What puzzles me is that as soon as men like this identify as women, they become a protected class that can do no wrong and have only the purest motives.
An all white cast. You really don't see that often these days.
I'd love ot be a fly on the wall to hear that casting discussion, or did everyone involve just know already not to bring it up? Did they audition for these parts? Did any black men show up? The hivemind is pretty strong on these things, so perhaps the coordination was all implicit.
I've noticed a lot of "presciptivism for me, descriptivism for thee". That is, the distinction is employed strategically. When it's prescribing a language change you like or think is moral, then it's fine. When it's prescribing a status quo, or a change, you dislike, then don't you know language evolves and changes with the times? The culture war angle is obvious. Left wing prescriptivism is inevitable, natural, aligning with the direction of history. Right wing prescriptivism is wrongheaded, denying the nature of language itself, and just slowing the march of progress.
For me, sure, understand linguistics in your own head descriptively, but engage in your language community prescriptively, or else the other guy's preferences win by default. Descriptivism in practice is unilateral disarmament.
nomenym
1yr ago
It's curious, then, that she doesn't introduce herself in any of the ads I've seen. In fact, she just immediately brings up Trump, literally in the first sentence. She introduces herself only as the anti-Trump ticket.
nomenym
1yr ago
He doesn't think peace is realistic. He just wants a détente, and that requires a show of strength.
nomenym
1yr ago
Well, realistically it will take at least a lifetime. Fertility rates between blues and reds weren't all that different until the 90s, but since then they've kept increasing. Blues are well below replacement. They're dependent on converting red children. Can they do this? Yes. Indefinitely? Probably not. They're picking the low hanging fruit right now, but it's like a parasite breeding resiliance in the host. Eventually, it will become harder and harder to convert red children, because they will increasingly be descended from a cultural and genetic lineage that is resistant to that conversion. The easiest converts are currently being sterilized, and so there won't be so many easy converts around in the future.
Will this all happen? I dunno. Perhaps the only way I can see modern blues achieving a sustainable fertility rate is pure technology--growing babies in artificial wombs.
nomenym
1yr ago
It'd be kind of funny if they raid his home just to find pictures of Jodie Foster plastered all over the walls. That might be the best possible outcome of all this.
I can't imagine one getting ready to assassinate a former President and not considering the symbolism of one's attire. I'm curious to know whether this shirt was bought especially for this ocassion or whether it was something pulled out of the back the closet because it just happened to be an inconspicuous gray.
One of my first thoughts upon seeing this was "I wonder if this is real or AI generated", and that's a scary thought. I wonder if fake images of this event will soon be circulating.
Young man, scruffy unkempt hair, peach fuzz. Skinny-fat vibes. Certainly fits the antifa stereotype, but not much to go on. If this is real, then it's incredible it got out so soon.
I think it's because calling someone a "Nazi" isn't expressing hostility or hate, but merely describing reality. It's the Nazi's own fault they were punched in the face because they should just stop being a Nazi; it's not the fault of the person who called them a Nazi.
That said, I think there is a good case for viewing stochastic terrorism as a mostly right-wing thing, because the extreme left does not gain its moral legitimacy from the moderate left, but rather the other way around.
nomenym
1yr ago
I think there's a good chance the shooter was a Naziphobe, and that's why he targeted Donald Trump and his supporters. I see a lot of Naziphobia these days. There are a lot of people who are very worried and scared about Nazis.
nomenym
1yr ago
I think "stochastic terrorism" might actually apply more to the right than the left. I think violent rhetoric from the moderate right will inspire more violent action from the extreme right, because the extreme right still looks to the moderate right for legitimacy. But the same is not true of the left. It's the moderate left that looks to the extreme left for legitimacy. The extreme left is the cutting edge, it sets the pace. This is related to Jordan Peterson's frequent observation that the moderate left can't seem to answer the question "When does the left go too far?" Fundamentally, the moderate left is utopian, and so it has no moral authority over the extreme left, while the moderate right's anti-utopianism is both a guard against the extreme left and extreme right.
nomenym
1yr ago
Oh thank goodness! I thought the shooter was aiming for Trump. Turns out the real target was the dead spectator and Trump's teleprompter just happened to be in the way. What a coincidence!
