professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
No bio...
User ID: 1157
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
It makes zero strategic sense from my perspective, all it does is fan the flames. I suppose if he wants to fan the flames of the culture war, fine, but that's also not something I'm behind.
Your first sentence assumes strategy, which is the mistake. Trump "weaves" and, I think, is just having fun. Crass fun, but nothing strategic.
Then again, The Mule is a special case and I'm not a predictor.
I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting.
Do you see any functional alternatives? I too find the aesthetic revolting, and yet- no one else is picking up the crown from the gutter. The alternatives are no less revolting. The tolerable alternative is, seemingly, retreat and quietude.
The left offers no superior aesthetics, and I'll take the shit plane over 'whiteness is a contract with the devil.' David Frenchism is about losing correctly. I'll also take the shit plane over EHC-posting; even toilet humor is better than that.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
That is, moral principles such that you can say what the right or wrong thing for Alice and Bob to do might be, in a hypothetical world where you yourself don't exist at all.
And in that case, one of the constraints could be along the lines of "any policy that sets the state above the policy is morally wrong," and another could be that "each family should prioritize their own wellbeing."
Thus, when we get to a policy where the state overrides the family, that is wrong.
The US government need not put my children above all others, but neither should it believe that it knows what's better for them than I do.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
What?
It's a joke/reference about Hamas, and the way the universities are supposed to be above reproach since they harbor scientists (valuable), terrorists (not), and grievance studies (at least terrorists have the conviction of their beliefs).
If you want me to take responsibility for a hundred year old eugenics movement
I don't really want you to, I'm saying that's the appropriate price to pay to claim abolitionists as "your side" too as much closer ancestors of the modern progressive. Most abolitionists were deeply religious, and hardly the model of modern progressives- of course, so were the slave owners.
I am slightly fascinated by the sociocultural manipulations and upheavals that resulted in progressives keeping the name progressive, keeping abortion and sort of keeping evolution, but managing to shed the eugenic affiliations. Neat!
In a single conversation, I've been told I need to take responsibility for...
Maybe don't take claim of abolitionists if you don't want to be saddled with everything else over three centuries?
maybe try taking responsibility for the president you elected 20 years ago instead of frantically trying to recast him as a democrat.
Dubyah? I'm not quite as old as you think, I guess; I couldn't vote yet. Given my druthers I probably would've voted third party.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
The postwar amendments were designed to secure the rights of freed slaves.
And they were written in the same idealistically neutral manner as all the other founding documents; it was the later activist Supreme Courts that made the preferences explicit.
Ames v. Ohio was pleasantly unanimous, but Harvard v. SFFA was not and even the majority had Roberts keeping in a how-to section to keep discriminating; I suspect whatever comes out of Callais will closer resemble the latter.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
progressives have been telling you this would happen since you brought the first slave ships over in the 17th century!
If you want to own abolitionists, you have to own the eugenicists too. Is that really what you want?
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Seriously, replace identitarian with vast majority of the modern left - is your statement significantly different?
The vast majority of the modern left are identitarian, so not incorrect but also not a clarifying statement.
you can't be naive enough to ask an entire nation not to Notice that people of one skin color are overwhelmingly worse off
Some people are really good at Noticing what they want and ignoring what they don't, aren't they? One really shouldn't believe their lying eyes, that's what Official Experts are for.
and it doesn't even matter what the cause is
Why not?
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Yeah, I was underrating the Marshall Plan and other programs. Thank you.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
I'd bet you couldn't name him without looking
No, and no one could name Myron Gaines without looking either.
And while it hasn't worked well for all white men, as a group white men have been in the best position.
Alas, I am not a randomly-assigned member of the group! Identitarianism is a corrosive poison that is utterly destructive to having a functional, pluralistic, multicultural society.
Anyways, my point is trying to provide an alternative to the perception that Democrats (writ broadly) hate white men. It isn't quite true, but that perception stems from this.
If you don't care about that perception and the effect it's having on politics... good luck.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
I'm also not impressed by the mere fact that Trump decided to sue a bunch of Blue Tribe institutions.
Well of course not, they strategically located their weapons depots under the hospitals universities.
It's a bit condescending to suggest that Jews protesting Israel killing thousands of Gazan civilians must be doing it out of some psychological ailment.
I learned from the best! I don't think it's a requirement, of course; I'm sure there are very good sane people on both sides. But certainly an option.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
What 'm saying is: if you have moral principles at all, then surely, surely you recognize that there is some amount or degree of harm inflicted to random strangers that would outweigh the welfare of your child? That, no matter how much you want your child not to be transed, it would be evil of you to put material pursuit of that goal over the lives of ten million people you've never met and never will?
Why do you seemingly struggle to accept that is a moral principle, just one you disagree with?
Not everyone is a universalist. Not everyone is a utilitarian. I would find it evil to put any number of people above your own children- maybe, if it were truly existential, I would crack (and indeed I've heard Southern Baptist preachers use that example to describe the Father sacrificing the Son, as the singular unique time such a thing was justifiable).
You're doing a fine job highlighting innate familial conservatism and Scott's "don't want to play the philosophical game" rebuttal to WWOTF, though.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
it also requires leftish cooperation
Right, approximately no one left public service over open and unironic anti-whiteness, and Kittycat almost certainly didn't care one jot about any of that.
