If anything, tradwives are the shadow selves of egirls and thots: the two reciprocally determine each other within the same memetic system, and that system doesn't make a lot of sense beyond online porn.
I think in the memetic sense the tradwife is just LARP of an of 1950ies image of a wife - looking sexy while baking cookies and cleaning the house. It absolutely misses the point for surface level aesthetics. You could probably pay Aella or any other whore enough to wrap them in 50ies garb and have them bake you cookies or clean the floor before sucking your dick. In fact various maid or stepmom porn tropes are working with that theme.
Traditional wife in real sense is a wife who is virtuous, embodying female virtues of humility, nurturing, dignified in purity etc. It is absolutely okay for instance for traditional wife to go and work while caring for her sick husband. The actual virtues have almost no connection to the image provided by this new tradwife movement, which I'd characterize as some attempt of entrapment of men by wicked women just using different means. A horsehoe theory of certain strains of feminism and conservativism meeting at the same point if you will.
Productivity is another very sad word that is used in economics while having also colloquial meaning. Productivity is a simple economic concept meaning how much money you earned by selling products and services you produced, nothing more, nothing less. It has weird implications like for instance a janitor working for Goldman Sachs in one of their office buildings being more productive than a janitor in 3rd world country or even in government building as the former has higher wage and company he works for rakes in more revenue and profit. If you invented something amazing but made it free, your productivity did not increase. If million other people took your invention and used it to improve their bottom line, it is calculated independently. If you look at it, it is not as strange as it seems. In broad sense productivity per person is increased by using capital. In a sense living in a large city with sophisticated infrastructure enabling various network effects makes everybody more productive even if they moved there yesterday and did not contribute anything building that infrastructure.
But of course productivity also has colloquial meaning, which than translates to various value judgements talking about things like bullshit jobs, how government jobs are nonproductive or how it is unfair that two workers working with the same machine producing the same number of parts should be considered as similarly productive.
By the way there are many such "economics" words and concepts that have the same issue of being a technical term while also having normal colloquial meaning - even basic ones such as capital, savings, the act of saving, investment and many more. It also does not help that even economists or journalists are using these meanings interchangeably thus needlessly confusing the whole discussion.
georgioz
1mo ago
In the "are we dating the same guy" case the old time equivalent is that enough people know each other, and talk to each other often enough, that someone will see your Jack out at a bar across town with some girl who isn't you and if they don't tell you they'll tell someone who will tell someone who will tell you.
I don't know. You can stand in the middle of some plaza and preach your thing - faith healing for COVID, hand out materials describing how Israel is controlling things etc. There may be thousands of people going around and you face no problem. As soon as you do it on Facebook, the situation turns. In fact this is what I am afraid of - that the norms from digital spaces will seep over to the meat world. Who prevents government to use drones and CCTV to process all the speech and video and then send police after you as if you committed your "offense" in digital world. Heck, with everybody having cell phones recording your speech it can easily turn that way without your awareness donglegate style.
georgioz
1mo ago
When thinking about this issues, I always try to find some old time equivalent and how would it go. For instance in the past would it be legal to make an advertisement in local news that next Tuesday there will be a meeting in a local club where anybody can discuss John Smith on the photo? Then you will have 20 people attending, drinking beer and talking shit about John. Is this something that you would consider as libel and prosecute local newspaper who printed such an advert? What if the advert was just printed paper that some person threw into mailboxes of the neighborhood? Is it some sort of punishable activity?
Now I understand that there is a difference in scale between digital and paper media, but I am still quite perplexed how quickly people bow to authoritarian powers if it is related to internet. For instance privacy of correspondence is a human right under article 12 of UN declaration of human rights. But apparently email and chat communication is arbitrarily not part of it. The same here - talking shit about somebody with friends in a pub is absolutely something that is normal human experience for millennia. But suddenly talking shit on the internet is some sort of punishable evil?
