coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Texas Governor Abbott signs law attempting to ban free speech at universities whenever the speech criticizes Israel in certain ways (described below).
The Executive Order requires all universities to —
-
Review and update free speech policies to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses and establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution.
-
Ensure that these policies are being enforced on campuses and that groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine are disciplined for violating these policies.
-
Include the definition of antisemitism, adopted by the State of Texas in Section 448.001 of the Texas Government Code, in university free speech policies to guide university personnel and students on what constitutes antisemitic speech.
Section 448.001 reads
Examples of antisemitism are included with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's "Working Definition of Antisemitism" adopted on May 26, 2016
And this definition includes (among other things) —
-
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
-
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
These examples are intentionally ambiguous and can be weaponized by politicians or the judiciary against critics. The first example simply bans anyone from criticizing Israel in the same way that Israel routinely criticize others, by comparing them to Nazis. This cuts off a whole spectrum of political comparisons from ever applying to Israel. The second example could imply that you are antisemitic if you criticize Israel for things without also criticizing other nations in the same breath, however culturally and politically distant the nation. The third implies that an ethnostate cannot be considered racist if it is Jewish. The fourth implies that no one — not a single politician who is Jewish — can be accused of being more loyal to his self-defined homeland than America.
IMO this is a clear affront to freedom of speech. I find it embarrassing that any conservative in America would sign a law like this. The ambiguity is dangerous because it could be used by biased politicians or judges in its broadest application. While I don’t think it’s good public rhetoric to compare Israel to Nazis, that should be legal because (1) Nazis are everyone’s go-to villains, (2) Israel was recently the subject of an ICJ inquiry regarding genocide, (3) ethnonations should be extra scrutinized for genocide, (4) ethnonations with a history of genocide (Kitos War) and who fondly remember their nation previously committing genocide in their Holy Text should be super extra scrutinized for potential genocidal acts. The holocaust, like it or not, has no actual relevance to the current conduct of the Israeli regime. In real life, multigenerational ethnic groups do not swear off the same violence that their grandparents were victims of. So comparisons are fair game, if usually in bad taste.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
8mo ago
I might wind up supporting him, but a lot of your information is (at best) misleading. “Moonlighting as a rapper” is actually just occasionally singing the lyrics to Eminem at coffee houses. “Came with nothing” means being a landed aristocratic Brahmin-born engineer with a degree from India. He’s an “accomplished pianist” in the sense that he can hit some keys with graceful mediocrity. I’m too lazy to fact check everything but I’m going to assume large Ramaswathes of it are wrong, and I find the adulation a bit Ramaswarmy.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5mo ago
Hale was white, so the potshots at white people make no sense
Where have you been this past decade? There’s been a whole cohort of young white people raised to hate white culture and white people because of propaganda that depicts them as stained with the sins of oppression and racism. This is called “white privilege” discourse. The shooter specifies white privilege as one of her motivations for the shooting. The motivation is not muddled. She absorbed far left propaganda to hate her race and she lashed out violently as a result. She mentions white privileged, khakis, fancy schools and “Daddy’s money” because these are the ideological memes that she came in contact with.
The Titanic heroine is every woman’s dream. She is a wealthy and sought-after nubile. She has a wealthy fiancé who represents maximal resource and power, a wealthy father as well, and gets to have an affair with the handsome DiCaprio who represents maximal youth, vigor, and primal sexual desire. This is a combination of Zeus, Apollo, and Adonis, the children of the Titans all on board the Titanic. Our heroine gets to choose the best of all worlds. She has the affection of the two competing interests of the fertile women.
But the movie doesn’t end there. The smut (and the movie is emotional pornography) piles on. Because our heroine has all the right decisions made for her. She is captivated by DiCaprio, her interests momentarily cut in two like the Titanic, but she gets to leave him frozen in time while her “heart goes on”. She gets everything out of him that she wants while getting to keep her privileged status. The iceberg and the icy sea represent this process of freezing into memory. The female viewer takes away that she could have his child, while also retaining a powerful and resourceful upper class position.
Lastly, she’s the victim, while also looking superior to her peers. What more does a woman want than this? All the money, the vigorous male, the damsel distressed, and finally the superiority over the men guiding her. There is nothing more to add.
