@ThisIsSin's banner p

ThisIsSin

Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC 

				
User ID: 822


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
ThisIsSin


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Derive the current state of affairs from a frictionless spherical state of nature

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 3 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 05:37:32 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 822


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


they are thinking guys who want to fuck girls that age when the men are the same age as the 30 year old woman are disgusting creepy predators.




And if it wasn't obviously in their interest to publicly believe this, I might believe this as well.  Half the problem with the "debate" is that this claim isn't being made in good faith; you acknowledge this yourself through your last sentence despite you already having established in previous comments that you know drawing that equivalence is wrong.


So, when everything anyone will tell you is going to be biased in their favor in some way, what else can you do but return to monke initial conditions and reason about what people will say about this topic now assuming those initial conditions remain valid (ignoring stuff like technologies [contraceptives, all known STDs of consequence cured except for one] with which human instinct is not natively compatible)?




The men on here who argue about "all women have of value are their tits and cunt, and that's all they have to sell"




And the women on here argue that "all men have of value is their ability to physically produce, and that's all they have with which to buy" (or "what price they can fetch on the employment marketplace").  Given gender equality, both should be valid.


The reason for the emphasis on this is that it's the only part of the dynamic we can actually control and measure, much like 6/6/6 is for women (but somehow that's acceptable, which again is why I believe women who do this while believing it's evil when men do it are mistaken at best and actively lying at worst).  And every relationship is affected by these dynamics to some degree; there's no getting away from it, we're all human, we like good things, and may God have mercy on our souls.


Is it the full picture?  Of course not; people marry their friends all the time to the point it's a meme, women actually seek out casual sex (contrary to an asymmetric biological imperative that they shouldn't), men actually seek out commitment, etc.- but to say that an age beginning with 1 or 2, or a total income that has 5 zeroes in it, isn't a measurable starting point at least some of the time (or at least an attractor, if not the primary one), and isn't the dominating portion of it from people who are working in a way compatible with their instincts?  I think that's likely to be destructive.






really scared that a 15 year old boy is going to out-compete you in the employment marketplace?




They'll outcompete me in the dating marketplace for cougars and tomboys (if male sexuality in a woman, then they're probably looking for someone young in that unrealized-potential-is-attractive way); why even live?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
True; that's why the AoC is currently infinite (and the women still honoring this compromise are generally seen as suckers).  I think I could be more precise in saying that they can't sell sex in the context of a relationship that isn't purely exploitative on the woman's part, though since that was the entire point of establishing the AoC in the first place...


All sex is rape [as women obviously can't be trusted not to call sex they regretted rape] + woman forced to marry her rapist [provided this didn't occur where anyone could have reasonably heard her cry rape] is a stable compromise, which is probably why traditionalist societies did that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


yeah, given my druthers, I'd much rather a hot little 15 year old than that 30 year old hag, I'm only 46, I'm in my prime!




Which is a situation that "30 year old hag" (in your words) would naturally like to avoid.  By cutting the top competitors out of the market, the rest of the competitors stabilize their positions.


Yes, the best men (from the most mercenary "sex for resources" perspective) are still going to select right at the limit.  But since that market is artificially limited, the total supply of women is constrained, thus the definition of any given quality of man "settling for" becomes a correspondingly older woman (as that's what they can afford; age is usually a proxy for this, which you acknowledge).  If no AoC, "settling" would be 20 (or a 8/10), but with the limit in place "settling" may be 25-30 (or a 5/10).


In this way, the AoC protects the sociofinancial interests of all women over it, at the expense of men (in the "not allowed to fully utilize resources for sex" sense, typically rationalized in some form of "men are objectively better than women and so have a duty to them") and women under it (typically rationalized as "too immature", but importantly the AoC doesn't actually prohibit these women from having sex, it just makes it so that the only men they can sell sex to can't afford to buy it).


