The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
The retarded kid won't be humiliated, because he's too retarded to get it. He gets his points, it makes him happy, and the actually good players go find something else to do. Further, in real life, those points tend to be quite valuable, which can cover up for a lot of humiliation. Yeah, maybe the kid who made it into Harvard on his skin color instead of his ability is a little embarrassed... but at the end of the day he's at Harvard and whitey Poindexter isn't.
but at its best this privilege discourse can be steelmanned as just formalizing attitudes of modesty, generosity, gratitude and perspective-taking that in a saner time would be universally agreed to be virtuous
The idea of steelmanning is that you take an argument and build the strongest possible version of it. Not that you take a real-life phenomenon, build some idealized version of what it claims to be (but is not), and attribute the virtues of the "steelman" to the real-life phenomenon and denigrate anyone opposing the real-life phenomenon as opposing the "steelman".
The Snopes link has direct images, as presented by Moreno, of the alleged injuries.
I'm not a doctor either, but I'd diagnose that neck rash as being the result of exposure to ambient ultraviolet radiation while wearing a V-neck top or similar.
MAGA does not despise elites generally, though it does despise much of what the Blue Tribe regards as elites. To MAGA, both Trump and Hegseth are elite.
This may be an insightful description, but trying to make it without making a judgement against the leftist communities described ends up having the opposite effect. The implication is that the people who are having problems with them are therefore at fault because they don't understand/follow the norms perhaps because they are "autistic". A version of @Jiro's common point that to be charitable to the aggressor is to be hostile to the victim.
The right will never throw the switch. It's rusted shut. The left knows this, and that they can get anything they want by giving the right a choice between throwing the switch and yielding.
He put a collar and leash on Hochul and walked her around the room. That's not a tiff, that's winning.
-
This could apply to any culture war post.
-
Abandoning the field is a sure way to let your opponents succeed in whatever they're doing. And if you think the culture war is inconsequential, this is a strange place to be posting.
What Mandami has done so far doesn't rise to the level of a threat. The article says he's "discussing" it. If these discussions actually happen, his law department will tell him "LOL no you can't do that". It's just hot air until he gives the order. And unless he has some handpicked fanatics in the NYPD, NYPD won't challenge the Secret Service even if he does.
First of all, one billionaire has little to no influence on other billionaires. Bloomberg can't make Thiel change his public behavior nor vice-versa.
As for a), what's the point of a billionaire if you can neither do big things nor enjoy personal luxuries (like renting Venice for your wedding)? And this doesn't actually help; laws directed at billionaires will wreck under-the-radar billionaires (and millionaires, and probably hundred-thousandaires) as well as ostentatious ones.
I can't buy so much as a pellet gun. Because the most pro-gun Supreme Court in 100 years still allows prior restraint, with few limits on said restraint; you need state permission to buy a gun. So all the "winning" looks like "nothing" from my perspective. When I can purchase a gun and ammo, strap it on, and cross the Hudson with it, without violating any laws, maybe then I'll think gun rights are real. Until then, there is no right to keep and bear arms, only a privilege for the elect.
Silencers are now untaxed but the NFA paperwork (and presumably the Fourth Amendment waiver they swear isn't there) is still in effect. And of course they're banned in blue states.
I don't move because of family reasons.
Nobody wants that. Trump is an elitist as well. So is Vance, as Hillbilly Elegy proves (you can't write such a book without looking down). Obviously Rubio is. They're all satisfied with "You have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you can own or carry a gun"
The Supreme Court (except Cranky Clarence) are elitists; they don't want the population to have guns. But the right to keep and bear arms is an important point on the right side of their constitutional debate society. So they deliberately allow lower and state courts to reduce pro-gun decisions to nullities.
You are your brother's keeper, whether you like it or not.
That's not what Genesis says. Upon being questioned as to his brother's whereabouts, Cain rhetorically asks God whether he is his brother's keeper, in a manner which indicates he knows the answer is "no". God doesn't answer the question, he calls Cain on his disingenuousness and tells him he knows damn well he killed his brother.
No, I am not my brother's keeper. I am certainly not the keeper of random strangers. I'm certainly not responsible for the actions of other 'like me'; if they do something that I did not do, they are clearly not 'like me' in the relevant sense.
It's not the underclass using Doordash.
There is no "M" in FAANG.
Boomers were the kids being bussed, (and those being bussed to) not the parents. Who was, like, 8-17 years old in the early-mid 1970s? Boomers, obviously.
By current Z and Alpha standards, yes. By standard nomenclature, no, those were mostly X.
Now the "Doordash" argument. You can disparage it, but the math still maths.
I liked the "Sex in the City" version; it turns out Carrie Bradshaw had spent enough on shoes that if she hadn't, she would have had a down payment for her apartment. Doordash is cheaper than designer shoes, but bought more often so it's the same order of magnitude.
Meanwhile, in the Emperor's own words, "Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station"
Don't forget Kim Philby, possibly the inspiration for Conquest's Second (or Third) law -- "The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."
Once an attorney is involved, the economics of a small venture turn infeasible very quickly.
In the case of Communists, I only have to look so far as to observe their rhetoric.
The slippery slope is often a disguised reductio. The argument is for B, because of principle A. The person making the slippery slope argument points out that principle A also supports actions C, D, E, and so on through Z which are basically extensions of B.

I expect what NJ will do is simply continue to enforce the law, relying (as New York does) on the (perhaps-dubious) idea that state courts do not have to heed the decisions of Federal Courts other than the Supreme Court, at least in gun cases.
But all these gun cases, as you note when you mention my handle, are pointless. If they lose they lose, if they win they get no rights enforced. They're not arguing about a right to keep and bear arms. They're arguing about the limits of the privilege of the elect who are able to get permission to bear arms. No gun organization is interested in taking on New Jersey's permitting system as a whole, probably because they consider this already decided and lost; Bruen's footnote 9 allows prior restraint on just about any grounds.
More options
Context Copy link