The Muslim cohorts in Britain right now are made up in large parts of the descendants of illiterate rural farmers. This is all due to poor selection policies of the UK in the past. I don't think they consume more in services than contribute any more than you'd expect of the descendants of illiterate rural farmers to do when placed in a welfare state.
Back home "my people" rule over them with an iron fist and keep these kinds in line, which is something the UK doesn't do
So, instead of just the locals disappointing the decision-makers, the elites that decided to take such people and make them the elect are the disappointments?
So what's the point of the whole rant?
Yeah, people immediately assumed when details weren't forthcoming that it was Muslims and that this fact would be slow-rolled again by the media class.
The headline pointing out that he was a choirboy was more about absolving the Muslim community than the criminal imo but it came too late.
Let's grant that something odd was going on. Would you agree that, as the ancient saying goes, most people don't know shit about boxing?
The goal wouldn't be to convince someone like you.
She'd be much better off refusing to compete in principle
What's this based on? From a purely cynical perspective "woman crying after being beaten on by alleged man" is much better at pulling for heartstrings than "woman doesn't to compete". There'd be none of the photos or videos being shared now, none of the same level of outrage.
I don't want to see Brock Lesnar sit on Mighty Mouse.
IIRC the "white women's tears" thing iirc started as a way for black women to bully white women who responded to "woke" bullying over race by crying/seeking sympathy. That was obviously not something that could be allowed. But it may have now become a license for misogyny.
I suspect if we tested male competitors we would find higher than expected incidences of xyy syndromes, which lead to greater height and higher test levels. It would seem ridiculous to ban those men. I'm not sure how to translate it back.
Isn't the standard response to this problem that the male category can just be the "open" category while the female category is specifically a carve out due to female deficiencies (i.e. disguised special Olympics)?
Does that fail as a solution here?
Carini may have been outmatched, but she easily could have fought the round out defensively, run away, survived to the bell, and thrown in the towel between rounds
I have little sympathy for the inclusive side here . When Lucia Rijker fought a man it seemed like the gulf in power surprised both of them (the man was then emboldened and quickly finished her). I can see why it'd be demoralizing.
But it was noted that multiple people were warning Carini not to participate.
I can see how she was mentally defeated/checked out before she stepped in there. The punch just confirmed what she was being warned about.
The former. My assumption at the time was that Semenya was a female, not a male raised as a woman with a male specific DSD.
Similar to Caster Semenya and likewise raised as a girl
Another case of pervasive misinformation; most people (including myself until very recently) think that Semenya really is a woman.
Which is where this is going to end up, sooner or later. People fed up with being victimized will take it upon themselves to administer justice, and no matter what the laws actually say, people will be armed.
People have been prosecuted for defending themselves in a tense situation in a non-premeditated way. If you're caught being in an armed vigilante gang in places like NY...
Normal, prosocial people have shit to lose. By definition, they're much easier to cow than nihilistic criminal sociopaths and high impulsivity druggies and morons.
It didn't have to be this way! We could have decriminalized possession without simultaneously legalizing being a menace to the public! What the hell happened?
I think you have one group of people trying to solve a problem at the tails, while some more radical people think the problem is closer to the median. Basically police reform vs abolition.
Strangely, the radicals may sometimes have a better idea of the scope of the problem than the normies. If both sides agree too many people are in jail and one wants to solve it via letting out people caught with marijuana (because they saw some horror story about some kid being trapped for months because of a joint) they'll hit diminishing returns much faster than the people willing to have much laxer standards
There's been a marked shift to the right for young men in the past couple of years, while women have gone in the other direction. It can't all just be the industrial revolution.
The left does not seem to care about its suicide as long as it can destroy the right, for it seeks just that brief moment in the sun where it can scream 'SEE REAL COMMUNISM CAN WORK'
I think it's just pure arrogance; it's not gonna fail, it can't fail.
Western leftists are acting as if this is the height of empire and no foreign threat matters as much as their fellow whites on the wrong side of their feud. The Muslims who are not assimilating are just harmless compared to some football hooligans carrying the wrong flag being proven right about the ray guns. That is intolerable and dangerous.
It's fascinating to watch. All of the arrogance and narcissism of arch-imperialists with none of the in-group preference or survival instinct you need when you actually are trying to conquer people.
If the modal European could wave their hands and stop immigration they would. But if they see a picture of a crying child they will cave every time.
I honestly think, if that happened today, people would be tapped out on sympathy. But, as with the homeless problem in some parts of America, it just doesn't seem to matter what they think.
You'll get sucked into a loop of activists, judges and feckless government decisions (the latter always blaming the first two) and by the time you realize what's going on the people who should have been deported haven't been for years and nothing has changed.