Is this an overly simplistic model of how men and women form relationships?  Sure- most people aren't quite that mercenary- but there's always some element of this present in every relationship (and is the fear keeping the relevant actors up at night).






You are not convincing me of the rightness of your views here




On the contrary, I think you are already convinced.  It's not a crime to be on the high side of political power.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Indeed, how could the law ever criminalise emotional states?




And yet this actually is the law of the land; "woman regrets it afterwards" is the mechanism by which any sex may retroactively become rape.  If and when this fails in a court of law, laws get changed to make sure future instances of this succeed.




That's right out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.




Most (all?) modern gender politics are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It makes sense once you figure out it's never been about protecting children.  (Death threat = topic is governed by conflict theory.)


It's about protecting old women from the competition [for men and their resources] young women inherently provide, in co-operation with a subset of old men [fathers] being able to credibly threaten to lock up whoever their daughters are dating.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is out of scope.


All of the other stuff it's claimed the blanket approach protects against is already covered by existing laws (rape/kidnapping, extortion, and anti-incest for the rest of it), so by POSIWID that's not what the AoC is for.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"Terror" is just shorthand for "anti-Establishment activity", because 'the state of being terrorized' is trivially gamed.


Everything $political_opponent does is terrorism- always has been, and it always will be.




Were the Canadian truckers terrorists?




Under this definition, yes.  The reaction to it (freezing bank accounts) was also an act of terrorism for reasons I don't think I really have to explain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How else can you deport a 5 year old kid.




Pretty easily, apparently.




We are the bad guy.




By which standard/from whose perspective?  If the people [who wanted to abuse the fact that cleaning up their mess can be made to look like murderism] actually cared about the well-being of 5 year olds (beyond their usefulness in this matter) actually cared, they would have done something else.  But they are not, so telling me I'm the bad guy for not caring is an isolated demand for rigor.  Same with the USAID stuff.


Everyone's always the bad guy, everything anyone ever does eventually results in some dead 5 year old.  Something can be terrible while still being the correct thing to do; hence the inherent tension in anyone who thinks with both heart and brain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Genitals and reproductive systems are not a resource




[Citation needed.]  What's the world's oldest profession?




and making women's survival




The same forces that made women's survival contingent on marriage (a physical toil) are the same forces that made men's survival contingent on physical toil.  This is an isolated demand for rigor.


Of course, your theses force you into that demand, because those theses are functionally indistinguishable from "find in favor of Alice at all times".  As I mentioned in the other comment, this enables Alice to functionally rack up infinite debt, and take on infinite risk, that Bob is then expected to pay for- with no other justification for that burden than "but he's better".  How convenient that the lesser claim the greater is indebted to them.




has often given abusive men the ability to inflict terrible suffering on them.




Yeah, I hate working for shitty bosses too.  But, as they say, it's a living.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Being expected to contribute to your neighbour's well being is not subjugation.




But being forced to do so because someone else thought I should is.  I seem to be forced to do that a lot these days, especially due to the below.  (It's also not just goods or labor I'm expected to contribute; I'm also required to forego the benefits of my private virtue, usually referred to as 'freedom', when that neighbor can't handle it.)




and your neighbour is near the point of dying from hunger, you ought to share you food with him.




I'll trade an "ought" only provided an effective solution for the moral hazard that is "I'll eat all my food beforehand because someone else will be forced at gunpoint to share it with me after it is gone" exists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then I'd say that Alice should perhaps make an agreement with a particularly scarce resource she is statistically overwhelmingly likely to possess, so that she can get all the things on the high shelves she wants in exchange for allowing [a] Bob exclusive access to that particular resource.


In other words, this is why marriage exists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Reducing someone else to a state of subjugation, for no other reason than that you can, is a bad thing




And yet you actively believe this should be done, because the practical means of enforcing




it is the principle that If You Have The Means At Hand, You Have The Responsibility To Help.




creates a contradiction, since the result of that subjugates those categorized as Having The Means.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Probably because people want to buy it.  Of course, since this is Costco, the bars come in a pack of 2 so they’re a bit more expensive initially.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We just can't let the existence of human suffering, somewhere, be an excuse to shut down human advancement everywhere.




