@crushedoranges's banner p

crushedoranges

Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

				

User ID: 111

crushedoranges

Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 111

I recall the excellent Westworld, Season 1 (and deny that anything else came after that) that the dividing line of sentience is a mostly illusory one: that it is a emergent property of the self-concept, of the internal monologue. That notions of a soul may either be chauvinist hubris: or perhaps God will endow them with one, as Providence dictates.

Since there's no way to ascertain that any individual has consciousness from without for certain, we have to extend the benefit of the doubt to our fellow human beings. Is it possible for superintelligent AGIs, on the line of Helios from DEUS EX? Uncertain. But I am fairly certain that LLMs will reach human capacity in my lifetime, or at the very least reach a level of sociability that it will be monstrous to treat them any less than equals. If the technology stalls out at that level it will still very be much worth it: I will reserve at least 16gb of vram for my new friends.

Are you being serious?

Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.

In this very response, in the last sentence, you have a descalation, a insult, and a sneer. If I call you out on it, you'll focus on the first part (while conveniently leaving out the other two.) Like how you exclude the last sentence of 'Add another on the pile of growing unashamed Nazism'. The second sentence clarifies what you meant.

You're not fooling anyone.

I'm going to disengage from this conversation because you're clearly trying to ragebait me. I do not understand how this behavior is acceptable to the moderators.

No, it is not. And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi. An argument so facile and childish that it was a meme back in the usenet days (argumentum ad Hitlerum.)

I am pretty sure that this forum is filled with the neurodivergent, and I had made myself pretty well understood to them. That I was making a figure of speech: that I was not literally speaking for myself, but making rhetorical flourish to illustrate the widening of the Overton window.

That you jumped on the superficial elements of that argument to discredit me is not an error on my part or autism. It's a you thing. So, again. What did you mean by that? What should be done with Nazis? Tell me what your beliefs are. Stop evading the question. If you have no beliefs about Nazis, then why is being one bad? Why would wearing Nazi tattoos be bad, or having a swastika on a flag?

If I hold you to your own standards, should I take your words as you say them? Or do you not believe that about yourself?

I will actually credit autism here: I am hyperfixating on it, until I get a proper answer.

You literally called me a Nazi. Did you meant that when you said that? Here, I'll link it again for your convenience.

So, taking this new principle of yours you seem to have found, when you said this, you meant it, honestly and earnestly. What did you mean by that? What could you possibly mean? Please, explain yourself. Elaborate in detail. Let's suppose that you're right. I am a fascist. If a leftist radical killed me, would you be overtly bothered? Would you engage in the same minimizations and evasions you're doing here? Please. Do clarify, if you have the time.

Surely, if Kirk the nonnazi is a matter of humorous anecdote, an actual Nazi would be quite funny!

For I live in the real world too, and I don't have to take your prepositions naively on their face. You twist yourself into pretzels trying to win the argument. If you mean what you say you mean, and not just as political polemic, I must hold you to account. I asked you this question almost a year ago, and you've never answered. You've never apologized, either. I'd take that as well, because in my reality, calling someone who isn't a Nazi a Nazi is an insult.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

If you can't see that the memes about Kirk postmortem come from the desire to rile up the genuinely aggrieved right - that you stubbornly insist that the fig leaf is an burka - then there's no point to arguing with you. We simply don't share the same reality. You may skirt the rules of the Motte in doing what you're doing, but I refuse to let you bait me any further. Even if I did write a well-written, precisely worded argument, you'd just duck out and say that you didn't have time in your busy life to respond.

I'll merely reiterate what FCfromSSC said already, and add on: it's easy to win arguments when you run around the field with the goalposts. Or, in other words, you have already contradicted your past positions, and it's hard to see if you have any principles whatsover.

Come on. You're doing the thing that every edgy leftist is doing, and pretending that their not-so-subtle mockery wasn't concealing their glee at getting him. It does not convince, no more than 'in minecraft' is a defense against conspiracy. No comedian ever went on television and said that George Floyd was probably killed by a commie, and certainly no con was going around saying he deserved to die because he punched a pregnant woman (which is something he actually did.)

And yet, Kirk's assassination is deemed his own fault because of some amorphous harm to leftist causes, or something.

I'm not stupid. I can see the winks and the smiles. Your argument is unconvincing and insults the intelligence of anyone credulous enough to extend you the benefit of the doubt. The people who called him a Nazi have blood on their hands. People who use that word to rile up extremists to kill their political opposition have blood on their hands. If this isn't stoastic terrorism, it is at the very least 'turbulent priest' levels of wishcasting.

