domain:papyrusrampant.substack.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29m ago
Posting a comment that is nothing but some poem ChatGPT came up with is not conversation.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
30m ago
if you really listen to everything they say and the actions they take and try and discern their motivations, then yeah, it turns out they really just do believe it
I think bribery is a much more accurate and succinct explanation, actually. I don't actually believe that Cruz would hold this opinion without substantial donations riding on it.
There are certainly parts of the American right for which this is a legit religious conviction, I don't think they're of much consequence today anymore versus MIC interests.
TitaniumButterfly
32m ago
What does 'person' mean here?
hydroacetylene
32m ago
Knowing the specific population of Iran is far, far less relevant than knowing it’s a Shia theocracy implacably opposed to Israël and pushing Shiite interests in the Middle East. Getting Iran’s population right is kinda trivia.
And Ted Cruz believing the mandate to support Israël is much more popular than you give him credit for. The specific formulation may not be, but ‘God will punish the enemies of Israel’ is both widely believed among the base and a reasonable interpretation of recent events.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
33m ago
Yeah maybe, at this point we're both vibing given the scope of our discussion (the direction of human civilization).
Human history has been a fairly steady march of increasing liberalism, I think because humans like doing what they want and hate being told what to do. It's open for debate if that's actually been a good thing for us (some ways yes, some ways absolutely not) as a whole. But I have a hard time imagining people wanting to give up freedom and flexibility once they have it.
I could be wrong though, if I was accurately able to predict the direction of entire societies I would be very very rich, and too busy raising children on my private tropical island to post here.
I also added "and unpopular" to my sentence above that you quoted, as it wasn't precise enough before.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
37m ago
I actually agree, Marxism has been tried (and been found wanting). But I also firmly think that Christian ideals have been tried, and that Chesterson is wrong (albeit with great prose). There are 2.6 billion followers of Christianity. The world has been dominated by Christian nations for like ~400 straight years, waning over the last 60.
If someone wants to argue "okay but that wasn't true Christian ideals" than I think they should accept the same position on Marxism.
Sure, we didn't test a society with perfect Christian ideals, but that's what happens when ideals have to map on to real life. The value of an ideal isn't based on the hypothesized textbook perfect form, it's based on the real outcomes once you expose it to human society.
AugustDeRosa
37m ago
Sure, but I think it's fair to say that someone who is interested in regime change would be better off knowing some basic facts. It's of course not necessary - you can hold whatever opinion you want with or without facts - but an individual who has done some research is likely to be more adept at the decision making involved. It has utility.
Hadad
37m ago
I don't think there being a billion Chinamen is the reason we don't nuke China. Them already having nukes is the big obstacle there.
Hadad
38m ago
Things like industrial capacity, military budget, GDP, are all largely contingent on population.
This all may be true, to an extent (it's obviously not as simple as adding people means more state capacity).
But again: so? I'm confident America is superior regardless.
Hadad
40m ago
So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.
Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward? I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.
AugustDeRosa
40m ago
The Bible makes it pretty clear that there is something special about the relationship between the Jews and God, that this is passed down in a tribal fashion, and that this was not, at least in its entirety, entirely erased by the crucifixion and resurrection (e.g. Romans 11). I would personally read it as "the tribe of Israel is very special, but now everyone is able to become part of that tribe in a new, special way that didn't exist before, and this is partially because of how the tribe of Israel really dropped the ball".
Hadad
40m ago
Change tends to be inevitable when you blow up the current regime! But that's substantially different from us, personally, trying to groom a new generation of good boys in the Middle East.
Any proposed policy or solution that requires massive social change to work isn't a very useful proposal, but it's a nice dream I guess
That's a weird thing to say standing in the consequences of massive social change.
We did it before and we can do it again. There is nothing mandatory about the sexual revolution, lots of human civilizations don't work like this right now let alone in history. And mores can grow more rigid in response to problems created by liberalization, has happened many times before.
These politicians hardly act as devout christians who believe every word of the bible.
They act as most devout Christians act, in my experience: when it's something that doesn't impact them directly on a personal level (e.g. nuking Iran), they're all for it, when it's something that inconveniences them personally (e.g. not having sex with underage male prostitutes), they had a moment of weakness and will return to the Lord.
That doesn't mean they don't believe it, it just makes them human.
Given what this does to children statistically, it's an antisocial desire. So society insofar as it's not liberal can just say no.
It already says this no to men, after all.
Hey man, I'm not complaining, just observing. I didn't realize this was a common trope here, although that makes sense, /r/stupidpol has been hyperventilating about a right-wing takeover for nearly a decade which has never happened.