There is something that rubs me the wrong way, mostly that normalizing these heavy handed approaches may quickly turn from digital world to meat world.
Women simply do not inflict violence of the sort that actually physically harms someone, compared to men.
You do not find women often in the trenches of wars. But you will find them very often acting violently when the situation stabilizes and they have ability do do petty violence safely. Famously Mao's cultural revolution was heavily supported by women, who had at least 50% membership in Red Guards. They were amongst the most ferocious when it came to struggle sessions, parades - including parading with severed limbs of victims etc.
I'd say that women are much worse when it comes to controlling their violent impulses compared to men as they were never socialized for it, in fact they are often initiating physical violence such as slaps etc. The only mitigating factor is that they are weak. But if they are put in safe place of power such as owning slaves, they are perfectly capable of extreme cruelty and torture. The same goes for other natural experiments. For instance in countries where corporeal punishment of children in education is legal, female teachers have no compunction physically abusing their students. The whole schtick about fairer sex is a myth, I'd argue that men are more benevolent compared to women accounting for strength difference. If the situation turned and women were stronger than men, I do not think that men would have it nearly as good as women have it now under patriarchy.
And French never even justifies his theory that the justice system we have today is peak justice, he mentions Jim Crow and ignores the staggering level of black-on-white crime the US enjoys today.
There are black people like Jesse Lee Peterson who even say that blacks had it better under Jim Crow laws compared to what they have today. Especially when looking at crime, family dynamics, fertility and abortion, drug and alcohol abuse etc. The argument is not dissimilar to what is often heard from South Africa after fall of apartheid and impact on living situation of black majority.
He loved them and his criticism was ultimately aimed at trying to bring them to change their ways. The same cannot be said of Trump.
So you now see into his heart? In fact mocking rhetoric and satire is very effective in getting the message across at least to stop other people from doing what you consider as a bad or immoral behaviour. Mockery even related to flatulence or excrements was often used even in the Bible, e.g. in Kings where prophet Micaiah mockingly basically tells false prophet Zedekiah, that he gets his prophecies when he shits on the toilet - that his prophecies are farts and shit. As other said, Martin Luther himself was quite enamored with flatulence and excrement, often using it as a rhetorical device such as when he wrote that pope Paul III farts so loudly, that it is a wonder he did not tear his asshole. There are number of saints, theologians and martyrs, who were not afraid to use mockery of sin, satire or even literal shit jokes and similar rhetoric to spread the word of the Lord and save souls.
Anyways I get it that you may be some sort of pearl clutching Christian, who may be horrified with such a crass thing like a shit joke. You do you - but do not pretend that it represents the prevailing stance of other Christians. Which by the way may also go against the second commandment of taking the Lords name in vain in contrast with some random shit joke, as you present your own personal pet peeve as if you are speaking for all Christians. Nothing could be farther away from truth.
Don't also forget Jesus Christ himself, who talked shit all the time especially about Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, brood of vipers or children of hell. He called moneychangers in the Temple as robbers. Paul was also great shittalker, such as when he said to Elymas: You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. He was also great at sarcasm like Galatians 5:12 when he basically told the agitators pushing for circumcision that they should go all the way and cut off all their junk. On top of that he named those agitators as dogs and evildoers - I'd say he would say the same to anybody pushing for transitions for instance. The other time Paul bragged how he handed ones Alexander and Hymenaeus over to Satan in order to teach them not to blaspheme.
This emasculated Christianity, when some of them are concerned by words such as poop is absolutely ridiculous. Sarcasm and harsh rhetoric especially when condemning sin definitely has place in Christianity.
I see rights as a legit expression of commitment to/hope that there are some core rules of human morality that transcend any particular legal system and that deserve to be incorporated into every legal system by one means or another.
