domain:putanumonit.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3m ago
I don't know a single internet personality that can claim the title of "second most important person to watch after Trump himself".
07mk
3m ago
Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself. He has a lot of "energy", and has the benefit of being extremely online. People keep making the mistake that the "real world" is more important than a small fringe of online crazies, and they keep getting proven wrong over and over and over (e.g. with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr). The arc of MAGA is long, but it bends towards Based.
I know very little about Fuentes himself, but the analysis here seems wrong. The alt-right, as best as I can tell, has had pretty much no impact in actual policy and very little in terms of national discourse around politics and ideology. Which is as expected from a small fringe of online crazies.
The "woke," and gender identity on Tumblr (subset or, at best, nearly fully overlapping set with "woke"), on the other hand, have obviously had immense and consequential influence in both, and this is due to the fact that they weren't a small fringe of online crazies. Rather, by the time this sort of argument was created to shut down the people trying to bring attention to the anti-liberalism of the ideology that would go on to evolve to something called "woke," ie around early 2010s, it had already been hegemonic in academia for at least a decade and nearly ubiquitous for multiple decades, with plenty of signs of mainstream journalism and mainstream entertainment getting bought in.
So things correctly labeled as a small fringe of online crazies had little impact on real world politics and the everyday life that it influences, while things incorrectly labeled as such did have big impact.
Maybe this Fuentes character's ideas will break into the mainstream over the next 3 years, but so far, him being just a big fish in a small, fringe, online, crazy pond doesn't make me think he's particularly worth paying attention to with respect to national politics.
Sloot
6m ago
If some subset of men don't travel, it's due to toxic masculinity, them being lazy, stingy tightwads who lack interest in other cultures and curiosity about the world.
If some subset of women don't travel, it's due to toxic masculinity, the men in their lives trying to control them, them being too burdened by the physical and emotional labor of keeping households and workplaces afloat to have time and energy to travel.
2rafa
8m ago
All demographic groups (including whites, including Anglo-Saxon whites) have much lower homicide rates in England than they do in America, which is usually the point the gun control advocates were making, no?
2rafa
11m ago
Fuentes has a much younger audience, but even among media figures Bannon has a huge audience on his podcast, it’s just mostly boomers.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
21m ago
having better work-life balance jobs where they can take long stretches of time off.
One of my brothers had a long, long time in the wilderness of dating apps (he's a high earner in a not-great location) and basically came to the conclusion, now popular in some internet corners, that some white-collar jobs are daycare for adult women. He lost count of the women he met who traveled internationally 2-6 times per year for 2+ weeks per trip (with the unspoken but sometimes spoken expectation that serious dating would involve joining all the trips and eventually paying for all of it). Somehow, their workplaces got along just fine without them during their long absences. Whatever jobs they had, they certainly had more generous leave policies than any of his private sector jobs or my public sector jobs. Apparently there's a secret third sector neither of us have found yet.
Women might also care less about splurging on travel from a lifetime of not needing money to attract/entertain men
Again, per my brother, many women he met had $100k+ email jobs, zero savings, and plenty of debt. Most of them perceived saving and being financially prepared for having a family as the man's job, and some were forthright enough to say it out loud. Anyone with that attitude would not have trouble spending money to travel frequently.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were two chav-adjacent girls doing chav-adjacent things in the park with their friends, and an innocent immigrant found himself caught up in the mix. I also wouldn't be surprised if they were indeed two Scottish girls innocently defending themselves against a molesty migrant with a knife and hatchet, in which case they can call me in a few years to fix them, but they don't need fixing. Yes, yes, I know, how brave of me to fence sit.
The online right becomes two-soyjaks-pointing when there's a potential young female heroine to simp for in pwning the libs, even if the vibe/behavior/lifestyle of said potential heroine would, ex-ante, be nominally contrary to the modal views of the online right. Funnily enough, in the AI-generated of her in Scottish garb and Celtic war paint that's making the rounds, she's still emblazoned with the Nike swoosh, which the online right would normally denounce as the ultimate symbol of globohomo. Free advertising for Nike.
Recently there was Sydney Sweeney, who somehow became a darling of the online right while being famous for getting naked and simulating sex on screen. There was Taylor Swift before her, who has a music video promoting a fictional half-black love-child, and who's about 2/3-3/4 of the way to being able to fill out an 11 v 11 football game with a list of just her known paramours (the side with the NFL tight-end would presumably be the massive betting favorite). There's somehow like an entire ecosystem of rightoid e-girl influencers—who surprise surprise, basically just thot around like any other e-girl behind the scenes.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26m ago
Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself.
