PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
My guess is being surrounded with elites in an exclusive area and being constantly reminded that "I am elite and exclusive." I have never trained for the Olympics, but I would guess there is also a high associated with being at the Olympics even when not at the village, because they have trained so hard for it for so long.
If she is referring to sex in particular, then what is it about Olympic sex in particular that makes it so much better than the sex she has (probably) been having up until then?
I think there's an argument that the incel community is not really mad about sex, because if that was the case, they would just hire prostitutes. To the extent that is true, this girl is blissful not about sex, but about status.
That does not sound like the kind of post pre-2021 Scott would write. Older Scott posts would challenge the contextualizer and call it "guilt by association" or something. And, post-2021 doesn't sound right either because newer Scott posts don't seem to be about political dynamics.
If you end up finding what essay (Scott or not) I'd be interested in reading it
She may have had sex, but people don't talk about sex like this. She is describing something better than sex.
If I know what they want to hear, and I don't want the consequences of telling the truth, then I'll lie.
There are a lot of times (dating, family, maybe your best friend) where you want to be yourself and in those cases, it only makes sense to tell the truth.
I don't understand what you are saying. The sentence structure is too complex. I think what you're saying is people would rather be defeated morally and socially rather than defeated physically. That's true! I wasn't pretending the domain of discourse is all there is! That's why its a big problem of the social powers and military powers seem like they are not on the same side.
He is right about the 'horns of the dilemma' and non-violence. Another example of these kinds of protests is hunger strikes, employed effectively by British Suffragettes. If you Google this, AI will helpfully tell you the government's response was 'brutal.' I guess letting the poor girls die is the humane thing to do. Oh, wait!
Anyways, in case it is not obvious: 'nonviolence' as a strategy is simply part of using media as a political weapon. It is strange to call such an insurgency the 'weak side.' It is more accurate to call them 'militarily weak, but politically strong.'
The reason a person like this writes an ode to this strategy is because they know at a subconscious level that this particular weapon (sympathetic media) is wielded by their side.
He writes that non-violence, done properly is disruptive and unignorable. It seems to me that these qualities make it categorically similar to violence. Indeed, protesting is kind of like "political-violence," although I am using it here in a very nonstandard way. Gosh, I feel like one of those college kids who redefines words, saying "silence is violence."
Basically, the common sense idea that "violence is very bad, I wouldn't ever EVER do violence ever" is a left-adaptive meme because it means political power (=protesting, media control) wins, and the left has that.
Once we see these dynamics laid bare, why shouldn't someone like me just say, "I will judge actions based on their effects in the zero-sum power war: it matters not if you detonated a bomb and killed people, you are committing an un-ignorable act in the service of a side."
The protestors do not pose a military threat to the government. Rather, they pose a rhetorical, political, and optics threat. Civil disobedience, hunger strikes, tying oneself to a tree, blocking roads; these are all ways to bait someone (usually government) into a heavy-handed reaction. The theory (and practice) is that the reaction drums up sympathy for the protestors and their cause. The force comes from the one-sided media though, not the protesting itself. Protest should be understood as a tool that the citizens (at the media's direction) use against the government - very similar to 2nd Amendment.
Protest organizations clearly say that it is about creating scenes with Law Enforcement.
So, yes these protests are social functions. And yes, there is no need for the protestors to actually think they are fighting fascism. If people really actually believed the were fighting a fascist regime, we'd see more deadly attacks on Law Enforcement and less protesting. The rhetorical and political power of the media can indeed cause governments to act (or not), so it's kind of reasonable for protestors to think they are invincible. They are of course, the rightful side of legitimate American power. Do not mind how they call themselves the underdog - that's part of the theatre script.
The law is intentionally set up to allow for Terrorism Lite to work, especially when it is being committed for certain ends. The law is not meant (by those who write it) to equally protect the abortion protestor and the pro-choice activist.
My understanding is what was rejected was an Emergency Warrant. I have no idea how often Emergency Warrants are used. Maybe an Emergency Warrant would have been approved if but for Lemon's politics/status? How would we know?
not sure what a stationary patrol is
of course this means keeping watch while standing still (not moving). I agree, it is uncommon usage.
As to the question in your OP: if the Lt. Governor is committing crimes then indeed there could be a criminal conspiracy. Some people in discussions have thrown out the word insurrection. I am wondering if there is a principled difference: for example, is insurrection a kind of formal and legal term that describes the state of minnesota itself and not any of its individual leaders. I suppose in a trivial way being a sanctuary city or state might be insurrection. I'm not sure this signal chat stuff really adds any more to that.
Good Genes is indeed incoherent. Genes can only be fit or not. And fitness is relative to the environment. Therefore, to say Good Genes exist is to say Good Environments exist.
Another way to phrase this is that there is an inverse of eugenics. We could posit a kind of "eu-envirics" focused on changing the environment.
(Insofar as the laws of physics have certain requirements, genetic defects that cause e.g. stillborn births are in all practical sense Bad Genes)
To what extent do you (or legal or ethical theory) conflate or distinguish between force, and violence? Restraining someone is certainly forceful, but is it necessarily violent? If you had cheap, harmless sleep rays to aim at patients, would this be considered 'violence?' Such a technology "feels" unethical, even though it seems like it offers safety improvements.