I am not sure. Take my example with murder which is almost universally prosecuted across time and cultures. Do people think about murderers in terms of them acting against some inherent right? Does it add anything into the conversation above universally accepted moral stance of murder is bad? And even then there are some examples, where polity can actually define conditions around which killing us unlawful and thus constitutes a murder and which one is lawful and condoned - e.g. killing as part of death sentence or assassinating head of terrorist organization with a bomb etc. It is not as if we are talking about something inherent and inalienable, there are always conditions around it.
I think that what rights really represent culturally is a declaration of some secular or civic version of religious dogma. Politicians - either national or those sitting in UN - are akin to council of bishops or rabbis and theologians, who from time to time sit together and make some moral proclamation that abortions or something like that is now okay and in fact anybody stopping them is anathema to the church polity and will be punished. They have theological discussion about morality of current rights and how to do proper exegesis of the holy text of Constitution or Bill of Rights or even if to outright amend it. But the authority lies with them, the rights in this sense are given and not inherent and definitely not inalienable.
What I want to say is that I do not recognize this authority of rights as some universal morality, to me rights are just present set of laws or maybe as you said a present set of aspirations of lawmakers. I will for instance never in a million years morally recognize anything like right to abortion in this moral sense no matter how many wise men try to persuade me or how many people use it as a slogan on the street. Othere people let's say do not recognize right to bear arms or other rights.
Additionally I do not like the vocabulary of rights exactly because it is pure language of entitlement absent duty. Good society with good laws and even rights is result of hard work. If the society is bad then all you are entitledto is misery.
How does that distinguish rights from the concept of morality itself?
My view on this is that the law is minimum of morals, while rights are just extra strongly worded form of laws. What I object is some wordplay - or equivocation - on the side of secularists, as if rights have some higher grounding and are to be implicitly followed. Let's use some example, most civilization have morality against murder encoded into their laws. Does then make any sense to say, that you have a right not to be murdered? I don't think so, murder is already prosecuted, stating it as a right does not add anything. And yet people talk about right to housing or free healthcare and other things as if they are stronger in this sense.
They are just language frames used to express commitments and to systematically boo/yay different types of behaviour.
Exactly, that is my point. Rights is just a strong word aimed to provoke some emotional response, nothing more, nothing less. It is just strongly worded preference - you have right to abortion, you have right to body autonomy, you have right to free healthcare, you have right to freedom of movement etc. But there is no grounding for it other than that some people just feel strongly about this, and that they wish to impose it on society. Maybe Aztecs could have worded that everybody has right to be protected from wrath of Huītzilōpōchtli by sacrificing slaves.
Additionally even in in practice this is just a mirage - anybody who lived through COVID should already understand that this is all just fiction, the situation can change on a dime and former right is nullified just like that. There is no thunder from the sky striking somebody taking your supposed right away.
All this is to demonstrate, that there are no "inherent" or "inaliebable" rights especially from secularist perspective. The only way it would make sense is to describe some physical reality - e.g. you have an inherent "right" to fall when you jump. Otherwise it does not make any sense, there is no inherentness or inalienability for any actual rights as these are just some judicial constructs subject to change, indifference and all these kind of things.
georgioz
2mo ago
Certain rights are (imho) inherent and inalienable. For example, no matter if your IQ is 150 or 50, if you are age 1 or 120, you have (imho) a right not to be tortured.
All rights are conditional and they are broken all the time. E.g. the torture right was famously broken in Guantanamo, many people consider things like prolonged solitary imprisonment as torture. Other people also argue that not having access to euthanasia constitutes a torture etc. In my opinion rights are neither inherent or inalienable. They are just strongly worded laws, they can be changed or added or removed - there literally is a process of amending US bill of rights or UN declaration of Human Rights etc.
Andrew Wilson also famously often points out the essence of rights - right is just entitlement absent duty. The problem is that the entitlement has to be enforced. In that sense any right depends on willingness of other people - either private persons or more often governments - to act. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then poof - your right is gone.
