drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Consider an unopened box. You and I agree that whatever is inside, we will share equally between ourselves. We open it, and it happens to be your favorite candy bar. I go to split it equally, but you grab one side of it and insist that actually, you want the whole thing and I should re-negotiate over it.
Would you say you are acting in bad faith?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Why would it be better? It's a flat-out rejection of the idea that the truth should inform action. I have no problem with litigation over the facts of the 2020 election, but the frustrating part is that the election truthers don't ever give me confidence that they care about the truth for its own sake, but more because they think it's impossible Trump could have lost in the first place.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
I agree. But if you want to go down the route of saying the losers are refusing to be rational because that would cost them energy and momentum vs. the winners who don't, then just say that.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
But it’s also the fruit of the Long March Through the Institutions.
I know nothing about the NFL and its cultural context. That said, this phrase is typically meant to imply that there was some kind of anti-democratic, inorganic effort by leftists (meaning Marxist, not just progressive or necessarily radical) to take over the NFL. I would like to see some proof of this sort of thing. A cursory search of the issue with the helmets and endzones saying "stop racism" or other anti-racist slogans suggests this happened in 2021. You don't need much "Long Marching" to make an institution think that it might get them some positive attention if they were to do this while not alienating enough people who would disagree.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
None of them are Nazis. Easy.
I didn't say any of them were. I said moving in that direction.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
How is it the entire breadtube ecosystem? Even in the responses to this person, there are people disagreeing with them.
If you're gonna present this as "breadtube/the left is out to get IH", you need stronger evidence than this.
Ukraine was then it's own state on paper, but in reality a Russian satellite state up until 2014.
Doesn't really matter. Russia signed the agreements to let Ukraine be independent. Can't complain if it actually exercises that status.
Russia isn't trying to expand its sphere of influence to USSR levels
Yeah, because it can't. There's no going back in that regard unless NATO itself breaks up, and Putin's invasion literally reversed the flagging support for that organization. Talk about a strategic blunder. What it is doing, however, is trying to gobble up nations while it can to its west. Because once the NATO aegis is established, it's over, that country is not coming back.
NATO bombs and murders everyone outside of the west indiscriminately and people that think they're civilized make endless excuses for the abuse.
Which bombs are we referring to? Bosnia and Herzegovina? Serbia? Afghanistan? The Gulf of Aden? Libya? Syria?
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
It actually can't be, because they observably didn't give a shit about any of this during the Obama years!
I didn't say the left were avid geopolitics followers. I just said they didn't agree that nations could invade others without damn good reason.
While you could claim that the Libyan intervention wasn't technically a war to conquer or annex the country, that still leaves the left in the unfortunate position of supporting the bombing of a nation until it regresses to the point of having open air slave markets.
My understanding of the Libyan intervention was that Gaddafi was attacking civilians, which is very much Not Okay under the morality and rules of war that have developed for a century now. If you want to claim the left was duped, that's one thing, but I think they would 100% agree that you can invade a nation if it is doing something like that.
Then, of course, there is the question of putting US personnel on the ground to handle post-intervention Libya, something people would probably be wary of given how long the US had been in the Middle East by that point.
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
This "Russia = USSR" logic doesn't work out the way you think it does.
Firstly, it means inheriting the legacy of the Holodomor. Attempting to claim a moral right to rule a people after you attempt to genocide them is...something.
But even ignoring that, the USSR literally agreed to dissolve into independent states in 1991. If the Soviets "owned" Ukraine, then Russia inheriting their claims means it has no claim as such over Ukraine.
Also, the Budapest Memo had Russia agree to not use military force against Ukraine.
You can talk all you want about "satellite states" and what not, Russia already agreed decades ago it wouldn't do what it has been doing since 2014.
drmanhattan16
8mo ago
Because only God himself could alter reality to the point that I wouldn't be capable of wondering why people do what they do, and that guy hasn't been seen in a while.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Yes, it is possible that what kills the supposed Empire is its lower-class citizens. But the OP is explicitly about the "barbarians", hence why I'm talking about them. It's a common talking point amongst those who don't like immigrants and/or a "loose" immigration standard.
the benefits of supporting the Neoliberal Empire don’t really come to those outside of the elite circles of power
What counts as a benefit? There are many pieces of technology that drastically improve my QoL that I couldn't or wouldn't own if said empire didn't benefit. I'm about as tangential of an elite as you can get. A farmer may very well consider it a benefit to have an automated tractor that can't be made without an empire that doesn't even think about him.
The White working class doesn’t get much of anything from support for the NLE, nor do recent immigrants who get shunted into jobs that don’t pay well.
The latter part isn't true. They wouldn't come to work under an NLE if they didn't think it was worth it.
The outer providences don’t see much benefit. And I’d class most of these as barbarians.
Spoken like a true Blue Tribe heretic! You retain mostly the same definitions of who is or is not a barbarian, you just tweak them a bit!
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Nope, not at all. This change is uniformly impacting everyone, and there is no reason to think "powerjannies" are likely to leave and get replaced by people who are more sympathetic to the average person here.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Sure, I'd love if they at least tried something like that. But the harshest complaint here is consistently that this is down out of intentional malice, and that's what I don't agree with.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Romeo and Juliet is not that cohesive, imo. Language is informed by many things, you can't expect people from modern America to talk like Shakespeare's characters. If anything, it should bother people just as much that the language was not updated to reflect modern American English.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
How far am I supposed to take this analogy? Because if I take Hlynka's position and apply it here, then we are left with the idea that outsiders have no obligation to actually consider the probability of fraud occurring, and that they should be free to accept payment to accept the idea that no fraud occurred.