Obligatory Zizek: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9DocwBZyESU . The true tragedy would be if Jack survived, they had sex for a month in New York, and then she is hanged to try. Lastly, this emotional processing in the Titanic allows the modern woman to put Jack to death in her own life, much like the Christian can behold the Passion and put sin to death. You have been baptized in the frozen sea with Rose and buried with Jack, and now you can put away forever the delusions of youth.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
The people in charge of things have no training in traditional philosophy or morality, so it’s no surprise that they have botched the whole notion of a good execution.
Any method in which an inmate can fight against their execution and save themselves some seconds of life is going to be more dreadful than otherwise. This is obvious. This should be obvious. The feeling of dread from the slow experience of death and the knowledge that you can temporarily avoid it from, say, holding your breath, increases the torment manifold. We’ve known this forever, which is why the the worst criminals were crucified, and why the civilized method of execution back when we were enlightened was a quick hanging (death by breaking neck actually) or a quick beheading. These executions were done with dignity, relatively soon after their crime. Some dumb modernite had the bright idea that a prisoner deserves execution but also deserves to be kept in prison for years, allowed or made to continually gamble his life through the process of appealing his sentence to the courts. Horrible.
It isn’t pulled for “violence” — mainstream rap with corporate sponsors has been about killing your enemies for decades and many of them have, in fact, killed their enemies, like “Melly” who is[*] currently on trial (the kids love him!). The problem is (1) the song supports the politically controversial right for conservatives to defend their community, (2) the music video highlights the 2020 riots that the Dems would like to totally sweep under the rug.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
I think that permabans for longterm users should become 6-month and rarely year-long bans. The forum does not (yet) have the userbase numbers where permabans are favorable over longterm bans. If there were hundreds of users who ate bans and who would be expected to participate again, then permabans would be preferable, because no one wants to read one horrible comment every day from the returning exiled. But we don’t currently have that problem. Were Hylnka to be banned in 6month increments, we (1) sufficiently stave off the problem of bad content, because one bad comment every 6 months is entirely acceptable, and one bad monthly from ~6 banned longterm users is also acceptable; while importantly, (2) we benefit from the (perhaps) 20% chance that upon return the content follows the rules, especially because people generally become more pacified with age which increases the percent every iteration. If that 20% chance occurs, it’s a longterm supply of valuable contributions which are worth the few one-off bad comments you have to read before the correct dice roll. There’s also a unique benefit to forum culture for retaining those invested longterm.
An alternative punishment could be requiring a two page essay on rule-following as a costly signal of contrition and to promote salience of infraction, after some ban period. And an alternative safeguard for good content upon return would be to automatically delete every comment by the user upon hitting -2 points after 10min, for a set duration of time proportional to number of times automatic deletion of comment occurs.
This is my analysis, deontologists may disagree.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2mo ago
Wait, why does Scott trust Aella’s data? Aella is an internet propagandist for polygamy and promiscuity. Many happy monogamists who find polygamy disgusting would never subscribe to her or follow her. Her monogamist followers are preselected with being unsatisfied with monogamy, and her polygamy followers are preselected with finding polygamy satisfying (hence why they are following a promiscuous woman who talks about it all day). Her most die hard followers are the most likely to take the survey, even just because they see the link more often, and the followers are those who have found the most benefit regardless of how it affects the median polygamist. “Just in, atheists are unsatisfied with atheism, as proven by a survey of atheists who follow Bishop Robert Barron on Twitter.” Am I missing something?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
10mo ago
The problem is that if we allow unknown provocateurs to “make topics annoying” by posting about them in the shittiest way, it gives anyone the power to veto the topic altogether. So, absent knowing the motivations of the shitty poster, it’s a better idea to just delete the posts and write them off completely. You would be amazed the lengths evil people go to ruin discourse. Back on Reddit there were people who would literally pretend to be a sockpuppet account of a different user in order to get that user banned, and other such shenanigans
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
9mo ago
The key to understanding the “problem with men” today is to look at contingent rewards. Men are motivated toward behaviors by the rewards that follow most efficiently. The rewards are the same as always: sex, money, social status, and fun about sum up the most powerful rewards that men pursue socially. With contingent rewards in mind, consider Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate made his money by manipulating women into his online prostitution ring, who then manipulated lonely men into sending them their money. He also, in the past couple years, has sat down for interviews with journalists like Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan; has won the admiration of millions of young men; has a number of attractive women profess interest in him; has riches and status symbols; and has even scored a date with Jordan Peterson’s daughter. This last one symbolically sums up the whole point to be made: the man who embodies moralizing to the public couldn’t even influence his own daughter to not spend time with a wealthy criminal. None of Peterson’s words had any influence on behavior. The men pursue their rewards, and his daughter pursues the rewarded man. What do men take away from this?
