confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I do know that Putin is to a degree evil (or at least partly a self-serving sociopathic careerist at best, which is essentially the same thing), but I also am nearly 100% sure that he still doesn't intrinsically despise my skin color, my natural expression of my secondary sex characteristics and masculinity itself, etc. and also probably doesn't hate or want to eradicate my heritage, culture, and traditions too much (minus the parts of it that have been hijacked by globohomo to destroy his).
Putin is just banally evil, a simple, corrupt apparatchik qua autocrat of the Russian security state who just wants to be free to LARP as Diet Stalin, take his share of the illicit cut off the top, and restore a bit of the Russian national pride he's made himself a venerated mascot of (and he probably genuinely, as genuinely as he can anyway, believes in it all some decent amount too, which is a majorly redeemable quality). Perhaps the world would be better overall if such people didn't exist (which they might not if globohomo didn't constantly put heterodox cultures under siege, causing them to desperately turn to perceived strongmen in self-defense), but they hardly ruin the planet.
Some 13 year old Iranian girl out there isn't twerking to vulgar and nonsensical dindu rap on TikTok and causing her anguished father to question every life decision he's ever made and contemplate suicide because of Putin. Some 10 year old boy in Venezuela isn't wearing women's clothing and dreaming of his future lifetime paid subscription to the proper functioning of his own endocrine system via synthetic pharmaceutical hormones because of Putin. Some decent enough 27 year old British lad wasn't guilt-tripped and shamed into having a heart attack leading to death from "SADS" sponsored by Pfizer™ because of Putin. Whatever problems Putin causes, he at least has the courtesy to almost always keep them in Russia (or in the case of a certain recent special operation, Russia Jr.). His flaws don't spread like a virus.
I still don't believe the WEF etc. is literally Satanic, because I don't believe in a literal Satan, but they do match most descriptions of the classic nefarious tempter archetype. With that being said, the whole hating my basic demographic characteristics stuff and constantly spreading society-eroding degeneracy stuff weighs more heavily on my mind, so I would say that either I'm heterodox among my fellows here or you're either strawmanning a bit or interpreting hyperbole (I've made a few "I HATE THE ANTICHRIST" posts in my day in response to the latest globohomo affront, but it's just a meme.) a bit too literally.
Though you're right about Jews ruining society, especially the gay ones! (Or should I want them not to breed?)
Putin predates wokeness.
Wokeness isn't globohomo, just its current face with the mask slipped further down. Russia's been dealing with globohomo since at least Yeltsin.
That remains to be seen. He's certainly toying with the idea of nuclear escalation.
If globohomo didn't want nuclear escalation, then maybe they shouldn't have tried to boiling frog a fellow nuclear power with far more vile and underhanded kinds of escalation.
...and Georgia, Moldova, Syria, Belarus...
Moldova, Georgia, and Belarus also count as Russia Jr. (Stalin was even Georgian), and I don't see how he did anything negative in Syria. Or would it have been better for them if the US had succeeded in illegally couping Assad and turning the whole country into Libya? I'd definitely rather live under the relatively moderate Assad than under whatever random warlord moved into town that day. If I were a Syrian I'd like Putin even more.
...and a lot of Europeans weren't too happy about the grain and gas prices recently. We'll have to see how the winter goes.
Putin didn't do that to Western Europe. Western Europeans (to be fair more the governments than the average people) did that to themselves to try to own le heckin' Putler by... dying, I guess? All they had to do was admit that Big P has a point about NATO expansion and say they'd very much so like to keep purchasing his fine natural resources in a mutually beneficial economic relationship. There's no indication Putin would have been the one to say no. They played themselves here.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
To me the subject of men crying is pretty easy:
Imagine the ideal paragon of a masculine alpha male. He's got three hot young college girls bent over his bed in a foursome, drilling them and thrilling them with his rabid piston-like ramming and endless stamina, tossing them around like juggling balls. They love him. They'd do anything for him. They would rip a baby right to shreds right on the bed if they thought it would appeal to him or make him devote even a second more of his attention to them. They caress his muscles like a rare and invaluable diamond. They would die for him, kill themselves for him. He is their God because of his pure testosterone-fueled magnetism and charisma.
