@crushedoranges's banner p

crushedoranges


				

				

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

				

User ID: 111

crushedoranges


				
				
				

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 111

Fetuses can't be leftists, yes. This is why I love them.

(You can borrow this response, if you'd like. Chad face gif is optional.)

As a refrain to my own banning, I'd like to say that the sentiment I am rebutting is similarly devoid of value: intersectional bundling of leftist causes does not impress me. In short, it is essentially saying: "Why do you care so much about this, huh? How does this personally affect you, when the world bleeds so much?"

No, I won't approve of them killing their own children in the womb. No matter how much things may suck in the real world. Things will always suck. There will always be injustice for them to point at, to try and shame me into not caring. A giant meteor could be coming to wipe us out like the dinosaurs and I'll still keep caring about the issue in exactly the same way.

The pastor may see it as 'throwing it under the bus', but I prefer to see it as a 'sincerely held belief'.

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.

The fact that TracingWoodgrains doesn't fully come over to the right because of this and doggedly is determined to stay in the principled center makes me completely unsympathetic. So as far as I'm concerned, they're stuck between the icky chuds like me who know it's a problem but have aesthetically unpleasant views and the other kind of people who stick their heads in the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence. People who will bald-facedly lie even when you bring the smoldering gun, the receipt, and a signed confession are bad people.

And despite all of this... they are more aligned with the latter kind of people then the former.

I will make a prediction now: TW will still be hacking at this ten years from now, doing their enlightened centrist gig, making no progress. Because the liberals they are trying to convince don't really exist: they are trying to persuade a species of extinct men who could be swayed by reason and good faith.

Look, I'm a supporter of free speech as much as anybody but I'm not going to run into the buzzsaw that is the Jewish lobby. People who have been calling my fellow travellers anti-semitic nazis for years - decades, even - suddenly need my help? I'm not a fan of the Jewish lobby in the current Trump administration but neither am I a fan of the pro-Palestinians. Perhaps conservatives would be more concerned about freedom of thought in the academia if there were any left in the university institutions. I gain nothing by standing on principle and lose nothing by standing out of the way. I don't need to take a side in this conflict: there are more than enough domestic windwills to shake a lance at.

I'd link to the XCKD comic about free speech and its consequences, but everyone here probably has seen it already.

Jesus Christ. Zelenskyy, all you had to do was eat your humble pie and suck up to Trump for an hour or two. Macron and Starmer have been working day and night to coax him back. All for nothing!

All I am asking is for conservatives to put the same level of value on the lives of foreigners as their domestic opponents do on fertilized human embryros. That is the level of commitment that they will need to win. If they can endure that level of opprobrium then the battle is already won. Do you believe that pro-choicers support abortions to 'own the cons'..? On some level, maybe. But they have a genuine belief in the liberty of women, unshackling them from the tyranny of biology. We must similarly have cruel principles that put our own well being over the needs of others.

You flatter me. I have a sophist's love of rhetoric: but if politics is serious - if it is about human life - then it should be taken seriously. I find it less moral to equivocate, to pretend that there is a difference between 'save some lives' and 'save all'. Removing the room for argument is the only way to reduce the size of government otherwise you are merely a ratchet on Leviathan's appetite.

If the threat of their imminent approaching deaths isn't enough to establish even a modicum of self control they're not really human beings, but automata who have lost their will to live. But it doesn't matter, in any case: because although they claim to have no self autonomy, they are very good at wheedling out benefits and favors from the people around them. It all smacks of bullshit in the end.

The number of people who weigh more than 600lbs is a vanishingly small number. It's not like in the Jersey Shore, where fake tanned sluts and himbos compete to be the stupidest on camera. Being very fat is comorbid with something very wrong with you and it's a pathology that is rapidly spreading in the Western world. They don't need to pick out the crazies and the exhibitionists: they just need to turn on the cameras and watch them do their distorted routines.

In my future utopia the age of consent for women will be 36 and the age of consent for men will be 12. Future generations of men will thank me for hagmaxxing.

I would attribute that to the population getting older in general. City life, and its progressive paeans, are more attractive to the young who seek opportunity and change. They are willing to tolerate things like noisy neighbors and the homeless because they are willing to bear that burden, even if it annoys them privately. The old and those with families wish for the reverse and move away to where they can get away from that within their financial means.

It very well may be that the blues diminish because their societal bedrocks self-select and become redder in the bargain.

And here's where I have a fundamentally different worldview than yours. There's a turn of phrase... 'makes you feel superior'. That would be incorrect.

That would imply that it is a subjective, egotistic feeling rather than objective fact.

There's nothing wrong with judging people better or worse than others. That may be a mortal sin to a progressive, liberal worldview, but to me it is simply the basis of any ideology that makes meritocratic judgement of worth. If you're a fat person because you were sexually abused or have some sort of mental illness or what have you... that's a sad story, but in the end, you're still being pushed off the bridge into the path of the runaway trolley.

I probably would not survive in the governing ethics of which I prefer... and that's fine with me. But that's probably too personal to debate on, so I'll chalk this one up to a disagreement of values.

The barn door has been flung open and sent flying a dozen miles by the tornado at this point. Trump really should ask his critics whether or not they'd prefer him to send Reaper drones after illegal immigrants: maybe they can patrol the border and fire hellfire missiles at groups of people crossing the border at odd times of the day.

There's a saying in sports: "If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough." If people are willing to do incredibly unethical things to alter the outcomes of something that tops out at sports betting, why not politics?