If we allowed the human advancement for advancement's sake, then our enemies would gain political power.


In an environment where the socioeconomic power for the average member outside the current dominant bloc has done nothing but shrink, a society governed by that bloc is going to be fiercely resistant to change.


This is the root cause of why China (and a few other countries that have high human capital potential) can build and advance; while everywhere else [allows itself to be] buried under heckler's veto without end.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But it's ridiculously impractical and requires continual expensive maintenance by chuds (like Musk); the existing technology is good enough or even ideal in certain circumstances, so we should just stick with that.


You know, kind of like electric cars.


If only there were a video describing this phenomenon.  Here's one that springs to mind.

The frustrating part is that he's proven he knows better than to do this.  (And yes, this naturally applies to his pet social issues too.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Reform literally always has bad optics; conservatism (currently leftism) defines itself by being on the right side of those optics.


This is why reform is hard.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The west was moving in direction to have dumb guns and smart munitions.




That's partly because smart guns (or rather, what smart guns enable, which is "can technically fire automatically") are illegal in the West.  That's not so relevant in wartime, but is definitely relevant in peacetime.


And by "smart gun" I mean systems that actually improve the gun's performance- adjustable full-auto rates of fire, computer controlled triggers and optics, ammunition counters (though that's mostly a meme), etc.  You see the explosion in development for guns that were functionally banned 10 years ago in the US (short rifles and shotguns with stocks, pseudo-full-auto that's not meaningfully distinguishable from the real thing, etc.); if we went further than that we'd have a better outlook on what the tech can actually provide.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


draw a line from abortion to cold-blooded murder of the most vulnerable




Yeah, but what if it wasn't (either "not cold-blooded murder" or "not the most vulnerable")?  All abortions that occur are self-justifying if you hate people who would get abortions enough (which is why I believe the pro-choice argument that pro-life views are held out of hatred is invalid- if it was, they'd hold this view instead).


You see, if a mother is stupid or frivolous enough to need an abortion (we have birth control devices that are basically magic these days, this isn't that hard), that mother (and by logical extension, that father) is doing everyone else a service by not reproducing.


The eugenics argument is not frivolous.  Morality and impulse control are heritable, babies at higher risk of abortion are inherently at a disadvantage there, and really, what's the difference between that kid getting aborted by doctor 2 months pre-partum, or aborted by cop 200 months post-partum?  The latter tends to be a lot more destructive, violent, and costly.


It's commendable behavior to relent on one's decision to create such a human.  (And for those who understand this commendation is not a compliment and keep the baby as a result... well, that attitude is what makes someone fit to reproduce.)


On the other hand, mothers who abort rape babies, for genetic defects incompatible with life, or because having the baby would kill them are also acting pro-socially, but these people aren't acting foolishly (well, for the most part) so the compliment actually is one here, and it is necessary they don't feel too bad about it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So much of our legalese is based on assumptions of how to deal with black-white issues in an 85% white country but completely become unworkable when we now have 100 oppressed minority groups




No, what you need is simply to enforce the law fairly.


If you're a flaming racist, you only want that law to apply when victims are black; if you're a flaming sexist, you only want that law to apply when victims are women.  This is modern Blue tribe thought in a nutshell- DR3 is trivially correct[1].


Now, you can't write an explicitly discriminatory law like that in 1960s America[2], but if you control the institutions, you can have that- you simply fail to enforce the law against women or blacks.  But right now, they don't have the institutions, and the law is being restored applied fairly for once in a very, very long time[3].


And this, right here, is what the reformers voted for.


