philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
I think a very strong case can be made that the New Left, and its subsequent and related movements in the academic left particularly queer theory, is pro-pedophilia (eventually filtering down to the 'woke' public in watered down form). To be more charitable, it's not that they are pro-pedophile per se, but rather that they have adopted a world view that doesn't make a distinction between pedophilia and non-pedophilia.
Regardless of what you think follows from other things they believe, find me a pro-pedophilia social media post from anyone visibly on the left. I'll wait. I predict I'll be waiting a very long time. Not "well if you squint just right and also read these tea leaves over here...", but anything at all that is unambiguously supportive of boinking kids. You'll find a hundred, probably a thousand, wood-chipper memes before you find anything even close. It just doesn't exist, no matter how badly certain elements of the right want it to.
Most of these people have never heard of figures like Firestone, and even if they had, look at what happened to Germaine Greer. They feel deep loyalty to their movement but not a single shred of loyalty to any of the individuals that make it up, no matter how paradoxical that sounds to people like me or what debts of gratitude it might seem that they owe. And even Firestone never seems to have gone as far as openly supporting sexualizing kids, in any sense of the word.
philosoraptor
5d ago
As a last resort, perhaps. They're much more comfortable just implying that detransitioners don't exist and trying their best to keep them out of the conversation entirely.
philosoraptor
5d ago
Except this is literally the first time I've heard anyone include the "to do", and the extra two letters were just enough to make it look weird and unfamiliar even though I thoroughly lurked the recent discussions of it.
philosoraptor
5d ago
Without the typo it was. The extra two letters were just enough to throw me off.
What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard?
Legal scholar and philosopher Brian Leiter has a whole book on just that topic, by the somewhat trollish title of Why Tolerate Religion?. His conclusion is the opposite of what people often assume it's going to be based on the title - that all such "claims of conscience" should be treated with equal (and fairly high) respect in this regard, rather than religion having its own special claim to "tolerance" that isn't accorded to anything else.
philosoraptor
6d ago
TPOASITDWID
This was really confusing at first. I figured it out eventually but it's a really bad idea to use a uncommon acronym without defining it the first time.
Even Google was no help because the two extra letters you added in the middle were just enough to make this thread literally the ONLY Google hit for this as it was typed, as opposed to as it was intended.
To be brief (yeah that part didn't work out), yet still give this more attention than it deserves:
At no point did I say anything about what Trump or anyone in his administration believes. The point about balancing trade deficits is that it's probably a stupid goal. The problem is that Trump is sincere about pursuing them, not that I think he isn't. Unless you think Trump can do no wrong - and I'm trying to be more charitable than this but it increasingly seems like the only explanation for some of the things you type - this is a take that should at the very least be well within the bounds of reasonable debate.
Also, I said right-leaning, as in politically, not right-thinking. Basic reading comprehension fails like this... well, don't exactly fill me with confidence about where you're coming from.
The bigger problem here, though, is that you're latching on to the same fucking sentence like a pit bull on more or less anything, as though the post you were replying to consisted of that same sentence twenty times and nothing else. You're in such a state of rage that you can't seem to see anything else, especially the parts that directly contradict your take, except that one sentence. Stop, take some deep breaths, and actually read. You are, again, not responding to the words that are actually in front of you, but to some made-up construct in your head.
We're not supposed to assume bad faith here (not that you're letting that stop you) but it is increasingly hard to believe this is an honest take. To be clear, I'm not saying Trump or the majority of his administration or hardcore supporters don't believe the things they say. But the specific things you are saying here in this thread are so mismatched with the plain black and white text they are ostensibly responding to that it's becoming difficult to understand how they could be sincere. At the very least, I'm quite certain they're a long way from being the best takes you're capable of.
That only even remotely applies to the first one, and well, let's take a closer look at it, in two parts:
I don't find balancing US trade deficits to be a priority.
Almost nobody thinks it is! Including most right-leaning economists! This is an entirely reasonable sentiment.
Something like reshoring (high tech) manufacturing though, sure.
Very clearly states something that would change his priors, with no qualifiers of the sort you described. So even his first point only half fits your description, even being maximally generous to you.
Yes, it would be great if he could restore US shipbuilding.
That's the entire second statement. What is there in here that is accurately described as "explain[ing] why even if x y and z were to happen they are not high priorities and thus beneath consideration"?!? Even a straightforward yes doesn't satisfy you!
Peace in Ukraine is highly contingent on what the peace looks like. If it's effectively "force Ukraine to surrender and give up huge swathes of land that they wouldn't need to if Biden were still around" is not a good peace. If it was "ceasefire at current lines, and Ukraine protected from future invasions by European guarantees", that'd be reasonable.
Again, there's nothing unreasonable here. This is an entirely appropriate level of nuance for the topic (for a brief forum post - it would be too little in almost any other context!) and I submit that it fits my description far better than it does yours. In particular, the last sentence clearly spells out a circumstance where he'd change his priors with no hedging like you describe.
