ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626

The vibes of the Trump 2.0 Presidency are already shaping up to be a LOT different than Trump 1.0
I had the same feeling. Not quite what I'd call a whitepill, but something of a counter to the extremely blackpilled narrative of the establishment doing whatever the hell it wants against the wishes of the common people, or even it's own principles. I can't quite figure out why, though. The first term has shown they can oppose him and suffer no consequences, so why the race to bend the knee all of a sudden?
Man should have stuck to rockets and electric cars
Consider the idea that he's not actually running the rockets and electric cars any better...
No, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a majority of parents can silence all views with which they disagree, and whether schools should only provide information on one side of political issues.
If that's not the issue, then please explain how this law would prevent librarians from curating away books they don't like, and if it wouldn't, please explain how that state of affairs would be superior to having it done by the majority of parents.
And, you would be OK if your kid's school only taught Das Kapital, and only had Marxist works in their libraries, and blocked all websites other than those that gave Marxist interpretations of history, economics, politics, etc?
Presumably that would mean I'm living in a school district that is majority Marxist. Aside from the fact that at that point I'd have far bigger problems than the school library, yes I would be a lot more ok with that than having these decision made by a single librarian., actually forget about "a lot more than" I'd be ok with it without qualification. Communities have a right to maintain their culture. If Marxville wants a library full of Marx, it's their right.
It also looks like you were trying to address the other part of my comment but didn't get around to it?
People on the right think that self-identification is completely meaningless, while those on the left think that it is the whole thing
Two problems with that:
-
If man/woman is defined through self-identification, then the definition becomes recursive, and therefore useless. I have no idea whether or not I am a woman, because I don't know whether I identify as one, because I don't know what a woman is.
-
The left does not think it is the whole thing. Relatively recently there was a shooting, where the shooter identified as non-binary. No one on the left believed him.
Once the government system cracks and fails
That doesn't sound equivalent to "the political system that perpetuates our current ruling class will be so severely damaged..." to me.
Since many here will already agree with me, I'll go ahead and make the more controversial: The same argument above but for divorce, extramarital sex, and religious participation.
yes_chad.jpg
Or to elaborate: a lot of what our modern culture is selling as freedom and pursuit of happiness is absolutely fake, and we'd be a lot better of just forbidding it (in fact, I'll go out on a limb and say the only reason these things were allowed and promoted was to meet depopulation goals).
I don't even think the satisfaction / dissatisfaction comes quite from the mechanism you describe. Does cake taste good because I'm not allowed to eat it every meal, or do I not eat it because I know it would come with negative consequences, and would end up not tasting as good as a result of eating it so much? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and so it is with all the other things you mentioned.
Isn't "properly fitted N95s work" just another way of saying "mask mandates don't work"?
In the most famous case, Schwab was alleged to have told the public that, in the future "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy"
...
Instead, the WEF posted a video on its Facebook page
If you're going to deboonk the embarrassing rightoid conspiracy theorists, who lack baseline critical thinking ability, can you at least look up Know Your Meme? I have no idea what you're talking about, I never heard anything about a sinister announcement. The first I heard of it was literally from the Facebook video, and it was embarrassing enough to the WEF all on it's own, that they ended up taking it down, as well as the original article.
Other examples are myriad, but include in many cases phrases about 'eating bugs' and 'living in pods'. The former stems from a 2017 twitter post by the leftist magazine 'Mother Jones' (which, by the way, made fun of the idea of eating bugs) and some human interest stories by food blogs about eating bugs
Yes, us embarrassing conspiracy theorists absolutely did not look up things like Novel Food or Food 2030 research policies. We are guided like sheep by Mother Jones.
If you like lobster, you already eat "bugs".
This, and the bit about pods just sounds like "it's not happening, and if it's happening it's a good thing".
The fact that some people on the right unironically fall for this is embarassing.
No. Business, and government leaders aren't spending millions on this conference for fun, and public figures around the world are not simultaneously chanting the same slogans like "Build Back Better" by coincidence.
It's all fair enough, I did mean it when I said you guys don't really owe us promotion, though in a similarly complicated manner, I can't stop feeling salty about it.
If it helps, you're not even the first person that comes to mind when I seethe. I can't forget listening to some DR podcast, and seeing Kulak on one of the episodes. As they chat away he mentions ymeshkout: "and my friend at The Bailey podcast..." - and there I go screaming at the monitor "have you thought about name dropping the other part of that medieval fortification, you selfish bastard!"
