site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 2329 results for

domain:streamable.com

Now this is Friday Fun!

Recreational bunker shellings when?

the "Jewish State" will not pull all the stops to save your life but will instead attempt to murder you to prevent you from being used as a bargaining chip

I've seen countless crypto-Hamas supporters citing the existence of something called the Hannibal Directive as if they're masterfully laying down a trump card; in some cases, explicitly claiming that Hamas killed literally zero civilians on October 7th, and that 100% of the Israeli civilians massacred on that day were in fact killed by the IDF. These people seem to be engaged in a kind of curious doublethink: on the one hand, they want to express their support for Hamas and the broader Palestinian cause - but on the other hand, on some level they're aware that this means tacitly endorsing some rather monstrous and brutal tactics. The "solution" they've hit on is to assert that Hamas is entitled to fight back against oppression and colonialism, up to and including murdering unarmed Israeli civilians - but in point of fact, 100% of the unarmed Israeli civilians in question were actually murdered by the IDF themselves! How convenient - for a moment there I was worried I might have to confront legitimate moral ambiguity, acknowledge that this conflict isn't as black-and-white as I would like to pretend, or do something facially grotesque like actively endorsing the slaughter of music festival attendees. What a relief that I can instead fall back into the warm, comforting embrace of that isn't happening, and it's good that it is. (See also "Denial by a thousand cuts".)

But for all that such people are keen to cite the existence of the Hannibal Directive, they are generally strangely reluctant to cite specific cases in which they believe it was actually used by the IDF. The intention seems to be to conjure up a free-floating miasma in which all claims of Israeli suffering are responded to with reflexive suspicion, a permanent asterisk over any and all Israeli casualties in this conflict, while being careful to avoid specific (and hence falsifiable) assertions that this specific Israeli was in fact killed by the IDF. "Yes, yes, Israeli civilians being murdered is bad - but hey, did you know there's this thing called the Hannibal Directive? Sure is interesting, huh? Now, I'm not saying the IDF intentionally murdered their own people and then Mossad created some AI-generated footage to frame Hamas for the massacre as a casus belli - but I'm not not saying that. At the end of the day, I'm Just Asking Questions."

There was a six-month period in 2018 where every major social media site, and many minor ones, would not only ban transmission of DefCad files, or ban discussion of those files, but even discussion of the ban. And they lost. CodeIsNotFreeSpeech was shoved off AWS. Entirely away from the sphere of sales, ARFCOM was booted from their DNS provider with little notice and no recourse. YouTube has banned guntubers for showing (legal!) machine guns or silencers, or for taking gun sponsorships.

There are other things than guns, for that matter. This story is hilarious in hindsight and the politician in question was able to get a workaround, but a lot of people don't.

And that's the stuff we hear about.

I highlight the pornapocalypses (and dildopocalypses) here because I want people on the right to recognize that it's not just hitting them.

But the other half of that is people who aren't on the right need to recognize that there's been stuff hitting the right, too, and many of these are either less defensible or far broader-reaching.

I made the statement:

"The thing is, that work doesn’t hugely differ whether you’re the wife of a coal miner or a self-made billionaire."

To be clear, I agree with none of these statements:

you are the superior person in this relationship because you are the breadwinner

her little job (if she works outside the home) doesn't count.

Working in the home only? Absolutely does not count for anything

If you do decide to dump her, she deserves maybe ten bucks and a pat on the head, but certainly nothing more.

Not one drop of your vast wealth (should you have vast wealth), even if that share does not, in fact, leave you penniless but you retain possession of the majority of the vast wealth.

I think it would help for you to understand where I'm coming from:

My family is upper-middle class; my father was the breadwinner and my mother was, theoretically, a stay-at-home wife. They did not get on.

In practice, my father had been poor before he married and he worked like a dog somewhere between 10 and 15 hours a day for decades to keep the family afloat and to keep my mother in the style she was accustomed to. My mother then spent that money on cleaners, gardeners and a nanny plus jewelry cars etc. She cooked (but not for my father out of principle), cleaned compulsively (this was not a benefit of marriage, we begged her to stop), took care of us on the two days the nanny was on holiday, and watched soap operas.