At best a sixth of his list fits your description; there is one sentence in the entire post, half of one of the three main points, that looks as you describe. Frankly, you seem to have some sort of weird bitch-eating-crackers thing going on with this poster on a personal level, that makes you look unhinged to people like me who don't know or care about the backstory behind it.
Their three paragraphs here and replies elsewhere in this thread can be summarized as; "even if the populists are sucessful (which they wont be) it will be for reasons outside thier control and thus not count."
All three specify circumstances under which he would update, and some of them aren't even all that demanding. None of them require things outside the government's control or at least not wildly more than your list that he was replying to. Reading "here are three ways I would update" as "I wouldn't update" is... certainly a thing someone said on the Internet today.
Honestly, you're not making much sense. You don't seem to be reading what the words in front of you actually say, but what your opinion of the person posting them leads you to expect to be there.
philosoraptor
20d ago
Where? Do you have examples?
philosoraptor
25d ago
or it's written by AI.
Say what you want about AI writing, it would almost certainly be better structured and less awkwardly worded than this, and leaving the title unexplained isn't the sort of error they'd typically make.
philosoraptor
25d ago
Thanks, that gives me a fair bit of the missing context, though I'm still no closer to understanding (among other things) the title!
philosoraptor
25d ago
What is your overall point? What is the "Morning Chestnut Problem"? What do Japanese sources say about Yasuke that differs from English ones, specifically? How did his depiction go over in Japan?
After all those words, on a topic I do have some interest in, I feel only marginally closer to understanding any of these things. Almost all your explanations feel incomplete, and the lack of structure or things like clear thesis statements doesn't do you any favours either. Impose some structure and make sure all your thoughts actually resolve, and I could overlook the awkward prose.
Your thoughts on Wikipedia are certainly familiar ones here. What most strikes me about your first (English-language) Wikipedia link is the hypocrisy of the principles expressed there when contrasted with how they actually handle any topic relevant to the US culture war.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
We don't really do the Euro-style coalition thing. A minority government has to scare up enough votes from the other parties to pass any given piece of legislation (or any non-confidence motion that the other parties might be able to force). But it isn't as formal, and in practical terms, it isn't necessarily the same party all the time. In this case, for a long time Singh and the NDP could mostly be counted on to support the Trudeau Liberals and several of the thousand cuts they died of took the form of Singh withdrawing that support.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
Besides being a big move of the goalposts, you seem to have some weird-ass misconceptions about both Canadian demographics and Canadian politics. Toronto is about 17% of the population, not anywhere near 60%. That's not quite as weird as thinking the Territories are 95% of the land mass, but it still seems to be massively skewing your perspective. Things are certainly weighted heavily toward the East but it's nowhere close to all-powerful.
A quick Google suggests approximately 1/15.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
About (aboot?) 40%, but what's half an order of magnitude between friends.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
One solution might be to make a territory, not a state, so they wouldn't have the right to vote.
If this was the proposal, there's no way in hell it happens in a voluntary way, like Trump seems to want at least according to the video.
Not that I give much odds of that in any scenario, but especially that one.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
Yeah, the territories would probably have the same "no, you don't get to sit at the big kids' table" status as they do now within Canada, if not moreso. Might want to merge some of the Atlantic provinces too, making ten provinces into something like eight US states.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
Hypothetically, if Canada did become the 51st state, would I be right in saying it would be the largest state in the union by landmass by quite a huge margin? Or am I too Mercator-projection pilled?
LOL. By landmass, Canada is the second-largest country in the world, after Russia. It's not just bigger than any US state, it's bigger than the US.
Even by population, it would be the largest, just slightly higher than California.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
I've noticed this phenomenon among the right (necessary disclaimer: I completely acknowledge that this is true of the left as well, but they're not in power now so it's not as fun to scrutinize them) to boldly assert the truth of easily falsifiable claims. The "media ignore it entirely" is such a claim: CNN, CBS, ABC, and my favorite, an ominous report from the Washington Post. This story is obviously being covered...
This is a genuine case of "both sides do it", but yes, any time you see "why isn't anybody talking about _______?!?" on social media, the correct response will invariably be somewhere on a spectrum from "They are!" to "Are you living under a rock? No-one seems to be talking about anything else".
philosoraptor
1mo ago
I think the person you're replying to is talking about within the US, where supposedly most "African-Americans" have at least some white ancestry, and they seem to be comparing against the largest genetic difference you'll find between white Americans, not the average or most common case. Certainly the context of the larger conversation is about something that primarily applies to the US.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
How I wish it were true, or at least plausible.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
Even then, the same thing can be inexpensive (as government programs go) and worth keeping. Dropping such a thing wouldn't be likely to cause a recession, but barring cases where they specifically say that, there's nothing wrong with that logic.
Marxism explicitly says it wants to overthrow capitalism. Few feminists seem to think in terms of "happiness" but they explicitly say they want to improve things for women. The people you think are pro-pedo, meanwhile, explicitly say pedos should be put through wood chippers. There's no parallel at all there. The rest is mere sophistry.
More options
Context Copy link