@Stefferi's banner p

Stefferi

Chief Suomiposter

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC

https://alakasa.substack.com/

Verified Email

				

User ID: 137

Stefferi

Chief Suomiposter

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 137

Verified Email

I dunno? It's not my job to pick the US Democratic Party's candidate.

A lot of people do seem to think that way, though, from the speed at which they united behind Kamala. I'm just spitballing for reasons why that happened. I could, of course, also just go with "they're dumb lib NPCs who do what they're told", but that doesn't seem quite the satisfactory explanation.

So basically the entire specific claim that "Kamala Harris is a whore who sucks dicks to get a job" is based only on her having been in a relationship with Willie Brown around the time when she got her first notable job, without a clear quid pro quo of any sort being established even in that case (even though it might be considered generally sus)? And people wonder why this might, in fact, just be considered general misogyny?

Imagine thinking a President was practically the Second Coming

The QAnon stuff goes here.

and deifying him in art

...and the "God-Emperor" memes, among others, go here.

I'm afraid you've lost me there. People tend to generally write and speculate more about the possibilities of politicians (particularly US ones) being assassinated than them flashing anyone. I can't say I'm so well-versed in the mechanics of autocomplete to say for sure, of course, but my general feeling is that I'd expect "biden assassination" to bring up some results, and it not bringing up any would indicate similar manual cleaning of results to what's been done to Trump, ostensibly for similar motives.

Is Bush (George W., presumably) currently in a position where he'd be expected to be undergoing a high risk for a monumental, history-changing assassination?

Again, do you think the expected behavior would be autocomplete not delivering any results?

"Big Mike Obama" - ie. the idea that Michelle Obama is trans, if taken seriously, implies there's been a decades-long conspiracy to cover up this fact, including, presumably, everything related to make people believe she has naturally birthed Sasha and Malia. The Hillary thing implies she's a mass murderer who kills everyone who opposes her. Vance having sex with a (lubricated glove stuck in a) couch, while embarrassing, would not be a completely expectional thing for a young-ish man to do.

The point is that right-wingers crying foul over this while not crying foul over similar but worse jokes from their own side.

If the context was unimportant, why not include it yourself? Even if we assume that you didn't mean to imply what people think that you were implying, at least you surely understand that your post could easily be read in such a way without that context?

Whether "woke right" exists or doesn't, "The Right" surely does, and this US administration does rather effectively speak for the Right in the American context.

Yeah, things like "40 years old childless women are viewed as empowered role models" always make me ask... by whom? Certainly not by the droves of guys posting about empty egg cartons on the social media? But somehow those guys never seem to make it into the assumed group of viewers indicated by the passive tense, as if they - and countless other people who might not post those things but still think that way - are somehow not a part of the society.

We're now in a situation where both the public defenders and prosecutors are bought by the same leftist billionaire, and the entire justice system is a circus of sociopathic procedural manipulation to achieve political outcomes.

...the actual achieved outcome was that they executed the guy, no?

No, but there's an election where you vote for a ticket consisting of a president and a VP.

It's also quite likely that Republicans were implicitly or explicitly saying that Joe is demented long before he was actually exhibiting signs of it, which must have created a bit of a boy-cries-wolf effect for many Dems.

The oceans stopped rising?

...one of your examples of a cult of personality around Obama is a misphrased version of his own speech?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless.

This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

This was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

He's exhorting the troops ('if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it'), and he's not even saying that the oceans stopped rising but that the rise begins to slow.

Meanwhile, a considerable share of American Protestants believe(d) that Trump is anointed by God to be the President, and the share is not insignificant even if there's a comparison question regarding whether all Presidents are anointed by God.

The God-Emperor stuff was both funny and a satire by someone not a fan of Trump, it was taken up ironically because hell, yeah it was funny and cool at the same time.

I'm not sure what the satire part is in reference to. Probably the first memes I saw about Trump (his campaign didn't instantly take off in the online crowd so it ook a bit of time for them to start accumulating in places where I'd spot them) were God-Emperor memes, presented in a ha-ha-only-serious tone.

Everyone I've seen using the term "woke right" has belonged to the right-oriented anti-woke group themselves.

It makes plenty enough sense if one just interprets "woke" to mean authoritarianism. There certainly are plenty of authoritarian right-wingers.

It was a fair assumption that you were referring to the case in question where, again, the actual achieved outcome was that they executed the guy.

Why would people demand such extreme interventions as imprisoning all of society to protect themselves from a spicy cold, while ignoring the 20 QALY bills littering the ground called "stop smoking", "stop being fat", "stop drinking" and such?

Well, one difference would be that Covid interventions were supposed to be temporary, which they indeed were.

If the government was so gung-ho for lockdowns, why did it then eventually stop wanting them? There's a pretty obvious narrative for why the public fear abated - Omicron meant that pretty much everyone got Covid and it was quite mild, so the fear abated - but I've never seen a proper explanation from Covid skeptics why this happened (after and during many of them were mired in doomerism about how the lockdowns would just go on forever and ever or would be reinstated "right the next winter when the cases start rising again" when that didn't happen), apart from saying that some protests in a few countries led to a worldwide ending of restrictions, which would probably make them far and away the most effective protests in the history of mankind.

I'm not sure why you'd hang specifically protests conducted against the policy of the current Dem administration, condemned widely by top Dems and crushed by Dem-friendly university administrators on the Dems.

Insofar as such half-joke-half-smear claims go, "JD Vance had sex with a couch" is rather benign compared to, say, "Big Mike Obama" or the implications of "I have information leading to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" and the like.

From the right of the party and from the left of the party. (Of course Sanders is technically not a Democrat, but in practice, he was and is.)

Or this:

In addition to being one of the top celebs confronting age with confidence, Oprah Winfrey made the personal decision to not have or adopt children, but has still expressed her admiration for those who choose to become parents. "Throughout my years, I have had the highest regard for women who choose to be at home [with] their kids, because I don't know how you do that all day long," she told People.

All of these are precisely framed in the sense of being a reaction to a society that generally expects women to have children at some point. I don't get why this would be much of an argument.

The closest comparison here is the influenza vaccine, and I don't recall anyone saying that the influenza vaccine makes you immune from influenza.

But they didn't leave it at that. They wrote a whole chapter about how it's racist to hate white people within a book where they could have easily not done that and where, indeed, one would expect many if not most of the potential readers willing to agree with the general thesis of the book to find the view that 'anti-white racism' is even possible to be highly controversial.

Yes, especially within the context of the book, the chapter is indeed an act of self-flagellation over having held views of the described sort in his youth. I'm not sure what sort of a further retraction than what was described you're looking for here.

Well, insofar as the original point that it's not just women who make the choice regarding fertility goes, QED?