fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I don't see how there's anything morally suspect about wanting to stop the fertility industry.
Well you know what they say, the future belongs to those who show up. But you do you.
Once in a while, when we talk, you end up saying something like "how do you not realize I'n far-right".
Do you have a galaxy-brained take on curious straight's true allegiance? He may be a progressive heretic in far right clothing, but I'm sure his progressive friends would think he's far right, and that's good enough for me.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Well, no, because a jury actually hears all the evidence and arguments, a process which most of the voting public will never bother with.
Let's have his trials in republican strongholds, then. I'm serious, this would make a conviction ten times as legitimate and vastly reduce my objections.
'They' Control the Supreme Court and the House and most state Senates where actual things that affect people's daily lives get passed. 'They' have had huge wins in the past decade across all kinds of political domains, including the abortion victory 'they' claimed to care so much about or decades.
If they are so powerful, why would you risk antagonizing them by repeatedly going after their leader? All the more reason to maintain the fragile peace of democracy.
Of these, only black people have actually done anything about it in recent memory, because the actual material conditions of their lives are bad enough that it's worth the risk.
There is no clear relationship between oppression and propension to riot. Slaves rarely revolted. Perhaps the tulsa race riot proves that whites were oppressed. Or Kristallnacht tells us something about the material conditions aryans were forced to live in.
People riot because they can get something out of it, because they can get away with it, and often, for the hell of it.
I did talk to him by the time of the first discussion, and he denied omnipresence.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I think it's sarcasm. Would you have accepted a no?
I see you're going to force me to do the comparative analysis. The style is different. He does not relate to you or anyone else as if he knew you, personally. Arguments-wise as well, he talks as if he just came from reddit and shows no familiarity with our way of thinking ("Sorry, I can't even parse this" "Like, literally, what are you talking about?"), his attitude is naively pedagogic. Darwin had long lost that innocence and was more into point-scoring.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What is informative in Bonds is the distinction the court drew between the freedom of contract found in ordinary commercial contracts and the existence of limitations in marital agreements.
A-ha! Perhaps you can skirt it by not calling it marriage? One the one hand they completely de-sacralize the thing, on the other they want to impose their own rigid interpretation of what marriage should be. I say go all the way and pretend it’s an ordinary commercial contract between economic entities that might as well be corporations. This is not legal advice.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Rafa’s half-american and atypical in any case. This all started when an american claimed a dozen eggs costs 11 dollars. Europeans are not aware of this, much less speculating on it, so leave us out of it. If I had to throw a guess for the somewhat higher prices, it would be the massive choice americans seem to prefer. Aldi and lidl are famous for cutting costs by having only one or two of each thing, but even regular european supermarkets do not compare to the diversity offered by american supermarkets in peanut butter flavours and the like.
Prosecuting Caesar always struck me as a bad idea. Perhaps an ideal, extremely robust democracy could get away with it. At present, I don't think the US is it.
Let’s assume he is guilty, and let’s also assume that 30-40% of the country doesn’t believe he is (apparently 85% of republicans don’t think he should be prosecuted). Shouldn’t a hypothetical, nationally representative jury, nullify the charges?
I too am annoyed by loose threats of terrorism, such as ‘if you don’t give young men sex/poor people money/if you police black people/etc, they will rise up’, but Carlson’s prediction of violence is justified here. If the ballot box and the jury box fail (edit: I forgot, perhaps the most egregious of all, also denied the soapbox when democrats cheered when he was kicked off twitter), what box do they have left? They are, ultimately, a large faction of armed men (like the democrats). Their power to inflict violence should be respected (and democracy, at heart, very much respects it). Their opponents do not have to accede to their every demand, but they should definitely refrain from putting their leader in prison. It constitutes a direct challenge to the war-making potential on which their political power rests, and as such invites the battle democracy is supposed to avoid.
Vast amounts. Forceful arguments based on tradition, existing law, the way things are usually done, a nebulous yet permanent human nature that can never be overcome, the obvious benefits of the status quo and the horrendous costs of change. It’s somewhat less hypocritical for conservatives to use these arguments though*. Besides, they are not entirely devoid of merit, in a limited form.
edit: * although I guess it's also somewhat hypocritical for conservatives to ask for a radical change in immigration policy or whatever, when they usually abhor change.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Why? It’s a minority, therefore unlikely, but not too unlikely, prediction, with fateful consequences. I’d get it. Anyway, all people remember about that flick is that it was blue, and Tom Cruise drinking green milk and running after eyeballs.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Minority Reports?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Ukraine could also win from a black swan event that toppled Putin and caused chaos in Russian leadership, which looks unlikely until it isn't.
Stop calling it a black swan event. A 1-10% probability event, like say, the chess or tennis number one player losing to number ten, is not a black swan event. Putin could easily die, or he could lose support, as he is well aware of, hence his reluctance to mobilize. It's all very predictable, unlike a black swan event, which would be something like aliens invading, forcing ukraine and russia to work together to repel the outsider.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
And at that point you might as well pretend you’ll live on through your amoeba cousins.
