@philosoraptor's banner p

philosoraptor


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:08:12 UTC

				

User ID: 285

philosoraptor


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:08:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 285

He's the bullshitter, he's the guy that has to inflate every single thing he does.

And Trump isn't?

Despite the "lock her up" rhetoric, Trump didn't actually try to lock Hilary up.

That's not magnanimity. At best it's baseline, expected behaviour. If you find that to be impressive coming from Trump, that seems like a meaner thing to say about him than even most of his leftie foes tend to use, at least the ones that are at all grounded in reality. (And I say that as one of those foes, though increasingly I'm only "leftie" by the standards of this place.)

Only 1/50 parents actually objected to nudity being shown (the other two objected to not being informed)

You (and others) talk like these are entirely disjoint concerns, but how separate are they really? Why is informing the parents required in this case in a way it isn't with, say, multiplication tables? Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible answer that isn't rooted in what some posters are calling "American prudishness".

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.

So in essence, Trump being a bullshitter is already "priced in" whereas the worry is that Walz being (possibly) much the same might not be?

Option 1) Play the bigger man. Pardon himself, obviously, and a few limited other people. Beyond that do nothing. This will prevent a wider conflagration in the culture war. Downside: without a tit-for-tat, the left will be emboldened for much greater tats in the future.

Are you saying you didn't write this?

Also, the piece I replied to was your direct response to the question, referring directly to what I've quoted above, "Is there any time you can point to where he's behaved with such magnanimity?". Like, it's literally what you gave as an example of that, or so anyone would think from reading that part of the thread. I think the "misunderstanding", if it is that and not just revisionist history, is pretty damn understandable.

It's not a direct result of that law - it's not like the law required this firing, or anything like that. But do you really doubt that's a significant part of what set the context for this incident?

Even if you sincerely hold this view, surely you understand why it looks like disingenuous special pleading to nearly everyone else?

The Online Left seem to have missed that memo too.

Marxism intends to overthrow capitalism. America is still capitalist. Therefore, Marxism has had no impact on American society.

Feminism intended to make women happy. Women are less happy. Therefore, feminism did not achieve anything or cause any changes on society.

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.

Ranges from 5%-40% depending on school.

0% at some, for example Rice bans frats and sororities entirely. They have something sort of similar through their college system but it's far more inclusive, by design.

Even here, very few people have a problem with this when it really is "continuing to". I think even some of the overt racists would see that as a case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". It's when you get in shit for doing it once five years ago in a completely unrelated context that people start taking issue.

The stolen item is just ... an item. Anyone can produce a backpack and say that guy stole it and my friend here saw them.

A backpack seems like an almost uniquely bad example. You just separate the parties and ask each a few questions about its contents and it's easy to figure out which one it belongs to.

Well, what I want to know can be rephrased as "what's so special about nudity"? I mean, surely they see themselves without clothes all the time, and lots of other cultures, and not weird fargroup ones but familiar European ones, don't have these hangups according to other posters. It sounds like you're presupposing an answer to that, and indeed an answer you can't even seem to imagine anyone disagreeing with.

I don't really have an answer, beyond that "kids are property" is a nonstarter.

Yes. You made a good-faith effort to make sure you were on the right side of the law. That's more than most people do most of the time.

EDIT: If you check the link in the other post I'm about to put up as I type this, there's four types of mens rea listed there and the person in this example doesn't even meet the lowest one, negligence, described as "fails to meet a reasonable standard of behavior for her circumstances". Going out of your way to make sure what you're about to do is not a crime certainly meets any such standard.

Well, according to the progressives, everywhere, including at least some of what you'd call the "progressive" states.

One screen, two completely different movies.

Not as useless as repeating the exact point she and I have already addressed multiple times, completely ignoring everything either of us said about it.

A significant portion of women seem to prefer sharing a top man over having a sub-par specimen for themselves.

Which women? Where? Based on what empirical evidence?

This seems to be one of those things - it has plenty of counterparts on the SocJus side of things - that's said because it follows from a theory someone is attached to, not because of any particular evidence that it's true. Outside of a very small number of poly arrangements, in which men at the top of the attractiveness scale aren't that overrepresented based on the ones I'm familiar with, I can't think of any cases where this is true. Yeah, it would logically follow if a lot of the ideas that float around the "manosphere" were true, but so much the worse for those ideas. But it's not something I actually see happening at any significant scale.

Its not 4-d chess, but it is some competent Jui Jitsu.

Jew Jitsu?

the guide @No_one posted the other day on what men are actually attracted to (https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/).

Is that available anywhere in a non-stupid font? I probably wouldn't mind reading it but the typeface makes my eyes bleed.

What's the greater evil: my psychopathy, or OP's incel-ism?

Since the latter isn't an evil at all, whatever else it may be, your psychopathy, almost by default.

plastering of Ricky Jones name everywhere is because that name sounds ostensibly white

As a small counterexample, that name feels similar enough to "Mickey Smith" that it makes me picture Noel Clarke.

Well, there are according to your own immediately previous post, about 28% more WM/AW than BM/WW with no particular reason to think the flipped-gender versions would balance that out. This seems to roughly match my own observations for the tiny, potentially biased bit that's worth. The numbers and the way they were arrived at have a lot of room for rounding errors but not enough to cancel out or reverse the conclusion they'd lead you to.

Drugging someone so they can't meaningfully resist has been a central example of rape for as long as I can remember, and I seem to be on the older end of this forum. I definitely agree with the complaint that modern feminism has expanded the definition beyond reasonable limits, as the "social justice" crowd is prone to doing with all sorts of terms, but this is not an example of it. The solution to revisionist history is not revisionist history in the opposite direction.

they get hammered 10-1

In basketball? That's an improbably bordering on impossibly low score, even if everyone's just learning. Getting shut out except for one free throw (the only way you could get exactly one point) is particularly weird.