Maybe in another scene he's fixing a car, sweat and grease smeared across his brow, his 40 year old MILF neighbor that he's doing a favor for wishing she was in the first scene instead (and maybe she will be after the car is done). Maybe in another scene he's surfing, programming (a nice masculine, logical activity), kicking someone's ass, cleaning a gun, humiliating someone verbally with his impenetrable wit, or making millions of dollars.
But in any scenes of his life, is he crying? And if he is, is he letting a woman gawk at it?
So who would you rather be? Would you rather be him or would you rather be given fake pity applause by women for your "emotional sensitivity?" Sure, most of us here will never be that close to this perfect Super Chad Infinity, but would you rather get closer or further away?
And maybe you have a nice wife or girlfriend who is decent enough to tell you that there's nothing wrong with crying and it just shows that you're exquisitely in touch with your feelings unlike some other unenlightened caveman.
But when her fingers snake beneath the waistband of her panties in those idle moments, who is she fantasizing about? Again, who do you want to be?
Keep doing it. The mods here have gone back to their old ways of banning people for basically nothing beyond "This hurts my feelings.", so please do keep hoisting them on their own petard.
They have appointed themselves as the sensitivity readers of everyone else's posts, so there's no reason not to run your own through one and spread the word. Any disapproval they express is nothing more than their hypocritical butthurt at having competition they can't control.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
His girlfriend is going to hug him. She’s a woman, not a sociopath.
This is not true in a shocking highly number of cases (a sizeable minority at least, perhaps the majority in some demographics). I'm happy if you're an exception, but don't generalize too strongly.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm a man so no. If anything this all turns me off, because any amount of inadequate I am by comparison to Super Chad makes me feel less sexy and thus less sexual.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Pretty sure your girlfriend isn't snaking her fingers beneath the waistband of her panties imagining you or Chad Thundercock writing code or reading books either.
No. But she's not imagining him surfing or fighting either. She's imagining him fucking, as all people (barring weird fetishes) imagine when they fantasize about somebody else sexually.
That doesn't mean the surfing and fighting don't still turn her on specifically though. It also doesn't mean that programming and reading books turn her off either. Most likely they will just get a superficial "OMG he's smart AND hot!" reaction from her, even if you're just reading Twilight and programming "Hello World". (And of course if you weren't hot the reaction to the same would probably be "What a creepy nerd! He's probably not even as good at programming as Chad!" even if you're reimplementing ChaCha20-Poly1305 directly in PPC assembly.)
Crying though?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Fair then. My mistake. Though I still think in this case that a billion dollar judgment having any degree of finality, such as the degree of being ordered by a judge at all, is insane.
My favorite contemporary comedian is (surprisingly for a modern right-winger, I know) notorious mass shooter, terrorist, and Hamas fighter Samir al-Hayyid. Some favorite content of mine from him is (and they're all videos since he's not primarily a writer and his main piece of comedic writing, a book called How to Bomb the U.S. Gov't, isn't as easy to link to):
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=D2WwCzaGo9c
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=v_3UskhyDI4
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ejluExvt-90
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-K1AQKM7pXU
I do object to the notion that it's inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense to think that mildly (and I must emphasize the "mild" here) clever wordplay = funny. It strikes me as rather simplistic actually which is generally the opposite connotation of what you should ideally associate with "nerdy". And perhaps this is just me being a metacontrarian in a space like this but I mostly think that comedy, given that the feeling of being amused is inherently an emotional response, should strike primarily at the senses, not try to painstakingly backdoor itself in through flattering the intellect's ego with (again, actually rather simple IMO) ham-fisted "wit". (Yes, if you can't tell, I have never cared one bit about a media production that Joss Whedon has been involved with.)
