crushedoranges
No bio...
User ID: 111
crushedoranges
2d ago
In the balance of it, creating an technical class within North Korea that is not military in nature is important, I think. NK having its software devs being more civilian is important in the long term for creating a philowestern elite.
crushedoranges
5d ago
What a pathetic end to a political career. To be humiliated as an old, senile fool by your own party. Almost Shakespearean in its pathos: King Lear, abandoned by his daughters: and the only loyal one to remain to him is a crack-smoking adulterer.
Those saccharine smiles in the audience, that praise him as being an American hero, smiling as they stab him in the back. Ugly.
crushedoranges
10d ago
I can't love Donald Trump more than I already do, but this might do it for me. Fuck all of you safetyist milksops, we're on the singularity train. The AI waifus of the future will be American, goddamnit! I WILL MARRY MY FICTIONAL AI CONSTRUCT, YOU CAN'T STOP ME MODS
crushedoranges
10d ago
Nowadays, it's more of the Indian Question (IQ), imo. The newer wave of overtly nepotistic ingroupers is bound for a Noticing, any day now.
crushedoranges
11d ago
It seems awfully presumptuous to write a list for the 21st century given that we're not even a quarter of the way through with it.
crushedoranges
12d ago
I'd like to say that just because you have a contrary opinion does not make it more probable that it is true, and that a universal confused/derisive reaction to the shape of your non-pinion should probably incite some self-reflection on your own take on things.
crushedoranges
13d ago
We've found the one person on the planet who doesn't have an opinion on Donald Trump.
crushedoranges
13d ago
Ah, it's a discord, but the initial reaction was some sort of air rifle. (I thought it was a .22). Mind you, it's only speculation. We'll get to know what happened real soon from the official news, I bet.
crushedoranges
13d ago
Nah, if it was a solitary 'pop' possibly, but the shooter mag dumped after the initial graze.
Currently debating with online gun nerds on what sort of weapon it was.
crushedoranges
13d ago
you beat me to the punch! Gack.
Well, this is big news. Very big news. I don't know what to say. Looks like we're back into the political assassination times of American politics.
crushedoranges
13d ago
The biggest news. The biggest! It literally just happened. I don't know what to say. Commentary beggars one's belief. I apologize for the brevity of this post, but the implications of it are mind-boggling. Political violence has escalated (perhaps, degenerated) into new levels of unforeseen disaster. What do you Americans think?
crushedoranges
15d ago
Brutus was a vacillator who sided with the killer of his father to throw the Republic into the hands of Augustus. Hardly heroic, in my book.
crushedoranges
16d ago
This makes even more economic sense: we'd save the price of a firing squad and the bullet too. All of the residents of the Tenderloin should be recollected to wherever those German tourists went in Death Valley a few years ago.
crushedoranges
16d ago
The analogy would only make sense if in response to a legitimate problem (people robbing banks) people advocated for policies that would give out a percentage of the bank's deposits to anyone who would ask (for isn't the root cause of bank robbery the lack of money?) And if you questioned why you should give up your bank account to thieves (and why they suspiciously stuff all their income underneath the mattress) they called you racist or something. And that nonsense became the status quo.
Indeed, it would be the prudent thing for such concerned individuals to become security guards, rather than trusting the insurance to make up for rampant bankrobbery, somehow.
crushedoranges
16d ago
Quite astute. Yes, that was a foreseen secondary consequence. The burden of care falls about the socially conscientious directly, rather than abstractly through government policy. The reasoning isn't too far from requiring warhawks to register for the draft. And if they do so, without the public purse being involved, it is saving to the treasury: and the negative externalities are confined to those foolish enough to try, rather than the public at large.
So, overall, I see it as a win-win.
crushedoranges
16d ago
It's not laziness: it's restoring man to the state of nature where if he does not think of his morrows, of his shelter and sustenance, he will die. There is no ambushers lying in wait on the outside of corporate layoffs. Police forces around the world have a list of 'individuals known to authority', who commit the pareto majority of homeless nuisance. Let us kill them all: swallow your liberal indignation about the rights and dignity of man and other such nonsense, and I'll let you embark on whatever reformist scheme in the aftermath that you please.
That's my counterproposal!
crushedoranges
16d ago
No man, no problem.
Here's my modest proposal: have homelessness be punishable by the death penalty.
The liberals will be outraged, but anyone who can't get a stranger to house them, even under the impending threat of death, is obviously an individual who has completely and utterly exhausted the patience of society and is committing a slow form of suicide. If they don't care about their own lives, then why should we?
