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.
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
1yr ago
Since I assume you're asking about online materials, I read here, CWR, /pol/ on various imageboards, various random Substacks, etc., stuff I'm assuming most people here already know about. What are you most interested in? I'm not sure I have any ultra-obscure links to share.
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.
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
My understanding is that while the trillions are only a request at this point, a judgment of nearly a billion has been fully finalized and ordered by a judge already. To me, there's not much of a difference in this case between "essentially impossible, would require him to be like 10x richer than the richest billionaire ever recorded" and "well, maybe if he somehow manages to start the next Amazon or TikTok or something despite being one of the most ostracized men in existence". It's the difference between execution via guillotine and execution via lingchi. Life is still not an option for you in either case.
The point you could make in its favor is that it's not a real punishment, at least not to the degree ordered, because there's no way they're getting that amount of money from him, but that all comes with its own problems.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Only half-relevant, but is there any update on fisetin being the fountain of youth? It was shilled around here quite a bit a while back.
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.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
That's not what I'm reading from the statute, and in any case I'm not seeing it in action yet. And even if the final result turns out to be more reasonable, there's still the old problem of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Nothing in this case indicates a system or society that is "designed to obtain exactly the outcome for which [I am] advocating", which is a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions.
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.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
So in your opinion fisetin doesn't do much?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I agree that Rittenhouse and the "smirkgate" kid were defamed and deserve compensation, but even so the journalists who defamed them were much closer in relative terms to having a reasonable and good-faith opinion than the deranged shit about "crisis actors" that Alex Jones said. It's apples and oranges.
This is a matter of opinion and for the record I disagree. And that's why we're supposed to have a neutral system.
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
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.
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".
Let's say a jury renders a verdict that declares that 5,000 puppies must be brutally executed (ignoring the likely illegality of this for the sake of the hypothetical). Now imagine this dialogue:
Person A: Wow, that's a ridiculous amount of puppies. We really need a society that values adorable puppies more.
Person B: Don't worry as there are statutes for reducing excessive puppy executions. It could very well be far less than 5,000 puppies executed.
Person A: Well, okay, but that's still pretty bad.
Person B: Wow, you're making no sense now. You were advocating for less puppies being executed, not no puppies. Why aren't you happy?
Your objection makes you resemble Person B in this dialogue in my evaluation. Do you see why you might perhaps sound unreasonable?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
In my experience, crisis actor theories regarding events with small(ish) numbers of victims are common (particularly in regards to mass shootings) and not just with Alex Jones. With stuff like 9/11 there's just so many victims that these theories become so increasingly implausible (not that they aren't already) that they're not used. I don't think it's a moral barrier.
It's not just 'heterodox opinions bad' it's 'slanderous allegations against specific private citizens bad.'
As, for example, the treatment of Kyle Rittenhouse proves, the second only tends to apply nowadays in the context of the first.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm sorry dude, but you are exhibiting exactly why the "rationalist" community often has a terrible reputation for autistic (and usually incorrect/nonsensical, as in this case) nitpicking and an inability to comprehend basic context, and given that trying to make somebody so committed to being so dense understand is usually as annoying as trying to shave a tiny but ornery chihuahua's balls without hurting them, especially on this site with its rules, I'm afraid that I can't engage with you any further.
But I'll give you one hint: I never once said that the monetary award should be merely reduced. That is simply not in my posts at all. I know, because I just reread them to see if maybe I gave that misleading impression. Rather, I merely expressed that I thought the verdict was too much, and you somehow autistically interpreted that to mean that I could only have a reduced verdict and not no verdict (or no case at all) as my highest preference, even though that doesn't fit any reasonable model of human behavior.
You do realize that people who prefer less X often prefer no X even to that, and that this is not any sort of a contradiction even if your mental model is that their prior statements only implied less X, right? Again, that's basic behavior. If someone says "There's hundreds of roaches in here!", reducing the number to only 50 probably isn't going to completely satisfy them still. There's a good chance they prefer zero. You might disagree, but their response isn't surprising or nonsensical.
I am not attempting to sneer or insult you at all when I link this (especially since, like most people on this site, I'm sure I'm not entirely off the spectrum, though not to the level demonstrated): https://exceptionalindividuals.com/candidates/neurodiversity-resources/neurodiversity-quizzes/aspergers-quiz-test/ You're displaying a genuinely high and concerning degree of communicative obtuseness.
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.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
He also criticized the forum for posting about “transsexuals”, a give-away that he is not familiar with the discussions (which always use trans or transgender)
I'm a long time poster on the old subreddit and I use "transsexuals" as a term quite often (and particularly did more often once Reddit as a whole cracked down on using "tranny", my preferred nomenclature), mostly because I don't like woke nuspeak (as I perceive it). Am I a bot?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
It's definitely a sign of something.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
People can demagogue, they can spread lies, they can even spread socially damaging truths.
Yes and in my experience the best way for demagogues to do the latter two is to claim that their opposition is doing them and needs to be censored so that their half-truths can go uncontested.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I've used both along with "trainee" but it depends.
A place full of wokies wouldn't be any better either though, because wokies mostly don't believe in critical reflection on their ideology.
This isn't a simple "boo outgroup!" sneer either, just a fact. Wokeism is the ideology of "Listen and believe!", of objectivity, rationality, logic, etc. being periodically accused of existing merely as servants of their great oppressors and excuses for their various *isms, and so on. Going "Akshually, what about genetics?" to wokies and expecting a productive response is like waltzing into a Soviet-era Politburo and trying to explain basic economic theory to them, or describing the Rule of Three to a Christian inquisitor and why it means that witchcraft is actually just as moral as Christianity.
Of course this kind of answers OP's question. "Scrupulously adheres to and agrees with empirically-observable reality, including the latest advances in genetics, etc." is not a basic tenet of woke ideology. "Anti-racism is always good and racism is always bad" is. You might as well ask how Christians can really believe that some guy walked on water given all that we know about physics, density, buoyancy, etc. It won't make a difference.
If you have faith, and if there's a sufficient distance between your personal circumstances and the negative consequences of that faith (and sometimes even if there's not if you're particularly adept at maniacal, masochistic self-delusion), then you can believe whatever you want. If you really think about it, in the vast majority of cases and not even just about woke stuff, reality (or at least acknowledging it) is optional, at least temporarily. But "temporarily" can last a heck of a long time in human terms, as the old saying about markets staying irrational longer than you can stay solvent highlights. Similarly, wokies can deny reality longer than your sanity can stay solvent.
More options
Context Copy link