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

Showing 25 of 539 results for

domain:abc.net.au

Well it's a good thing I checked my notifications before replying to one of the other lazy attacks on the mentally ill. Why are you bolding voluntarily by the way?

I would find it difficult to imagine a comprehensive transhumanism that doesn't implicitly include transgenderism. From some years back I remember "morphological freedom" as a transhumanist talking point, and there's no particular way to cash that out that doesn't validate transgenderism. If one of one's goals is complete personal and bodily autonomy, well, you get transgenderism thrown in for free.

I don't think I agree with this position as a normative good, but it is an intellectually consistent one, in a way that I think some of the transgenderism arguments today are not. Morphological freedom also includes, for instance, transracialism for free, even though progressive orthodoxy validates transgenderism but not transracialism.

Perhaps a transhumanist might argue that morphological freedom and individual autonomy extends to the right to make your physical body anything you desire, including everything from sexual organs to skin colour to species, but does not confer a right to be included in any particular community you desire? So an elective community of people identifying as natal-woman or natal-black or what have you might still have the right to constitute itself as such, and forbid transgender or transracial people from joining it. If I imagine a transhumanist utopia, I could imagine a group like that existing in something like the Culture; though I also suspect that in a realistic liberal-transhumanist context, that group would be a tiny minority of weird people, tolerated but largely ignored by most of society, in which transhumanism and radical morphological freedom has dissolved most such concerns or identities.

In the moment it was retarded, but I don't think he himself is retarded, although he might be mentally disturbed. He had no prior experience with committing violence or evading police, he was on the run and by himself for days, and probably really pumped full of adrenaline. I think it takes a rare breed of person to be able to think calmly and rationally in such a situation, especially without having done any relevant training.

Lefties more or less OPENLY suggest that it'd be morally good to kill him and his associates.

I'm not much of a lefty, and if I had a button that would make Trump die of a heart attack I would press it on utilitarian grounds. A few QALYs from an old man who's already lived a life of ease and luxury, compared to the political chaos he causes? Easy trade.

Then again, maybe I am a lefty. The Motte is more heretic blue tribe than it is red tribe.

That aside, I think people catastrophize about what would happen if a President were assassinated. The President is like a Jedi - if you strike him down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. If President Trump is shot, what do you get? Acting President Vance with emergency powers. If you kill Trump and Vance, what do you get? Acting President Mike Johnson leading a unified (and terrified) House and Senate, declaring martial law and putting tanks in the streets of Washington DC with the overwhelming support of the public.

The US Federal Government is one of the only institutions in history that becomes more powerful when its leader is killed.

Mangione got caught by being extremely retarded. What was it... he went to a busy McDonalds 1 state over in the middle of the day, wearing the same clothing and backpack, removed his mask, and had the murder weapon and a manifesto on him.

The only valid presumption to be made by anyone who has watched the murder in question is that every single person there outside of the victim is a subhuman. Maybe they were born that way, maybe they were radicalized by media, or maybe it's a combination of both! But the display speaks for itself.

Does it? This is a pretty poor argument for such a broad generalization- yes, yes, I'm sure you only meant those exact people on that particular train.

This whole thread is full of people who really, really want to trot out their favorite race-war talking points. Some are doing so more or less calmly if unkindly, some are just throwing heat and flashing gang signs and boo lights. This response falls into the latter category. Knock it off.

Mangione was arrested five days after he killed Thompson. So far with this incident it's only been a few hours.

What if it did? Is this a question? A hope? An accusation? It looks to me like bait. Knock it off.

Kash Patel - "The subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement. Our investigation continues and we will continue to release information in interest of transparency"

By the way, this isn't old news. This is the second time today this has happened. Things appear to be going swimmingly.

When was the last time a major public terrorist like this got away? Seems like they always end up either killed or captured.

You are both making shitty arguments, and between @Skibboleth's low-effort dismissiveness, your stooping to personal attacks, and the crappy quality of this thread in general, I am exercising great restraint in not handing out bans even to people who really probably need at least a day or two to go sit in a corner and take deep breaths. So this is your opportunity to back off and take deep breaths voluntarily.

My dude, the guy said Tim Walz told him to do it. I was obsessed with that case, but the guy does seem to actually just be untethered to objective reality, like Jared Loughtner. FWIW, I think Mangione is in this category as well.

Relatedly, can you show a single right-winger who approved of Gendron? I feel confident predicting that an overwhelming supermajority of rightwingers support giving him the chair.

Well, when you are investigating yourself, it’s easy not to find the culprit

At a certain point in every fundamental disagreement, one person will say "I think X is true" and the other person will say "I think X is not true," and both parties have a choice of either pressing their point, with arguments and reasons, or saying "Nuh uh, you're wrong."

If you reach the latter stage, just stop. You do not win Motte Points for having the Official Last Word. If someone asserts something you think is incorrect and you can't be bothered to continue arguing why he's wrong, the correct follow-up is not "Reality says you're wrong."

