domain:nunosempere.com
cjet79
3m ago
This debate shakes out the same way every time. Amadan was willing to write the objections, so I'll not repeat them all.
I'll add that I see being slow on responding to news as a feature rather than a bug of the policy.
This is not a news website it's a discussion website, and it's a place for thinking. I'd prefer allowing people to digest the news elsewhere and then post here if they want to actually discuss a particular thing.
The poster earned a ban because I have explicitly told them in the past to not do this. I'm not in favor of unlimited "warnings" that have no teeth.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3m ago
Sure, but if you want to start a thread about mod policies, it would be better to put it in the Small Questions thread than the CW thread.
TowardsPanna
4m ago
That's good to know.
I've gone with a cheap-ish but hopefully pretty solid intro package for coffee at home: Krups Silent Vortex blade grinder (saves a lot of $), Chemex 3 cup pour-over brewer with their proprietary filters + I'll make do with my non-goosenecked but pretty good new kettle with thermostat.
And I've informed myself a little on how to brew and where to get beans.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5m ago
Yeah, this is starting to feel like an elaborate version of the mental gymnastics meme. I can get the "just because a lefty did, that doesnt say anything about the broader left" reaction, but we're cycling through them and they're getting increasingly frantic.
And again I can understand that from a hard-leftist, but it's quite a bit mire disturbing coming from the moderate ones.
YoungAchamian
5m ago
Such an action is toxic to the norms of discourse that is fundamental to a free, democratic society. They should be caught, tried by a jury of their peers, and put to death.
However at what point does one person's political assassination become another person's freedom fighter?
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
7m ago
If one moves about in European (and presumably American) far left circles, even peripherally (ie. Discords and stuff), it is pretty much guaranteed that they will know Bella Ciao and its Italian partisan context.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
7m ago
He was dunk-farming on infantile leftists for clout in a similar vein that Milo Yiannopoulos exploited about a decade ago. That's not a bad thing, but it's hardly some great civic service.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
11m ago
Maybe you'd have a point if we could all collectively agree to wait for a week before opining on this sort of thing, but top conservatives like Musk and Trump almost immediately blamed "the left" (basically half of the country) for this attack. You're effectively demanding unilateral disarmament.
YoungAchamian
11m ago
This doesn't at all mean him pulling the short straw and the risk coming due isn't tragic as he acknowledged in his comment.
Sure it is tragic, but it doesn't mean he is owed sympathy. And the lack of that sympathy doesn't make people sociopaths any more than a lack of sympathy for illegal immigrant mothers being pulled from their homes and deported, makes other people not sociopaths.
I am completely unsympathetic to both appeals for sympathy and cries of sociopathy at ones outgroup.
oats_son
15m ago
I really appreciate the apology, no joke. I've had such extreme emotions lately, I've tried so hard to get people to understand, I've left so many communities today... I thought I was going to be writing a long response to your reply proving my genuineness and self-doxxing myself even more with a tear-drenched keyboard.
I understand that it would be very damaging to relax every rule in the face of such emotional appeals. But I do think it might make sense to make a separate thread about this. Can I create a separate thread about this?
faceh
16m ago
that would make all sorts of things special exemptions like killing in self-defense (nobody needs to defend themselves against me)
Nah.
"Self-Defense" is actually quite simple. "I will not use violence against any person... UNLESS they use it against me first." Both defense and offense are 'using violence.' But generally speaking, offense is the one who initiated, and defense is the person responding to it.
A person who uses violence against me 'first' is demonstrating that they are okay with violence being used against them. Else, what entitles them to do it to me? I am absolutely happy to oblige them and have no moral qualms about this. I will, of course, exhaust most other possible remedies first before doing so because violence, as a sheer practical matter, sucks for all involved and still puts me at risk of harm.
Remember. I literally teach this stuff professionally. I also live in a state where the law supports self defense. I practice law. I am vigorously overqualified to argue what is and is not justifiable self-defense.
And I believe EVERY human is entitled to use violence to protect themselves from others who use violence on them.
No special pleading necessary.
prohibiting 6 year olds from drinking alcohol.
I can cover that one by pointing out that you're not really prohibiting six year olds from drinking. Most six year olds don't know what the fuck alcohol 'is'. You're prohibiting people from giving alcohol to six year olds and there are absolutely justifiable reasons for doing that.
