ZeStriderOfDunedain
Ze Strider
Maybe it was the weather, but that night I found her very alluring.
User ID: 812
If I did believe in God, I would not be capable of believing in a supposedly benevolent deity who judges that any mortal, no matter how awful they were in one short mortal lifetime, could possibly deserve to be tortured for all of eternity. Especially if that could be a punishment not just for being evil, but simply for choosing the wrong religion.
I'm not particularly well versed on eastern faiths myself (nor am I religious), but how would you feel about a syncretic belief system that adopts a Buddhist/Hinduist style karmic and reincarnation doctrine? Setting aside the inherent fantastical elements, highly specific doctrines and very arbitrary sin criterias, how plausible or attractive would you find a system in which a deity offers an arrangement like this: you rejected the deity (or refused to affirm belief in him) but otherwise lived a morally good life by ordinary standards, so you receive a period in a lesser heaven or favourable intermediate state, after which you are returned to the cycle of rebirth in this world?
PS: I'm aware that both Buddhism and Hinduism encompass a wide array of radically different sects, schools, and interpretations, and I'm not asking you if you're attracted to either, only how you'd feel about the karmic/rebirth arrangement if it was true.
They puport to have found a smoking gun that proves the NYT published a complete fabrication in order to libel the State of Israel
Just like pro-Palestinians purport the (admittedly questionable) Screams Without Words was a complete fabrication in order to libel the Palestinians? It is understandable that neither side is enthusiastic watching their respective ingroup's crimes making the headlines. Here we have an establishment newspaper that seriously ran a lengthy, outlandishly gruesome story, that you could in no way read as anything but sympathetic to the harrowing treatment of Palestinian prisoners and IDF overreach (to say the least), and refused to take it down. If this is Israeli hasbara, then the Jews get an F.
IMO the NYT's reporting is simply too establishment in tone, too willing to report Israeli justifications at all, too willing to doubt sources of Palestinian casualty figures, and not ready to abandon post-1967 norms of state legitimacy for one side only, which infuriates pro-Palestinians because they don't swallow the full activist catechism.
I don't find it creepy at all, this just reads like a redditor writing for the reddit leftist crowd.
if MLK were alive today, he'd be very much a SJ
Agreed, we can extend this to a host of other progressive thinkers and even creatives as well. See the modern-day genre re-readings of Ursula K. Le Guin, who was already ahead of her time and could be considered woke even today.
Progressives are as cowardly as everyone else.
Hence, an aura bonus. Assassination carries an implicit acknowledgment that the target was a genuine threat and needed to be offed. Slave morality loves martyrs.
Heads of the hydra and so on. Assassinations are aura bonuses for progressives. Woke will lose momentum when their leaders are serially disgraced and hit negative aura.
Also something something sex-havers (NOT incels) are statistically the biggest threats to women.
Your predecessors said the same about jerking off, or gay sex, or interracial relationships.
At least two of those things are within TheMotte overton window, and they're still human connections!
the LLM will at least not cheat on her and give her STIs.
Now where's the fun in that
right-wing Christian
That descriptor doesn't capture a host of other takes that sit well outside the overton window. Out and out groypers pivot to bleeding heart feminism to stick it to the third worlders. Do you believe, keeping their priors in mind, they genuinely care about women's rights or gay rights? I find it difficult to square with people who proudly declare themselves physiognomy enjoyers, and wouldn't support a brown Christian in their government, to reserve so much empathy for brown Christian children, more than they enjoy throwing shit at the wall (read: Jews) to see what sticks.
Personally, I'd prefer honest antisemitism to cosplaying human rights doublespeak because I find virtue signaling universally annoying.
If you have been thrown out of 109 bars do bouncers have a collective delusion or is your behaviour lacking?
I hate to pull the "akchually" card but yes I know someone who gets kicked out of bars with uncanny regularity, with no real provocation every single time. It's odd, but sometimes your luck is just consistently fucking rotten.
The behaviour that's referred to here is constant, everyday, ambient exposure affecting people who aren't even directly engaging with the issue, like blocking roads and disrupting unrelated public spaces. In my country, Domino's pizza was barred from a major university event by student groups purely over their continued operations in Israel.
Do you think someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Theo Von are influenced by leftist media bubbles
I don't know about Theo Von, but do you believe the woman who called Muslim Democrats the Jihad Squad, and who has maintained for damn near a decade that Zionists are flooding Europe with immigrants to replace the native white population is sincere in her moral apprehensions about the Gaza blockade? We both know she wouldn't want Palestinians in her own country, so is it really about the plight of Palestinian kids or simply sticking the knife to the Jews?
I supposed it comes down to where you care to expend your attention, but we can just as easily invert the litmus test at the people who uncritically circulate the hare brained conspiracies I mentioned. Are they more credible?
Modern leftist anti-semitism is not historical antisemitism.
I agree with the larger point, but keep in mind "leftist anti-semitism" includes Muslim antisemitism too (meeting historical antisemitism criteria), which is given a more anodyne, anti-colonialist twist to be palatable to their white liberal peers.
