I do think the Brown PD may be withholding info that could be used to help narrow down the suspect list out of misguided anti-Islamophobia, but I know people in the area and it is flooded with police and FBI. I really don’t believe they are just twiddling their thumbs and putting on a show.
We’ll see. Plenty of killers weren’t caught overnight. It’s not so new.
Everyone is out over their skis on the Jewish professor. You shared no evidence that it was a political murder, and not personal or a robbery of some sort, and I haven’t seen any elsewhere yet. Happy to be proven wrong, but let’s hold ourselves to higher standards here.
Both my comment and your comment aged poorly, in that 1) the person of interest was released, and 2) one of the victims was a prominent campus conservative, and there are reasons to believe that she was the target. Culture war juice still available.
I find it kind of disappointing how reliable this board has gotten for discussing culture war events. This guy appears to be a woke gender equity guy, he was a former soldier, he attacked the class of a Jewish professor who taught about Judaism and US/Israeli relations… There are many CW angles here.
We talked for so many years about the culture war turning into real violence. Now it’s happening and we want to talk about education? It’s a fair angle but it shouldn’t be the only thing being discussed here.
Edit: And here’s the real juice: one of the victims was prominent campus conservative Ella Cook, and some believe she was the target. If leftwing extremists have truly graduated from assassinating not just Trump or famous right wing voices like Charlie Kirk, but to beautiful young not-famous white women with the “wrong” views, this would be a quite significant development and escalation.
The Nick Fuentes interview with Piers Morgan was a good demonstration of how boomers do not understand Gen Z rhetorical tactics at all. One example is the “agree-and-amplify” strategy.
This strategy came from The Red Pill/PUA community. The idea is that girls will try to throw you off your game by making some unfounded criticism, to test how secure/powerful you are as a man. It’s called a “shit test.”
The “agree-and-amplify” strategy says the best approach is to do exact that. Example: Girl says “Wow that’s a big truck, are compensating for something?”
Loser response (no getting laid): “No, my penis is slightly above average! I just like trucks!”
Agree-and-amplify: “Hahah yeah, micropene. 1 inch. It’ll have you screaming tho.”
The latter projects confidence, she knows your joking of if she believes you, you can neg her about it. She made it sexual and gave you an opening. Etc. All in good fun.
Fuentes did the same thing repeatedly, and Morgan just does not grasp it at all.
For example, paraphrasing:
Morgan: “Are you racist?”
Loser response: No, I have friends who are black! I just think [crime statistics]!
Morgan: Sounds like you’re racist.
Game, set, march. Better is the Fuentes agree-and-amplify:
Fuentes : “Haha yeah. I don’t want any black people around”
Morgan: [clutches pearls]
Fuentes: I have black friends though. They are also concerned about [crime statistics]
Morgan: But you said you were racist!
It makes it feel like Morgan is not in on the joke. It denies his moral frame that any hint of racism = bad. He needs to come up with a more concrete argument. When he instead tries fails to re-establish the frame through repetition, it doesn’t land.
I was reminded in a way of the classic Charlie Kirk owning libs on campus. The key is that the libs did not really come into the bait understanding Kirk’s beliefs or tactics, but Kirk understood theirs inside and out. This let Kirk win easily every time.
Morgan is a wiley veteran and won some parts of the interview. But overall he did not know how to handle Nick’s tactics at all.
In the end, it is turning into a debacle for Piers Morgan. As the dust settles, he comes across as the evil defender of a decrepit regime going after some dude’s dad. He was forced to pretend to not understand basic statistics, causing him to appear either stupid or malicious, depending on your gullibility. In many ways, he was the perfect heel employing dirty tactics to get an edge.
And to make matters worse, his decision to focus on the Catholic Nick’s virginity has backfired horribly, with everyone learning about his wife cheating on him with everyone from internet randos to the literal pool boy. How true are these accusations? I honestly don’t know, but they are already cemented into the hivemind’s collective beliefs.
