Tree
1yr ago
Liberalism is just the sum of its parts. One such part is freedom of speech. Censoring HBD is illiberal, and any ‘time bomb’ that results from censoring HBD should be laid at illiberalism’s feet. Illiberalism is the easy choice that never works out.
Tree
1yr ago
Islamic terrorists have told the US for decades that the primary reasons for 9/11 and other attacks was US support of Israel, AND military boots on the ground in "Muslim lands". This comes from a straightforward reading of the Quran/Hadiths as understood by hundreds of millions.
I'm confused on what your position is. There is a contradiction between the 'geopolitics/bin laden addressing americans' position and the 'theological/dabiq' position. A straightforward reading of the quran/hadiths says nothing about muslim lands and israel, it's in line with dabiq's position "We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary".
They think Non Muslims should not be in "Muslim lands" unless they pay the tax.
No, they think non muslims should be fought, no matter where they are, until they are conquered and pay the tax, or convert.
Not geopolitics - but pissing-off the creator of the universe.
Right.
I think bin laden is lying, trying to sow division by appealing to the western left, when he talks geopolitics, about muslim lands and israel. His terrorist activity is not based on secular reasons at all. The west can support or not support israel or saudi Arabia, it won't impact islamic religious hatred.
Tree
1yr ago
We have accounts like cremiux and I/O basically churning out nonstop data supporting HBD at a rapid clip to an audience of millions, something previously completely unthinkable.
Inconceivable! I learned about HBD reading the wikipedia article on intelligence fifteen years ago.
Tree
1yr ago
Lol that discussion was already completely dead and pointless, and you made it infinitely worse by flushing it with pressurized AI sewage.
Tree
1yr ago
It shows that authoritarian regimes pick 10 to 1 resource disparity fights, so they are retarded QED.
Tree
1yr ago
Don’t call it that then. We should revive the moral distinction between moving a people under duress, which is a respectable policy of empire, and murdering them.
Tree
1yr ago
Alice is worried Carol might be a prion. She needs to be either refolded correctly like Dave or completely denaturalized like Bob.
Tree
1yr ago
Isn’t that the heretic-heathen, traitor-enemy, outgroup-fargroup distinction?
Tree
1yr ago
That's obscuring reality. Zakat is a pillar of islam, an obligatory duty. Sadakat as you present it, in its non-discriminatory form, is a modern apologist concept no one cares about (nor should they, since it’s optional). In the coran when sadakat comes up, it means zakat. All muslim charities are 99% concentrated on helping muslims, when they’re not building mosques and supporting terrorism.
It is therefore usually only spent on causes that benefit the Islamic community, though if you look at uses of zakat in practice, it is often spent in ways that 'overflow' and benefit everyone (e.g. public health or infrastructure in majority-Muslim communities).
I’ll just quote this fatwa:
Is it permissible to give zakah to a children’s cancer hospital?
Building hospitals and equipping them them does not fall into one of the categories of zakah. It is very difficult for the one who gives zakah to a hospital to be certain that it will be spent in the manner prescribed. It might be spent on equipping or expanding the hospital, or purchasing equipment for it, or on salaries and bonuses for those who work there, or on buying medicine to be given to all the patients, both poor and rich, Muslim and non-Muslim.
When it ‘overflows’ and benefits everyone as you say, it is not an acceptable beneficiary of islamic charity.
We do not think that it is permissible to give zakah to such funds, because hospitals are not among the categories of people to whom zakah may be given, as stated in Islamic teachings, and one cannot be sure that it will be spent in the prescribed manner.
Tree
1yr ago
Not all religions care about strangers. Islamic charity (zakat) is only supposed to go to muslims, because islam is Moral Defection At Every Level: The Religion. Charity from non-muslims towards muslims will never be returned, dogmatically. Obviously they should be kicked out of the circle of care.
Tree
1yr ago
It’s nothing, I have admiration for people who iceskate uphill.
Arguing Trump’s deception is easy, the man lies constantly, even his supporters will admit that.
As to why his supporters supposedly ‘vote against their interests’, that’s begging the question. Tariffs, climate mitigation, immigration, increasing minimum wage, decreasing taxes, what-have-you, each policy either makes people's lives worse, or better. Which one it is is not obvious to you, me, trump, or the voters. That’s why we discuss and vote on the stuff.
Tree
1yr ago
Note that in both french "chatte" and german "Muschi", a word for cat is used to refer to female genitalia, like "pussy". Pussy and muschi obviously have the same root, but that still leaves at least two language inventors who looked at a cat and were erotically inspired by its femininity.
Tree
1yr ago
Be nice to the lefty. “stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge other people's points“ is an accusation leveled at every unpopular opinion on every circlejerk of the internet.