My friend once said, "I get more liberal the farther away you are". Everyone's concerned about the Palestinians, but no one wants to save the Palestinians. Even less charitably, a good chunk of them are just circlejerking around the "current thing". Antisemitism may be losing its meaning, but so is Zionism. You have to believe that Epstein was Mossad's blackmail kingpin holding US elite by their predaphile balls and that Israel offed Charlie Kirk for... reasons, or you're a philosemitic goycuck. No matter your reservations with Israel's warmongering government and support for West Bank settlers.
What you describe is purely abstract and doesn't reflect real life dynamics though. The asymmetry is layered with differences in non-trivial physical risks (pregnancy and greater exposure to physical harm), developmental vulnerability, and reputational consequences borne by female students from both peers and family. The bodily stakes aren't nearly as equivalent for male students in analogous situations. If the adult female gets pregnant, she bears the physical, social and legal risks, not the adolescent. And peer perceptions are the inverse for young boys. Through porn and other media, teenage boys spend their developmental years admiring and fantasising sex with adult women above their own age bracket. So for better or for worse, sex with an adult woman is a status symbol for male students.
those people are pedos
Look I don't disagree it's sleazy as fuck but "pedophiles" are attracted to prepubescent kids. Maybe you're right at least some of them might go younger if they could, but a 50yo man dating a 19yo girl is not an act of pedophilia.
Age of adulthood has always been arbitrary
I've seen tiktoks arguing we should raise the legal age from 18 to 21 or even 25 and see who gets mad. I'll put up my hand right away, I just turned 25 and I'd hate to just become legal when I'm like 5 years into my career.
Now yes, as you point out moral and lawful categories don't always align, and indeed the idea is that at some point you gotta take accountability for all your decisions, including bad ones.
I also suspect it's gendered, reactions to female teachers having sex with male students tend to be more intense among commentators (especially feminists) than the "victims" involved because the reverse is categorically harmful. But men who engaged in sexual activity with adult women as adolescents describe it more positively and report less trauma. Doesn't mean that it is healthy long term, but there are pronounced gendered differences in psychology and hormonal behaviours reflected in these surveys beyond just "he doesn't know he's a victim".
At minimum, you need to demonstrate a consistent and reproducible pattern showing engagement with online spaces as the causal driver of violent attacks, holding all other factors constant.
Tangentially, video game violence may have played a role in cases like Daniel Petric, but millions of people spend long hours gaming globally without exhibiting real world violence, so you have a much harder time arguing that any single factor in isolation drives such outcomes. And yes, I extend that logic to trans shooters as well.
As for the manosphere, Andrew Tate literally got streisand effected to fame. He had less than 4M followers on Twitter/X when he started making headlines around 2022. He's sitting at 11M now.
If we were to believe the narrative, that surge in visibility and consumption should be coupled by a corresponding uptick in violence against women, and that this uptick can be reasonably traced to his content. Instead, violent crime is trending down in both the US and UK.
"Look your reasoning is flawed and collapses rather quickly under the standards you reserve for your own sacred cows" is not me advocating for tit-for-tat dishonesty, I'm simply echoing their own framework. Again, this is a meta-level observation about the discourse, not the shooting itself (which, to be clear, I agree extends beyond the shooter's gender dysphoria). So I'm not sure what dishonesty it is that you think I'm defending. Unless you believe that my meta-level observation itself is quite dishonest, in which case, please enunciate how and why.
"My political opponents are being uncharitable, so I'll be uncharitable back!" Many such cases. But isn't that against the rules on this website? And, you know, a bad thing in general?
Sure, and if we simply joined hands together and sang kumbaya we might unlock world peace. This is a meta level observation on the discrepancy in interpretive rigour. One domain demands extreme nuance, while the other is a closed case. If the shooter is trans, you must pussyfoot around their gender dysphoria, use polite language, trace their psychology with maximum granularity, and absolutely never generalise. This tells me that the "other side" does possess the critical thinking skills and understanding of basic human psychology necessary to recognise the complex pathways from social alienation to real world violence. So when they don't extend these complexities to the "manosphere" or incel adjacent spaces, and instead treat their alleged behaviours as deterministic, self-evident and ideologically settled, as well as silence alternative explanations that may deviate from their "right-think" priors, that is a conscious choice.
Charity is a two-way road.
Did you read the "manifesto"? There was clearly much wrong with this person beyond anything to do with being trans
This has always been the case, as with all other shooters. But this rhetorical charity is never extended to incels as a group. Just look at the hysteria "Adolescence" kicked off. A fictional 13yo boy fictionally killed his fictional classmate and everyone was acting like there was an actual irl pandemic of manosphere incels murdering your daughters, but statistically violence against women has been trending down over the years.
- Prev
- Next

That was a nice, succinct read however this one feels a bit incomplete (or could've been expanded on):
I will admit I'm not very familiar with Origen, but a cursory peep into his wikipedia says he explicitly rejected the doctrine of reincarnation. So what happens after a damned soul is restored to this pre-bodily state? Do they remain in that ghostly state forever, away from God's Kingdom and his saved children? If so, how is that better than Eternal Hellfire?
More options
Context Copy link