That's... quite a statement.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
26m ago
How many of them would describe it in those terms? I guarantee you, Harris never framed it as ethnic cleansing. As far as I can tell, the closest she got to mentioning the death toll was acknowledging the “suffering in Gaza.”
oats_son
33m ago
Now that I've read this article, I find this comment at the end funny:
But you can’t blame the travel companies for focusing on the millions of women eager to explore. Men will just have to find a way to break the chains that stop them from seeing the world.
This is like, the exact opposite sentiment you'd get if it was men traveling and women staying at home.
Actually, yes, travel companies should focus more on women. Women only don't travel because of historical oppression. We need equality in frivolous traveling.
3472094371
34m ago
Nice quote, did you steal it from the President?
3472094371
34m ago
Thanks for the tip about trying to pass an arbitrary parameter, unfortunately, it was discarded by the offender. And in my defense, the significance of that circumstance which solved it for you only dawned on me in hindsight...
Jazzhands
40m ago
American right-wingers love to smirk knowingly about stories of the rampant “knife crime” in the U.K., safe in the assumption that this is overwhelmingly a non-white phenomenon.
This isn't why right-wingers smirk at it. "Knife control" was the right-wing reductio ad absurdum of "gun control" until the UK came along and said "yes, I am the straw man you would imagine, I don't even recognize I am saying exactly what you predicted in exactly the way that proves you right."
Payback23
49m ago
It would be more than slightly different context. There is certainly context clues that make it probable the 12 year old wasn't trying to attack a 28 year old man for no reason. You would agree attacking an old man is different? from your story. I feel if the races were different so would be your response. But maybe I am wrong. Are you aware of what has been happening in the UK? Or do you think it is made up hysterics?
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
51m ago
Can a Bannon-Groyper Alliance Derail Vance?
This was a fun article looking forward to 2028. Here are the main points:
- JD Vance is the overwhelming favorite to win the R nomination in 2028. He has a >50% chance as of now, while the next nearest candidates are <10%.
- However, the Groyper faction, i.e. people who associate with Nick Fuentes, is not happy with him.
- Nick Fuentes is probably the second most important person to watch on the Republican side after Trump himself. He has a lot of "energy", and has the benefit of being extremely online. People keep making the mistake that the "real world" is more important than a small fringe of online crazies, and they keep getting proven wrong over and over and over (e.g. with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr). The arc of MAGA is long, but it bends towards Based.
- The best case for Vance is one where he becomes the heir-apparent to the Trump cult through an explicit endorsement from Trump himself. If he plays his cards right in that case, then the 2028 R nomination could look like a coronation with Vance simply refusing to debate any challengers and sailing to victory without really having to make his case beyond generic Trumpy pablum.
- The worst case for Vance goes something like this: he doesn't get Trump's endorsement, perhaps from his rivals spreading conspiracies that any faults of the Trump admin were from Vance being insufficiently loyal to Trump. If Trump is flattered by these ideas he could stay out of the fray, which means Vance would have to do a real campaign. Then, he could find himself under a pincer attack by Groypers slamming the fact he has an Indian wife and brown children, while Bannon attacks him in a conventional way for something like insufficient loyalty to Dear Leader. In this case, Vance could find himself in a similar spot to Jeb Bush -- a frontrunner with little "energy" who's mercilessly savaged from all sides until he has a few disappointing results and drops out.
- Expect the Republican consensus on Israel to crack at least a little bit over the coming decades, again thanks to the Groypers.
If Blaisey Ford had a video of herself dual wielding at Kavanaugh, filmed from his perspective, telling him to leave her alone, I think I might believe her.
And this works both ways. If you want to call out our hypocrisy, show us your MeToo era posts first.
Throwaway05
59m ago
For a few reasons, one is that the hospital is not in charge of the patient's bill, they are in charge of the bill that the patient's insurance gets. They don't have access to or control over that information, what the hospital can provide is something else.
Another is that anything more sophisticated than "the average patient in the ED generates X dollars in charges, here are the error bars" requires significant clinical time to develop. Do you deliver the patient only ICD codes? CPT codes? One primary code vs all encounters with comorbidity? Who is "like me" for expected billing purposes is NOT an easy question.
