wqnm
4mo ago
I completely disagree. 'Justification' is an appeal to morality, and I reject the idea that successful efforts are justified, and failures are not. One who robs a bank and gets away unpunished is not morally justified in his theft.
I actually agree with you on disagreeing with myself on this, haha. I realize I phrased that very poorly such that it came off as a kind of "might makes right" appeal, which was not what I was trying to get at. I was more gesturing towards something like "history is written by the winners" and butchered it.
wqnm
4mo ago
It's not some secret history that the cause for secession was primarily sparked by economic grievances regarding taxation and trade, and from there grew into general grievances about British government overreach in the colonies. I'm not here implying there was some hidden primary motivation other than genuine economic and philosophical aversion to British rule, coupled with belief in the greater potential of a new system; like I said, these guys were true believers.
I'm just pushing back on the framing of the Declaration of Independence in particular as some benchmark for the justification of secession because, I guess to put it succinctly, and for lack of better term, it's kind of a puff piece.
wqnm
4mo ago
I guess I'll make the obligatory cynical post pointing out the fact that the Declaration of Independence wasn't really a legal document, but essentially just a very eloquently worded piece of Patriot propaganda, primarily meant to rally stateside on-the-fence loyalists and potential overseas allies over to the cause. It was not, as many now seem to want to interpret it, an actual good-faith attempt to justify their cause to the British government. (Basically an "open letter" to the crown. Most of the grievances were incredibly exaggerated, bordering on fabricated, which the actual British government would have realized; the drafters didn't care, because again, it wasn't actually intended for that audience.) I consider any deeper reading into the underlying philosophy behind the literal word of the Declaration to be peripheral to this fact; for example, I think Jefferson paints the colonies as having been "particularly patient and prudent" on the matter not because he truly believes in some kind of secessionist standard of conduct, but simply because it makes them look like the more reasonable party to outside observers.
They had their cause (independence from Britain) and their practical reasons, and worked the divine moral justifications out backwards from there, as in every cause that becomes a Just Cause (we see this all the time with their bastardized philosophical heirs today, as every issue suddenly becomes a Human Rights issue. Self-evident indeed). Just as the South did; it's not prominent nowadays for obvious reasons, buts there's plenty of equally eloquently written justification for secession by the moral and philosophical heavyweights of the Southern Cause. But they, of course, lost; the only real moral justification to the American Revolution, or secession, or whatever you want to call it, is the fact that they won the military conflict. If they lost, no one would be holding this document up as the benchmark for moral justification of secession.
All that said, I do believe that many of the founding fathers were probably in fact True Believers in some capacity; given how the USA turned out in the end, they were obviously right to believe they could do one better than the British in terms of governing the colonies.
wqnm
4mo ago
I think the simple answer is, it's probably not so rational, precise, and conscious an effort as OP sells it. It's transgression as catharsis, nothing more, nothing less. "Vibes", all the way down. As stated:
edgy Hitler jokes are shibboleths indicating that the speaker doesn’t buy into the predominant lefty internet culture. The speaker signals that he has such little concern for the culture that he considers stifling, censorious, and ridiculous, that he invokes the greatest taboo possible
The response is not at all surprising, it never is, but that's doesn't mean I don't understand the temptation to transgress.
wqnm
4mo ago
Or another way to put it – edgy Hitler jokes are shibboleths indicating that the speaker doesn’t buy into the predominant lefty internet culture. The speaker signals that he has such little concern for the culture that he considers stifling, censorious, and ridiculous, that he invokes the greatest taboo possible. IMO, this is the essence of edgy 4-chan humor.
Well said. I've had arguments along these lines with leftist family members before, about how making Hitler memes online is basically just the disenfranchised-feeling white persons equivalent of BLM rioting. "No one condones looting, but you have to sympathize with people who feel like they don't have other options." Edgelords don't post the n-word because they are racist (well, some maybe), they post it simply because they know it is the worst thing you can possibly say, so saying it is cathartic in a similar way I'd imagine smashing a windshield is.
wqnm
4mo ago
the greatest rides are still the original ones - It's a Small World, Space Mountain, Pirates of the Caribbean
Man, different strokes for different folks, but I couldn't disagree more with this. I'll admit I appreciate the charm of the older stuff, and am also saddened by things like the franchise-ification, particularly at once-pure Epcot (Maelstrom being replaced by Frozen ride, The Living Seas becoming Finding Nemo, etc). But the folks at Disney can still engineer up a good ride, and things like Soarin, Avatar, Mission Space, and Toy Story Mania (aka the greatest ride at Disney) kind of blow those dark rides out of the water IMO, which are breathers from the Florida heat primarily, and forms of entertainment secondarily.
If I recall, Pirates of the Caribbean was it's own little culture war arena at one point, wherein they replaced the bride auction with with a girl-boss pirate.
wqnm
6mo ago
Does anyone see red flags or signs of a cult?
I feel like determining "what make's something a cult" is very much in the same realm of the classic "I know it when I see it" porn vibe-check. Personally, the rule of thumb I've picked up on is this: if building a defense, in the minds of it's members, against outside accusations of "being a cult" is baked into the introductory/fundamental teachings, then it's a cult.
Though this place doesn't seem that "off", the fact that the website almost immediately starts talking about its legal bona fides, reassuring readers that it's beliefs are, in fact, "sincere" and "non-dogmatic", is actually a little bit of a red flag to me.
wqnm
7mo ago
To be clear, you did not "ask her on a date". You told her you are interested in going on a date with her, and why, which is a somewhat awkward thing to respond to.
Like others have said, the key here is to just ask her to do something with you. Ideally (and this is the secret sauce) something you would have already been interested in doing, with or without her. "Hey I'm checking out xyz Saturday, want to come with?", etc. You're off on an adventure, it's up to her if she wants to come along for the ride. This framing is much more appealing to women.
Implement massive psy-op campaign where every school shooting is immediately portrayed as a "bombing" instead, via some kind of nonsense Instant Pot firecracker IED or some shit. Media laments how unfortunate it is that these bombs are so easy to make and so much more effective than guns. Eventually the social contagion catches on and some would-be-school-shooters start trying to actually use bombs instead, which are obviously, in fact, completely impotent since teenagers are dumb and making effective explosives is pretty hard.
More options
Context Copy link