I could really never stand the rambling nature of Nick’s show and never watched more than five minutes, but I agree with most of what he said on Tucker and Piers. On my scorecard, total groyper victory. Curious if others agree.
I mean, agreed you have to stupid or mentally ill to do something like this since there is no upside, but maybe use cash and turn off your cell phone, bro? License plate alone wouldn’t be enough to build a case.
Since you seem so keen on raising the alarm on the rise of Nazism, how about you actually define what are the core ideas and values of Nazism, that way we can actually pit all these supposed Nazis against these values to determine if they actually are Nazis or not?
Most commonly they will choose a set of characteristics that describes the modern group they don’t like, but that fails to uniquely describe historical Nazis, or fails to describe the consensus “bad parts” or historical Nazis and instead focuses on the contested parts (Hitler liked dogs, Nazis were pro-family, etc.)
The root of it is the recognition on the “young right” of WWII as the founding myth of the modern regime, combined with opposition to said regime. The myth is that Hitler, out of sheer hatred, decided to kill all Jews, and on an unrelated notes, to conquer Europe/the world. The US and the allies, of course, saved the day, and we all learned an important lesson about why right wing politics are evil.
The myth is false and the reality is a bit more complicated, and does not really support the weight of the founding myth upon deep interrogation. So young right wingers rebel against the lies by pretending to be nazis. They embrace the villain in order to deny the myth its power.
In my opinion, it’s not really possible for non-Germanic US citizens in 2025 to be “Nazis.” It’s like if a faction of ethnically Chinese citizens identified as Zionists. It makes absolutely no sense because the ideology is tied to a specific people at a specific time. Even hating Jews doesn’t make you a Nazi. Lots of factions have hated Jews throughout history and most of them have little else in common with Nazis. I also believe in some degree of revisionism, and that we learned many of the wrong lessons from the war.
However, I also think the explicit anti-semitism is quite self-defeating. They take a reasonable premise, that the US spends too much on Israel and hypocritically accepts it as an ethnostate (arguably true), and stretch it to an unreasonable extreme - that almost every conservative politician is thoroughly compromised by the jews and are therefore evil/untrustworthy (schizo). Or that Jews are overrepresented in media (true), therefore media exists to push a Jewish agenda (schizo).
There is a bit too much tolerance for the schizo prediction in some of these groups. The problem is not that it will lead to a second Holocaust, so much as it makes us look insane and unsympathetic. At the same time, the general breakdown of Hitler-as-myth is likely immensely helpful to the modern right-wing cause, and jokes or ironic embrace of Hitler do serve this purpose effectively at times. But it is a delicate line between schizo and funny.
Married sex is enough to turn any man gay
In all seriousness, I have no idea how you'd teach a man more interested in beards and shoulders to love tits and ass instead.
Men are very imprintable sexually, you just need to make then orgasm to the “correct” images, thoughts, and experiences enough times, in addition to removing whatever sexual hangups they have towards women.
With this in mind, it’s pretty obvious why Christian conversion therapy doesn’t work.
This is not innately a bad way of doing politics. If you have a minority that cares A LOT about something that most people are indifferent towards, it’s actually good for the minority to win, because it helps them more than it hurts the majority. Of course this can be exploited.
I’m not overweight, but I have an average appetite and need to put effort into not overeating. I would describe it like this:
You have a strong itch. If you are on autopilot, your body will scratch it.With willpower, you might stop yourself from scratching it in the short term. But it doesn’t go away. It’s there every second of every hour of every day, and it is impossible to ignore, constantly demanding your attention.
You might not scratch it for a day. You might not scratch for a month, or even a year. But the thought of never scratching it for the rest of your life makes you want to cry. It feels cruel or unfair. But you know absolute discipline is required or scratching it will quickly become habit again.
But wait! It gets worse. You routinely attend social events where you are expected to scratch it. Everyone around you encourages you to return to your scratching ways.