It's an asymmetric game.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
There are at least 38 states that explicitly passed laws that discourage anti-israel activities.
Truly these modern Nazis are insidious, what with their pro-Semitic policies and staffing! Lulling them into a false sense of security no doubt.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
because of bad moderation
Being a forum descended from Reddit, left-liberals that find their way here are unaccustomed to any degree of pushback or less-than-infinite mod bias in their favor.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
"modern-day Hitler LARPers whose Hitler LARP will not stop short of actually killing people"
The Proud Boys were/are, quite (in)famously, way more diverse than most antifa/progressive groups. Stephen Miller is Jewish.
For some reason, I think you're really loading a lot of implication into a LARP that really isn't deserved.
But supposing they did, describing that as a "Nazi problem" would be perfectly sensible whether or not they had a genuine, material line of descent from members of the original Nazi party.
And liberals throw a shitfit when a conservative points out that a lot of progressives refer to themselves as Marxists.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
And at the time, they were right. The Bolsheviks were worse and hobbled the entire region for decades.
Rather unfortunate about what happened in between, but eastern Germany is still far behind the west in terms of economics and development, 70 years later, isn't it?
If your point is comparing progressives to the Bolsheviks... then I'm gonna take my chances that the current right isn't genocidal, because I'm pretty sure the current progressives are just as destructive as the old given a chance.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
I guess you're more of a "subtle acceptance" than a "full throated supporter"
It's the Chen Sheng Rebellion of support. Damned either way.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
whether there is a popular perception that they are
People called Mitt Romney fascist. When Mitt Romney attempted the beloved progressive policy of affirmative action, he was called sexist instead. The game is rigged and the principles don't matter.
A lot of people on here seem to think that the Democratic Party is hostile to men, or white men, or whatever. It's a reasonable conclusion to come to if you listen to certain voices that are amplified by people looking to influence your opinion, but if you take an objective look at the party itself, it's absurd. The party chairman is a white guy. The most recent president was a white guy.
Broad hostility is not actually contradictory to the affected group continuing to have high-level positions, especially when those positions go to people that have been, ha ha, grandfathered in. I think the hostility was actually quite useful to Biden's win, since he became the only candidate with name recognition that wasn't an Official Group, and as such he becomes the default since he is entirely forbidden from campaigning for and on his identity.
There's also the slim and fractured line between malice and indifference. The Democratic Party, and liberal-progressives writ generally, are not necessarily hostile to white men, though they have a lot of constituents who are, and they do not disabuse those constituents like they do for hostility towards other groups- remember that Biden was forced to apologize to a murderer. It is, in my opinion, utterly undeniable that the Democratic Party and liberal-progressives have a deep unconscious indifference to white men, that can often be taken for hostility in comparison to the endless praise and generosity to every other demographic.
This laundry list from the Green New Deal has long stuck with me for its thoroughness of such callouts:
Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);
Some of those groups do, indeed, include white men. But 'white men' is virtually the only group not outright named!
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
the UK, or China also have decent universities, and at least the first two are much less likely to cancel my visa over political views expressed online
LOL no the UK seems much more likely to do that; they throw people in jail for tweets longer than they do for rape.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Did you happen to notice the first one? Cat is not operating in good faith and does not wish to answer any questions.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel.
Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities are still fighting court cases about their abject failures to make that distinction, aren't they? Not to mention the Trumpian attacks on them, that used that as one of the motivations.
Now, the richest, most prestigious universities in the country aren't themselves a "broad swathe," but I feel fairly comfortable saying it's not nutpicking to put them up as examples.
The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.
And the people most likely to preach that white people are the scum of the earth are progressive white women and pick-me progressive white men. Projected self-hatred is not exactly an uncommon psychological ailment.
I guess we might as well all be gay trannies who cancel you for wrongthink, amirite?
No principles to stand on? You must become what the enemy believes? I get you're trying a parallel thing but you're so bitter when you comment here now.
what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
how do you justify this morally?
Clearly
I'll be voting for my own team
is a moral position.
It may not be one you agree with, but it's no less a (n a) moral position than the "post-liberal racial spoils hellscape."
You seem to be begging the question that there is an objectively correct morality and deviating from the progressive racism violates that, without actually filling in the gaps of why that is objectively correct and the losers should enjoy being in the hands of an angry god sacrificing their children for the wellbeing of the ungrateful.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Even lots of fantastic conservative guys who are actively condemning this behavior like Governor Scott, or some of the guys at the Babylon bee or some of the National Review reporters.
AKA "guys who know and accept the work rules."
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Don't you have a concept of politics as rooted in moral values unrelated to your own personal fate?
The other side sure doesn't care about my fate. Why is it on me to be their infinite moral superior, to sacrifice myself and everyone I care about?
Is there any amount of evil that people to your right could wreak on strangers that would outweigh making the trains run on time in your specific neck of the woods?
Any, yes. When the amount of evil is somewhere near the "actual death camps or radio broadcasts telling people to hack apart their neighbors" level, I would care.
Does that amount include my people being the only acceptable target of racism and sexism, to the point the other side tried changing the dictionary so their bigotry doesn't count? No.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
2mo ago
Yeah, true. They just say it out in the open, rarely any consequences! Well, except for losing to Trump twice.
"Trump is the only person with agency" theory undefeated.
More options
Context Copy link