MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
8hr ago
As long as the GOP is still MAGA, Ukraine will be a left-coded cause. Trump and even more so Vance have put a lot of work into staking out not-Ukraine as a MAGA cause, and politics is reactive.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
8hr ago
Do you have any idea how rare this sort of psychological self-awareness is? You are nothing like representative of pretty much any major movement that's ever existed. That's true of more or less each of us here.
You don't need this kind of psychological self-awareness to bow out after an electoral defeat. "The people have spoken, the ungrateful bastards. I have heard them and will retire from front-line politics and cash in as a lobbyist" is an ego-protective alternative.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
8hr ago
A correct autopsy (the party needs to publicly and noisily repudiate Defund the Police and TWAW and boast about the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the work left) would be even more controversial within the Democratic Party than either of those possibilities.
This is a difference between the UK and US centre-left - centrist Labourites bellyfeel that the left of the Labour party is mostly useful because you can punch them as a costly signal of alignment with the median voter, centrist Democrats see the left as the conscience of the party.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
8hr ago
Very much agreed - parties don't renominate losers.
Since the Civil War, the only people to be renominated after losing in a Presidential general election were Cleveland and Trump (as former one-term Presidents), William Jennings Bryan (as the obvious leader of a powerful faction in the Gilded Age Democratic party, and also as a man who was only 36 when nominated the first time), and Nixon. Nixon is a precedent for renominating Harris, in that he ran and lost the first time as a sitting VP, in an election that was extremely nasty and generally perceived as extremely close. But it isn't exactly a good precedent, and in any case Harris lacks Nixon's political talent and pre-Watergate broad popularity.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
9hr ago
In the current year, neither. Both the expressed and revealed preference of men who are not pumping-and-dumping is for the highest-IQ woman they can get (other things being equal, which they rarely are).
Historically, men were supposed to (and presumably did) want a woman who wouldn't talk back to them in public. Pretending to be dumb on a date, particularly if the man knows you are not really dumb, is signalling that you are that kind of woman.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
9hr ago
You don't see a concerned propaganda effort to stop men going to the gym, which is, at least in part, a Red Queen's Race too.
In the (UK establishment lib) circles I move in, I see a mild concerted attempt to ensure that gymbro culture does not rise in status. As several fitness commentators have pointed out, there is a default message that you don't always see in a fish-in-water kind of way in "blue" culture (including the British traditional elite - even the parts of it that are not left-wing) that endurance events are higher-status than strength, although I don't know if it is the result of a concerned propaganda effort or if it is spontaneous and bottom-up.
To put it more bluntly, I actually believe that lifting heavy is for niggaz of all races, but I have no idea how I came to this opinion and I have no rational basis for holding it.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
9hr ago
(A very simple test, if a woman being told that she is just like her partner would make her feel proud and happy then her partner is respectable)
This is incorrect because what is respectable in women and what is respectable in men are different. In particular, giving a woman too many compliments for her personality without complimenting her looks sends the implied message that she is ugly, in a way which wouldn't for a man.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
9hr ago
"women are attracted to dominance" is very useful as a guiding principle that points you in the right direction.
This one is particularly useful because the dating advice in mainstream sources has been filtered to make feminists feel good about themselves and therefore men who get their dating advice from mainstream sources are told the opposite.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
9hr ago
In fact, I'd be more wary of an urban young woman who somehow decided to go "based". It may not be an issue but it seems they somehow couldn't fit in, either because they are very disagreeable and contrarian, or they had to rely on this strategy to stand out and attract men, which is also suspicious.
I think it is also relevant that both wokism and the "based" right are malignant from a normie or establishment liberal perspective. If your worldview is normie or establishment liberal, you shouldn't date a wokist or a "Nazi", excluding the scenario where you are a man going for a pump-and-dump in which case the fact that she is a human being with thoughts and feelings is mostly irrelevant anyway.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
10hr ago
The high-testosterone eastern European woman who is a hard-charging bank executive by day and a dominatrix by night is too memetic to check. I assumed she would look like she was on the Romanovian dodgeball team, but she is reasonably pretty and doesn't even have a visible manjaw.
All major Christian denominations discourage interfaith marriage - not being unequally yoked is in the Bible. Catholicism explicitly discourages interdenominational marriage, because it creates conflicts about which denomination children will be raised in. Islam only permits interfaith marriage if it is a muslim man marrying a non-muslim woman who he does not intend to treat as a human being. Ethnic religions like Judaism discourage interfaith marriage for different reasons, but it becomes a load-bearing part of the religion and associated culture. And in a world where most people actually believed in their religion, religion is a proxy for core moral values.
So "Don't date someone with different core moral values" is lindy, and the reasons why it is good advice, at least as regards potentially babymaking relationships, still apply just like they always did. (Either one of you will have to abandon passing on values to their children, or you will end up raising the children as moral relativists.) And in the 21st century people define their core moral values by their politics, not their religion. Someone who actually believes in wokism would struggle to co-parent with someone who doesn't. Obviously the same is true of the political-religious hybrid that is red tribe evangelicalism, and I would say it is true to a lesser extent of red-hat wearing MAGAism and establishment liberalism.