Additionally in my experience the whole language around rights is just secular version of religious dogmas, a feeble attempt to ground the secular ideology in some wordplay. Saying a slogan X is a right seems as if it is something transcendental and grounded, not that it is just made up idea that has no basis other than as a tautology.
georgioz
2mo ago
As other people said, this falls under the uniformity and following the rules and orders. The same goes for appearance and maintenance of the uniform or other rituals such as what is proper attention posture or salute. Having exceptions undermines this ethos of cohesion. If you cannot be bothered to trim your beard and cry for exceptions, how can you be trusted to follow actually difficult military orders when it comes to literal life and death situations.
georgioz
2mo ago
Okay, I stand corrected and embarrassed. I will leave the comment as mark of my shame :D
georgioz
2mo ago
It really strikes me just how possibly staggering these findings are, yet they're completely unknown by your average member of the public - at least one that isn't highly interested in archaeology or Egyptology.
I followed youtuber Metatron who spoke about that couple of months ago. As for "average member of public", they may be more aware than you think - except they maybe know more about it Ancient Aliens style.
It is likely harder to assimilate in the modern world where immigrant populations are not cut off as opposed to the old world. So pointing to historic examples of assimilation do not hold for today because the factors have changed.
This is exactly right. During the early 1900s the fertility rate of the population in USA was around 3.5 children per woman. At the same time there were around 13.5 million immigrants living in the USA out of the population of 92 million, so approximately 14%. The birth rate was over 30 per 1,000 population or around 2,7 million a year. So the total population of immigrants in USA after spurt in late 1800s and early 1900s was equivalent of 5 years of births. And even then it stretched the resources eventually leading to Immigration Act of 1924 limiting the immigration, the 1910 was actually the peak year of immigration share which fell down to 5% in 1970. In 2025 the total population of immigrants is around 50 million - or around 16% out of 340 million - with 3,6 million births in 2024. So we are talking about 14 years of natural births in the nation.
Additionally early 20th century was magical for USA as it was the era of birth of mass media especially radio and television at the tail end of successfully finishing the Manifest Destiny project. Also US won two world wars and the nation swam in prestige and patriotic fervor, which massively helped with US ethnogenesis as we see it now. I'd say that capacity of the nation to accept immigration is regulated by proportion of immigrants compared to natural replacement of domestic people paired with the ability to project cultural dominance and assimilate these foreign immigrants. The interesting thing about progressive policies is that they are actively working against both, but definitely against the assimilation with their multi-culti salad bowl ideology.
and (the textbook example) shouting "fire" in a crowded theater
This one always sounded very weak to me, mostly because what if there actually is fire in a crowded theater? Apparently even the sentence itself is incorrect compared to the original which also included the word falsely. It is also interesting to see, that the same argument was used in 1919 against somebody protesting draft service in WW1 under enforcement of Espionage Act and his anti-draft speech was likened to falsely crying fire.
Not exactly a stellar argument either historically or even on its face.
I am centrist when it comes to the topic of abortion. On one hand I am thrilled with the idea of killing unborn babies, but on the other hand I am not willing to let women decide anything.
In Germany, police in full riot gear, e.g. during demonstrations, do not wear name tags, but they do wear numerical codes. If any police misconduct happens, that means that the court can find out who is the officer in the video.
Even there you have number of masked units under SEK and MEK task forces which wear masks and baklavas exactly to prevent their identification by criminal organizations in order to protect their private life. And this is also not exactly rare - even in the article, these units conducted over 500 operations a year in Berlin alone - so we are probably talking about 10+ operations daily across Germany.
Given that ICE is actually also conducting their operations in environment where there is literal presence of professional smugglers and cartels, protecting their identity is not something I'd say is out of bounds. This recent shooting as well as attack on officers before only prove the point.