The officer should face zero consequences. This is just politics. I am not insane. Thank you for your opinion.
I hated the prose too. Like another commenter said though, it is intentional. If I recall, one jarring word choice was something like the word 'vessel' to refer to a person's physical body -- over and over and over again. My guess is this is meant to characterize the narrator. so, I don't knock off points for it, just to say: I won't be reading it again.
Of course it isn't better than what we have now to people who prefer democrats. Why else would Gillitrut post what he did?
You seem to be implying that using these phrases is a kind of acting of the type: "teenager-y" which you juxtapose against "terroristy." It's you, you are the one being dishonest in exactly the way previously mentioned.
These phrases allow for a disconnect between the words and actions. What Good is saying is irrelevant to how she was acting. How she was acting is she struck someone with a car. The steelman for calling that a domestic terrorist is people use cars all the time for domestic terrorism.
what is "deranged" about it specifically? Is conflict theorist deranged by default? It seems to me be a straightforward application of consequences:
- Tribally back the officer => Narrative is less likely to create popular pressure to see conviction etc.
- Anything else => agent gets Derek Chauvin'd.
Ironically, I will say, like argument for Ross's self-defense, the mere fact that a reasonable administration thinks this could work might as well be enough for us to NOT call this "deranged."
Ah, so close, you could have said, "I know it seems confusing, but driving into someone is using deadly force..." and then your post would have been perfect. I do wonder if you would have gotten modd'ed for that comment; I won't speculate on that.
Probably most dads think this. I don't know Murphy well enough to say what is going on here: is he just too autistic to realize he is supposed to lie; or if he just likes trolling. Based on a cursory read of his other takes, it seems he is basically just trolling.
While the resulting grade of 0 seems slightly punitive and I don't doubt it was motivated by some level of personal offense, the professor's response hardly could be considered discriminatory. I've heard some grumblings that the instructor gave this grade specifically because she is trans - so it hurt more, or something - but I think most cis psychology profs these days would have a similar reaction
The teacher's (or was a TA?) identity groups are not relevant. The most affluent white (cis) female liberal can still do "viewpoint discrimination" or whatever we call it these days. It is discriminatory because of disparate outcome, basically. An equally shitty essay with flipped political valence would obviously (obvious to me) get more points. The grade of 0 being punitive is simply what is meant by 'discrimination' in this context.
I think you're probably right that the student should know better. She likely did know better. I think it might have been bait. This is the equivalent of gay couples suing cakeshops or whatever. I mean this in the "this essay was obviously (to her) shitty."
You say that a college-level writer needs a skill of adapting ideas to the audience, which I kind of expected you to say some variant of (victim blaming), before I had finished reading your post. The purpose of this course is not to teach the students to suck up. It is not suck-up-writing 101 (or 201). If it was, the prompt would say, 'write an argument for the following position.'
You gesture towards the idea that someone (other than the teacher) did wrong here, but I don't see it. My only conclusion here is you think viewpoint discrimination is alright. That's fine, and there are probably principled reasons to think that, but indeed it would make for a short post.
I've never read any EU books, but I've played lots of videogames. Is it a coincidence that the Jedi Academy book trilogy is about Exar Kun's ghost coming back and the videogame Jedi Academy is about Marka Ragnos's ghost coming back?
Even more ancient discussion here
Is it sad i do remember that story? I always assumed this was biased CW red meat, because of the way it made me feel personally. The Purpose of a System is What It Does, etc.
#1 and #3 feel like essentially the same kind of thing. Presumably, progressive people support saving (not-killing) Palestinians so that they can be made woke.
Comparisons to Kirk: they probably support the killing of prominent Palestinian conservative activists, if those exist.
Comparisons to Jay Jones: If we really want to be uncharitable, the response (or lack thereof? Quick, how is Election Day going?) to Jay Jones' texts perhaps reveals that in some cases, young White children are themselves a kind of political enemy, in a way that young transphobic Palestinian children are not. This is where I post copious Reddit comments saying that stock images of happy white families are vaguely dark, and the commenters themselves are confused about why.
#2 is really the interesting one. I would say American Social Leftism is primarily about Transgender and it is not feminist (anymore) in nature. It has been about Transgender ever since it stopped being about Homosexuals. And it hasn't been about economic redistribution in a long time. This is not a new sentiment; you see it on RW-twitter quite a bit.
I just wish that progressive people would acknowledge that conflicts and trade-offs between terminal goals like this exist, instead of loudly insisting that they don't and that anyone who claims they do is a crypto-conservative.
I understand you wish your enemies to be unpractical, but you obviously see why they behave the way they do, yeah? The only reason to notice and acknowledge that they are in tension is to try to break the coalition. Only conservatives want that (Who benefits?). Indeed, since progressive people understand this, the only thing they can do is say the goals are not in tension.
- Prev
- Next

The asymmetry appears to be, "Wanting [or not] to talk to people who disagree with you." Worth noting that the original OP did not use the word "polarization" but explicitly mentioned "talking to people with different political opinions."
More options
Context Copy link