fuckduck9000
3mo ago
By the time Damiens was executed well into the early modern period, execution was much less religious and much more a demonstration of state power.
So says foucault, but I disagree. I contend that the reason for the extreme torture was not demonstrating state power, but instead, straightforwardly, discouraging regicide.
You want to demonstrate state power, you build a pyramid - or if you’re feeling edgy, cut off ten thousand heads, and make a pyramid out of that. By contrast, any low-rent psycho can torture a man to death.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
What about the tree? It’s very suspect that it would be the good one who would forbid knowledge of good and evil. If you strip god of definitional goodness, his opponent appears as a prometheus-like figure. His defiance and refusal to serve is heroic, even assuming they are both morally neutral.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
- 38 downvotes
And some claim themotte doesn't downvote opinions. And this is from a centrist regular, not a truly progressive opinion. It appears you still have enough credit with the userbase, and you're socially conservative enough, to avoid the bad faith and strawman accusations for now, Ashlael.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
If bringing them capitalism and the pleasures of modernity does not innoculate against jihadi mind viruses, what would?
Blasphemy. That’s how we got the christians to calm down. Certainly not by respecting their beliefs and community, or by celebrating their historical accomplishments. Islam’s stupidity and failures should be constantly rubbed in the face of its believers. Of course all muslim immigration to the west should be stopped on purely practical grounds, the insult is just a bonus.
Usually free speech can deal with those superstitions. The problem is that Islam has a built-in counter-strategy, death for apostates and critics. As sheikh qaradawi says, if not for the death penalty for apostates, Islam would not have survived to this day. This is the mechanism islamophobes need to target first, because it’s utterly poisonous to free expression. Free speech of muslims should be curtailed on that point, anyone preaching that doctrine should be deported or imprisoned. Apostates and critics should always be protected by the full force of the state, and get into a sort of witness protection program if they so desire.
Israel should bulldoze al-aqsa on live TV while ceremoniously asking Allah to do something about it. Muslims should be given the chance to reflect more often on their impotent rage and impotent god. Spurn the symbol and spare the man.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
So anyway, I was discussing the great replacement theory with a far-righter earlier, and I said that immigration had little to no effect on native birthrates, citing Japan and Korea as examples.
That pointed to a far more likely culprit, education as a whole (not just women’s). South Korea and Japan can’t seem to stop "investing in the future" by making their and their kids’ lives hell. Naturally, to escape the vicious cycle, they end up abolishing the future.
Isn’t it weird that a prominent justification for making money in our society is ‘sending my kids to college’? Anyone who refuses to do so is shamed with accusations of selfishness and not wanting their kids to succeed. They then choose the alternative path where kids aren’t even in the picture, so they’re free to be selfish in peace. We’re copenhagen ethics-ing humanity into slow painless extinction.
Trads like to assign the blame to female education, but most of the arguments apply to men as well. People are wasting 5-15 years of their lives on a very expensive vacation, at best, when they could be having kids. We want them to make that important decision early, and nothing sobers a young man quicker than staring decades of drudgery in the face.
It’s time to abandon our rosy view of Education as just an intolerable burden on the living. The unborn are its primary victims. Your children cry out: “Mum! Dad! Why do you let my Evil Professor keep me here? Why can’t I liiive? “
Say No To School. Choose Life.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
The ways of the world are mysterious, my friend. You’re somewhat progressive. Do you approve of what has become of reddit? They certainly ‘keep up’ with 'what people find offensive', but people who hate each other's ideas can't seem to talk there. I don’t want this model of discourse applied here, no matter how popular or historically inevitable it is.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
When you’re done figuring that one out, let us know where themotte would be today without the involvement of jewish men. Presumably there would be even more of these boring questions hinting at nefarious jewish influence, but how is that even possible.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Will climate change negatively affect crop yields? Has it already?
The wiki article on climate change seems to think so:
Climate change is affecting food security. It has caused reduction in global yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010.
This links to IPCC 2019:
At the global scale, Iizumi et al. (2018) used a counterfactual analysis and found that climate change between 1981 and 2010 has decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to preindustrial climate, even when CO2 fertilisation and agronomic adjustments are considered.
More on them later. But first, a little detour in the land of reality.
They obviously need all kinds of counterfactuals, because crop yields have greatly increased during that period. Plants generally love heat and CO2, and the earth is greening.
How then did lizumi et al get their results? Basically, they compared the simulations on a model on the yield of various crops under a no climate change (A) and with climate change (B) scenario, taking out the technological improvements. This would be fair enough (if you like models) , but the results show little to no difference (advantage B for rice and wheat, advantage A for maize and soybean).
So they added a third simulation out of nowhere, where they told the model to keep the CO2 to 1850 level (thus artificially lowering the yield the model predicts), but all the rest is like B (simulation C) . Then they averaged the bullshit C value with B and compared that to A, where A finally looked good.
Red mountain: The model‘s ‚unaided‘ answer B.
Blue mountain: random nonsense C.