Another is that this information is materially valuable to the hospital's "enemies" yes that means competing hospitals but also the insurance company who if they have more complete information can leverage that. Famously - hospitals go bankrupt if they only get paid in Medicare and Medicaid (which is less than cost often), extracting the most money from commercial insurance is the only way to stay afloat without significant financial subsidy from the government, with Hahnemann being the most infamous example of how that isn't usually enough. Also see the recent issues with rural hospital failure.
The last reason is that the information is beyond the average person's ability to use and can significant problems. Someone with good insurance might go to the hospital with chest pain, generate 300,000 dollars in charges for their insurance and then be on the hook for a 150 copay. If you get a piece of paper that says "1 percent of ED visits generate charges more than 250,000 dollars" then the average person will sprint away before they can be told that their insurance is never going to charge them that.
You might maintain that you will use this information sensibly and that may be true but the average person is not you and you are unlikely to be you if you are in a moment of medical extremity. The graph isn't that useful and will literally cost lives even if they aren't lives you particularly care about.
Nobody who has complained about this in this discussion or last time has really given me an example of a clinical situation where they would put this information to use. I imagine it's not running away from the hospital when they have a ruptured appendix. It's probably for trying to figure out which colonoscopy is cheaper and shit like that. That's a much more fair use case but hospitals are disincentivized from providing these numbers for multiple financial and liability reasons and it's extremely hard to legislate this given things like the difficulty in defining care settings (What's ASC? You are telling me the ED and Obs are not the hospital even though they are in the hospital and your are on a hospital floor? Oh they are for some things but not others.....blah blah).
Hospital spending is the largest single category of healthcare spending.
Fortunately, it's not true and I have all the proof I need of that.
As I said, I don't think aliens could imitate God either. Don't take the high ground about rejecting that position now.
You really don't get it. Your question is, "What if I rip all the significance out of the world? Would you still call someone by their chosen name?" And the answer is, "Why on Earth do you think a name matters?"
No, it's not about the name, it's about the person behind the name. Real life doesn't work according to definitions. If I define OracleOutlook as "the person arguing with me who has orange hair" and you don't happen to have orange hair; that doesn't mean OracleOutlook doesn't exist, it means I was wrong about who you were. Same with God. You're still mixing up identifiers with definitions.
I thought I made that clear when I brought up the hypothetical about my dad secretly having a different name, or secretly not being my actual dad.
If morality doesn't inherently proceed from God, then God cannot possibly have a perfect understanding of morality
This is not the objection.
It's the objection you made. You said "'the Ten Commandments were really our best guess at moral laws but we are not really the basis for goodness.'" You truly seem to think that God cannot be omniscient outside of classical theism.
The objection is, if morality is outside of God, then God is held to an outside standard. There is something outside God which is sovereign to God. In which case, cut out the middle man.
Again, "cut out the middle man" only makes sense if you're still in the classical theism framework. You need to understand that if the framework is wrong it is wrong.
I also believe God isn't the inventor of truth itself, nor the definition of it, nor whatever more complex thing classical theism would use to describe the idea that the concept of truth proceeds from God. 2+2=4 even if God doesn't exist. This doesn't mean God is "subject" to 2+2=4, or that it's an "outside standard he's held to", and it's utterly nonsensical to think, even if it were a standard he were held to, that one should therefore worship 2+2=4 instead. The law that 2+2=4 isn't written anywhere, it's not even necessarily a "law" at all; it's just how reality is.
If He can be evil, then following Him unreservedly is unwise.
Again, you're still within the classical theism framework. LDS theology holds that there is a 100% chance God will never be evil. He simply won't do it. "But within my framework if God can be evil he will be." OK, but if God can be evil then by definition we're already outside of your framework, and it no longer applies.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Pardon? You think we look at videos like the one you linked, and go "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", or something?
Sloot
1hr ago
A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice. #BlackLivesMatter.
Not the particular tweet I was expecting, but amusingly enough it was the incident I was expecting. I was expecting this classic Tweet:
Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
My apologies but I don't really feel like we are going to have a productive conversation and we should call it here.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
1hr ago
That's actually a very good example. Thank you.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
1hr ago
Do the hospitals have the data on how much similar simple ED visits have costed in the past? If they do, literally how hard it is to literally print it out as a distribution graph and hand it to the patient?
MAGA is indeed full of boomers.
More options
Context Copy link