TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
No bio...
User ID: 3097
The former is a foundational axiom of the latter. People latch on to genetic determinism as "obvious" and "true" because they reject the validity of non-material/non-quantifiable explanations.
Regarding 1: i think a missing bit of historical context of both Progressivism and Rationalism's origins as rejection of/reaction against traditional western moral philosophy which due to 2,000+ years of history is inextricably entwined with Christianity. The affinity for Islam and and Orietalism amongst the chattering class is a combination of the natural human attraction to novelty and a naive assumption that the enemy of my enemy must be a friend.
OnlyFans stars for Mohammed (PBH) is just a redressed Queers for Palestine.
Along similar lines to what @WhiningCoil and @TIRM have said i think context and distribution also matter a great deal. As an example, I live in a mid-size American city that has a significantly above average crime rate on paper, but said crime is largely restricted to certain nieghborhoods and classes of people (IE Shitbirds). Respectable citizens know that nothing good happens north of a certain avenue after sundown, while the city PD maintains a visible presence in public spaces and transit (which discourages pan-handlers and loitering ner-do-wells) and actively persues property crimes. As a result the day to day perception and experience of most residents and visitors is mostly that of clean and safe '1' streets despite the ostensibly high rate of criminality.
- 1: from crime at least, our drivers and cyclists are another matter.
I'll take that bet.
I'm reminded of something someone said here a week or two ago: Joe Rogan was the Democrats' Joe Rogan, they drove him and people like him away.
Was it this one?
https://www.themotte.org/post/2015/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/333055?context=8#context
The obvious GOP front-runners for 2028 and 2032 are Vance, Rubio, DeSantis, and Hegseth in roughly that order. All of them are currently under 55 and much closer culturally to what @FCfromSSC is describing than anything you have.
Im starting to wonder if "Fortifying the election" might ultimately go down in history as the choice that brought down the DNC as a viable national party. All it seems to have accomplished is undermine thier own credibility while giving Trump four years to build a viable post-Trump MAGA coalition. Vance is the obvious hier apperant, but Rubio, Hegseth, and DeSantis are all relatively young (Rubio is the oldest at 54) and well positioned to be candidates in 2032 and 2036.
Things will start to make much more sense once you understand that we are not playing chess (5-d, 3-d, or otherwise) Mr. Spock. We are playing poker.
...because (unlike Hanania) they are savvy enough to notice which way the wind is blowing and keep thier heads down.
Good points. In a further twist of irony Hanania himself seems to be more closely aligned with those "frogs and eggs on X" then anyone else and is trying to court the Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, and David Brooks wing of "soft Republicans" as though they're still in charge of the party.
As @AlexanderTurok says below Hanania has completely failed to update his priors based on the changing situation.
Agreed, you can see a similar dynamic with Comedians as well.
The greats all seem to have (or had) some deep well of trauma or crazy that they would draw from.
Bold of you to claim that intelligence, drive, and ambition, are qualities incompatible with being a populist.
You, Fuentes, and Hanania are all coping hard. If somone disagrees with your takes it must be because they are stupid and lazy not because of legitimate differences.
That said, congratulations to Fuentes for being the first gay man invited to speak on Iranian State TV.
Well it couldn't possibly have been the CIA, the Mob, or some radicalized socialist, ergo it must have been the perfidious Jew.
And logistical support and training for HAMAS' 10/7 operation.
Iran has spent the last 25 years fucking around and is now in the "find out" stage of thier life cycle.
Democratic party elites are strongly pro-Islam and see Isreal as creation of western imperialism, hense thier opposition.
Republicans are generally anti-islam and see the Isrealis as natural allies who won thier war of independence fair and square.
This is not an argument for the inevitability of a nuclear Islamic Republic, it is an argument to expand the target list.
Iran was already in violation of the treaty. IAEA report to this effect is what prompted the Isreali air campaign in the first place.
This is obvious and expected behavior. The training data for generating russian language will naturally consist of russian language sources, english of english sources, french french, etc...
I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the Loomerite-Tuckerist wars going on in the right at the moment.
Oh, it's that too. It's all that.
Due to a brief alignment of opinions and goals certain parts of Twitter managed to convince themselves that they had real power and influence over the president and the wider right, and now they feel BETRAYED when the wider right tells them no you're just a stopped clock that happened to be correct.
I find it simultaneously hilarious and kind of sad that you think Trads are "anti-sex". You've clearly never interacted with a sincere Catholic or Orthodox Jew before. (Or Mormon for that matter)
You have the causality exactly backwards. Trads, as a general rule, are pro-natal/pro-family-formation first and thier disdain for the liberal mantra of freedom from consequence/responsibility and "soulless pleasure seeking" is a result of them being pro-natal not the cause.
That you view children as a punishment rather than a blessing is why secular liberalism is suffering (or perhaps enjoying) a collapse in fertility.
The fundemental problem the hereditarians face is that thier entire edifice rests on an assumption that biology, psychology, and anthropology are not only rigourous and mechanisistic, but sufficiently understood that outcomes can be manipulated in a near deterministic manner. This is manifestly not the case.
Sure biology may be more rigorous than psychology which is in turn more rigourous than anthropology, but none of them are even in the same zip code (much less the same ballpark) as electrical engineering.
More options
Context Copy link