Grey mountain: Unholy mixture they can now pass off to the IPCC as „considering CO2 fertilisation“ because hey, it‘s only half-garbage.
Because the amplitude of the observed CO2 fertilization varies with the field conditions and crop cultivars (Ainsworth et al., 2008; Hasegawa et al., 2013), the estimated impacts of the theoretical CO2 fertilization may be more optimistic than the actual outcome.
Or more pessimistic. Where‘s my all-else-equal 600 ppm simulation I can mix with B for a nice yield boost?
If you don‘t like the results of your model, don‘t mess with the „uncertain“ variables until it spits out the answer you’re looking for.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
It comes with a lot more social cachet, but revealed preferences tell another story. The substitute doesn’t need to be superior in every way to displace the original, it starts on the margins. And the margin is some costly, impractical, subpar sexual encounter versus a costless, unbounded, coolidge-effect boosted masturbation fantasy. But there will always be a niche for real sex purists, like the people who weave their own clothes.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
No. You have more links.
Also, I can tell the difference because I don’t auto-skip the rest of your paragraphs. I did get through the title though, and “OUR ENEMY IS BIOLOGICAL” sounds like another departed manifestoposter whose greatest hit went: ‘OUR STRUGGLE WITH CHINA IS RACIAL”. Is this an alt right verbal tic?
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
Squeamishness often covers a lie. We tell children that their beloved pets have gone to a happy farm. The meat comes from the store. The death row criminal humanely goes to sleep. Extreme squeamishness requires euphemisms which compromise the truth, our model of the world.
Unlike igi, I do think there are other sources of morality, but still the emotional punch associated with death and violence is morally helpful, and should not be easily sidestepped. Or one day we could find ourselves processing units when we are in fact murdering people.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
I don’t see how. As a political group, they’re a status quo anchor with heavy susceptibility to ‘care-based’ arguments and other immature, conventional justifications. You can’t use them as trailblazers and schock troops. They’ll just follow the mass of winners and push them a bit further by inertia. One should always emphasize self-interest, conformity, and good intentions when speaking to large groups of women, but that also applies to large groups of men (where it is referred to as ‘populism’).
The power of women as political actors is overrated. Like black people and other ‘oppressed’ groups, their privileged legal position and the prestige they enjoy in mainstream discourse is not down to anything they did, it has been granted to them by others, and can be taken away.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
It's only an open question for those who don't pay attention. Responding to jewdefender in earnest is the 4chan equivalent of taking the bait. Newbies take this one-sided charade at face value, while from a higher vantage point, the hard right only dupes itself. That would be alright with me, if it didn’t lower the quality of discourse in the process. To be fair to oblivious newbies, they probably expect a guy with such a long and unquestionable history of bad faith (just to name one, his deletion of all his old comments to prevent just that discovery) on here to be banned, as he should.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Uncharitably, they've been horribly mutilated with no way back, and the only way to justify what was done to them is to perpetuate it.
Like circumcision, except they don’t stop at the tip. If you have your daughter’s genitals mutilated because of your weird-ass sexual beliefs, you’re either the worst most cruel backwards reactionary or a brave progressive fighter against that same oppression.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
I’d just attack the central point: the average man has *more *agency than in the past, and the leaders are reluctant because the followers are rebellious. Who wants to babysit a hundred Han Solos? In the land where every man is king, who wears a crown?
The forces we are subject to are distant indeed, nothing like the brutal personalized hierarchy of the past. If our literature celebrated a slavish reverence for authority, should we really conclude that all is well with our dear leaders?
Does our fiction say anything about our society?
Obligatory anti-woke rant: I’m not sure we’re going to be able to do art criticism much longer, since so much of recent art is corrupted by the artist’s conscious metadecision to ask that same question ‘what is this piece saying about our society?’ . What can a soviet or nazi morality tale tell us about their societies? Not much more than what they wanted us to think. It would be ludicrous to claim that soviet realist movies reflect the reality that soviet man felt oppressed by capitalism. In that vein, perhaps the iliad is nothing more than the condemnation/exhortation of a mirage, rather than a reflection of something real.
You can get a view of the late 19th century from reading zola, but that was already ‘committed literature’, so it’s hard for me to take it at face value. It’s only on the edges, far from an author’s central message, that there is truth. The more ideologically cleaned up works of fiction are, the least can be gathered from their study. They told me the role of art was to change the world, but I wanted it described, and perhaps embellished.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
One reason for the discrepancy is there was some gaslighting on the inflation. First they said it wasn’t happening, then that it was transitory. They were dragged kicking and screaming into raising rates, which they swore would strangle growth and reduce employment. Now they bring these low-ball inflation numbers , which mathematically result in higher real growth, and people have trouble believing it. Understandable, as no one understands what’s happening, but some are still pretending. Mainstream economists are using this baffling economic situation to argue they were right the whole time, as if being wrong twice makes you right.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
At any rate, it would be a bit awkward if adding more mods didn't result in more moderation decisions
Hence my wondering why that multiplication of entities was necessary. If the previous state was decent, it’s now overpoliced. I’ve always preferred even less moderation, and I complained occasionnally, especially when those getting moderated were arguing against me at the time.