My father is now in his dotage; my mother owns both houses, both cars and half my father's pension, while he lives in a rented apartment on what's left. He has adopted the practice of just giving her anything she might want up front because everyone knows in the event of a divorce she would be sweet-talked by a charming firm of lawyers with an ampersand in the name and both of them would end up with peanuts.

Can you see why I'm a little dubious of the idea that if you marry someone, credit for your achievements should be always and automatically be spread equally?

Of course this is only an anecdote and I don't intend it to be applied to all relationships. I am sure that there are a lot of traditional couples who have a much more equitable relationship with a more even share of responsibility. I do note however that:

  1. In practice, the contribution of the man in a modern, respectable, upper-class marriage is concrete, well-defined and non-negotiable. I do not think the reverse is true. Caveats: this is different for the underclass.
  2. Work in the home and childcare is absolutely hard work but it is more stable than work outside the home. You are not going to be dossing around, but neither are you going to be pulling multiple all-nighters. The type and amount of work are much more even between families and socio-economic levels. My statement at the top was made with this in mind.
  3. It seems to me fair that the compensation in the event of divorce should be more even in recognition of this fact. This does not mean ten bucks and a pat on the head but nor does it mean billions unless you were very clearly and openly doing an appreciable amount of the work that made that money.

I should have known it was only a matter of time before the men in black came round to silence me.

Boys don't like girls, boys like postgrad housewives

What does the man with a lot of romantic options want?

Does he want a beautiful young trophy wife? Does he want a high-earning girlboss?

The answer, according to Lyman Stone, is neither. What he wants (according to the data) is a woman around his age, with the same academic qualifications. Men with younger (and indeed, older) wives are the ones earning less money. What rich men want, it seems, is a (cultural, educational) peer.

With earnings is becomes a bit more complicated. As a man's income goes up, so does the income of his wife. But richer men earn a larger proportion of household income, and the women married to these men are the most likely to not work at all.

So what's going on here? The Red Pill explanation of men preferring younger women doesn't seem to fit, since the men with the most options (high earning ones) are more like to choose women the same age. However, these couples also choose housewifery at the highest rate. My interpretation of this is that the more money a man earns, the more secure in their class position the couple can be. Therefore, they can afford to have the wife give up work without losing their place in the class hierarchy.

The bitter professional woman explanation (men are intimidated by my qualifications and high salary) doesn't seem to work either. Sure, wives of rich men are the least likely to work, but those that do work are also the highest earners among women. A more parsimonious explanation seems to be that high earning women want higher earning men, and they (mostly) get them.

High earning men seem to want class peers. A woman's qualifications are a marker for class, and a woman's high salary is a manifestation of her class. Of course, once married, they can afford for her to stay home more easily than poorer families.

The thing that surprises me most is that you don't see richer men marrying younger women, as all of the older-younger pairings I've seen in real life have involved high-earning men. It might be that richer men marry younger, and therefore there is simply less scope for large age gaps. Or it might be that richer men are more sensitive to judgement from their peers, who would disapprove of larger age gaps.

I wouldn't be surprised if the person you're describing has been arrested in the past for disorderly conduct or maybe a low-level assault.

Anybody here watch police bodycam videos on YouTube? Post-BLM, there have been dozens of new channels (Midwest Safety is one of the largest) that upload bodycam footage daily. In almost every video, the person they stop and arrest is inevitably a repeat offender. Sometimes they're being arrested for the same offense – like domestic violence – but often times it's an entirely new thing.

The point is, a high percentage of these people have been convicted of multiple crimes but are always let out after a short jail or prison term. That's the issue as I see it.

I could have sworn we warned you for posting this exact meme months ago, but I guess we let it slide.

Please lay off the copypasta.

Huh. I really thought you were down near Houston.