These highly emotive threads are producing highly emotional arguments and the quality of argumentation is in inverse proportion to its heat.

This also touches on Trump's dreaded funding cuts. We've had a number of people here complaining about them, claiming that Trump should have used a more precise approach. It can't be done. Any presumption-of-innocence approach would yield no significant outcome, as institutions could hire activists faster than you could get them fired.

This is, like, just a non sequitur, no? Something something, list of grievances, declaration that $Thing can't be done, because something something, the other side can recruit or something? Is the implication here just the @gattsuru comment? No bother firing (upon) them one-by-one; no bother even considering any other possible pathway either; really gotta just go for a mass casualty event?

Thanks for the clarification. I’ll admit I get pretty heated on this topic. I’m still a relatively new convert so I have some of the zeal alive in me, forgive me for using it improperly.

We do agree a lot more than I originally thought! I suppose your optimism clouded my judgment into thinking you were saying the task was easy, but upon a re read I can tell that’s something I simply projected onto your reply.

I also agree that traditional values and just a general focus on integrity and virtue would go a looooong way towards solving modern dysfunction.

I have a friend who is a Ketamine addict that I feel pretty sorry for but also can't let myself get too close to because he can say pretty hurtful stuff he doesn't even remember from the depths of his ketamine stupors and I can't always tell when he's in what state.

He didn't start out this way. He was selling weed for a bit on the darkweb in the early days and picked up some Bitcoin but then forgot about selling. Several years later his Bitcoin blew up into hundreds of thousands of dollars. He met a girl, bought a house, settled down and they tried to have kids. He would be house husband and she'd work in healthcare.

She miscarried four times in a row. They gave up trying. He started drinking and doing drugs because and couldn't find a job. She eventually divorced him. He just lives alone now and picks up odd jobs but gets fired because he keeps relapsing. A few months ago he ended up in the ER because he was doing Ketamine and cocaine and he stopped breathing and his junkie friend called 911.

I don't really know what to tell this guy in his 40s with no career prospects and rapidly depleting Bitcoin and a Ketamine addiction. To make matters worse he went on this Facebook tirade where he said he is actually kind of happy Trump won and 95% of his friends in this blue town disowned him.

I check on him once in awhile and offer a bit of advice and try to act like a sane voice of reason but I'm expecting to hear that he OD'd any month now.

I'm sorry for your loss. I know what you mean about mourning someone in advance; my wife (and to a lesser extent I) did that with her brother who died last year. He was obviously circling the drain (he had really bad alcoholism), but that didn't necessarily make it easier when he finally did push his body too far. I hope that you are able to not blame yourself too much, and that you will be able to remember him as he was during the better times.

Yeah I would run too. Because it isn't willingness to consider alternative explanations, that is merely a pat justification. You immediately came up with your alternative, in the exact same post as your original, and your alternative is to lie and claim the original explanation. That is what makes you duplicitous. That and your feigned moral outrage while you scramble to throw the mentally ill under the bus.

But if they still don't know who it was, idk how they ever will

They found Mangione. It's not impossible.

Oh, wait, I forgot. When a right-winger does it, it was actually a mental health issue.

The main explicitly political violence events in the last few years I remember are

This event now with Charlie Kirk (although undetermined if it's politically motivated yet, it seems likely)

At least one of the attempts on Trump.

The shooting of Minnesota Dems a few months ago.

New Mexico twice, a firebombing of the Republican state headquarters and a Republican mayoral candidate who tried to kill the Dem winner.

That Dem office in Arizona that got shot up.

Pelosi's husband being attacked.

The kidnapping plot against Whitmer.

The antivaxxer shooting at the CDC.

That cop who died during Jan 6th.

That Texas mall shooting

The Jewish museum shooting

That Israeli Molotov attack.

Maybe Luigi Mangione but that was more about hating healthcare companies than politicians/pundits but I guess it's politics adjacent.

There might be others but those are what stand out in my memory.

There doesn't seem to be a throughline here of violence actually begetting more violence, at least not directly of those we know . The only ones I know of explicitly stating any sort of tit for tat violence is the two anti-semitic ones. Even then they tend to be really strange individuals as one would expect tbqh, most people don't do political violence so those who do are strange to begin with. A lot of them seeming to be crazies just looking for fame, conspiracy theorists, informal militias, etc.

Hopefully it means while we have increased baseline of political violence, we won't be spiraling down more and more. Hopefully...

And the fact you have offered this alternative take makes it impossible for me to believe you believe your first claim

Willingness to consider alternative explanations makes me untrustworthy?

Nice talking to you.

To be clear: I'm not positing the shooter was a professional. I am positing that this is not some crank who bought a gun last week. It is probably (again, assuming the above info is true and not more rumors) someone with significant experience/training shooting. That's not that rare in the US, but it's far from common.

Black rifles are primarily useful as a political rallying and coordination point, not for their (considerable) efficacy in a rebellion against the government. Their absence does not significantly impede such a rebellion.