YoungAchamian
17m ago
I mean, the 80s is half a lifetime away. The right wing that existed then doesn't exist today, and the lineage is rather thin as well
I mean fair but also there's definitely enough Christian conservatives on this forum advocating for a return to Christian morality even if they only make up a minority of the Right. And that's even before we get into the dissident rightists. Different flavors, but I imagine the feeling of being oppressed for having a different morality than them will be the same. I think the cultural memetic scars are also much longer lasting.
The left probably doesn't feel like they are deliberately oppressing FC. It's that C.S. Lewis quote all over. They feel they are freeing the people FC's tribe were oppressing. And if a few "bigots" need to be stomped on then so be it. I agree that they aren't deriving power from it directly but they are flexing that power, and to quote some Fantasy/Sci-fi Author I can't remember (Our that my memory invented: "Power is alive and it seeks those who will wield it, those it can corrupt to increase the power, so that they may wield it better. Power always grows in the hands of tyrants" Power is an egregor, and all entities exist to perpetuate their own growth and existence. The power they are flexing, that we feel oppressed by, will just be taken up by who ever replaces them. You can see that with the Rights return to cancel culture. After being affected by it for 2 decades, is the answer "Lets put the superweapon back in the box" no its "lets turn it on our enemies in our brief moment of power"
we're just two groups killing each other over whether bread should be buttered on top or on the bottom.
I like this phrase I'm stealing it. I despair that it will ever be so.
Not sure I want to wade into the discussion about the merit of the lefts vs rights values, too nebulous for me.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
19m ago
Frankly, I don't want people posting here who aren't smart. The stringent moderation has helped us cultivate a high-quality community. If people are getting filtered by the rules, then that's a feature, not a bug.
But those people can't provide coverage of everything here.
Quality over quantity. If something is genuinely newsworthy, then someone will write a sufficiently effortful post about it eventually (where, again, sufficiently effortful typically means 4-5 sentences). There's no rush.
jkf
19m ago
Where's the prayer for the high school students shot by a neonazi a few days ago?
That's the neat thing about praying -- you can pray for whomever you want!
If the Demcritters had asked for a prayer for those people, do you think the Repcritters would have shouted them down?
Quantumfreakonomics
23m ago
how and when you communicate is as important as the literal words.
Is there a better time to talk about Charlie Kirk than right now? He has never been, and never again will be, more relevant than he is right now. He is the topic of the national conversation.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
23m ago
Everything is incredibly sad right now.
Yes, it is. You know what? I was probably more hostile than I needed to be, and I'm sorry for that. We've been getting a lot of shit thrown at us lately and the threads this week have been terrible. But I should still have tried to write that in a less antagonistic manner. I apologize.
That said- the point stands. Our rule against posting hot takes on breaking news is not because we're trying to make people jump through unreasonable hoops or prevent people from talking about breaking news. It's because we want to see effortposts, not people trying to emulate Twitter with who can get the fastest zinger out there. It really is not unreasonable to ask you, if you want to talk about the latest breaking news, to put a few minutes thought into what you want to say about it and not just copy-paste a link and an excerpt, which looks very much like someone who is just eager to have the first top-level thread on the subject.
faceh
24m ago
I'm noticing that a lot of 'moderate' lefties (including my own father, sadly enough) are internally struggling with the fact that yeah, they didn't like Kirk, and would prefer he shut up, and yet having him killed this way makes it clear that they're not the good, peaceful, intellectually superior side in the conflict by default.
So they're casting around for some way to resolve this by either tearing down the victim, or criticizing the hyperbolic praise being heaped on him (as a way to indirectly tear him down), or pointing out lefty victims that didn't get this much attention, or trying desperately to make it about guns, or about righty hypocrisy, or, recently, to imply that the shooter was actually righty.
That so many of them are wedging their shoe firmly in the back of their throat, thus making the point stronger is kind of a natural outcome of their mindsets.
/speculation
4doorsmorewhores
26m ago
Just to update you on this bet, Las Vegas (the city that it's easiest to get tourist data for, until we get total numbers at year's end) has had fewer visitors in 2025 than 2023, an astonishing fact when you consider the earth's population has grown hundreds of millions over that time period.
Here's the source for the numbers
3.5 mil in 2023: https://news3lv.com/news/local/las-vegas-hits-highest-july-tourism-number-since-pre-pandemic-with-35m-visitors
3.1 mil in 2025: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/vegas-tourism-is-down-some-blame-trumps-tariffs-and-immigration-crackdown
My understanding is that a drop in Canadian tourism has hit northern cities the most, unlike relatively isolated Las Vegas.