Housing is expensive, and giving it to the most useless members of our society is counterproductive. Bullets are cheap.
crushedoranges
17d ago
There is signalling value in taking 850 dollars of money and burning it to show your commitment to a candidate. The prospect of winning money is just a bonus.
crushedoranges
21d ago
You don't need to go back to the Victorian era. You can talk to people who live in your country right now as to functioning rules of propriety. (The Pence rule is quite illustrative.) It is a reciprocal responsibility. Is it prudish? Is it backwards? Perhaps. But compared to the current state of being, which you recommend assigning moral valence and blame, which has brought about untold chaos and perhaps the permanent alienation of the sexes from one another, it is indeed perferrable, less our societies reap the fate of South Korea and the country dies out in three generations.
I prefer axiomatic rules that do not assign culpability or blame rather than wading into the hazy morass of he said, she said. Perhaps that's the autism speaking. Let it be stated this way. Rather than women being property of paterfamilias, she is keenly aware of the possession of her chastity and virtue is indeed a valuable thing that she injures at her own peril. And we have a word for a man who would do her harm, we call them cads, decievers, rapists.
And if she decides to associate with disreputable men, she cannot cry foul that she was taken advantage of. She knew perfectly what she was in for! You, who put so much value into judging men morally, don't say anything about this particular stained flower of Gaiman: who willingly had an affair with a married man. What do you make of her morals, who made herself a slave of this celebrity sex pest?
If she is a feminist, she should own up to her own actions, and if she is not, she ruined herself of her own volition, against the advice of men who actually care for her. As much as you dislike this worldview, it makes sense and is internally consistant. I am completely uninterested in adjudicating individual blame and responsibility because I have no need to. Both of them are in the wrong, and thusly the matters is beneath public interest.
crushedoranges
21d ago
You misunderstand me.
In many workplaces, there are requirements to wear steel-toed shoes to prevent crush injuries to the toes. Not because there is an inherent moral judgement involved, or that we are all clumsy idiots, but that we are obliged to laws of nature that do not care for our reasons or intentions at all.
If people didn't have accidents, then we wouldn't need PPE. To extend this analogy, if all men were gentlemen and kept their marriage vows, we wouldn't need laws and customs to prevent rape. I am of an ideology that reasonable concessions for safety can be made at the price of liberty. If, indeed, a woman can go into the public space with the reasonable expectation that she not compromise herself then we can take her at her word when she claims that she has an unwanted suitor.
crushedoranges
21d ago
A man can be reasonably expected to be up to no good towards any woman not outside of his immediate family, and indeed that is the norm everywhere in the world except in the West and very recently. Both men, young and old, who really should know better have again and again been tripped up by biological impulse. Indeed, feminism of a certain wave tarnishes the entire sex as morally culpable.
Because most men can be manipulated with sex, women who do so are rightfully shamed. Because it is a obvious weakness that takes incredible reserves of willpower and fortitude to resist, but trivially little effort to tempt. You say 'be moral' as if it is a meaningful statement. But even with direct financial and reputational incentives to not fool around, men do it anyway. You are ignoring the biological reality of the procreative urge.
Does the pithy dismissal 'do better?' form on your lips?
Testosterone is one hell of a drug. Traditional societies know this as a truth of which our modern ones fervently deny. Don't be alone with strange men! Don't even create the temptation! Because the inevitable will happen, no matter how moral they are. Don't put your hand on the stove. Don't put your dick into an hole smaller than its circumference. Obvious best practice to avoid harm, ignored for egalitarianism. Well, in this case, our ancestors really did know better. They knew better than to moralize the whole business and focused on outcomes.
crushedoranges
24d ago
Ezra Klein is just a representative of the podcasting liberal smug class. This particular example isn't perfect, as you say, but to his outgroup he's identical to all of the others of the reporter priestly caste.
crushedoranges
28d ago
It's punditry on my part. Imagine the American president as a sort of pontifex maximus, a secular priest, who keeps the republic sacred through keeping the forms of rituals and propriety, as Confucius states.
Voters will never outright say that it's part of the sentiment (and neither will it be asked.) Part of Biden's appeal was that he promised to obey the American aesthetic of power, to uphold the norms of republican life. If he's too old and senile to remember how then that advantage goes away.
crushedoranges
28d ago
If Trump was the reincarnation of Cato in terms of eloquence he wouldn't get any credit from anyone. You miss the point of the debate. It mattered, not that it was expected to change anyone's mind, but that it was a holy ritual of the American republic held for the sake of tradition. That Biden couldn't even rise to the very mild task that this is a bad omen for the republic, and a sign of weakness.
Things like this matter.
Trump linked the fire of Jeffersonian politics that is in the lineage of Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Huey Long and Reagan, burning away the soul of his fame and legacy to reignite the Kiln of the First Flame beneath the Washington Memorial to extend the Age of America.
More options
Context Copy link