Certainly I will grant that many people who identify as "nerds" (which is why I've never bothered) strongly disagree with me on this point, but when I say I don't consider it inherently "nerdy" in any meaningful sense, I mean that to say that I consider it more characteristic of the people who ruined "nerdy" stuff rather than the people who made it worth ruining in the first place. That is, you might call it a "pet peeve" of mine.
I also don't really relate to the "I could never write like this!" compliments. I could probably write the entire post. I just wouldn't, because I don't find it particularly valuable. I like a lot of Scott's stuff too, but comedy has never been his strong suit to me. It's all "wit" with zero instinct, soul, charisma, or personality. It's not the charmingly foolish jig of a jester who is willing to diligently answer the call of his profession and lower himself to getting down in the mud a bit like a pig to entertain you; it's yet another invitation from a smug "raconteur" to reveal yourself Smart™ enough to acknowledge how Witty™ he is. No real passion.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Quit pretending that pointing out reality is "culture warring".
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Regardless of whether they are just? So conservatives don't believe in justice in your view? Strawman much?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
That Rittenhouse murdered anyone as opposed to acting in self-defense is simply blatantly untrue and contradicts all available evidence as far as I can see. I can't consider it as a reasonably debatable point to anyone who has looked at the facts.
Meanwhile, though by no means do I believe that all victimized by Sandy Hook were "crisis actors" (mostly because I don't see what the deep state gets from not just actually killing kids, much easier and more satisfying for them), that's only a stone's throw away from the perfectly plausible in my view suggestions that the shooting was not actually committed by Lanza or that he was some sort of asset. Powerful entities acting maliciously and duplicitously is always within the realm of reason. Plus, there actually is a pretty suspicious video of Sandy Hook dad Robbie Parker, which is more evidence than there is as far as I know for any anti-Rittenhouse theories.
With that being said, as Rittenhouse being a murderer is again simply impossible to me based on established facts, whereas Sandy Hook being an artificial event staged by crisis actors is merely implausible and improbable, no, they are not "on par": I would readily accept the latter as true before the former.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
You were advocating for a lower verdict, not for none at all.
No? I can prefer a lower verdict to a higher verdict, and none at all to a lower verdict.
Anyhow, you think are not seeing it action yet because you aren't familiar with how these things work; judges reduce excessive verdicts every day of the week.
That's great. Considering how ridiculous the jury's verdict is, the judge has a long way to go here.
I cried my eyes out. I was so excited about training here and serving this community, but now I'm so sad.
Truly there is nothing more satisfying than naive, platitudinous optimism meeting reality. Unfortunately the money is on him turning up the reality-distortion setting in his mind another notch and demanding that the naive platitudes concede even more about what is obviously even more pervasive (and violent PTSD-inducing in the still clearly innocent blacks) racism than he initially thought. We'll see.
I'm not interested in the collective punishment of women for the current decline in gender relations.
I am.
I mostly want everyone to be happy, even given all our shared and individual foibles.
Nah. Blood for the blood God. Do not think you can cut my flesh and leave yours intact.
By and large, the people I meet that I like the most are the type predisposed to monogamous relationships or already in one. So call it a selfish, aesthetic desire for more people I like.
Contemporary San Franciscan polycules based in left-wing egalitarian ideologies are/will be nothing like men taking masculine inherently right-wing control (no matter how artificial) of harems. Unlike polycules, (polygynist) harems are, in a word, based (as they are inherently patriarchal).
Probably for reasons similar to yours: status tends to play a somewhat bigger role in women's mate choices than in men's, and synths will always be very low status.
Yep, basically my reasoning too.
Do you think the current structure of the dating market has been positive for women's well-being?