To decouple the chilling effect from the desire not to travel during a pandemic is quite simple, just compare the total decline to the specific decline in places with legal restrictions, the difference will tell you approximately how many people didn't travel because they were banned, and how many didn't travel because they were afraid of the deadly global pandemic. A good example seems to be Egypt, a country that is a tourist destination, centrally located, and had very light corona virus requirements (Between August 15th 2021 and June 16th 2022 you just had to show a negative test within the 3 days before arrival). You can see the numbers drop off a fucking cliff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Egypt#Statistics
The same is true in Mexico, a country that apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) had zero corona virus travel rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Mexico#Statistics
Based on this data it seems virtually impossible that you can attribute the massive drop off of tourism to a chilling effect, but we know that since last year the Trump border stuff is leading to a 10-20% decline.
naraburns
nihil supernum
29m ago
Like I said elsewhere, deep in my heart I fear he could be, I donno, a Groyper or something. Not like I have any reason to actually think that, it would just be the worst of all possible worlds, and the depressive part of me thinks that makes it the most likely.
This is certainly an argument being made.
The explanations on the pictures all seem to boil down to "yeah this is a known Antifa/LGBT thing but Groypers also use it mockingly or ironically, therefore this guy must be a Groyper." This does not strike me as impossible, but it also pattern matches to motivated reasoning from someone hoping to dissociate their preferred movement from these events.
Robinson was apparently a very high-achieving high school graduate (picture of a 34 ACT score on his mom's social media) who dropped out of university after a single semester, then spent two or three years studying to become an electrician at a local trade school. That's a pretty by-the-book "disappointed genius/failure to launch" story. Whichever group ultimately radicalized him, it clearly wasn't a group of Free Speech absolutists.
But given that past is prologue, I am skeptical that these matters will ever be cleared up to the satisfaction of any committed doubters.
Jiro
30m ago
I do. Its a simple application of the silver rule. If someone treats YOU in a particular way, then they're basically implying they agree it is fair for them to be treated that way. Unless they're carving out a special exception for themselves, which I would LOVE to hear their justification for.
This needs to be a little more nuanced than that.
The problem is that "in a particular way" and "special exemption" is doing a lot of work. What is a special exemption? It can't just be a category that includes someone else but excludes me--that would make all sorts of things special exemptions like killing in self-defense (nobody needs to defend themselves against me), jailing bank robbers (I don't rob banks), and prohibiting 6 year olds from drinking alcohol.
(And you may be tempted to respond "well, if you did rob a bank, the bank robbery rule would apply to you, so that isn't a special exemption." Which doesn't work; compare "well, if you did say something right-wing, a rule about censoring right-wingers would apply to you".)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
31m ago
From right wing outlets, yes, I see a lot of lionizing about what a great guy he was. From left wing outlets, barely-restrained grave dancing following throat-clearing about how murder is bad. Mostly what I see from mainstream news is "This is awful and says something about politics/free speech/gun control in America right now" followed by a lot of throat-clearing about how Kirk was "controversial."
Tree
32m ago
This is, in fact, as far as I've understood, a very, very radical view in the American political sphere on a key issue, one which some might call the defining issue of American politics.
Which is strange. As a european who never had much contact with blacks outside of hollywood movies, when I first learned what the Civil rights law actually was, I rejected it. Why can’t they have their own diners? It goes against the basic right of freedom of association. If whites are so oppressive and racist, why would you want to sit next to them? I don't try to get into gay bars or irish bars, because I know they'll taunt me. And if they were known to take away my voting rights and lynch me, it'd be even weirder to suggest attending their bars and schools at the solution to my problems.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
34m ago
doesn't exactly advance the aims of the Civil Rights Act
Neither does the judiciary gutting the black-letter law of the CRA to decide that harassment is a one-way street and protected classes are not general categories.
oats_son
36m ago
You are truly not who I thought you were. Where is the kindness? Why is this so antagonistic? Why are you so hostile to me? This isn't even what I want to do, dude, I've never gotten warned for this offense or anything, I just feel pretty sad for some guy getting an actual ban for something so easy to do. You are incredibly uncharitable, and that's sad. Everything is incredibly sad right now.
"Going out in public" and debating people is hardly something that takes immense courage. I did policy debate in college -- where's my statute?
Before this, public figures generally didn't worry that much about their personal safety. Random crazies have always been a threat, but they're relatively rare compared to all the public figures going out into public. Maybe that's slowly changing as the US becomes more sectarian?
More options
Context Copy link