Being shelled by artillery in a bunker seems like the optimal context for a life-changing near-death experience.

  • you have nothing to do but think. You’re not fighting or engaged in any other activity that could take your mind off of doom. You can’t go anywhere.

  • you’re usually in a small dim area, surrounded by other soldiers, creating a totalizing social environment of doom.

  • you’re not injured, so the adrenaline doesn’t tunnel-vision you toward survival.

  • the artillery strikes are inherently startling on their own, reminiscent of thunder. They occur unpredictably, which sustains its startling effect.

  • the sound and vibration of the artillery is a unique cue of your mortality, each time jolting your focus. Each strike renews the cognitive effect.

There are numerous problems with trying to deal with this. One being that it literally is legal to stand on the sidewalk and curse. Another being anarcho-tyranny. If you make it illegal to do this or stretch some disorderly conduct law, the people who will get collared will largely not be these guys -- the cops don't want to deal with them because they're unpleasant and some NGO will be on their ass if they do anyway. No, instead the cops will go after mildly annoying groups of teenagers (whose parents won't protect them), random people who are swearing because they had a bad day, and most of all, people who swear at the cops themselves.

  1. Given that I’m already on record as a North Texan, I don’t really want people drawing rings around the Dallas symphony. There’s probably a closer one…

  2. Can’t answer, which makes me feel like a proper peasant.

  3. Complicated by our tax incentives. Random businesses are encouraged to maintain small fields or pastures. I wouldn’t call them “hobby,” but they’re not the main revenue stream. So the nearest farm is probably a dairy 6 mi away.

  4. See point 1.

  5. 3-4 mi.

  6. See point 1.

1: 20 mi

2: <1 mi

3: either <5 mi (for the small vegetable farm nearby) or 30 mi to a larger orchard/farm. For a full-on commercial farm, 50+ mi i would guess although I've never been to it.

4: The local train station is <1 mi; nearest specifically Amtrak is I believe 20-30 mi, though I've never used it.

5: 15 mi; there's a Target <5 mi.

6: 40 mi, with the regional ~15 mi

iirc this has already happened in South Korea.

I suppose it's only a matter of time.

Such is life.

Israel is a first world nation trying to survive in the third world. There have been a smattering of experiments in this regard, South Africa, Rhodesia, maybe others I'm not aware of. To maintain first world standards of civilization, they more or less all had to resort to the same methods of keeping the savages out, and disenfranchising as many of those that made it "in" as they could. Also violence. Lots and lots of violence. Because violence truly is the universal language, no matter what anyone tells you.

It's a shame South Africa and Rhodesia didn't have a Jeffrey Epstein to take whatever measures were necessary to make sure they maintained the support of their essential trade partners and patrons in the face of global disgust at how the third world behaves, and the measure that are required to survive in the face of it. I suppose Jews don't have higher measured IQ's for nothing.

  1. 11km
  2. 2km (I live next to an italian neighborhood)
  3. 5km (it's a large rooftop greenhouse farm), greens, microgreens
  4. Going with Via Rail as it's our equivalent, 6km
  5. 1km
  6. 25km

The Divine Economy, by Paul Seabright.

Basically it's a look at religion through the lens of consumer economics. It can be a bit dry at times (although thankfully there's no equations so far) but otherwise it's really interesting. Living in the secular West it's good to be reminded that, for most of the world, religion is a huge part of daily life and is genuinely important.

The shift in the public perception of Israelis and Jews is so downright seismic and probably couldn't be replicated in a world without a "Jewish state" soaking up bad press.

Yet it's happened hundreds of times for thousands of years across different civilizations, cultures, eras of technological progress. These are the fruits of the Jewish state and Jewish civilization, and nobody can say it's unfair to identify Israel as such.

Well, hate for Wernher von Braun is a thing of its time. It's not quite "you had to be there", because if you were right there you didn't live long enough to hate, but maybe "you had to get news from outside the blast radius of there"? Even non-shitheads can become somewhat hostile after word gets out that "half off at Woolworth's" might now mean the other halves of the babies were still in their prams.