My only thought is that I feel like my takes garner more disagreement than agreement (which is why I am here), and none of the disagreement is because my takes aren't progressive enough.
I've actually been trying to expose myself to more right wing thinking. Partially because the left has been pushing me away, partially because I am so bored of echo chambers that agree with me, and finally because it forces me to challenge my ideas, which is good for my brain.
I haven't been around long enough to see any group surveys. My observation is purely vibes.
But you inspired me, so I did a really quick """analysis""" of all (18 at the time of writing) the first-level replies to the ICE question, and this is what I found:
Pro ICE comments: 44% (8/18) comments, with 47% (128/271) of the net upvotes
Middle/I couldn't confidently tell their stance on ICE's current actions comments: 39% (7), with 44% of the net upvotes
Anti ICE comments: 16% (3), with 9% of the net upvotes.
This tracks with my vibes, although is obviously not very comprehensive or rigorous. I note that my impression hanging out here is right-leaning comments do much better than left-leaning ones on average, and it feels independent of comment quality.
You yourself got +15 upvotes saying things that I thought were quite uncool, and very right coded. I was with you for the first half, but "The more pain and terror inflicted in the process" and "I want the fascistcore club music as a squad of red-visored faceless commandos mow down the rioters waving Mexican flags." are things I think should get you disqualified from being taken seriously on the topic. I don't mean that as a personal attack (I'm sure you're a kind person to your friends and loved ones, etc) but holy shit dude, what the fuck? The fact that anyone (let alone a voting majority) agreed with you is a pretty clear demonstration of ideological lean here. If you posted this on reddit (obviously quite left leaning) you'd be at -100 and probably banned to boot.
I should also add, I do understand your anger and frustration, the recent mass-migration into Canada has been deeply upsetting and black-pilling for me. I am not here to debate your opinion on ICE or immigration, I don't care if our beliefs differ.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
54m ago
At no point does Iran have too many people such that we shrug and accept them going nuclear.
This is just funny to say when your main rival is Communist China.
phosphorus2
56m ago
They're a far group whose only relevance is how much they might endanger our investments in the Middle East with their constant terrorism funding and sabber-rattling. There could be ten million, twenty, one hundred, it'd change no calculus.
Iran's population is Iran. Iran, like the US, will act on its own interests. 10 million person Iran has a much different capacity to act than 100 million person Iran does. The extent that Iran can fund terror or saber rattle or endanger US investments is proportional to their population.
Things like industrial capacity, military budget, GDP, are all largely contingent on population.
functor
57m ago
These politicians hardly act as devout christians who believe every word of the bible. They are paid by AIPAC and are terrified of Mossad and jewish influence in the media.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
59m ago
I've heard some Christians explain this away by saying that "nah, doesn't matter because Jesus, new covenant, we're all God's chosen, etc. etc." but I don't think that holds out when you read through the Bible.
Why doesn't it hold, in your opinion?
phailyoor
59m ago
Ted Cruz is an unpopular midwit and kind of a liability. But he is loyal to the party line and there is far worse out there. I would love to see him primaried, but I would also rather see a strong up and coming republican primary someone else.
HighResolutionSleep
1hr ago
Pro-life and anti-single-mom is only a contradiction if you also believe an implicit third proposition: women have no agency.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1hr ago
"Nation destroy" isn't sufficient in Iran. Israel probably could have killed off the regime's civilian/religious leaders by now. But if they did, Iran would just get a new set and they'd get right back to work building nukes. Because the lesson of Libya, North Korea, and Ukraine is if you want to survive and be independent of the world powers, you need nukes. An Iranian regime that is under US hegemony isn't going to come about except by force, and neither Russia nor China is in a position to take Iran within its orbit (not that they'd be likely to accept that either). So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.
HighResolutionSleep
1hr ago
Perhaps this is a big reason that women with power feel more compelled to use that power to distribute gibs to other women, while men don't.
No offense taken, much like how you'll not be offended by the obvious retort coming up: your disapproval genuinely means nothing to me. You're right that Reddit would not allow this, as Reddit only supports violent fantasizing when it's directed toward the right. Replace "criminals and illegals" with "law-abiding Republican voters", and they'll foam at the mouth in support.
And yes, I got fifteen upvotes. I expressed myself plainly, took a hard stance, and stood by it. You can do similar! You'll find great success if you use the right tone and style. These sorts of posts, where you passively complain and snip at people, will almost always encourage a pile-on. Nobody likes snivelers.
Lastly, I'd strongly encourage you to not mistake "lack of progressives" with "abundance of right-wing". Almost everyone here hates progressives and progressivism. That's why they're disaffected liberals.
More options
Context Copy link