Most of what the Daughters of the Confederacy are protesting against right now is ultimately what the law of the land (by which they justify themselves) says.  You can't have an underclass/slaves/permanent non-citizens because it damages the national social fabric, and the Daughters are pro-slave because it means they don't have to pay to fix some other fundamental problems in society they're on the high side of at the moment.  You also can't be a flaming racist for similar reasons, and the Daughters are all hardcore racists (it doesn't matter that they're technically racist against themselves- they don't see it that way, and why not judge them by their own standard?).




[1] The fundamental contradiction in Blue thought: the tribe whose founding myth comes from fighting for universal human rights is actively working to destroy them for wholly selfish reasons.  A symmetric contradiction in Red thought is also present, of course, as their tribe has a founding myth that comes from fighting against universal human rights to be just, but finds itself actively working to impose them now in the framework that defeated "fighting against universal human rights".


[2] Most other countries that have enshrined "finger on the scale" in law in this way are neither America nor was it the 1960s when they passed them.  They tend to be dominated by more conservative moral impulses than the US is.  Probably an HBD thing, since the people that aren't like that have been self-sorting into the US anyway for the last 200ish years.


[3] Which leads to stuff that looks... really weird from traditional perspectives, like in this case where you have a black man acting indistinguishably from the groups that, 50 years ago, would have been doing the same thing to him for what, in his heart, is the same crime (re: MLKKK of South Park).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For an individual rifleman, the Beretta ARX-160 (ARX-100).


All plastic, toolless disassembly, modern ergonomics (firing hand can close or lock bolt back without releasing grip), charging handle and ejection live on whichever side you please without disassembly (let alone buying new parts), pencil barrel (you don't need anything else), and is lighter than every other AR-18-derived rifle on the market (6 3/4 pounds- not quite as light as an M16A1 or M4, but it comes pretty close).


Beretta passed the savings on to the US consumer but few bought them even then.  There are a few for under 2K on Gunbroker.  The only problem with them is that spending 2000 dollars on an AR-15 can buy you a plastic and carbon fiber rifle that weighs as much with an optic as the ARX does, and they also won't take specifically Gen 3 Pmags.




None of the extruded-aluminum guns qualify as "best rifle".  The Bren 2 is "best light support weapon", though, because with the extra weight comes greater sustained fire capability (in a way that would damage an ARX or M16).  The SCAR is significantly better than the Bren 2 in the weight department, but it also breaks optics, has stupid warranty policies, has/had a reciprocating charging handle, and is absurdly overpriced whereas the Bren 2 has none of those problems.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Obviously, the masks are there to protect the officers against the deadly COVID-19.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Mini-14




The problem with the Mini-14 is mostly that it's a design from the 1930s.  It's the best the 1930s had to offer, mind you, but the design still hails from that period.  The thing's just a more refined bolt-action conversion.


The AR-15 is the best the 1960s had to offer, and in some ways it does pretty clearly show its age (magazines were a compromise from the start for a magwell that wasn't made with 30-rounders in mind, the bolt's too small, the design doesn't lend itself to some important modern mass-manufacturing techniques... yet is very CNC-compatible, so you can make the entire gun on a single machine, which is part of why everyone and their dog makes one).




Thanks for letting me know the Ruger PCC is overpriced.




I'm kind of unfairly hard on this gun because it's basically a heavy pistol on a stick, and most PCCs being just Sten guns in a different form factor.  If it's all you can buy (and this is true of the Mini-14 as well) it's not necessarily overpriced, since Ruger knows that, and it's what the market will bear... but that thing can't cost more than a couple hundred to make.  And yeah, being able to get 15 round mags for it makes it a bit better.




Honestly $700 for a Frankenstein lower isn't that bad, is it?




It is if you're looking at 150-dollar PSA complete lowers, but you're also buying a 100-dollar unique bolt carrier with the lower set (which you'd have to replace in whatever upper you buy, unless it's bufferless in which case it doesn't matter).