What matters are the rewards, and the behaviors that efficiently lead to the rewards. Andrew Tate, regardless his immorality, has obtained great rewards that are independent of any toothless “moral attack”. Because men want only rewards, they aren’t going care much for the complaining of random news writers and politicians and priests. What does that have to do with me becoming dominant and bedding attractive women, which is what I want? And so it’s no surprise that some men look up to Andrew Tate, without a care in the world for his crimes or immorality or the golden rule of morality or such things. There is no “moral police” to make any impact on his rewards!
Now you might say, “well hold it right there, buck-o, because I’ve see men on Twitter rail against Andrew Tate”. Yes, you do. And have you considered that railing against Tate is merely a way for them to rail Kate later that week? Have you not noticed that those men live in cities, that their tweets have a lot of engagement from women, that their public Spotify playlists contain Mazzy Star? Andrew Tate would travel all the way to Romania to obtain his social rewards, and you don’t think this guy’s lazy tweet isn’t in some mysterious way motivated by the same root interest? He’s not standing outside the Romanian embassy, he is expressing a view on a social media platform filled with women. He’s not writing this in the boy’s group chat. He’s not going over to 4chan to express his view to those “at-risk”. It’s performative. And yet, it’s not any more performative than all social expressions. All of it is behavior performed to obtain reward.
Now let’s look at the other extreme. Incels? Incels don’t exist in a quantity significant enough to warrant any care. “Incel” is the deactivation word that cues our mind to turn off from thinking deeply. (Apropos, it works by castigating a group of men as unable to obtain the most foundational reward.) The opposite of Andrew Tate is the sexless and wifeless. What’s going on with them?
In the case of the loveless men, there are a few major problems. First, there is an absurd amount of superstimuli accessible to mollify male energy: tik tok, porn, and video games. There is a clear association between hours spent on these and sexlessness whether or not any scientist has studied it. Second, we have eradicated what I will call the “foreplay” of social reward. There was a time where young men and young women would flirt at any opportunity in social “intercourse”, and where not complimenting a woman on her beauty was seen as faux pas. Women would have to be subtle about rejecting men flatly, so as to not ruin the delicate social gamification at play. This “social foreplay” incentivized prosocial behavior from both sexes. In its absence, women look for their required allotment of attention by posting lewds on social media, and men look for it by looking at said lewds and watching porn. Women, too, have their version of porn. It’s Mazzy Star songs and passively using dating apps.
The third issue for the loveless, as evidenced by the differential of female yearly sex versus male yearly sex, is dating apps. This is boring to dwell on, but the same men who watch the Andrew Tate content are mastering the art of manipulating women for easier sex on dating apps. Because it’s morally illegal today for fathers to control their daughters (see: the Petersons), women are routinely taken advantage of for easy sex. At the same time, some of them believe it’s fine to have short-term sexual flings, because they have no moral training and in any case there are no moral police. The moral result will be at lot of loveless men and women, a lot of old whores and old virgins, perhaps more assisted and unassisted suicides in the (not-)coming decades.
So we see neatly that social dysfunction springs out of perverse social reward structures. The only possible solution is to put order to social reward, which was the norm in human history. What do we make of religion? Here’s something to dwell on: religiosity across milieu perfectly tracks with how well the religion punishes immoral behavior and rewards good behavior. At the various heights of Christian practice, being a sinner meant ostracism or extreme loss of social capital. Being a “good Christian” meant men doing business with you and marrying their daughters to you. In current Hasidim, and current traditional Islam, we see the same phenomenon. A religion without intense judgment on behavior becomes weak, ineffectual, incapable of truly changing the nature of men.
When we talk about men in the past who lived for God, we forget that living for God just so happened to line up exactly with the efficient path to social reward. We forget that God was to them the justification for all social reinforcement and punishment. For the Amish, social status and marriageability are actually decided by righteousness — not with perfect accuracy, but more than 50%. Community participation is essential, and those who do not participate are completely excluded from the polis. These also happened to be the most fecund Americans.