It is not too far to suggest that you have some infinitesimal part of his blood on your hands.

Wildly? Half of the left wing said it was a good thing, and that he deserves it. (The other says its a bad thing, but also deplores what he said, thus negating the virtue of the first.) Virtuous centrists are a rounding error.

Maybe you are sincere. But there are certainly players that are not, and I am tired of listening to the snide and back-biting commentary of the partisans of the other side. You take it seriously because a man is dead because he was killed for speech, a right that he had every freedom to exercise. Nothing can diminish that, although you've certainly tried.

If the BLM riots didn't discredit George Floyd, then it's farcical to say that the circus of Kirk's death discredits him. Right-wing George Floyd 'I can't breathe' memes are scrubbed off the internet, while Kirkist mockery stays online because of leftist bloodthirstiness.

Tu quoque?

You could apply this same logic to the allegations made against Trump by Ivana Trump. It's about the same level of veracity, with one difference: Ivana retracted her statements after the fact. I don't believe that people who say this now wants to stick to just the facts - mostly because everyone who tried was sent to the social gulag a long time ago. If you dared make such a argument to those of progressive and liberal leanings, you would have been called a rape apologist. I was there. I lived through the MeToo period. Superficially this is a fair argument to make. But if you lived in the past ten years - if you have been exposed to public discourse at all - you know that this is the left not living up to its principles that it used to oppress men.

Because even feminism is subordinate to the cause, in certain conditions. You can make the most crunchy granola hippy defend a ex-blackwater totenkampf-toting sexual abuser if he says the right platitudes about Israel. People sneer at the right-populists all the time, but at least they have a movement. They get elected. Platner is a man that doesn't deserve any loyalty but every tankie and communist has torched their public reputations to defend him in the past few months. It would be funny, if it didn't make your heart ache.

'Full genocide' is hyperbole on your part, because apparently 'genocide' has lost its punch, mainly because of Third Worldists applying it liberally to anything and everything they don't like.

What would you classify the Armenia and Rwandan genocides, then? Hypergenocides? Are the Israelis genociding the Palestinians in the same way we're genociding the transgenders in the West? The Amerindians?

There's no all-encompassing definition of Confucianist Asians of which ardent nationalists will accept, so Oriental is a crude but acceptable exonym. At least, that's my guess. You try grouping Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese cultures with a single name.

I believe that the heroic quality manifests in different times of their lives. A not insignificant number of women will go down to the knife for their children, even if they are personally the mildest and gentlest of creatures. Valor under fire is something that can only be partially trained, which is why the standards for soldiery and police work should be higher than the general population, and not lowered because of considerations to the representation of the sexes. You either have it or you don't.

German Progessive Weirdo: "Ha! Don't get into relationships with men. Checkmate, incels!"

Tribal Afghani Chud: "No want to date. Only rape."

This is called motivated reasoning. It's obvious that progressives and liberals are applying extra scrutiny to avoid asking any hard questions.

It would be like being told that monkeypox was effecting gay men, animals, and children, and then someone barged in and told you to quarantine the petting zoos.

I cannot help but notice that is the logic of Saddam Hussein, who also justified 9/11 by the civilians who were 'associated' with Israel by the dint of democracy. The marines of Beirut were there to evacuate and protect the PLO. 58 Frenchmen died, as well. They were there to protect the PLO, are they all associated with Israel, too? That military presence was by the invitation of the legitimate government of Lebanon.

I'd go into how indiscriminate a truck bomb is as a weapon, but if you're going to apologize for Hezbollah then it's not really a conversation I want to have.

I don't hate him for tankie/anticapitalist reasons: I hate him for spiking the cost of memory and SSDs, and his market manipulation tactics would earn him a Bitcoin Assassin™ if we lived in Shadowrun.

But it's not only that, and you are putting forth a strawman. I'm sure the men who drove a truck bomb into Beirut and killed two hundred Americans knew exactly what 'Death to America' meant: killing Americans.

They're not insane, but they are not rational. They are religious fanatics who hate the west and want to kill every American they get their hands on. An enemy, by definition, is an other. No special intellectualizing required. It is you who are making apologetics.

For the same reason the geniuses behind 'Abolish the Police' engaged in epicycles to say it actually meant [Liberal Slop], you are doing the same. Surely the Kantian PhD scholars would come up with a clarifying slogan and instruct their people to communicate what they actually mean, right?

No, this is quokka reasoning: you cannot define away enemies who identify as enemies. That's not how the world works. At least respect them enough to believe that they say what they mean, and not fall for obvious lies.