Once you get over the sacred, idealistic form of government, it really is just another ruleset to be gamed. Banging the table and insisting that the Impoundment Act is unconstitutional and doing whatever you want while it winds its way through the courts is just clever brinksmanship. Only the rules that have been formally written down matter: regulations, gentleman's agreements, and norms can be ignored without consequence. Because ultimately what defines legality is how much the institutions are willing to push back against you. If you can get away with it, it becomes precedent.

We are three generations into the liberal experiment of the emancipation of women and the resulting sexual revolution and birth rates are already in the terminal phase. If you want an example of societies that are collapsing because of it, you just have to look out of the window.

Societies do not have to be healthy by liberal standards to be self replicating: see, all of history.

You think the Somali Muslims and Amish that will replace us will share our egalitarian ideals?

I want to believe in God, in defiance of the absence of evidence of his existence. Because faith is an absurd notion: but it is like love and hope. It is a necessary balm in a cruel and uncaring world. In the Kierkengaardian sense, I believe in God as the manifest nature of love: eternally abiding, unconditional, perfect. Forgiving. Merciful, to the flawed creatures that are men. In my life, I feel so sad, so forlorn. I feel that only God could love such a creature as I.

It is probably the only love I will feel in this life.

Perhaps that makes me a strange Catholic, but I arrived here strangely, in any case. You could make a secular case of Christ's nonexistence, but that wouldn't change my faith in God, because my faith isn't based in scurrilous readings of the Bible or enscribed onto plates. I don't care to prove my faith or defend it against skeptical inquiry. I base it on love: that transcendent, ethereal quality that is beyond the ability of materialism to define beyond the inadequate language of hormones and socialization.

That is the most profound miracle of all, and beyond the reach of fedora'd Redditors.

A child, when introduced to the concept of probability, gives equal weight to the possible outcomes. Two choices means 50/50 (a coin flip.) A pollster that isn't better than a coin flip is useless. You might as well ask a child. (I believe the children's election - 52/48 in favor of Harris - being +2 D, while being wrong, was more accurate than any of the left-leaning pollsters could muster.)

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!

Are you a Civ multiplayer person? I think that probably explains it. Civ multiplayer is just so different of a game from Civ single-player that it's impossible to talk about the subject without mentioning the elephant in the room.

I play GSG-type games as single-player experiences. (Mostly because my internet was dogshit for the longest time.) And, in my experience, the Civ AI has always been dogshit, unable to comprehend the multivariate functions of its own systems.

IT VERY WELL MAY BE TRUE that those elements are present in Civ 4. I never got to experience them properly. I concede the point that the Civ 4 combat is not as two-dimensional as my hot take would imply but the game itself does a bad job of demonstrating it for the player. EU4 also has very bad AI, but the cheating is in such a matter that it has the pretense of emulating skillful play, and not just modifiers given to the AI just because.

(Yes, I know the AI gets buffs in Paradox games. But the buffs in Civ are much, much larger comparatively, to compensate for a lack of historicity and other railroady mechanics.)

The base game of CIV is piss easy, even on Deity: the AI is too incompetent and cowardly for the job of containing the player without obviously ganging up against him. You don't need to know any of that to win single player civ (although it will make your game go faster.) But that's not even the worst part of it!

The inability of players falling behind to catch up means that in Civ games, there is an obvious winner very early on, deincentivizing participation in casual play and ensuring a negative experience for the majority of players. This is the real reason why Civ sucks. No matter how clever you are tactically and keeping all of those modifiers in mind, the bigger blob will always win. I'm not going to fight to the bitter end for days for a predestined conclusion: I'm just going to quit before the birth of Christ.

And for most people, that borderline is a wake-up call, yes.

I personally suffer from depression. Being fat didn't help with that. But for some people they look in a mirror and they think to themselves "I'm already fat, I might as well let myself go all the way" and that leads to all the pathologies of personality I just mentioned.

Right now, I'm going through a water fast, and it's difficult and uncomfortable. Losing weight is, in general, difficult and uncomfortable. The avoidance of discomfort and the pursuit of pleasure is the Western zeitgeist and I'd be damned if I let down my ubermenschian will to power by obeying the fickle whims of a decadent body.

I really don't want to get into definitional arguments, because they don't get anywhere.

I am using their terminology. You can argue it as much as you want that it is vague and nebulous, but it doesn't matter, because it describes a real subset of people that do exist that push policy and active goals. I don't have to go back to the Kievan Rus to explain it. What am I, Putin?

Don't dive into generalities. I am addressing a very specific movement (the woke, the intersectionalists, the crt) who can be described as cultural marxists. I am intentionally limiting the scope of the discussion here because there is where an argument can actually be had.

But if you want to continue down this path, please, provide your definitions of these things.

I could have, yes.

I'm going to have to go through the 'keep off that weight' dietary and lifestyle change phase eventually. I won't lie, that will probably be even more difficult than the fasting phase I'm doing right now.

But I both want and need to do it. And I hope I get through it.

Clumsily. (Like krogans.)

Let me make an analogy.

One prays to God, not out of a naive desire for divine intervention to manifest one's wishes, but as an affirmative call to one's own virtuous goals. Whether or not it comes to good or ill is divided into two parts: the mortal - which is in our control - and in the divine - which is ineffable.

Which is to say, go vote, because it is good for the soul, and then do the necessary things in your community anyway.

Get away from me, Kaathe!

The age of dark is not yet here!