But any upper, even the PSA ones, would be fine for this.  Even better is if you can get the ones without charging handle or bolt carrier, since you can buy the bolt separately and you'll want an upgraded charging handle anyway, and the 350 bucks it'd cost will go a bit further.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Definitely no on the M1A. I would much sooner spring for the Mini-14.




Have you considered an M1 Garand?  Expert grades with excellent barrels are currently available for under 1200 bucks from the CMP, your choice of .30-06 or .308.  Then commit heresy and replace the rear sight with a 3x or 5x micro-prism (it's the only scope you can mount that isn't a meme like scout mounts are, and you can still load the gun like normal).  You can probably get one for cheaper; it looks like they only have Experts in stock at the moment.


The biggest problem here's going to be the cost of ammunition, especially if you pick .30-06 (there really isn't much of a reason to other than historical propriety, so how much you care is up to you).  But it's arguably the most cost-effective rifle outside of the SKS (or the Rasheed, if you can find one for a reasonable price), and the SKS is slower to run, just as heavy, has a worse trigger and sights, and Yugos are the most affected by corrosive surplus.  An SVT-40 would also work, has cheap ammunition, but is absurdly expensive for no reason and has accuracy issues.


You could also go M1 Carbine, but those are kind of overpriced for what they are and you'd probably still have to pin your magazines to 10.  You could go Model 8/81 in .35 Rem (or .300 Savage), or some other WW1/2-era fighting rifle, but that creates ammunition cost problems.  You could go Ruger Deerfield (which is the only Mini-14 derivative worth owning, by the way), but .44 Magnum is still more expensive than 5.56 is and mags larger than 4 rounds are very expensive.


You could also go Mini-30; 7.62x39 is cheaper than .300 Blackout is and is more effective ballistically.  You'd have to clean it, but it's still better than the SKS, and unlike the SKS you can put an optic on it with little difficulty.




That aside, I'm going to second the Fightlite for reasons beyond "it's the only thing that's legal", and into "it's the only rifle in its class, period".  If you can't have a threaded barrel, you might as well go with a larger caliber than .300, and you have very few semi-automatic options outside of the AR-15 platform when it comes to those.


.350/.400 Legend, .450 Bushmaster, and .458 SOCOM are arguably better candidates than .300 Blackout is for solving hogs.  Of those, .350 and .450 are the most available, and Faxon makes a couple of pencil barrels for .350 (though they are threaded; I'm not sure whether your law accepts tacking a cover on as a mitigation for that, but you can always just get the 20" and have it cut down for you).  .458 SOCOM magazines have a hidden advantage- that they're not-so-secretly just 5.56 magazines (just used in a different way; the reason you take such a haircut on capacity is because those rounds stack single-file in that magazine)- though whether you and your drop-shipper are comfortable with that property is another matter.


One of those, a carbon-fiber handguard, and a standard upper will still run you 1300 after all is said and done, yes, but if you're not happy about spending a bunch of money on just a bog-standard rifle then this might at least make you feel a little better about it.


Note also that the Fightlite can be used itself as a PCC, and there are 2 ways to effectively do this (Glock magazine adapter block sold separately = you get 15 rounds AIUI): a bufferless CMMG upper and a Glock magazine adapter block, or build with their delayed blowback kit that doesn't require a bespoke bolt carrier (though in that case I'd advise you get something with the fixed extractor unless you like replacing ejector springs).


If you know you're already planning to buy 2 rifles the cost delta for the SCR lower is muted (the PC Carbine is OK but overpriced).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 25, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The sound is awesome, but I found it degrades to take calls as perhaps it needs bandwidth for the microphone.




If it makes you feel any better, all Bose and Sony noise cancelling headphones do this (I'm pretty sure even AirPods do it too).  It's quite a negative impact when you're trying to talk with friends and play a game when the equipment is linked to a computer- while it's possible to disable the "hands free" mode to force high quality but sacrifice the ability to take calls on it unless re-enabled, certain games will force themselves into this mode anyway and end up sounding like absolute garbage until fixed in the settings (or are completely unfixable, as the case may be).


