christian conservative opinions, such as opposing abortion including for rape and underaged kids, but the people doing that stuff do not do it because they believe Kirk to be a moderate.
I've also seen a number of far right types on social media saying that Kirk was a moderate when he started his career but had been evolving rightwards towards being "/ourguy/" before his tragic death.
...and American dominance in software is downstream, among other things, from the huge national security state investment campaign obviously connected to tech industry right from the start in various ways, as well as general American cultural dominance (Listen to American music, watch American shows, go see American films - obviously you're going to play American games as well, and how much of social media is downstream from already-existing forums culture created in large part by games forums? And that is just one, probably not even the most important, example of building on the existing that I've thought about a lot recently).
One of EU's tragedies is trusting on regulatory state to make up for driving down the elements of you-can-just-do-things state, ie the sort of direct state intervention to bolster business that America has always done in spades while hypocritically preaching laissez faire to the rest of the world. (Of course there has been direct state intervention in the EU and by EU too, but building bridges in Slovakia, while undoubtedly important for Slovaks, is probably less effective in staying globally competitive).
I was listening to a talk by a couple of Finnish financial speakers earlier this year and one of them said that if you don't include the Big Five tech companies (not sure what the exact definition he was using at that point) then US and EU growth would have been equal, but haven't bothered to check this claim.
At least this got me thinking about how the US continues to reap huge economic benefits precisely from the sort of American cultural domination that underpins a lot of global tech sector success. The online world continues to run on American mores, even local non-American forums and such. That also of course highlights how, say, UK has been unable to recently utilize its own vast cultural capital (not as dominant as American, of course, but UK still punches way above its weights in these matters, globally speaking).
That survey has been linked a number of times, but isn't the research methodology rather sus here? They are not asking a binary question on "Do you think that the murder of [Musk/Trump] is justified", they're asking on agreement on a scale of 1-7 and then counting all the answers that aren't 1 ("Not at all justified") on the "justified" side. One can do that, it tells of something but it's still an odd way to do a survey unless one is specifically intent on getting a sensationalized result. There are people who, when encountering a scale like that, instinctively avoid answers 1 and 7 on account of being "extreme", even though of course in this case that's hardly the correct way to go on about it.
You're right, I misread the Marxist comment.
Where was the celebration of it?
A sitting Republican senator initially reacted to it by posting "This is what happens When Marxists don't get their way" and "Nightmare on Waltz street".
How much of the cartel operating logic is "specifically sell drugs for profit" and how much is "sell contraband and do other criminal stuff for profit"?
Reminds me of this definitive encapsulation of Finnish cinema.
I'm reminded of the Monkey Dust "Jerry Brickhammer" parody of a fictional Hollywood production of Diary of Anne Frank with all the Nazis as Englishmen and the Jews as literally Irish, but it seems to have disappeared from the Internet along with a lot of other Monkey Dust material.
Who prevented Russia from gobbling up India in their southward push through Central Asia in the 19th century?
Doesn't seem like a very likely thing to happen tbh. Russia was unable to gobble up Turkey despite a constant desire to do so, operating through Central Asia would have been a logistical nightmare. Sure, the British ruled India with a skeleton crew, but they operated from the sea, not through the land.
Isn't the modern understanding that the whole "Great Game" narrative was mistaken anyway and that the Russian ambitions regarding Afghanistan or lands to the south of it were rather more modest than what was presented by the British propaganda?
I haven't seen The Patriot, but isn't the way the British are portrayed in that movie similar?
Oodles and oodles of SMS groups, chats, Discords, Slacks, FB groups etc with partly overlapping membership bases. Information on changing preferences can move very fast with reinforcement from multiple sources at the same time.
Might have a Muslim father but still have been raised as at least a nominal Christian. It happens in the Balkans, Zlatan Ibrahimovic was raised as a nominal Catholic despite having "Ibrahim" in last name.
Ali is also a name in various non-Islamic cultures, generally short for Alexander.
Most people will probably be indifferent towards most strangers they see at the gym, unless they're hogging the weights they were planning to use or otherwise causing issues.
So there you have it- no plans, no budget, no orders; instead it was "mind-reading" by lower-level officers. This is the mainstream position which has emerged due to the inabilitiy of mainstream historians to find any documents substantiating their characterization of German policy in this respect.
How does this differ from the mainstream position on how the Great Purge, Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward and similar Communist atrocities happened?
However one slices the events at Maidan, they represented mostly an internal event (the impetus for change came from forces in Ukraine moreso than the West) until the invasion of Crimea made it fundamentally a war between nations.
The issue is that Russians aren't Hajnali liberals with their cuck fetish of getting shafted due to the fear of being seen as improper.
If we were to assume it was the West that toppled the Yanuk government, this sentence becomes faintly ironic - what, the West should have accepted getting shafted (ie not have the association agreement signed, Ukraine moving closer to the Russian camp etc.) due to the fear of being seen as improper?
Russia started the war with the invasion of Crimea (an action which, all claims to contrary, involved clashes between Russian and Ukrainian forces and thus clearly constitutes an offensive invasion of a sovereign state's territory), and the war was then escalated with the filibuster action in Eastern Ukraine by Strelkov and co, without which the protests in Eastern Ukraine would in all likelihood not have escalated to the status of military action.
Additionally and even more to the point, when we are talking about Britain and France signing the Munich Agreement - the crucial party when analyzing their further actions regarding Poland - would one even remotely assume that the events coming after the signing of Munich Agreement vis-a-vis Czechoslovakia were what they expected and hoped for?
The Munich Agreement rested on the idea that the cessation of Sudetenland would be followed by no further German aggression against Czechoslovakia. It was then followed by further German aggression against Czechoslovakia.
Shouldn't this speculation take into account the immediate preceeding events, ie. Germany and Czechoslovakia making precisely such an agreement to avert war with Western backing and Germany then proceeding to violate that agreement in the most flagrant of manners?
I find all languages that use separate pronouns for men and women weak, personally.
Whether the shooter conceived of themselves as trans at the moment of shooting seems to be rather complicated.
The point being moreso the "by an underaged girl" part than "video showing yourself being threatened with an axe and a knife" part.
Okay, but paying for what purpose? What's the exact business case for a video showing yourself being threatened with an axe and a knife by an underaged girl?
You're right, I was probably thinking more about American presence as gamers contributing to the creation of an American internet culture that a lot of other stuff was built upon.
Before social medias like Facebook ate everything there were localized social medias in other countries (at least Irc-Galleria in Finland, built on site where IRC users could post pics about themselves and evolving to a generalized social media for some time), but it was easy for many people to move to American sites since they already had American contacts from, among other things, using Internet forums.
More options
Context Copy link