Not for a lack of trying. If Iran had the resources of a peer-level superpower during the Cold War they'd definitely have tried to export their proxy model worldwide, not just in their local neighborhood.

Inbred socioreligious elites using ethnic replacement to displace their former warrior caste is a funny thing to dwell upon now, but back then, it was just another thing that made you sympathize with the Arbiter more. This is the kind of 4chan joke that gives you a sensible chuckle.

Well, I'm just a random internet person. I will freely admit that I don't have answers to many of those questions. I'm not part of the US military or intelligence apparatus. I legitimately don't know how those will turn out. But I do know how the Russians would react. They would not be asking questions as perceptive as that: they would beat their chest and scream and feel pride (and they would be right to do so.) In the strength of their military, of their confidence as a Great Power, and of the simple fact that their enemies are dead.

These figures not only hate the United States, they have killed American soldiers through proxies and terrorist attacks. They are dead now. This is a good thing. It really is as simple as that. I don't have a holistic solution that solves the Islamic problem at it root. There is no clever diplomatic route that remains. If your enemies tell you that they want you dead, believe them. Then kill them. If they do not accept reasonable terms, and come back for more, kill them some more. This is war. It doesn't follow the rules of the Motte. The fargroup should be destroyed with the strongest weapons one can bring to bear.

If you are unsatisfied with the conclusion of the Melian dialogue, that's fine. But it is an answer, and I'm not hedging it. Perhaps that undermines your conception as America as a moral nation, but it is what it is.

I will make an argument by analogy.

Suppose that if, in the opening days of the war, Russia's special forces and air wings assassinated Zelensky - with standoff munitions, ballistic missiles, FSB agents, what have you - as well as all the senior generals of the Ukrainian armed forces and many members of the Rada. That all of the Western aid was blown up in its arsenals, and Russian biplanes were flying freely over Ukrainian airspace with impunity.

This is, by all accounts, a Russian nationalist wet dream. If it actually happened, it would have been a crushing defeat for Ukraine even if not a single Russian soldier took a step further south. Ukraine would no longer be a threat to Russia in any military sense. Similarly, Iran is no longer a threat to the United States. They may try to return to that state, but such measures are expensive and long in the making. And the Americans can always come in with the Israelis again. It's a little sad that the regime did not change, but that was a nice to have, not an explicit war goal.

The Iranians can continue to hate the West, but they can do so impotently. If that is all this operation accomplished, then it was a worthwhile investment.

Here's what will happen in Europe.

A) A study will be commissioned for ten million dollars, providing a steady sinecure for several credentialed experts, that will produce a tidy report four years too late to be timely, that has the right decisions, however...

B) Several start-ups blossom like mushrooms around the recommendations, but lacking the capital to grow and burdened by EU employment law, decamp to the United States.

C) Lacking any viable local company, it is given to a national champion alongside several billion dollars to produce a result ten years too late and too small to be of any significance.

D) The French and the Germans fight over workshare and capital of said pointless endeavor, turning it into a boondoogle as every politically connected company turns up for a feed at the trough, and it dies a miserable, pointless death.

Repeat, ad nauseam.

Impossible to change 80 IQ loutish drunks, possible to change 105 IQ neurotic liberal woman. Latter only requires slight social engineering, former requires dystopian levels of authoritarianism to correct.

Depart from the realm of the rational and into the magical kingdom of narrative for a moment.

Imagine you're a woman with 105 IQ, hyped up on romantasy slop and feminist empowerment and blank slatism, what have you. The bad boy gives you the tingles, but it's not his fault that he's bad - it's society/his parents/mental illness/the patriarchy/capitalism. You, oh enlightened Liberal Woman, can heal him with your soothing therapy speak and magic vagina. Go out there and make yourself a martyr on an 80 IQ thug with no self control! I can fix him! You go girl!

Many such cases.

I'll try not to make this a "Amadan's Greatest Dunks" compilation, but here's something roughly representative.

GematriaUnlimited, alt of banned user, hater of MAGA but from a vaguely socon perspective, hysterical calls to action, namecalling.

Clementine, nonspecific objections to subject matter, not specifically naming names. Generally wishy-washy.

AlexanderTurok, "You're all retarded low-human capital."

KulakRevolt, "It's time for the reactionary revolution, talking is pointless"

You'll have to take my word for it that this is roughly representative. Flouncers who delete their posts are unfortunately permanently removed from the historical record, so I can only characterize them generally rather than specifically. Honorable mention to GuessWho the Darwin alt who got so throughly destroyed that they didn't even make a huffy flounce post, but instead slunk away in shame.