I find Kulak and BC entertaining, they even have a point at times, I am studiously mute on certain others, but Kulak didn't get banned (last time I checked), merely warned
But warnings go on the record, then when you ban them you implacably cite the warnings in some grand narrative of misbehaviour.
BC is an out-and-proud fan of drama who got away with a lot before a time out.
His opinions are merely a mirror of extreme pro-white viewpoints that are popular here. There is no realistic way to present his honest opinions in here without coming across as hostile, ‘baiting’, ‘trolling’, etc. Not that I endorse his opinions in the slightest: they are probably the furthest away from my own than anyone’s here (my last ban was for a blasphemous response to him).
I think you mean rdrama.net
There’s gotta be more. Are all the forums dead, do people just comment on substacks, or youtube?
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
A), it's still their responsibility, even if I have a residual advisory duty to help them avoid death.
B), I have no such moral duty to prevent strangers and friends alike from having sex.
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
because as my evidence prof put it "Either Rape law is wrong or evidence law is wrong, but they can't both be correct." The standard of evidence demanded in rape law is so far below the standard demanded in virtually every other felony that the result is absurd
Right.
I want to highlight a stark ideological divergence on the motte: people here often vaguely criticize the modern ‘framework of consent’. It brings to mind feminist consent-a-outrance ideas, where second-to-second affirmative consent in the presence of a notary is the current_year standard for wholesome sex. Haha, so ridiculous, let’s all bond over another pinkhair joke. Wrong. We are not the same. We’re bitter enemies, laughing from opposite sides.
In one corner, the defenders of the rights of the accused , like your prof. They think the exceptional burden on the accused to prove innocence, and therefore consent, is already far too heavy. That people now routinely record consent on their phones before sex out of fear, is a clear sign that the state is way out of line, taking liberties with people’s liberties.
In the other, radfems and traditionalists, who don’t think women’s consent matters at all. Women may keep the neighbours awake with their enthusiastic consent, but they don’t know what’s good for them (abstinence) , they’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy or coerced by men’s greater physical force . Any non-lesbian, non-procreative sex is prima facie proof of grave societal failure, all hanky-panky pacts are null and void, all people who had unauthorized fun should be punished period.
So the first group laughs at pinkhair’s onerous consent norms because the accused should long have been acquitted, and the second laughs because the accused should long have been condemned.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Ah yes they must have sensed it. It’s the old vaginatron morality detector versus women like assholes theory. I will say that nastyness towards social inferiors is not disqualifying men as sexual partners. I think both sides overrate morality as a factor in sexual success.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Or 0, if you're Nietzschean or Gibbonian. After all, their statue avatars aren't from the renaissance. Some go as far back as pericles. A true rightist would tell you it was all over by middle kingdom egypt. A real masculinity appreciator knows that when man domesticated animals, he domesticated himself. Conservatives worthy of the name would consider the first instance of gardening as the seminal defeat. While serious traditionalists point to the start of gathering as the crowning triumph of Left, inc.
There’s enough mra-adjacent types like me here that circumcision is sometimes denounced, but it is true that it is also often defended under the aegis of ‘religious freedom’ , the ‘value of tradition’, and what I view as a more legitimate justification, parental authority (though even granting total parental authority rights, it does not excuse their moral fault). That’s why I brought it up, two birds one stone.
And there’s an extra problem for trans supporters: They deny parental authority, so that justification collapses. It’s bad enough if your neighbours mutilate their children, but here the trans claim the right to mutilate yours (for their own good, of course).
As to the consent justification, children are somehow incapable of consenting to using their genitals once, but capable of consenting to destroying them for their whole life?
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I'd consider myself a left leaning authoritarian neo-liberal if anything.
I don’t think it’s liberal of you to support the punching of innocents.
Aren’t authoritarianism and liberalism usually opposed to one another? Authoritarian neo-liberalism sounds like the ultimate booword every political party says they oppose. Or maybe it’s Pinochet.
Reddit should do what the owners of Reddit want it to do, that is the point of ownership.
Cop-out. You have no opinion on the choices they made, and the state of our old home? How would you, as the legitimate owner, moderate it?
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
For the New Atheists, Christianity was the out-group.
Nah, that’s not it. Harris and Dawkins took tons of shit from A+ and the rest for being ‘islamophobic’. They know full well that Islam is far worse than Christianity (or Jainism, to take Harris’ favourite comparison), they just aren’t ready to compromise on liberalism (eg, free speech and immigration restrictions on muslims). They hope that liberalism will work like it has worked so many times before, even as it faces a more formidable enemy. An enemy whose primary weapon, death for apostates and critics, is designed to counter liberalism’s weapon, free speech. Sadly, I think the compromise is necessary. The risk is just not worth it.
Technically Hlynka's salad also lumps in all of the center, social democrats, neoliberals, classical liberals, in with the wokes and reactionaries. Basically it's just him, the ghost of hobbes, and the soul of america, versus everyone else.
More options
Context Copy link