I'm not sure these beliefs are as foundational as you think, given that they are of such recent vintage.
They're the new foundation. The old one was exclusionary.
Which has some implications for adopting it as a way to keep out migrants.
Buck-passing is dangerous because, in the moment, you actually think you're being clever. You're saving money, you're avoiding a needless arms race.
America can't really take too much credit for the consequences (beyond maybe making it clear the left wing of the establishment wouldn't cooperate with Trump on NATO).
EDIT: Pre-war anyway. Nordstream, whatever happened there...
Things like LGBT acceptance always involve some element of atomizing hostility towards traditions that bind people together. They cause their own dysfunction.
So maybe a bit like the cold that kills you after AIDS.
They already tried the whole "live with a certain amount of rocket fire and hope your enemies are rational and indolent enough to just live off the aid money" strat
Same thing, though. His punishment was carried out. Presumably his country deemed that punishment sufficient for the nature of his crimes.
And that is their right. I tend to fall more on the American normie side of "maybe people who fuck 12 year-olds don't need to be around".
And no, I wouldn't apply it to marijuana. I'm not sure where the line is.
is a pretty simple rule and certainly isn't the worst way to govern these things, but preventing someone with actual skills from using those skills to their fullest extent also creates economic deadweight loss
We suffer this loss all the time. Plenty of people are talented. Kevin Spacey has literally been found innocent in multiple trials and will still likely not be allowed to climb back to anything like his peak status. Ryan Garcia is currently in the doghouse. Poor Kyrie Irving was suspended for moronic conspiracy theories of the sort you hear yelled in the subway, no threat to anyone. He wasn't even allowed to pay jizya at first because he was not sufficiently deferential in his apologies.
Most people don't really care about any of these things on a deep level (unless your team lost out), yet it's not in doubt that this is the status quo. We don't really need to craft some justification for it from first principles like it's novel.
None of these high status roles are pure meritocracies. There's always been a debate about just who deserves to get these benefits (enhanced by the stage and national quality of the Olympics). Perhaps the one bit of crystal clear consensus is that something like race shouldn't be a barrier. The rest is debated constantly.
A 12 year old could trivially just leave home on the first bus to the city 100 years ago to find work
I come from a very patriarchal culture, arguably not truly feminist (though it's made its impact on the educated). No one would put their 12 year old daughter on a bus alone to go find work.
But it is not clear that this should impact his ability to compete in a sport he's actually very good at if he's maintained good behavior since.
It has no impact on him competing - he can go compete at his local community gym - it impacts him representing his country on the largest stage possible.
And how good a job she did as "border czar" probably doesn't matter all that much - what matters (to me) is watching the entire media apparatus turn on a dime to reinforce DNC talking points and everyone thinks that's fine and that people trying to point out the discrepancy are just bad-faith Harris-haters.
This point will likely be ceded once it's irrelevant, like the unfortunate implications of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
So there is some good news on the horizon.
Sounds like a lot of explanation to be doing.
Consider who this works on: Democrats who'd actually trust fact-checkers (Republicans wrote them off for the same reason they wrote off regular media reporting) and have been told attacks on the credibility of the media are attacks on Democracy. These are the sorts of people that'll check quickly, see the "'fact check" and then tune out yet more Republican whining about the refs protecting democracy.
I thought this was going to be an anticapitalist screed until it took this turn. Mass immigration poses issues, but I fail to connect it to boring, incompetent, commodified art.
Trying to connect them, for my own amusement more than anything:
- Rapid diversification creates a desire for models to manage diversity.
- America's model is quite well known.
- It's adopted both by the cultural elites but more importantly by the mass of new citizens who want a way to express their situation.
- Art thus tends towards a globalized, already commodified version of American culture with assumptions that feel inauthentic in local contexts , local culture becomes reskinned GAE culture, and drag queens proliferate.
There's also the obvious jihadi advantage that they're willing to die. So some rando can pick up a knife and stab people at a farmer's market or subway. This requires much less overhead or structure.
Organized crime would prefer to make money without being labeled as a terroristic enterprise and getting the full force of the government turned on it, no matter how much you offer. Rational people just aren't as scary.

People don't trust the media to be honest about certain things, so they jump to what seems like the likeliest reason the media would lie. "Random stabbings of people who couldn't possibly be involved in gang beef was probably done by a Muslim" isn't a bad bet, neither is "person who looks like a man and is accused of being one is trans" (though this one is arguably less excusable because there was information available ahead of time. I think lots of TRA arguments have made it hard, as intended, for normies to separate out intersex and trans)
Not to get all Hananian about it but riots and randos on Twitter are basically uncontrollable phenomena driven by impulsivity anyway, can't expect much strategy in general.
More options
Context Copy link