That doesn't strike me as particularly rational and virtuous, respectively.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false.
Okay, yeah, this is the case I was thinking of. I recall going through the evidence brought against them and I found it fairly convincing that Fox had no reason to believe what they were peddling and also didn't believe it themselves.
The actual proof can be found in the pdf at the bottom of this article. It's 192 pages, but it's either screenshots that can quickly be read or large font question-answer segments. I think it clearly indicates that the people at Fox didn't believe what they were saying, because their own research team was telling them there wasn't any evidence, and it notes that Fox believed executives had an obligation to correct people from stating falsehoods on their own network.
Ultimately, what did Fox in wasn't the view that the election was stolen. It was not believing their own public statements.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Man, it's a good thing Yassine isn't asking for those in the first place, huh?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
it's in the air, thanks to a decades long process of conservative retreat from the institutions making room for the Left.
Is this what you meant by "Long March through the Institutions?" I have never heard that phrase be used to describe conservative retreat over leftist entryism.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Huh, why? I mean, I think a case can be made that a lot of these progressive ideas are Marx-derived, but I don't see why the idea of the long march through institutions requires that the effort be explicitly Marxist.
The original phrase was coined by a socialist and is often used by people who do think the Marchers are all Marxists. We have neutral words, like entryism, and it's possible that the OP meant something neutral, but I'm on a platform where I don't think people are so obviously using it as a perfect substitute for entryism.
I'd similarly like to see proof of it being organic. I see no reason to grant it null hypothesis status.
I'm totally fine shrugging my shoulders and saying I don't have proof of that, because I'm not going to do a deep dive into the NFL and its politics. But then we're left with the position of simply not knowing one way or the other.
By 2021 the March was over and done with.
I was indicating what incidents I could find that matched the description. I don't know what the OP was necessarily referring to sought to indicate what seemed likely. But even granting your point about Atheism+ and all that, why should I assume the NFL was subject to the same thing? Atheism+ was about the split between people who would go on to be SJWs and the Skeptics/Anti-SJWs.
If the NFL made helmets saying "all lives matter" do you think blue tribe would just shrug, because they don't support grooming? There's an infinite number of messages you could be putting out that "should" get positive attention without alienating anyone, but only blue-coded ones ever get put out.
Whether the blue tribe would shrug isn't the point. We're asking about the intention behind the slogans and rhetoric being deployed, not whether one tribe would or wouldn't react.
Moreover, one issue with this line of analysis is the asymmetry in what ideas are part of the status quo or not. The idea of non-whites facing systemic discrimination isn't in the water, it is the water. Why this matters is that people who don't have an axe to grind against the status quo on this point don't, in my view, engage with politics the same way as those who do. Put simply, as long as blue-coded messages are the water and red-coded ones aren't, you cannot point to the disparity in promotion and claim a conspiracy because people don't need a conspiracy to "support" the water.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
The only thing predictable is how you leapt to idea that I was doing the "it's not happening, but if it is, he deserves it" meme. This is behavior that must be downloadable from somewhere, it's so rote and repetitive. No one can criticize a person you like in good faith, can they? No, they must be part of a left-wing conspiracy.
More to the point, that thread isn't proof of your claim. You didn't argue that they thought he was a Nazi, you argued that they were, in concert, coming after him before the plagiarism accusation.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
You can go and look at the LTT subreddit and their forums, people were openly expressing the notion that the botched benchmarks didn't really matter and the only thing that did was the prototype GPU or whatever that the other company had provided and LTT had given away.
Moreover, HBomberGuy literally called out a gay YouTuber on his own side, to the point that the guy literally deleted his social media and patreon page.
Why is it impossible to believe that other people can care about this for the stated reasons?
drmanhattan16
7mo ago
most people don’t have a coherent political philosophy, and their support or lack of support for Zelenskys war isn’t based on anything except the latest headline they read.
Why do they need it? A great deal of philosophy gets ground into what Scott Alexander called crystalized heuristics. So the philosophical debates over just war and what not don't need to occupy every person's mind, you just condense that down into "It's immoral to invade a sovereign nation unless they are committing crimes against humanity like genocide and whatnot".
drmanhattan16
8mo ago
In the literal sense, nobody takes the other side of this, though. Trivially, if I make deliberate modding choices, then that tells the world that I made those deliberate modding choices.
The OP is clearly saying you cannot infer anything about their beliefs or worldview on the basis of the mods they play. That is what I don't agree with. Those are not trivial things.
if someone modded Stardew Valley to transform some brown pixels to beige ones, it's entirely possible that such a decision was motivated by the modder's deeply held philosophical/political/personal/etc. views which are bigoted, hateful, or whatever, but that can only be supported by additional external information.
Not every possible explanation is equally possible. I don't think people are missing the fact that the mod they were downloading, in the SV example, was explicitly about making a black character white. That context matters. Is it by itself enough to say a person is racist? Maybe not. But it does make it more likely.
Sure, we can certainly discuss what it says and how we would go about proving it and so on and so forth. What I reject is that idea that it doesn't say anything about you.
Edit: to more directly address your point, I do not believe that people's modding preferences are so obviously segregated from the rest of their views. In the context of Stardew Valley, I'll afford any person who wants it charity when they say they downloaded a mod that only made the only black person white because they didn't like his art or whatever, but I'll conclude that this person is more likely to be a racist than not.
Anecdotal evidence: there are several mods for Darkest Dungeon that are lewd. I don't believe that people who use them, including me, are misogynists, but I do think people using them aren't opposed to all objectification of people.
Huh? You're talking about having to expose their voices? I don't think that really constitutes "expose their identity".
More options
Context Copy link