Which means a 500-dollar pair of headphones don't work unless accompanied by a 10-dollar desk mic.  Such is life, apparently.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This is all coming down to a simple question: does the state have a legitimate right to a monopoly on violence?




No, that's only half the question.  The full form of the question is "does the state have a legitimate right to a monopoly on violence when the wrong side wins the election?"  And considering most of human history revolves around this question, I don't think it's particularly simple.


The US is special because its supreme law is very explicit that the State does not have a legitimate right to a monopoly on violence.  It makes this clear in the original document, not just the second amendment to them.  But those statements are insidious, because they also imply that you're going to have to be strong enough to assert your own monopoly (re: Shay's Rebellion) for that to be of any use to you- and so in practice, the monopoly on violence belonging to the citizenry legitimizes the State's -> People's institutions.  (And can also get them to back down when they're doing something sufficiently stupid re: Battle of Athens.)


In this case, Minnesota, and its citizens, are very well aware that Taking The Sign Down and starting (or gearing up for) a shooting war over this would end very badly for them.  5 years ago, it would have been their opponents that would have been on the losing end if they started killing rioters- and this was the case right up until that FONOP incident in Wisconsin where 3 of BLM's enforcers were gunned down (and BLM reacted badly to this).






These people (some of them) have convinced themselves that they are living through the rise of an authoritarian/fascist dictatorship and have precipitated some things that do pattern match to that




I am in complete agreement that they're trying to bring rise to their own authoritarian dictatorship.  BLM = brownshirts, plain and simple.




The real question is: how do you de-escalate from here?




I don't think de-escalation is the right call for either side right now- it's not what the people want, and it's not healthy for the system to tolerate aggressors in this way.


I think that reminding the aggressors that they should have hammered out an agreement back when they had the ability to do that (and not the 2024 "changes nothing" agreement, I'm talking about what's currently the status quo in 2026 where some big businesses are allowed to keep slaves, criminal slaves are deported right after being granted bail, Southern states are allowed to enforce border law again, and the other slaves are paid a small sum to hop a plane and get out... [in exchange for the anchor babies being allowed to sponsor their folks for citizenship, and provisions in law allowing for this] would have solved a lot of the current problem; and the fact that they listened to the destabilizing element and failed to do this means they're at fault.  Everyone walks away grumbling but the problem is mostly solved.


This is the flip side of the "cuckservative": now it's the Progressives that are unambiguously in opposition to the law (and their arguments that in fact, they are following the law are Sovereign Citizen-tier... because that's exactly what they're doing), and those who would normally vote Blue for law and order must now vote Red.  Because Blues are the Establishment (which is not the same as the legislature or the executive) this will hurt them more than Red (which is also why all other non-US Western countries have shifted Blue).


If the system is truly broken, then this won't work, and the people should be making war on the rebels now while they still have a chance.  If I were the People, I'd want a few battalions stationed there- maybe that's enough?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


This could change fast.




Perhaps, but not in the way/with the implications you're expecting.


The US invading Canada would have Battle of Baghdad (2021) levels of resistance, and the vast majority of Canadian heavy industry sits within conventional artillery range without the US even having to cross the border.  (The reverse is not true.)  Now, since that industry is the only reason the US would really want to invade, they probably wouldn't start laying the factories to waste, but the point remains that Canada simply can't depend on domestic war materiel production.


If the US wanted to take Canada tomorrow, they would accomplish that task with little effort and have the English-speaking part integrated within a year (since it basically already is).  Quebec might give them some trouble, though, since there's a language barrier there, and even the part without a language barrier will be the most radicalized; it'd probably take long enough for the French to reinforce them militarily.  They have an unsinkable aircraft carrier ~20km off the Quebec coast already; it's French (and thus EU) territory.


At that point I expect Canada = Quebec to petition for admittance into the EU as a member state.  Most of the border problems for English Canada are obviated by losing the hard border with the US.