domain:kvetch.substack.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12m ago
I was thinking more, "if we start spamming now, thry won't have time to roll back". Either that kr the whole system collpses because everyone sees what a farce it ia, which is also a happy ending, as far as I'm concerned.
GBRK
18m ago
Nah, they're 100% okay with it, they just use a distinction that's largely orthogonal to the conservative civic nationalist one. Look at the hysteria about "gentrifiers", for example.
GBRK
22m ago
It's fair to identify particular values of particular creedal societies as being problematic. But as a trivial proof, an ideal creedal society is always better than an ideal ancestral society because the ideal creedal society can just capture whatever makes an ancestry "good" without the intermediary layer. It's like this: if you want the most law-abiding people in your society, you can admit people based on some proxy for law-abidingness, e.g., good SAT scores-- but that's always going to end up being less effective than just admitting them based on their actual history of abiding by the law. That applies ESPECIALLY if you take a strongly hereditarian position. If your entrance mechanism is looking for common descent, that actually relatively disadvantages the pro-social traits you assume are correlated with the descent.
GBRK
28m ago
, we can begin right now
Unironically yes. Go for it. I don't think the net result is going to be any different from what's already happened. The Court's current disposition is a compromise between republicans, not a compromise with democrats.
"[X] is persecuted because it's bad" should be the default assumption, despite what a lifetime of cultural conditioning tells me.
Cults are marginalized, criminals are jailed, and pedophiles are excluded from some jobs. Unproductive workers are fired (or at least not promoted), unpleasant people don't get invited to parties, and flaky people don't get trusted with responsibilities. I'm guessing I would agree with the consensus 90% of the time, but that last 10% is very important.
Yeah. I gotta say, mainstream conservatives seem drawn like salmon to their native pool of the worst argument to support directionally correct positions. Throughout the 2016-2024 window, "cancel culture" was the rallying cry of conservatives against the left. But that was always the worst tack to take.
- Bad things should get you cancelled. Even if not, it's a universal feature of human societies. Every society has the sacred and taboos, whether right or not, and violating them has always resulted in punishment or shunning. The left is more likely to eliminate inequality of outcomes than you are to eliminate cancellation.
- When you whine about cancellation, you're pre-emptively sabotaging yourself for when you take the cultural catbird seat back. If you've spent eight years complaining about viewpoint discrimination, you can't easily conduct a purge of the people who did the last purge, the people who kicked you out to begin with. They can then shiv in your back and seize back power at the first opportune moment.
See also: The "snowflake" insult conservatives used around 2012 for woke people complaining about representation of blacks or gays in movies. Well guess what. Now Hollywood is woke, and conservatives are holding the bag of being "snowflakes" for complaining about the representation of blacks or gays in movies. Funny how that works.
ChickenOverlord
33m ago
It doesn't need to be today, and I hope my death is not one that happens after a prolonged period of illness and lingering, but any sadness would mostly be because I'm leaving behind people that I love and that love me and that my absence in their lives will be painful and/or traumatic.
Along those lines, growing up religious (and still religious) I never really feared death until I got married, and even then only because I fear leaving my wife behind to fend for herself, not because of any fear of my existence ending.
Zoning laws. I hate, hate, hate them. They're also mostly a Democrat thing, so there's an example of me being appropriately mad at "my side" for acting against my interests.
Aside from that--
Other tariffs. Excessive FDA regulatory burden. The existence of patent law. The Jones Act.
I could go on.
More options
Context Copy link