I prefer to half-seriously believe everyone goes to heaven for no reason at all.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
This is exactly what viewpoint censorship looks like. Nothing but a hodgepodge of accusations that amount to not loving the gays enough in one’s heart. This is really great if you're trying to foster a fearful atmosphere, where no one really knows where the line is, and any denunciation against a neighbour can bear fruit.
Let's say someone wanted to cancel/censor you or me. In the absence of a smoking gun, the prosecution would provide vast disparate swaths of comments and we'd be endlessly arguing about the context.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
All the IS(is) pop-ups?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What were the comments? This reporting is ludicrous. You might say the media gladly provides the censorship the state ultimately refrained from.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Revenge is a morally fraught motivation, though. I’d like him to be completely in the clear morally: it’s both unambigous self-defense, and the bad guys are evil. The reason why a scenario like that is rare in fiction, is that society considers the use of violence, especially killing, to corrupt one’s soul. I don’t agree: just because we have delegated the killing to cops and soldiers, doesn’t mean we can remain clean. The blood they spill is on our hands too.
Society recognizes three categories: the innocent sheep, and then the violent, which are separated into two: evil wolves and somewhat good shepherd dogs (or as Team america puts it: pussies, assholes, and dicks). In all those movies you mentioned, the badass protagonists have been corrupted by their violence previously, they’re dogs in sheep’s clothing at the beginning, they are not like the viewer. I’d like the accountant to be, and to remain, a sheep. With bloody teeth.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Or from his POV: He’s an accountant, he’s not used to violence. He at first yields to the antagonist’s every demand, he’s terrified. Then when he realizes he has no out and his family is threatened, he doesn’t get angry and turns into the badass he was in a previous life like in those movies, he just sheepishly starts researching murder on the internet (not on his own computer, he’s not stupid). He commits murder like he would fix his own toilet: at first bumbling and disgusted, then relieved and proud of his accomplishment.
Meanwhile the bad guys assume literally anyone else murdered their accomplice. But for some reason they keep hassling him. By the fifth murder he’s become so blasé about the whole process that his cover is starting to slip (“Sure, I’ll pay you off, no problem, I love my family, I don’t want any trouble. Meet me in the middle of the forest with two large garbage bags and a shovel“).
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Or the other fictional Mike, Corleone. It's strongly implied his military background and familiarity with efficient, utilitarian killing gives him a massive edge in gang wars.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Do you expect me to stop stating my opinion because you disagreed with it?
No. I just don't want themotte as a whole to declare that guesswho is obviously darwin by popular consensus. ie, register my disagreement.
And JD was false flagging,copypasting, deleting his comments the day after making them. His violations were imo far more damaging to the discourse here than guesswho's. There's nothing really wrong with guesswho's comment, aside that he's wrong. Just let people argue against him without bringing the rules into it.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What really bothered me about thenether/jewdefender/foreverlurker/cake/motteposter is that he pretended to be left when he was in fact far right. In this case, if true, it’s just a progressive pretending to be another progressive. That’s not really bad faith, it doesn’t distort every discussion, so I'm less motivated to call it out.
In the original thread on darwin, I already told you that I considered your accusations of strawmanning and bad faith towards him to be light, if not baseless. And my opinion has not been changed after you nearly accused me of similar behaviour.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I had stuff like the new account popping up one day after the last alt, numerous deleted comments that were copypasted antisemitic ramblings in contrast with naive denunciations of antisemitism, turns of phrase that could only be uttered by an alt-righter, etc.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Well yeah, because I had evidence. As I recall, you and other doubting commenters ended up admitting the behaviour I denounced was, at the very least, quite suspect.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
It is in fact very common for progressives outside of this space. I’m not going to do a deep comparative behavioural analysis because it’s not worth it, I’d just caution you and others against the “assumptive closure” of assigning this identity “as obviously common-sense “.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Nothing is less obvious. What’s your evidence? He’s a progressive…. who strawmans. Which is another way of saying he does not hold the average opinion of the sub in high regard, which is normal for a progressive. So your only piece of evidence is that he’s a progressive.
That is the weirdness of such arguments. What will showing up prove? That you were morally right, that you have retroactively won in a hypothetical future none of us will know? It strikes me as the inverse of : 'in the past, we all lived in a communist pacifist matriarchical cooperative', but even less subject to contrary evidence. Ownership of the past and future need not concern us. The future is a foreign country.
Neither does the Bluehair. Are you going to deny him his identity and his far right card, unless he goes trad? If you object to his characterization of himself on definitional grounds, that's one thing, but if you're just gatekeeping and trying to up the social pressure as a political act, I must object under freedom of association.
As far as I'm concerned, he can always tag along on the road to Bremen, where we shall sing for our bread.
More options
Context Copy link