I finished Jeff Vandermeer’s Southern Reach trilogy last week. Good finale, if a bit weaker than the others. The irrationality of Area X is just less compelling than the anti-rationality it displayed in the first and second books. But I suspect that’s inherent to writing a plot where characters are supposed to do anything rather than have it done to them.

I still absolutely recommend trying the first book for anyone into literary sci-fi or the New Weird or surreality.

Now I’m halfway through Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City based on a recommendation from @pbmonster. Five out of five stars so far. It’s such a pure example of what that thread was calling “competency porn,” except it also dodges the excesses which litter the genre. The protagonist is smart and driven and charismatic in a way which makes it clear that he, along with everyone around him, is under tremendous stress. This does wonders for the believability. I’m staying up too late reading it.

It kind of reminds me of a more serious counterpart to the Moist von Lipwig Discworld novel Making Money.

very INTP of me, I know /s

Haha, yeah that stuff has been on my mind a lot lately. I'm very much an NF type. I have an appreciation for both the strictly logical side and the vibes-based side.

I think Marcuse's claim is level 3 as presented in your list.

I'd say that's basically mission accomplished then.

Something like "Death Note was not that good" is an evaluative judgement of quality, not a statement of fact.

I don't particularly disagree with what you've said here. I just don't draw the same judgements that you do with regards to the text.

If someone writes a review of Star Wars that starts with "Star Wars is the worst movie franchise of all time.", you don't say "ah, the author has presented a value judgement as a statement of fact. Confused as he is about this basic distinction, I must now consign his words to the flames". Instead you say, "he's presenting his value judgement in a hyperbolic manner as a rhetorical tactic. If I already have preexisting reasons to trust this author's judgement, I will continue reading with the reasonable expectation that he will provide reasons for his value judgement that I may be responsive to”.

You were quite correct to say "a big part of convincing people in this regard is trying to force them into your mental framework; to get them to understand you on a qualia-level". That's part of what Marcuse is doing here. When he says "the individual steps out of the network of exchange relationships and exchange values, withdraws from the reality of bourgeois society, and enters another dimension of existence", you're not supposed to go "erm, doesn't he know there's only one dimension of existence?" You're supposed to go, "ok, he's sort of painting a picture with words here. He's communicating his value system and inviting me to share in it. Is that something I'm interested in exploring? If yes, why? If not, why not?"

If there's one thing you should take away from continental philosophy, it's that your values are not set in stone. You can choose to change them.

If you already have a strong prior against Marxism (as I do too!), then you're obviously not going to be interested in sharing his value system exactly. And that's ok! You might still be able to mine his work for concepts and ideas that you can repurpose for other ends of your own.

On the other hand, assertions such as "Art that emphasises subjective experience helps people reject capitalism" aren't of the same nature that "this show was bad" is, in that they are not value judgements. It is a factual claim about the effects of a certain course of action.

Right, that's another part of what he's doing. He's suggesting that his way of looking at things might have pragmatic value for advancing a certain political agenda, and this is a claim that is at least conceivably subject to empirical verification and falsification. Can he prove his claim? No. But I don't think he necessarily needs to. It's fine to just throw stuff out there and speculate sometimes. We can just chill and mull it over for a while. We're just brainstorming. Opening ourselves up to new possibilities.

The question of "standards of academic scholarship" is an interesting one. This is, again, something that will vary heavily based on context, but I'd say that in general continental authors would have some issues with your conception of academic rigor, and would be more likely to see their work as being continuous with "ordinary" thought and speech, as opposed to being distinguished by a particular kind of academic methodology. More like internet shitposters than scientists. (And your revealed preference is that you do see a place in the world for internet shitposting -- you're here, after all.)

How does Israel make Jews safe?

I've seen it suggested that having a Jewish state creates a refuge that isn't dependent on the goodwill of non-Jews. Yet the past several years have demonstrated that Israel isn't actually self sufficient and that it is, in fact, totally dependent on trade with Europe and aid from America for it's continued existence. Israeli Jews would hardly be any safer than American Jews in a scenario where their primary patron went anti-semitic.