Overall, I guess I totally disagree with the article’s framing of the issues. Masculinity, manliness, Incels? Red herrings. The issue is that men chase rewards, and the rewards today are disordered. In sum, there is less reward for marriage and honesty, there is more reward for pursuing entertainment alternatives, and there are less available women because they too choose disordered rewards. Whether men “behave like men” or whatever is completely erroneous and doesn’t matter.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6d ago
Men fighting and women not fighting makes sense when the social role of women is to provide abundant healthy offspring for your culture. If the women are instead opting out of making babies, moving to other countries, and not possessing in-group preference, there is no longer any moral reason to allow them to abstain from fighting. Ukraine should institute an immediate draft where women who are not pregnant or rearing children are drafted into the frontlines, and women who are raising a soldier’s child get a stipend.
Re: 3, the ADL and other advocacy groups have a vested interest in showing you the most irrelevant but vivid cases of extremism. They do this because it helps their ethnocultural block. It brings in wealthy donors who fund the ideological version of the Western Wall, it creates an image in the mind of the public of perpetual Jewish victimization, and it attempts to unify Jews together (stories of Jewish persecution are, like, half of the Torah; this is a deeply Jewish religious practice).
We saw this play out very clearly during the “day of hate” earlier this year, and both SS and myself wrote about that comprehensively. They found an absolute no one with something like ten telegram followers who planned to hand out flyers, and the whole behemoth of Jewish advocacy turned that into a “day of hate” quasi-religious spectacle, replete with police presence at every synagogue, statements by governors and congress, news reports and bipartisan condemnation. It turns out that the funder behind this push was a Jewish billionaire who has involvement with ultra-orthodox yeshivas and who lobbies for security enhancement bills that give synagogues free money yearly. But the ultimate absurdity of the day of hate is that a Jewish man in Florida read about the fiction of “the day of hate” from one of his advocacy group feeds and proceeded to find a gentile toddler and throw him against a wall while complaining about antisemitism. That’s right: while the Jewish advocacy engine complained about antisemitism, a Jewish extremist literally threw a toddler against a wall in response, and this got almost zero non-local attention. [Sources]
This is all very boring to post about which is why I don’t anymore, but this is the reason you will always hear about “literally who?” antisemites — it’s extremely beneficial for Jewish advocacy groups to bring this to your attention, groups which employ tens of thousands of people to specifically enhance Jewish Life in America, without any scruples about giving Americans anxiety attacks or leading to stochastic terrorism or just generally promoting fake news.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3mo ago
Who does that in Japan? Who does it in Iceland (well they don’t have fruit, but slaughter houses apply)? Millions would be happy to do these jobs once the pay rises, just like you have dudes doing underwater welding. And the pay will rise in the absence of a pseudo slave labor class.
there isn't a scenario where meat and fruits and vegetables prices rise lower than the wages of the american poor and working class [rises]
Sure there is. All of the increase in payment to “food companies” due to the rise in food prices is going to the lower class employee base (who need the money more), yet this increase in payment is paid for by everyone (lower-to-highest classes), meaning you necessarily see a transfer of wealth from upper to lower class; and on top of this, the increased cost of food for the wealthy makes prices more salient, leading to more cost-saving consumer practices which winds up enforcing more competition among food-related businesses.
demanding an end to the Jewish state
Should we only call Israel the Jewish state when painting them as a victim? I never hear the news write articles like this: “In 2014 alone, the Jewish nation killed more than one thousand Gazans in their bombing campaign against Gaza, 65% of which were civilians — nearly the same number of civilians killed in the Hamas incursion.” Would this be an acceptable way to write about Israel when they are being accused of misdeeds? “Questions arise as to whether the only officially Jewish country has bombed a hospital”. “The only country that is officially Jewish and run by Jews has been sanctioned by the UN more than any other country”. [edited spelling]
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
7mo ago
Who has ever said that cleaners are a net negative on society? Why do you believe they can be classified as net negative because their wages are low? In a medieval agricultural society, you could argue that every farmer is “net negative” individually because the Lord provides more in resources for their protection and administration… but this would be forgetting that those resources are wholly the result of the farmers. If I own a cleaning company and I hire illegal migrants and I take most of their wages just because I can, and then I hire an overseas Indian to oversee my fiefdom company’s day-to-day, who is bad for society here? Isn’t it me? So I don’t think a wages-only analysis works here.