Short-term? Yes. Long-term? No. But the vast majority contributed to it as best they could by pushing it and defending it anyway. (No I don't believe women have the same agency as men, but whatever part they could play they did, like naughty children, though far more malevolent and with far less of an excuse. Punishment is thus warranted.)
a fine of at least 100% of your net worth
When did Alex Jones become the first trillionaire? I'm pretty sure he's not even a billionaire. Including him in the class of "rich people" even is questionable. Even before this judgment it wouldn't surprise me if he had debt up to his elbows that he continuously avoids through sovereign citizen-esque shenanigans (though I don't know how much public transparency there is about his finances to be fair).
I mean I know you're saying "at least", but isn't that still kind of misleading when it ends up being more like "at least 100% of your net worth, but actually more like 6000000%"?
Even then I don't see how anyone who cares about freedom of discourse at all, like a moderator of this previously de facto deplatformed community (though that's debatable given this place's moderation history), can endorse a fine anywhere close to 100% of someone's net worth for hurting people's feelings. (Everyone on this site will be begging on the streets in a day if that becomes a universal standard.)
"Promoting a harassment campaign against people who had their children murdered, all for the sake of selling merchandise" is a weakman against this site's rules too (or it least it would be if it were neutrally moderated; wishing I could put on a red hat right now to give you a cutesy warning over it). It's not like he just picked the random parents of a selection of wholly obscure child murder victims that week and decided to make them his target. He had a heterodox opinion about a highly-politicized event, child murder or not, that many of the parents most criticized chose to actively and enthusiastically participate in the politicization of, and you have absolutely no proof that he did it "all for the sake of selling merchandise". (I've not seen much evidence he encouraged any direct harassment of anyone either.) That is allowed in free societies without going broke. Obviously a free society is not what we have anymore.
After all, children died on 9/11, have died in Ukraine, have died in Syria, etc. Why not fine those with heterodox opinions about those matters billions too? If we allow the parents of muh murdered children to set the standards of discourse, then say goodbye to discourse beyond "thoughts and prayers! <3" entirely.
confuciuscorndog
5mo ago
Conversely, to me it is perhaps some of the worst "comedy" I have ever read in my life, and I am genuinely astounded that it could make anyone laugh.
Just offering an alternative perspective, dear reader out there, if, like me, reading this thread for you feels like having walked into a North Korean birthday party for Kim Jong-un.
The last line is literally just a mostly humorous rephrasing of a part of the post it's responding to:
And they don't care if civilization gets destroyed in the process, because civilization has been ruined by gays, Jews, and gay Jews.
Even if I were 100% serious (which I'm not by any means, as again, it's simply a reflection of its source material), if it's a weakman, then surely so is reducing your opponent's views to "because civilization has been ruined by gays, Jews, and gay Jews."
Other than that, saying that rap is one of the essential exports of Western society is not a weakman. I think any music industry statistic, whether it's listens on Spotify, sales, award show nominations, or anything else, clearly demonstrates that to the point of making it common knowledge.
As for "society-eroding degeneracy stuff", I will admit that is a vague phrase, but I provided concrete examples of it already above and "weighs more heavily on my mind" right after it makes clear that is simply me restating my primary concerns in regards to evaluating geopolitical competitors, not making an accusation that would require further support.
So no, it is not a "parade of weakman examples". Your post strawmanning and mischaracterizing mine is. (If cutting a two word phrase, a six word phrase, and two sentences out of a multi-paragraph post with no context, slapping them with a few buzzwords, and ending with a "Don't do this." admonishment fit only for a grade schooler (a communication habit (that you might consider changing as has been suggested to you or other mods dozen of times) that is very disrespectful by the way to the adults who choose to contribute to your now exiled community even though at this point without Reddit you need every one of us by far more than we need you) isn't fundamentally weak, then I don't know what is.)
Is it "boo outgroup"-y? Maybe a bit, but I don't see how it's overly so, given that it all serves to directly explain a perspective previously commented on (by someone not of that perspective), which is valuable, and because the general outgroup of this sub based on its common commentary seems to those who aren't entirely anti-Putin (like me). That is, I am the outgroup in this case.
careful parsing
This is only necessary if you consider "knowing the full context, like by for example watching the freely-available video" as "careful parsing". But by this logic, every instance of self-defense though requires "careful parsing" beyond "A shot/stabbed/punched B", which always naively means A is in the wrong.