There is nothing troll-y about his counter-argument, it’s eminently sensible, I’ve made it myself many times against doomer/resource depletion types. It just happens to counter an immigration-restrictionist argument that this forum does not use, so it kind of falls flat here, but they can’t know that.
Tree
1yr ago
The car seats aren’t shipped back and forth over the border because of some theory of economics, but because it’s cheaper.
Trade and banking have always felt fake to people. If you’re not plowing the field behind your house, it must be a fake job, useless shuffling, usury, exploitation.
Tree
1yr ago
Right, once the religion died down, so did the ethnic strife, so religion was the dominant factor. I don’t think arab christians care all that much about which worldly ruler owns Jerusalem. It’s 99% religious-islamic reasons. Only islam provides palestinians with generational deep hatred through all the defeats and humiliations, and against every rational consideration. Even SS and functor would at some point, after yet another lost battle, surrender, lay down their arms and let their children live in peace and comfort.
Therefore Israel’s best chance is to destroy or weaken Islam before it destoys Israel. If the saudis can export wahhabism, the jews with their very particular skills can get apostasy going. Of course this eminently justified and thoroughly beneficial endeavour will be viewed in a negative light by morally confused people, but then there is nothing the jews could do that would not be.
Tree
1yr ago
Plus the last ottoman elites declared that pillarization was out of fashion, and so decided to murder all their minorities instead. You can’t really go lower than dead, but I think they’d have even stronger misgivings towards a newly implanted jewish minority.
Tree
1yr ago
in part to fix obvious problems of too much leftism
You can't expect much more from democracy than occasionally fixing obvious problems of too much leftism or too much rightism. Other regimes have a hard time clearing that bar.
Tree
1yr ago
Or the high time of european chivalry, the Hundred Years War.
After a battle they routinely executed all prisoners who were commoners, while the nobles were allowed to ransom their lives. One such man was King John II “the good” who was living large in captivity while France bankrupted itself to pay his ransom. At the same time, his subjects had trouble surviving the standard noble chevauchée tactic, where a small mounted force kills villagers, livestock and destroys crops, to force the rest inside protected walls, destroying the enemy’s agricultural, tax, and ultimately, population base.
But, noblesse oblige. The financial obligations of his starving people to his noble title, that is. And he was considered particularly chivalrous, as his surname alludes to. For the people of the time chivalry did not mean what functor implies, some kind of protective duty towards the weak. It meant the right etiquette for courting highborn ladies, and riding into battle like a total jackass like King John the Blind, another shining beacon of chivalry of the time, who died strapped to his horse like a useless bag of fertilizer of his own chivalrous volition.
Tree
1yr ago
Can’t turn back abortifacients.
And it’s one thing to want more children, another to force others to have children they don’t want to have.
Tree
1yr ago
Yeah I understand what a patronage network is, and that the progressives have built one – but for the point under discussion, funding for ukraine, the term is not applicable. That’s the way I interpret @Chrisprattalpharaptr ‘lol’. That the term was rendered meaningless and reduced to a boo-light for ‘democrat spends money on something’ . Though it’s possible he was calling into question the existence of a democratic patronage network, idk.
Tree
1yr ago
So Ukraine is part of the Democratic Patronage Network? Is everything trump spends money on part of the Republican Patronage Network?
Tree
1yr ago
If the president wants something, who cares what the vice president thinks? The buck stops with women. Stop blaming the closest male for what is 100% women’s decision.
Tree
1yr ago
There are no highly fertile people, only highly fertile women. Women alone make the decision, not couples. “Her body, her choice.” That is the way we have structured modern society. At the time, we didn’t know women would bail on their duty to reproduce. Instead of using the power they received wisely and dutifully, they abuse it to extort ever more resources, while failing to maintain even replacement-level fertility.
As you note, rationally speaking, they already have more than enough (public schools, free entertainment, essentially free healthcare, etc). Giving them even more would just encourage them to limit the supply of babies even more, like a cartel.
Tree
1yr ago
I think "trads" propose things like making it easier to raise children on a single salary
I thought that was Elisabeth Warren.
And most women would be having maybe 6 kids
That seems a very low estimate. Reading wikipedia, you often come upon variations of “they had 14 children, 2 of whom survived”. Some entire countries' fertility rate is higher than 6, like Niger, 6.6.
No matter how unpopular it gets – and it was never that popular to begin with– liberalism will remain the best solution to organize human society, so I don’t know what it means for it to be ‘declared dead’. Critiques of liberalism on this forum are rarely specific and grounded in alternatives. Rather liberalism is pitted against an impossibly high standard. Often the failures of its enemies are assigned to it (HBD censorship).
More options
Context Copy link