There is a separate issue that left-wing women believe, correctly, that right-wing political views are correlated with anti-feminist attitudes that the women in question consider misogynistic (and to a lesser extent with views that really are misogynistic), and that right-wing women believe, correctly, that left-wing political views are correlated with feminist misandry. I'm a liberal, and even my dating strategy included an early filter to rule out feminists. So politics are an actually-useful filter in a world where there are enough apparent options that you can afford to use a noisy filter.
Finally, there is a signalling aspect. Publically stating that you won't engage in interfaith dating is a signal that:
- You are committed to your own faith
- You are dating for potential marriage, not just for casual sex.
Both of these are signals you would want to send. If Tinder existed in the 1950's, it would provide a filter so Catholics could avoid seeing Protestant profiles and vice versa, lots of people would use it, and there would be a mild stigma to not using it.
Putanumonit's The skewed and the screwed is a good discussion of the negative practical consequences of this.
but they replaced the word with something called the Tories
"Tories" refers to members and supporters of the Conservative party - it is an informal term used both as a self-descriptor and as a slur, dating back to the era where the Whigs and Tories were aristocratic factions rather than organised political parties. I doubt the chick in question is using the word accurately - I assume she would be even less likely to date a Reform or Restore supporter than a Conservative.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
10hr ago
As discussed below, no Europeans think of themselves as white in a politically relevant sense. We think of ourselves as English/Irish/German etc, like to think we can distinguish different European sub-populations visually, and find the fact that some of the lesser breeds without the law (Kipling was talking about the Boers here, not the blacks) have the same skin colour as us morally irrelevant.
Historically the superordinate identity that Europeans reached for when they wanted one was Christendom, not whiteness. (Whiteness didn't work, because the actual outgroup was Muslim Arabs and Turks, who are no more swarthy than southern Europeans). There is now an alternative left-coded superordinate identity - the EU is a political community that can be the locus of civic nationalism. But neither Christian nationalism nor EUism are popular among European nationalists compared to the nationalisms of individual countries or secessionist regions. (Single-issue anti-Islamism is, which could be considered an extension of Christian nationalism) White nationalism is an American invention, developing in a context where you wanted to outgroup 15% of the native population but couldn't reasonably claim they were foreign.
The wogs do begin at Calais, but Christian (and post-Christian) wogs are not enemies by default. Heck, even the snail-munching, sexual deviant frogs have been on our side for 120 years now.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
Internal divisions hurt political parties. If the party is divided about an issue normie voters do care about, it makes it look like they don't know what they will do if elected. If the party is divided about an issue normie voters don't care about (like Israel-Palestine), it makes then look like out-of-touch political obsessives. If the party is divided about personalities with no obvious political valence, it makes them look incompetent.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
The Victorian era in the English-speaking world has a reputation for bad sexual hangups. It is the period where Americans started calling cocks roosters in case they were mistaken for the male organ (that happened) and put skirts on piano legs so they weren't sexually alluring (that probably didn't). It is the era where British wives were encouraged to "give little, give seldom, and give grudgingly" (the advice manual is real, but was intended as satire - it just isn't clear what it was a satire of) and when the French said that BDSM was "la vice anglaise" and insinuated that the British were so sexually repressed that we couldn't enjoy vanilla sex.
I have no idea how well-deserved this reputation was, but it definitely exists. "Copy Victorian strategies for socialising the sexes with each other" is going to get laughed out of court as a result.
Apples and oranges my friend.
The preferred terminology is "whisky and milk"
Although "apples and oranges" actually works - apples are climacteric and so can continue to ripen after picking, whereas oranges and other citrus fruits are not and need to be picked fully ripe and eaten quickly. But this is not obvious because (unlike, say, bananas) intentionally ripening apples in your fruit bowl is not a big part of how you eat them.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
They develop a literally insane view of female attractiveness and will be completely and totally unable to rationally discuss it under any circumstances.
I think most women have a sane view of female attractiveness, despite being completely and totally unable to discuss it directly. 4s know that a man with a choice will pick the 7 every time. "Don't go out on the pull with a significantly hotter girlfriend" is standard female dating advice. "What does she see in him/he see in her?" type calling out of apparent SMV differences in relationships are common gossip, and require accurate SMV assessment to participate in.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
Second, the trope of the man who ditches his wife for some young hottie is kind of like stranger kidnappings and police shootings of unarmed black men. These things get a lot of attention because they resonate with peoples' emotions but in reality they're pretty unusual. Most men in middle age simply don't have the combination of looks, social status, and wealth which would allow them be attractive to young women. Most young women don't want a guy who is balding; out-of-shape; broke because he's paying alimony and child support; etc. Of course it's different if the guy is highly successful, is in good shape; etc. ;or if he's mediocre but the woman has a thing for older guys; but these are both very unusual.