At the end of the day it's not a big deal, there's other ways of marketing, and like I said, we're not even trying.
The point is that, in the absence of the law, libraries will not simply be able to remove books with views they don't like; they will have the right to do so. In contrast, if the law is passed, they risk losing funding or worse if they do so. Will it absolutely prevent them from doing so? No, just as laws against murder do not absolutely prevent murders.
Sorry, but I'm not willing to give away the option to prevent flooding the library with propaganda on the vague promise that it will be "risky" to do so. Yes, a situation where parents have the right to control the libraries, rather than just librarians, is far superior.
You are avoiding the issue. The issue is not by whom it should be done, but rather whether it is ok with it being done at all.
I addressed it in the edit.
You're just kicking the can down the road. They still have to prove that what they claim he intended was in fact a crime, when the relevant authority already said it isn't.
In my mind, the Hasidic power structure is a legitimate problem that needs to be made sense of, because if there is all this corruption at just 200k members, well, in 60 years it will be 1,600,000. They will comprise a majority of America's Jewish community in a few decades.
Corruption? My mother once told me she could never make sense of antisemitism. Every time she asked someone, who expressed an anti-Jewish sentiment, what their beef was, they'd come back with a variation on "they're too in-groupy". To which she'd say "instead of dissing them, why don't you learn from them?"
You're telling me, that not only is there a community successfully resisting the influence of the modern techno-dystopia, but that they're well-disciplined, vibrant, and growing... and you're telling me I'm supposed to be upset???
Why don't you tell me if they have a Paypal, I want to send them money.
The Communist Block had a collapse of the system that perpetuated it's ruling elites. I think I heard some Western experts were predicting a descent into civil war, but and even though some countries ended up a lot worse than others, there was a remarkable lack of all-consuming fires that torch society.
These doctors are lying to cover up their ideologically-driven confusion
Yeah, that's been a bit of a sticking point for me too. I think they're aware of not being perfectly honest, but if you see your opponents as even worse, what's a little white lie to ensure the ultimate victory of the cause? I think they can plausibly call themselves well-intentioned, but I also agree with your "both" answer. Is a mass-suiciding cult not-evil just because they really honestly believe that this is the road to paradise?
No shade to you personally—I have no idea if you were one of the ones who piled on in the least pleasant moments
If you're referring to the Libs Of TikTok affair, I didn't pile on, but if I'm honest this is mostly due to having nuked my Reddit account by that point. I was also quite salty at that (and I believe I disclosed that). Otherwise I believe our interactions were always respectful, including on subjects we disagree vehemently about, like surrogacy (or at least I hope you recall them in a similar positive way).
In any case if part the reason you don't feel particularly inclined to promote this place is because you feel bitter after things got a bit hot, and hit too close to home one time too many, that's perfectly understandable.
On the other hand, maybe we could alleviate that with some sweet, sweet cash! Eh... eh? ;)
The public schools are invaluable and beneficent institutions, but they are, after all, organs of the State.
Which is precisely why parents should have the right to veto propaganda taught in schools - it amounts to the state indoctrinating their children.
I think people were literally warning him this would happen if he moves back to California.
The Saga of Jaime Reed continues
For those who haven't followed it:
-
Part one was Jaime Reed blowing the whistle on the St. Louis Children's Hospital by submitting an affidavit, and Bari Weiss' Free Press publishing an article about it.
-
Part two was the aftermath, Missouri Independent's and the St.Louis Post Dispatch doing an investigation that contradicted Reed's statements, summed up by @PmMeClassicMemes, focusing in no small part on the ridiculousness of the claim that one of the patients identified as an attack helicopter.
-
Part three was Jesse Singal doing an investigation of his own, pointing out the statements contradicting Reed were made by members of a group called TransParents, some of who actually co-founded the clinic in question. He also got documentation from her about the attack helicopter kid. I summarized it here.
Now the New York Times has also investigated the issue. As someone following trans issues for a while I found it to be a bit of a slog, but it could be interesting to someone out of the loop. The short of it is they've corroborated many of Jaime Reed's claims, though they claim to have contradicted one of them:
It’s clear the St. Louis clinic benefited many adolescents: Eighteen patients and parents said that their experiences there were overwhelmingly positive, and they refuted Ms. Reed’s depiction of it. For example, her affidavit claimed that the clinic’s doctors did not inform parents or children of the serious side effects of puberty blockers and hormones. But emails show that Ms. Reed herself provided parents with fliers outlining possible risks.