The itch is unbearable. You decide to introduce “cheat days” where you are allowed to scratch the itch, while giving your body a week to recover. But it only makes it worse. It’s a weekly reminder of the relief that you ate denying yourself.
Eventually, you give in and allow yourself to scratch the itch. Your skin may be ruined but at least you are not subjected to the 24/7 torture if having a powerful itch that you can’t scratch.
Dieting is not scratching. Ozempic removes the itch (for many, at least).
A serious risk of using murderous force.
I don't particularly want that end result, but I find it hard to argue against murderous force on principle. The arguments supporting it seem obviously correct; the protests against it seem sincere, well-meaning, and completely wrong.
Well the Zizians also found it hard to argue against murderous force on principle, and instead ran a nice empirical experiment for us. It turns out it’s a bad idea.
Well sometimes in traffic the left lane moves slower than the other lanes, even when there is no jam and the cars are just tightly packed.
- Yes
- No, rolling stop is fine in many cases for stop signs or right turn on red
- No, a large truck and a sports car do not have the same safe operating speed
- No, when there is traffic all lanes should be utilized.
- Not if it’s a safety hazard
- No
- Yes?
In my opinion this was a disasterclass by Musk and extremely embarrassing for him. He didn’t like the bill… fine. But to completely burn the bridge with Trump after already burning the bridge with all Democrats? Unhinged behavior.
When king/arch-merchant alliances turn sour, the king always wins and the arch-merchant ends up dead or bankrupt. I would have expected Kekius Maximus to remember his Roman history better.
Either a zoonotic virus crossed over to humans fifteen miles from the biggest coronavirus laboratory in the Eastern Hemisphere. Or a lab leak virus first rose to public attention right near a raccoon-dog stall in a wet market.
He can’t even into Bayes. There are many thousands of raccoon-dog stalls in China. There was exactly one BSL-3 lab in China. There was exactly one lab studying GoF on human coronaviruses.
I agree that it is fundamentally just a lazy attempt to apply a negative label to people the users of the term don’t like. It’s like “the left are the real racists.” It’s supposed to be a “gotcha” but it doesn’t really work in practice.
The problem is Russia feels like it can simply win outright, at this point. Therefore, to achieve a peace that reflects the current EV of the war, Ukraine has to accept a deal that is worse than the current status quo. They will never do this, so the most likely outcome is a complete victory for Russia.
Eliezer disappeared at the height of his power and influence. He could have been much more impactful on AGI development but he was too tired from writing a fanfic and being a micro-celebrity. He relegated himself to side-character territory at best.
Is this an L for CICO, or a massive W for astrology?
“The purposes of some systems is what they do” there I fixed it. The slogan is usually used to imply that the nominal purpose of a given system differs from the true intentions of those who design or perpetuate the system. This obviously happens sometimes.
To his point, while it is often a worthwhile hypothesis or heuristic, it is not a self-proving statement. You can’t prove a system is corrupt by design just by observing that it is corrupt.
I’ve noticed a similar effect among boomer conservatives. Many feel somewhat left behind by the Trump administration. As Trump shows that you can “just do things,” their decades of being “beautiful losers” looks more and more like cowardice and less like principle. Losing is deeply rooting in their identity.
They have a hard time letting go of the idea that the best you can do is ride on top of the train yelling “slow down!” You don’t have to let the liberals drive - you can actually go in any direction that you want.
There is also an aspect that they genuinely believed the post-war consensus/“boomer truth regime.” Now that the right is definitively away from this and winning, they… still believe what they always believed. The fact that they believe this things because they were manipulated and coerced into believing them does not make it easier to change their view.
The Republican Party now belongs to the youth who “get it,” not the boomers who don’t. This is the problem that the Democrats have. Their boomer ideology is in the way out and their youth ideology is an unserious version of communism. They seemingly have no good plays available.
- Prev
- Next

I agree but “A Jewish professor was murdered” is not sufficient to conclude anything. To make schizo conspiracy theories you at least need some details to work with.
More options
Context Copy link