Even the man who is rich enough to do so effectively doesn't usually leave the mother of his children to marry his mistress unless the first wife kicks him out.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
It would be like 60-40 today.
Worse than that because women are affirmative-action eligible.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
I'm as British as they come and I was a New York Yankees fan for a while after a summer job at Brookhaven where most of my housemates were Yankees fans. Baseball is the perfect sport to watch on TV while multitasking housework or low-effort admin in the same way that cricket is the perfect sport to follow online while slacking off at work.
Down with three true outcomes - live balls and skilled defensive play are the best bit of baseball!
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
In these parts I think it's okay to call a pikey a pikey.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
I think it is just that the rot spread through different parts of English-speaking academia at different speeds. Small liberal-arts colleges in the US fell first, then second-tier institutions on both sides of the pond, then the Ivies, then Oxbridge, with the specialist STEM schools like MIT, Caltech and Imperial holding out longest. So at any given point in time a good British university is less rotten than a good US university.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
At Cambridge, all the essay-mill adverts I got wanted us to write for them, not hire them. They were subject to the same level of ridicule.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
Trivially true; look at election maps of my [admittedly newly-added] example over the last 150 years and you'll see exactly what I mean. The cities always only ever vote for themselves with a brief exception perhaps once every 30 years.
One party in the US two-party system was based on an (admittedly corrupt) alliance between the northern urban political machines and the rural south from about 1910 to about 1980, which is a third of America's history. For much of the other two thirds politics was sectional (New England and friends vs the South and friends) with cities and their hinterlands voting together. AFAIK the only period "urban vs rural" has been the best simple model of national politics in the US was the last twenty years, and it has been a 50-50 split with suburbs as swing territory. [I think you can make an argument for rural Jacksonians vs urban Whigs as a model for the 1820-1840 period, but it isn't the standard one]
In the rest of the democratic world, big-tent centre-right parties which consistently win the countryside and are competitive in the cities are dominant in most countries most of the time. In the UK specifically, the Tories are competitive in the big industrial cities until Thatcher, and in London until Brexit - in both cases until they stopped trying. (Labour's heartland was the coal-mining areas, not the cities) For example, the last time Manchester elected a Tory-majority council was 1967-1971, and 1982-1984 for Birmingham.
Running against urbanism and cities is a choice made by some right-wing parties for their own internal reasons. If right-wing parties choose to do that, they don't get to say that urbanites hating them back is an unfairness that needs to be remedied with malapportionment.
The country needs the city far less than the city needs the country. This is a significant strategic liability for the city, actually- the city needs water and food and raw materials (to convert into finished goods) far beyond subsistence levels by its nature of being a city. Thus the power the city derives from centralization is dependent on the rest of the country, not the other way around.
Coastal cities are built around ports, usually at river mouths (which gives you access to fresh water). Rich cities relying on food and raw materials imported by sea because they didn't control a large enough rural hinterland to feed themselves goes at least as far back as ancient Athens - Rome was fed from the Nile Delta. And higher value raw materials come from even further afield. The archaeology is ambiguous, but it is likely that Athenian hoplites were going into battle wearing bronze armour where the tin in the alloy came from Cornwall.
New York City doesn't need Idaho because they have Elizabeth, and Elizabeth plus cash gives them the world. If you look at the blue/red state map, every blue state has blue-or-Canadian-controlled access to the sea. (I agree that there are blue cities in red states which don't). Technically all red states have red-controlled access to the sea via the Gulf coast, but in practice using that access would overwhelm the capacity of the Gulf coast ports, and also require the use of railway junctions in blue states. So in the case of a peaceful-but-hostile split, the reds would run out of raw materials first.
There have been times and places where the economy of the city is based on a threat to shoot up the country - see Rome passim. (Urbanites make much better soldiers than yokels, it's just that they have sufficiently good alternative employment opportunities that they don't volunteer for peacetime garrison duty). The modern US is not one of them - rural America is subsidy-dependent, and the largest paypig in the system is Big Tech.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
1d ago
Canada has not seen an irregular change to its constitution or boundaries or large-scale political violence since Confederation in 1867. That makes the current Canadian order about the same age as the (post-Civil War) American one, or significantly older if you consider any or all of Redemption, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights era as irregular and/or violent constitutional changes.
Australia likewise since Federation in 1901.
The UK has not seen an irregular change to the constitution since 1688, or a violent one since 1660. There has been political violence due to Irish secessionist movements, but Irish Home Rule would have been handled peacefully if WW1 hadn't happened at the wrong time.
As a separate issue, the main reason why the Anglosphere has so much democratic continuity compared to continental Europe is a lack of foreign invasions, not a lack of revolutions.
It isn't many votes in the grand scheme of things, and they are low-value votes because they are not in a purple state.
The Argument did some issue polling and came to the conclusion that both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine messages were unpopular in general, and more unpopular with independents than partisans. This is consistent with my practical experience of British politics, so I am inclined to trust the results.
More options
Context Copy link