If a factory needs 5 people to work the machines but union regulations require them to hire 25 people instead of 5 then yes, each and every single member of the group of "workers" is a parasite sucking on the teat of the group of people who are "factory owners"
Why? You are alleging it’s now better for society to have less people employed, less people paid more, which means more people stressed, more people unhealthy, more health problems, less civic engagement. You want to live in a society where more people are worse off, so that someone “at the top” who may not even be financially or socially invested in the community has more to spend on overpriced foreign goods and overpriced foreign women. You really need to flesh out your argument more instead of assuming your wages-only premise is correct.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
8mo ago
I agree on your main point but I don’t agree with your characterization of Rufo’s argument. Rufo is trying to elevate the conversation to a deeper level of substance, and Robinson refuses to break from the realm of connotation. Being a racist is bad because being a racist is immoral, and Rufo is disputing the immorality of the founding fathers by reminding Robinson that the consensus at the time of Jefferson was that Blacks were inferior. We judge people morally based on whether they did morally better than expected in their conditions or milieu. We shouldn’t, for instance, declare MLK Jr evil on the whole just because he was a supporter of conversion therapy. If we held to a milieu-controlled standard we would have to declare that there is no moral man left, because we all fall short of perfection. How bad is it that we buy vanity products from companies that abuse workers? Or that we pollute the earth? Why would future generations find this forgivable, rather than the purchasing of already-enslaved people from an undeveloped part of the world during a time period where slavery was normalized and historically ubiquitous?
So I don’t think Rufo let anything slip. He explained his position not badly for the time allotted. Robinson is using lawyerly tricks to make Rufo look suspect to the ears of an untrained audience by refusing to charitably entertain Rufo’s nuance. And also, Rufo doesn’t believe that immorality (true racism) should never be cancellable. Rufo believes that the standard of cancellation is too low. It’s not as if Rufo is trying to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler or Mosley or someone who was genuinely more racist than their time period without ever having produced some balancing commensurate good to society. Good examples of what I mean by the latter are John Lennon (wife beater), Wagner, and Kanye West. We don’t cancel them because their good on the whole far outweighs their bad on the whole. I think this is genuinely how people see moral judgment in practice, rather than a less nuanced rules-based morality.
Re: prostitution, perhaps a general rule is that it’s much more difficult to argue against someone who has committed themselves to a general rule. Destiny can say “women should do what they want with their bodies if not harming others”, and then the opponent has to scour through psychological sciences and moral philosophy and the anecdota of history to adequately present the view that prostitution is bad for the sum good of society. Consider how much harder it is to argue against gambling than for it. To argue against gambling you have to have an understanding of addiction, genetic proclivities to addiction, the data on who gambles, and the adaptability of human happiness. To argue for gambling you just say “people should be allowed to do what they want unless harming someone”.
There are texts talking about “the big guy” and, most damningly, the following text —
“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” Hunter Biden wrote Zhao, according to IRS supervisory agent Gary Shapley and another agency investigator who has remained anonymous. “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,” the now-53-year-old went on. “And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/hunter-biden-used-joe-as-leverage-in-china-biz-deal-text/amp/
The solution was to allow the voter all information, so they can decide how to vote according to their own judgment. If they are fine with text messages showing that the candidate’s son admitted to or claimed to be influencing the policies of his father for the direct benefit of our geopolitical rival, well, so be it. I am personally more concerned about the fairness of reporting than the potential corruption. Hunter is just BS’ing? Very possible. But if the media had these texts from Trump’s son, they would have reported the information in catastrophic and dramatic way.
I genuinely think the best solution is to just start shootin’. Muslim youths in France respect force, just like their prophet used and just like their rap idols extol in their music. If you just start shooting them, even just with rubber bullets (but lots), or even better with paintballs that smell horrible when they break, they will stop rioting.