Frankly, that's how that article comes across to me. I know they're not saying that, but it kind of reads that way.
nomenym
1yr ago
Yeah, I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I'd be interested to see some of the breaking headlines from these outlets during the January 6th insurrection, because that would probably be the best test case to see if they struck the same restraint.
nomenym
1yr ago
if you believe Trump really is this massive threat to democracy, why wouldn't a patriotic American try to shoot him?
Or cheat in an election?
Bizarrely, the simplest explanation for the progressive myopia here is that when humans kill animals, it's animal cruelty, but when animals kill animals, it's just nature. When an animal kills a human, then it must be because the human provoked it in some way.
The sacralization of "blackness" as a thing to protect and preserve seems to include many types of behaviors and actions that are unacceptable in whites. Blackness is authentic and natural in a way that whiteness is not, and it cannot be judged by white standards.
In the background, there is the lingering thought that, eventually, when true equality and justice have finally been achieved, all these negative things will just fizzle away into history, but in the short run they are just treated as part of the natural order.
It's kind of like the difference between keeping animals in a zoo, where they are carefully protected but controlled, and keeping them in a large nature preserve where they can run wild. Sure, in the nature preserve they might kill each other or whatever, but the sacred "blackness" would be repressed in the zoo. It's not the flesh and blood individual people that matter, which is perhaps not surprising for collectivists.
This model actually explains a lot of apparent progressive hypocrisy on this matter, however ironic and offensive it migt be.
Funnily enough, they adopt the opposite tack with poor southern whites. Poor southern whites get to be people rather than animals, but just bad people that must be dealt with.
Intent to intimidate may not imply an intent to injure, but it does imply an intent to get other people think that you have an intent to injure, or else they'll call your bluff and not be intimidated. That is, an intent to intimidate but not injure should, from the perspective of a victim, look the same as an intent to intimidate and injure.
nomenym
1yr ago
In practice, "inclusion" means conformity to the ideology. For example, the mere presence of a conservative expressing non-progressive opinions will make a space non-inclusive. All kinds of diversity are welcome except that diversity which is non-inclusive, and so that actually means a rather narrow range of diversity limited to "historically marginalized groups" of race, gender, and sexuality.
nomenym
1yr ago
There are logically possible universes where natural selection is false. At minimum, it posits some kind of continuity of structures, time and place, inheritance of traits, and so forth. Another way of putting it is that evolution by natural selection is not an inherent part of all possible simulations. If Lamarck was correct, then Darwin is wrong.
It's not just a language, because it purports to describe a thing that is actually, or has, happened. It purports to explain the seen by the unseen, which is fundamentally what all truth-seeking explanatory hypotheses purport to do. There are certain core metaphysical assumptions, such as there is with all scientific investigation, or investigation of any kind.
We had many Darwinian concepts before Darwin, but Darwin synthesized them into a more powerful framework, theorized about the mechanism of inheritance, and began exploring the logical consequences of that theoretical system. His insight about evolution by natural selection gave him the tools needed to bring together previously disparate phenomena into a unifying scheme. Evolution by natural selection, when applied to the world we live in with its particular physical laws, allows us to reverse engineer nature, and to read history from its present. This framework has produced many testable hypotheses that have proven amazingly successful.
I think you fundamentally don't understand this subject or what you're even trying to do here.
nomenym
1yr ago
Technically, evolution by natural selection, in its most abstracted form, is something like a metaphysical research programme. It is not a tautology; it can be false. However, it cannot be tested empirically. It is not falsifiable. It also doesn't itself explain very much at all. But that's kind of missing the point, because what it does is provide a framework for generating theories that can be tested. A lot of details, facts, history needs to be plugged into the framework for it to generate testable explanatory hypotheses, but those resulting falsifiable hypotheses have proven very interesting, predictive, and they now form the backbone of our understanding of the life sciences. Usually, when we talk about the theory of evolution, we mean to include all kinds of other general background facts about the universe and how life functions in it. We are rarely, if ever, just talking about the pure logic of evolution as it might apply to any logically possible universe, but yes that highly abstract version of evolution by natural selection is unfalsifiable metaphysics, but also highly fruitful, fecund, and insightful metaphysics.
It's really hard for me to believe that is their intuition. It's too contrary to human nature. I suspect it's that their morality demands they ignore their intuition. Their intuition is bigoted and transphobic, and denying it is necessary to be a good person.
More options
Context Copy link