For what it's worth Reed responded to it on Twitter:
I provided parents fliers, no disputing that. And I emailed these. I also made many of them (I am not a doctor). Getting a flier emailed does not equal informed consent. Getting a copy of a flier handed by a doctor also does not equal informed consent.
The question of NYT's bias is an interesting one. A lot of people from the "anti-trans" side of the issue are praising the article as very nuanced. I'm also firmly on that side, and personally I feel like they're pulling a lot of their punches, if an "anti-trans" version Cade Metz wrote that article they'd have many opportunities to go wild on this particular subject, to the point that the article on Scott would appear like a fluff piece. On the other hand I do recognize they're constrained by their audience, and even writing the article in it's present form is probably about as much as they can get away with at the moment.
Indeed, GLAAD got maad, and unleashed The Truck. This is actually the second time they did this, the first was after NYT published a profile on detransitioners. I think this might a strategic mistake on their part. The first time they protested the NYT, their action carried some energy, even if it didn't result in anything. The problem is that doing the same thing again after their original protest had no effect, makes this one feel rather impotent. With responses turned off it's hard to gauge people's reactions, but it feels like they aren't having it anymore, at least on this particular issue.
At the beginning of the year I made a prediction that something's up with the trans issue. The debate rages on, and we're probably still years away from a resolution, but I'm growing increasingly confident that this year is a turning point.
I think there's a lot to be learned here about how organizations like twitter act as central authorities to prevent or abet purity spirals, allowing incredibly "diverse" groups to avoid infighting as they torture a common victim, while keeping the moderate wing sufficiently in fear of the radicals to make them obedient.
That's a very interesting theory.
Back when I was but a wee lad, I read some amount of Forgotten Realms books. There was this one following the adventures of some Drow priestess, which delved into the details of how their society was run. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember that much, but the TL;DR is that there was a lot of rat-racing, ladder-climbing, and backstabbing, all to get the favor of their goddess so she would grant you superpowers and status.
At the time I found it a bit ridiculous, how could a society like that be stable enough to create a marvelous city-state like the one being described? I remembered that a few months ago when someone or another was getting cancelled, and thought "huh, actually maybe a society of backstabbers is more stable than I thought", but I think you zeroed in on exactly what makes it stable. If it's a backstabber free-for-all, it's probably just a question of time before it collapses, but if there's, say, an evil spider-goddess of chaos, who's favor you can fall into and out of, the system might be more stable than you'd expect at first glance.
Funny how a silly fantasy book for teens ends up having so much insight.
If you consider children to be actual people with rights, then you reject the fundamental right of the parent to mold them into whatever they please.
I find that framing disingenuous. If you take away the children from their parents, because you don't like the way they're raising them, you're not respecting the child's rights and actual personhood, you're merely transferring the right to mold them on to a bunch of bureaucrats.
This is, in my mind, one of the great unsung tragedies of the rise of the trans movement. A woman, born female in a country where homosexuality and gender transition are illegal,
Like you, I kinda hate the whole conversation around this, but how sure are we of this? Everybody's screaming at each other with high amounts of confidence, and little evidence.
I'm curious as to what makes you so passionate about this issue
I don't know if that's his motivation, but come on, it's just fun to plant a flag and defend a spot against superior numbers, when you feel confident enough you can pull it off.
I think the more sinister conspiratorial nonsense - that the studios literally don't care about making a profit (!!) and deliberately did this as a "humiliation ritual" just to punish the audience, whom they hate - is ridiculous and a sign of how far down a rabbithole this sort of "THEY are out to get you" thinking can take you.
If at this point "studios don't care about making profit" is something that strikes you as ridiculous and conspiratorial, you're basically saying no amount of evidence will convince you. There is absolutely no way Hollywood looks the way it looks like right now, if their primary motivation is profit.
We haven't drifted from the high-decoupling crowd, the crowd has drifted away from high-decoupling. I used to love these sorts of thought experiments, now I roll my eyes at them at best.
Because libraries in general, but low-resourced ones like the ones in schools in particular, will not keep every book that has ever been published. There will always be curation of content, it seems the only question here is whether parents should be allowed to overrule librarians, and I don't see why the answer to that should be "no" whether we're talking about blue, or red parents. Whether or not both sides will benefit from lack of this kind of "censorship" will also depend on whether librarians tend to have a bias towards one side or the other.
More options
Context Copy link