The key missing topic in the discussions on the French riots is that these guys really want and enjoy to light things on fire and loot. I would too, if I hated the people in the country and could get away with it. There is fundamentally no way to counter that except with punishment, ie violent. The punishment has to come with no social approval — prison, while bad, comes with social approval among their culture. But pelting them with rubber bullets, going into their neighborhood and smashing their cars, going into their neighborhood with a helicopter filled with a gallons of durian juice to drop on their apartments… they very quickly realize that the benefit is no longer worth the cost. You essentially have to humiliate and subject them. Just like any of us would feel living in Singapore or Hong Kong, that we would be swiftly punished for malefaction.
I have a dog and one of the things most interesting to me is how reinforcement and punishment is so clearly on display in its most primal way. You have to think like a dog with her. I can’t chase her when she steals something, because she likes to be chased. Yelling is ineffectual, because she likes yelling (barking). Even slapping her paws would do little, because the way dogs play with each other is more aggressive than that. If I’m dealing with a creature that likes aggressive play, being chased, and risk, the punishment has to be very much not pleasant. So a good one is crate time, but if you can’t do that you can give a painful physical punishment — I don’t do the latter because I love my dog, but I think it’s fitting for people blowing up libraries and so on.
I think the idea the “French people will move on” is wrong. This is a blow to the morale of the French people. They have received a serious injury to their identity. Living among people who can destroy your car and shop whenever they want is demoralizing and in some invisible way probably leads to an 80k monetary injury per every affected Parisian resident. It decreases sum total happiness and induces a feeling of helplessness. So it’s really serious. It’s not the same as if it were 10000 unrelated instances of minor theft.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2mo ago
violently
In the year of our lord 2024, we should not believe political activists when they claim an event was violent without videographic evidence. Given that the event was hosting an IDF soldier and director of the Kohelet Policy Forum (the think tank responsible for Netanyahu’s judicial changes), it’s reasonable to assume many of the students in attendance were Jewish/Israeli ethnonationalists — so, political activists in the purest sense of the term. The group hosting the speaker, Tikvah, explicitly “espouses the repatriation of Jews to their homeland, Eretz Israel,” so these students don’t even believe that America is their home, showing their extreme political stance.
The Kohelet Policy Forum collaborates with the Misgav Institute, which writes stuff like:
We arrive at the clear conclusion that claims of ideological and political distinction between Hamas and the people of Gaza are baseless.
Israel must transfer as many Gazans as possible to other countries; Any other alternative, including PA rule, is a strategic failure. Therefore, Gaza's population should be transferred to the Sinai Desert and the displaced absorbed in other countries.
I looked at all the videos on Twitter and see no evidence of any violence.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4mo ago
I still cannot wrap my head around the idea of low/middle wage immigration to a country with billionaires and wealth inequality. All of the “economic efficiency” is just going to go to the very wealthy, whereas by restricting immigration you force the wealthy not just to pay higher wages and allow greater employer QoL, but to invest in the future of the citizens. If companies with longterm plans realize that they need to hire high-skilled Canadians to work as employees, suddenly you’ll find yourself with widespread maternity programs and more investment in education. Your companies will actually be lobbying the government to increase health and fertility.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6mo ago
In a sentence: the end goal is for white people to behave and organize like proud Jews. If that occurs, the majority on the WN-spectrum would be happy. It would ensure the continuity of white people and their culture, stave off spiritually damaging criticism regarding privilege or historical ills, and ensure that white people have an accurate and positive self-image. There would be thousands of advocacy groups that would be quick to dispel “tired euphobic canards” wherever they appear.
“End goal” is a different question than “how to”. You’re kind of blending the two together. That’s the “end goal”, but naturally a lot of people have different views on implementation.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
8mo ago
The OP does not shy away from responding to critics and providing sources (see his other threads). His posts are content-heavy and often use primary sources. I don’t think it’s a good idea if we all start saying “I don’t like this person’s views, can someone from my in-group verify these claims”? If you don’t trust OP then you can wait for someone’s attempted debunk or take on that role yourself, no?
Giuliani was naively trusting an honest and traditional democratic system. He didn’t expect that the institutions and public forums would conspire together to thwart the democratic process from unfolding. This was the largest escalation of the culture war in history: information indicating that the Vice President’s own son took bribes from foreign adversaries to influence his father’s politics was hidden from the voter’s access through a cabal of anti-democratic figures behind the scenes at major tech companies and news websites.