I'd put it as very high, probably 80% plus. They were the first who mobilized their army in secret with first preparatory actions such as calling reservists and readying railroads as early as July 24th, with partial mobilization on July 28th and full mobilization on July 30th. The issue is that the mobilization was at the time something like launching ICBMs - once you start, it is almost impossible to reverse as it would leave that country vulnerable to attack from the other side. Mobilization included plans of trains, supplies, weapons, armies moving around the country. You could not just stop it on a whim.
In fact as soon as Germans learned of this days later they panicked and launched all their plans several key days later and the rest came as a domino. Interestingly enough, the fact that Russians mobilized earlier meant that Germans actually had to send some troops on Eastern front even before they won incredible victory at Battle of Tannenberg, which made the push to Paris weaker and quite likely cost Germans the war. If the situation was different and Germans were actually the ones who would just mobilize and strike first - as they are actually described by history anyways - they would have been in much better position strategically and tactically
Yes. WW1 was not inevitable, in fact it was not inevitable even after the assassination. Even before the WW1 there was Agadir crisis of 1911 or Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and those were resolved peacefully. There was also constant shift in alliances and circumstances - such as Germany basically admitting that they lost the naval arms race with Britain which worked to lower the tensions.
The world before WW1 was highly complex and multipolar one, where each great power had multiple goals often with different opponents. In fact the tragedy of WW1 is that most nations stumbled into it due to various factors, especially the momentum of mobilization that made the clash inevitable. The events got out of hand and all sides of the conflict ended up with a situation that they did not want to see. If there was some other reason - even something in Balkans - that set out the conflict, it could end up with completely different results.
“write Anti-ICE messages”
Haha, this reminded me of the story where somebody was in charge of creating some company gift with print order of something like Microsoft in font Segoe UI. Needless to say, this was literally what got printed on the gift :D It ended up as highly sought after memorabilia for company veterans.
georgioz
2mo ago
Kamala seemed kind enough
How did she show her kindness? She was not a nurse or a mom of large family or anything like that. Quite the opposite - she has no children of her own and she worked as a prosecutor. Not exactly a profession I would mark as kind. I also remember this video where she was invited for some talk with kids as part of NASA space week. At best she came out as cringe, at worst she had a vibe of slightly drunk and slightly unhinged childless auntie.
Is there something that I missed where she was very warm, loving and humane?
georgioz
2mo ago
Hmm, Merriam-Webster dictionary definition
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
My example of heroin addict perfectly fits this dictionary definition.
georgioz
2mo ago
I don't consider it one of the "weakest ones" and I often find that people trying to argue against hypocrisy are extremely low credibility
You do not even get the point, which is that even people arguing for hypocrisy are 100% hypocritical in some of their beliefs. In that sense they argue against their own argument.
The central example is obviously something more like people taking a pseudo-neutral stance of a rule while applying it only one way in practice
So you have never in your life do anything like that ever? If you did, you are a hypocrite and thus you should stop arguing by your own admission. Unless I am talking to the second incarnation of Jesus Christ.
I know about this controversy much more than I should have, mostly by following Asmongold on this. At the end of it I think Hasan really used shock collar on his dog. I do not have "evidence" at this point as I really did not assemble all the clips, but I will throw it here:
There is much more than just one video here. In true 4Chan manner, a host of clips surfaced where Hasan moved the remote around, where his dog reacted strangely when she left the designed place while the stream was muted etc.
The dog really serves as a prop on his streams standing for hours in the same place.
Hasan changed his story many times to the point of it being completely incomprehensive. It produced memes on its own
He apparently had some bull breed in the past that he did not treat kindly. He used some sort of barbed collar and generally was not nice to it, e.g. pulling it by the tail etc.
At this point I do think that he used the shock collar and in general is probably not the most responsible dog owner. On its own it seems like a simple story, one I would not even comment on. But it has life of its own now, and is a stand-in for general information environment. Even with controversial Taylor Lorenz now being part of it. Of course it generated great number of memes and other content, including AI generated song and more.
More options
Context Copy link