magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Is this a typo? ICE just killed a man. Seems like, if that's what they want, then you did in, fact, just give it to them.
I think the logic goes something like this:
"The protestors want violence because they believe the optics will win over neutrals and moderate rightists and thus result in the end of the protested behaviour. However, there are not many neutrals anymore, and the moderate rightists have hardened their hearts and no longer feel for the protestors. The protestors believe it's a win condition, but we and the world have adapted so that it no longer is one."
This is not my personal view. My opinion of the Blue Tribe protest apparatus is actually considerably lower; I think that probably over 50% of them do not actually have a solid picture of what their wincon looks like and how their actions will achieve it, and are merely protesting because protesting is cool within Blue Tribe circles. I think that any in the USA that do hold to the worldview Sulla described - and I'll admit there are some - are making a mistake, but not the mistake Sulla claims (there are still a lot of neutrals); I think the mistake is in assuming that there will be free, fair and competitive elections in 2028 in which the currently-constituted Democratic Party will have a chance but not a certainty of victory, which is required for the lean of neutrals to be relevant and to backchain into present actions of the Trump administration. Civil war and WWIII would both cause that assumption to be violated, violent protests increase the risk of both, and we're getting quite close to crunch time.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21d ago
Try to put yourself in the shoes of one of them. All your friends are SJers. Your girlfriend is an SJer. Your internet hangouts are explicitly controlled by SJ, or have filter-bubbled you to the same effect. You probably went to some form of tertiary education controlled by SJ. Your workplace may be controlled by SJ-HR.
If you jump the fence, you're jumping it with the metaphorical clothes on your back. This is not an easy thing to do. In fact, the outflow overestimates it, because a lot of those who do "leave" didn't actually choose it; SJ expelled them first, and that meant they actually started talking to the deplorables leading to an eventual flip. That was my trajectory, for instance.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
24d ago
I often see right-wingers online virtue signalling about women with tattoos. They'll see a photo of a hot woman who has tattoos and start posting stuff like "eww disgusting" or "why did she ruin her body with that". I am convinced that 99% of these guys would fuck the hot woman without any hesitation if they had a chance, tattoos or not. It's just a big virtue signalling LARP to pretend to other guys that they care more about tattoos than they actually do.
I am convinced that you are overestimating when you say 99%.
I cannot stand tattoos. Almost all of them whack me straight in the uncanny valley; they are actively unpleasant to look at in much the same way a burn victim is. I usually wind up conspicuously averting my eyes from people with visible tattoos in order to reduce the revulsion. Obviously, this makes "a hot woman who has [prominent] tattoos" an oxymoron for me; I'm not super-picky when it comes to appearance, but "looking at this person actively costs spoons" is the kind of obstacle that renders romance impossible (though, obviously, if she agreed to have them removed - at my expense - that would remove the obstacle).
TBQH, shopping has gotten a lot less pleasant since tattoos became mainstream, because I wind up seeing them on shoppers and workers. It gets to me.
I'm certainly aware that lots of people don't have this reaction, and I believe you that you don't... but I also believe people when they say that they do. I'm not going to advocate that tattoos be banned, because I'm a libertine, but my quality of life would be noticeably improved if they were.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
25d ago
I don't have one to hand. I do recall hearing someone say that he used to see a lot of long-term heroin addicts (of, IIRC, varying degrees of function) but doesn't anymore because lol fentanyl killed them all.
At the very least, back when opiates were legal, not every addict seems to have been ruined (though a lot were).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
26d ago
One reason most people don't think the state should subsidise people's heroin addictions is because consistent heroin use will inevitably kill the user, or at the minimum destroy their life in every meaningful sense.
Point of order: this is not true. There used to be long-term functional heroin addicts. There aren't anymore because you for the most part can't reliably buy heroin anymore; pharma companies don't generally sell to addicts, while drug dealers sell improperly-diluted fentanyl as heroin (and that will inevitably kill you).
This is not to say that heroin will definitely not destroy your life, or that it won't kill you if you're a moron or getting it from somebody who cuts it by wildly-varying amounts (its drug interaction chart is also terrible). But functional heroin addicts can exist in a way that functional methamphetamine addicts essentially can't (due to the brain damage).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
27d ago
"Accident" implies that the outcome was not intended by anyone - this is true when zoomed-out here, though admittedly not so much when zoomed-in.
Certain people have been trying to erase the use of the term "accident" to refer to incidents where someone has a degree of non-intentional fault (e.g. negligent fault) as part of a Whorfian language game, but Whorfian language games are literally Orwellian and I generally refuse to play them. I did note later on in that post that fault for a foreseeable accident does exist.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
27d ago
The ultimate truth is that it was a tragic accident, of the exact sort that often happens when two groups which despise each other are in open confrontation and neither trusts the other not to escalate to deadly force. People in the thick of it misread cues, do things that are themselves misread, and somebody dies. Good drew the short straw.
Trump put out blatantly-false claims that Good was a domestic terrorist. That's bad. Reliable Sources put out blatantly-false claims that Ross summarily executed her when he knew she wasn't a threat. That's also bad. I suspect part of the reason for this is that nobody wants to admit to "people can die in violence without somebody being malicious", and another part is that the blame for a foreseeable accident depends on who could most easily have avoided it, and that turns on "did ICE have to be in Minneapolis" which is of course subject to intense disagreement.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
28d ago
People do use "kidnapping" to refer to the act, not just the crime. Zvi Mowshowitz calls CPS kidnappers a lot. "Prison is legal kidnapping" is stated fairly commonly, including by people who don't object to prisons.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
28d ago
I think I agree with all of that except part of #2 (civil war in the USA is non-negligible, and nuclear war is highly significant; both of those are still definitely worse than the present situation even for the "winner", though) and maybe your assessment of the amount of these people (we might be using "significant" to mean different things; I think it's probably single-digit percent of Americans that are on Team Thug although a lot less have the initiative/courage to actually go out and do thuggery).
Maximal polarisation is the state wherein everyone's picked a side and will stick to it. This is rarely achieved even in civil wars, and is definitely well beyond the threshold at which one will start (notice that massacres of political enemies become an effective tactic for winning elections when there are few neutrals who will change sides against the perpetrator).
The USA is highly polarised. Not maximally.
More options
Context Copy link