To me, "careful parsing" is trying to figure out if ivermectin is effective against the 2019 Chinese coronavirus and by how much. (I'm now inclined to believe that it is, but even that required a lot of informational intake and analysis and even at that I'm still not all that sure exactly how effective it is.) "Careful parsing" is understanding the argument as to why George Floyd's death was (as I and many others believe) most likely mostly self-inflicted by drug abuse in spite of the infamous and horrific-looking but misleading video.
Watching a video where somebody is attacked in a possibly fatal fashion and retaliates against those attackers, and only those attackers, and only those attackers for the duration of the immediate threat that they present, doesn't seem to require "careful parsing" to me to conclude self-defense. Really, considering the heavy media bias against Rittenhouse, the fact that he still got off at all would heavily indicate his actual innocence to me even if I were blind and literally couldn't watch the video. No "careful parsing" needed.
the second by widening the aperture to an adjacent claim
I admit this but I don't see the relevance to the argument. "Literally, 100% true" and "probably not literally, 100% true but suggestive of broader/deeper truths and in a reasonable ballpark" have both been recognized gradations of truth for a long time and equivalently that the latter is still more correct than "blatantly wrong and in contradiction of simple evidence". "The core of the matter" is the reasonableness of both claims. The second claim being in a slightly broader category of reasonableness-via-implication as opposed to in the category of pure, absolute truth does not invalidate it at all in regards to "the core of the matter".
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I don't see how it makes "no sense" that the order of outcomes which best achieves a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions here is quite obviously none at all > lower verdict > higher verdict. Seems like pretty basic logic to me.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I am sorry that you can't find yourself intellectually open to opposing views at this time. Have a lovely day.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm not sure what you mean by this at all. Am I supposed to be the one who is seething and bitter?
I'm confused. Would modern AI technologies not at least partially fall under the realm of NLP themselves? Or is that they are not the traditional tools of most of its academic realm and thus were initially dismissed until it was too late?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
You know, I incorrectly paraphrased myself. I didn't even say it was "too much" initially. I said it was "insane". Again, the fact that you think that only a reduced amount of X and not no X could follow from somebody saying that an amount of X is "insane" is on you.
And if he is doing this, how much do you want to bet it did not sound something like "Excuse me sir, I am expecting to be at address X and..." and instead was more like "Ay! Darnell! DeAndre! Get yo' asses out here! It's time to go! Ay, who you is? Where my brothers at? Where dey at? Ay! Yo, I'm talkin' to you nigga!", likely in a loud tone of voice that could easily be misinterpreted as aggressive before he's even properly reached the door? (Edit on 4/25: Of course I could be wrong here and Ralph Yarl could be a young Carlton (Yarlton?) Banks but statistically that's less likely.)
It's not even the ebonics necessarily, but just the fact that blacks tend to communicate anything they want in a more direct, loud, demanding, and repetitive fashion than other races, even when they have no ill intentions, can make other races uneasy even during actually fairly neutral interactions with them, much less an 84 year old man.
I've had plenty of interactions with blacks where they've wrongfully assumed that they needed/wanted something from me or vice versa based on various mistakes of fact, and while many of these have ended in a non-threatening "Oh, my bad" (though sometimes they also just like to immediately disengage and walk away without comment, almost like weird primitive AI agents, once they realize you're not the droid they're looking for), getting there is usually still an uneasy process as they just do not seem to practice the habits of clearly confirming and socially negotiating their presence and intent nearly as much as Whites, Asians, etc. do.
This of course is not malicious behavior in their book. They have no problems yelling at each other repetitively until one side's shouting wins. But if you aren't used to it I can see why it might seem hostile.
More options
Context Copy link