This is why I don’t care at all if “Republicans lied about the election!” My response is, “brother, the Republicans should be out there telling the Public the most persuasive possible lies they can conceive”. That’s the natural response to the anti-Democratic manipulation we saw in 2020. It is morally permissible, in fact obligatory, to match your enemy’s escalation when that very escalation thwarted the democratic process and destroyed the fabric of American democracy. When you destroy the rules of conduct, we go back to millennia-old idea of just proportional response — this is the nature of “just [culture] war” theory. The Republicans ought to be treating Democrats like we treat Russia: you have violated the borders and agreements, we will do whatever we can to push you back and reestablish a rules-based national order.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Your essay is way too long for how little point you are deriving. I read four paragraphs before deciding it’s more efficient if I just briefly argue why hip hop is harmful in a comment, than divining what your argument is.
Music is about producing a spirit in a person, a social emotional-behavioral orientation. Music can produce approximately any emotional space, from the felt sense of eeriness, to grief, even to tones that connote honor, duty, profundity, you name it. We do not need to prove how it does this, as we all agree it does this. This means we can judge music not just by how well it accomplishes its intended emotional result (its technical skill), but whether the resultant emotional space is beneficial or harmful to social life.
Rap, a normal selection of popular rap, focuses on self-aggrandizement, pride, antisociality, and lust. If you were to literally ask yourself, “what is the worst emotional orientation to promote in the youth?”, you would come up with a litany of themes that occur in rap. What would be worse for the youth than to hyper-focus on lust, consumerism, killing people who slight you, and narcissism? Okay, well that’s most popular rap songs. Were satanists to be producing good music (again), it would probably wind up more prosocial than hip hop.
But don’t take my word for it. If you had a teenage daughter this month there’s a good chance has heard
Head so good, she a honor roll. She ride the dick like a carnival. Way too rich to drive a Rove'. Made a milli' off the stove. She like to put it in her nose. Pretty bitch with white toes. I'm all about business, I'm mindin' minе.Pull up in the trenches like Columbine. Pull up with the rocket like NumbaNine
You haven’t “discovered” anything special when you notice that your most debased and primitive animal self enjoys the fantasy of power and sex. Every 10 year old can imagine this. Someone who thinks this music is good is as tasteless as a foodie who tells you sugar is the most exquisite because it makes his mouth feel the best. The music is bad, because the spirit it produces is bad. Yes, it may be pleasurable, but you wouldn’t say the best medicine is heroin, would you?
The lyrics are only one aspect of music. The BPM and rhythm can also induce in a person a sense of patient thought or a sense of urgency. Rap combines sin with urgency.
An unwise person may reply, “okay, but like, The Beach Boys also sang about hooking up with girls…”
In a totally different phenomenological space that promotes delicate emotion, love, fidelity, and not lust, which is communicated via the slow beat, the instrumentation, and vocals.
In an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and associated culture war, we now have one of the first(?) terroristic threat charges brought against someone in the States. A teacher felt that a student’s comment about his flag was disrespectful and responded by threatening to behead her. It is reported that the teacher shouted:
And students report hearing that
The teacher who made this terroristic threat is Benjamin Reese, a Jewish man from Georgia, and the flag he had in his room was an Israeli flag [1] [2]. I find this noteworthy for two reasons. A Jewish man is making threats that I would have guessed came from a Muslim, which tells me about my bias and the level of passion on both sides of the conflict right now. But I’m also surprised that, despite the story first being published 24hrs ago, it’s untouched by mainstream news except RawStory. There’s local affiliates, RawStory, and YahooFinance Canada. But there’s no CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. They can’t be waiting for more information, because we already have the police reports. I predict that this story will not gain the traction that it would had the threat been made by a Palestinian man, or Muslim generally. Certainly that would be brought up on prime time Fox.
This instantly reminded me of the Day of Hate news blitz, when the Chabad-affiliated Barry (Baruch) Nockowitz picked up a toddler and threw him against a wall because of “anti-semitism”, telling police he would find another kid to attack [3]. Besides Miami Herald, this had zero news coverage, all the while coinciding with the “day of hate” which received George Floyd levels of news coverage and zero crimes committed. (As proof of how little coverage it got, themotte is on the first page of google results for his name, linking to the last time I mentioned this crime).
More options
Context Copy link