Yet even in a world where America does unconditionally support Israel I can't help but think of anyone who takes Aliyah as a certified moron. Modern Israel is not a safe place for Jews, it's a place where thousands of Jews can be killed or maimed in a day and hundreds kidnapped. If you are kidnapped, the "Jewish State" will not pull all the stops to save your life but will instead attempt to murder you to prevent you from being used as a bargaining chip. If you survive that then your best hope is that public pressure will eventually force Israel to free some mass killing gigaterrorists in exchange for your life, since Israel has demonstrated that it is incapable of rescuing hostages by force after more than 2 years of intense combat against the weakest militia on it's border.

All this for the low, low price of North Korean taxes, mandatory conscription, reserve service, and getting arrested if you choose to vacation anywhere outside of the US

Even for non-Israeli Jews who don't care about Israel either way, the brutal yet failed campaign to destroy Hamas is a giant anti-semitism producing machine. If the ghost of Hitler possessed Netanyahu with the goal of empowering a new generation of anti-semites then he could hardly have done better. Before 10/7, the slightest hint of anti-semitism was instantly denounced. Today, when the giga-normie Nelk Boys interview Bibi the next day they're forced to go on an apology tour with all the big name internet anti-semites like Nick Fuentes and Sneako. The shift in the public perception of Israelis and Jews is so downright seismic and probably couldn't be replicated in a world without a "Jewish state" soaking up bad press.

Yesterday, I was out for a late morning run, coming up my city's main commercial and restaurant street towards the capitol square. As I approached a stoplight and took a little break in the sweltering heat, a man across the street was blaring music on Bluetooth speakers; mildly annoying, but common enough in the public square. What startled me was another man on the other side of the road who began rapping (for lack of a better description, since it was basically just yelling with a slight match to the cadence) a stream of invective - he was going to kick people's asses, motherfucker this, n-bomb that, people better not fuck with him, and so on.

Reflecting a bit, this made me think of the recent discourse on asylums and what to do, and it occurs to me that I think many people are still missing the actual point. The man I described above didn't show outward signs of any particular mental illness, I have no idea if he uses drugs, and while he did look like a vagrant, I don't know whether he sleeps rough or not. Do any of those things actually matter to me? In some sense, it would matter if there was a serious and treatable mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia), but I don't actually care whether he has diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder or is merely what we would colloquially describe as an asshole. What's to be done if there is no such diagnosis and no drug-induced psychosis, but merely an asshole yelling at people about how he's going to kick their ass? My answer is basically that I want police officers to exercise their discretion to inform him that his options are that he can knock it off, do it elsewhere, or they'll arrest him for disorderly conduct. We don't need to escalate to immediate criminalization, starting with "move along sir" is fine, but no, you don't get to keep yelling at people all day.

So much of the discourse about bums persons experiencing houselessness seems like we're just talking past each other. At the end of the day, I genuinely don't care what the state does with these people, I just want them removed from my neighborhood. This attitude is derided as not solving the problem, but that claim merely highlights that we don't agree on what the problem is. For the people that insist on handling root causes, that part will be up to them, I'm perfectly satisfied with literally any solution that removes the people that throw chicken bones and vodka bottles on the ground in the park. I'm not actually very interested in whether they're addicts, mentally ill, or simply terrible people. The answer from the BeKind crowd seems to be that everyone has the right to behave the way they want to and that I'm a very bad person for wanting these guys removed; this seems like an unsolvable impasse in preferences for how to live.

Chewing tobacco where I am specifically indicates to me that someone works manual labor (industrial or agricultural) and they probably own a truck. At both universities I attended, I don't think I ever saw anyone who chewed while I was on campus.

I just think you shouldn't try to rationalize it with some reason why actually this is a very reliable predictor of whether or not someone is a good or smart person or even politically aligned with you.

Fair. I do think it indicates something in every case, but the signal is noisy enough that it's definitely not a very reliable indicator of bad things. I think even unreliable indicators can be useful, but it's not a smoking gun. Pretty much nothing is. That's partly why I wrote such a long list. Used in concert, you can tell a lot about someone just from how they look, even if it's "just" superficial.

Yes, gentlemen, I hope all of you are telling the women in your lives (mothers, grandmothers, aunts, female cousins, sisters, daughters, wives) that you don't consider them equal partners,

That's a bit of a trick.

"Equal Partners" in the sense that both are contributing to the household. But how does one measure the value or even magnitude of each contribution when they're inherently different in their nature.

If the guy builds the house, builds all the furnishing in it, and does the actual maintenance work on it over the years, (i.e., it ONLY exists thanks to his own labor)...

It is REALLY fair that the woman would get the house in a divorce scenario?

Well, we acknowledge she was the one who was 'keeping house' and doing all the day-to-day work that makes it a pleasant place to live and keeps it from falling into neglect which leveraged the value the man already provided, creating something better than what the man alone could achieve.

So we've got 'unequal' contributions by each side, but each has contributed value to the whole.

The actual contributions are usually not accounted for in a literal ledger. So we often end up with a guy who thinks he's being shortchanged because he created all of the necessary preconditions for a happy, successful marriage, and pulled his weight, and yet gets screwed over for trusting that he would be 'repaid' by his partner with her love and esteem and, eventually, a kid, and yet he's still getting screwed over when it ends.

In short, how does one balance material contributions with, I guess, mostly emotional and intangible but still valuable contributions?

Since the material contributions are legible, those are the ones that end up getting parceled out by the court. So the wife gets a cut of the material contributions made by the husband, but the man doesn't get to take away any of the emotional, intangible elements contributed by her. So he loses both the material wealth AND the intangibles.

You can imagine that this feels unfair.

I don't consider myself a misandrist, but some of you guys make it tough going, and more and more I am grateful to the Lord God Almighty for making me without the wiring to desire and need love and romance, because blow me down, I'd be fucked if I had to rely on a guy for anything from emotional validation on up.

I mean, I've pointed it out before, women end up marrying a corporation (for all pursuits and purposes) and it turns out that is pretty much a dead end for their 'emotional validation.' Eventually the biological clock ticks over, and the corporation will never be able to provide her with kids and the actual long-term loyalty that a good husband would grant.

But men have to match up to the corporation's material benefits while seeking a partner, anyway, because those factors are intangible and rarely counted in the calculus.

Its always and forever a question of 'compared to what?'

I don't think women are doing the math on what they'll get if they stick with MegaCorp for 25 years, laboring dutifully under their manager's eye, then what they'll get if they stick with a Husband for that same period, laboring dutifully under 'his' roof.

It becomes a bit annoying to have to justify men's contributions to upholding the entire edifice of civilization.

On the flip side, women, by dint of bearing and raising children, are obviously and constantly glorified for their contribution. As well they should be.

So men, demanding a little bit more leverage and control of their wealth so they can actually achieve good outcomes for themselves in the world they built seems utterly fair to me.


My actual point is that Divorce laws should really, in actuality, be designed around encouraging marriage and family creation and maintenance of a long-term bond. And OBJECTIVELY they are simply not doing that.

Billionaires getting divorced and splitting 10-12 figure households are a symptom of this, and a particularly noticeable one.

And guys who notice "wait, even the billionaire couldn't keep his wife, what actual chance do I have" are a lot more common than billionaires.

The incentives are simply not aligned. A guy wants a partner, a homemaker, and someone to bear and raise children.

No-Fault Divorce penalizes the guy by forcing him to give up his accumulated wealth and support the wife regardless of how well she actually behaved during the marriage. Whether he got a kid out of it or not.

So he is pretty damn motivated to try to keep the marriage afloat to avoid said penalties.

Divorce penalizes a woman by... ?

What is a woman actually losing out on by initiating divorce?