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

Showing 25 of 333850 results for

domain:asteriskmag.com

It's not the mockery. In fact, it's specially that it isn't mockery. It's a genuine, straight to the white viewer plea, so do something about Trump, because something must be done. The mockery I can handle. The "clown nose off" moments are when I turn off the TV.

He was a user who predated the Motte even on reddit. He stood for a particular kind of Ur-American conservatism and that made him stand out somewhat from all the Dissident Right people, but ultimately he was an evangelist here to save the lost sheep rather than a debater here to chew the fat. Like most of the evangelists we get here, he ended up eventually flaming out in fury that most people didn't want to buy what he was selling.

Well, that was fast.

I got a second game of Hands in the Sea in last night! We switched sides with me playing Carthage. I came out the gate swinging, cut off Roman supply out of Italy using my starting fleet of warships, recruited some cavalry to raze their colonies while I had them bottled up, and just generally kept the pressure on while I leisurely expanded. Won in 4 turns with an automatic victory based on being more than 25 VPs ahead during the scoring phase of a turn.

Rome's biggest problem was with supply being cut off, they could start a battle with Syracuse (which is a vital supply point in Sicily), but they couldn't reinforce the battle to win it which requires supply lines, until they disrupted my naval blockade. They wouldn't need to destroy my fleet, they'd only need to build at least one warship, and then contest control of the blockade. That's enough to re-establish supply for reinforcing a land battle. After they take Syracuse, they'd have a local supply point on Sicily and could have ground me down with their legions. Unfortunately, Rome was caught flat footed by the dire consequences of being out of supply, and instead of building a fleet and contesting control of the waters, spent time recruiting legions they couldn't send, and pursuing deck optimizations that lacked actual bite in the conflict. There was an attempt to finally break my blockade, and it bought Rome a single turn of supply in Sicily. But it was insufficient, and I sank their fleet in short order. By the end of the game Rome was drawing their entire deck into their hand every turn... without having valid or meaningful actions they could use all those cards on. Alas.

We're already planning another rematch, where I will probably take Rome again and need to resist the strategy I just absolutely dominated with. Wish me luck.

600 people per year being deliberately killed in a population the size of Canada seems significant to me, regardless of how many other terminally ill people are killed. (which I'm also uneasy about, although if they want to DIY it that seems fine, and certainly there are some cases where it seems like a mercy)

Typically there are 6-700 murders per year in Canada; these are normally considered undesirable and kind of a big deal. So you need to do some work to convince me that this new category of homicide is totally cool and no problem.

To be clear, I have never been nostalgic for Hlynka and have been glad he’s gone since the second he caught his ban.

The illegal streaming website I looked at accidentally uploaded s1e1 in the spot of the latest season episode 1. While the latest episodes are funny enough, they aren't even close to what the series had at the beginning. Though I'm sure it's not all due to the Trump effect but partially just due to them running out of jokes and the series going downhill in general over 27 seasons.

Also doesn't help that it's a super long multiple-episode arc, which I think isn't always the best. Alot of gags felt repetitive and filler-ish like the face, dogs and the debater gags. They were funny once but then pretty whatever after they do it 3+ times across the episode.

A post ban edit 5 days after you got banned? Must have really struck a nerve

I’m not offended, more genuinely curious- what makes you think my politics are similar to Kulak’s?

To elaborate, Kulak wants a violent overthrow of the existing system to be replaced by ‘?’. He doesn’t have any particularly consistent reasoning for this; he can be a white identitarian, an ancap, a fascist, ultra-mysogynistic, etc. The common thread is that he wants short term violent action. He’s also some kind of pagan but not in the sense that he, like, believes in literal gods(I believe in his gods more than he does- specifically, that they are demons who at one point convinced Northern Europeans to worship them as gods). There is a bunch of historical fan fiction that he uses to tie this in with his generic pro-terrorist vibe and AFAIK he is a Canadian who makes his money entirely through internet media- whether this is from people finding him interesting or genuine believers.

I am a rad trad Catholic in the sense of actually, literally believing in my own religion. And I believe that the existing system will collapse under the weight of its own degeneracy without the need for violent action; the important thing is to be building parallel societies which grow by functioning better, to enable a slow replacement of existing power structures with patriarchal, religious, virtuous ones. I expect this to proceed as existing power structures shred their human capital through things like low fertility rates and retarded equity pushes which force them to rely on functioning parallel societies more and more. I believe a set of conspiracy theories about apocalyptic prophecies which guarantee that this will actually take place so long as me and my tribe do our part; the cathedral likes indoor plumbing a lot more than it hates rum millet, even when that rum millet is slowly overtaking it. Violence is thus counterproductive.

but otherwise, no, I can only despise the "morality" you advocate.

On what grounds? Your idea of 'manlyness'? You're generally liberal, but the sex stuff is your achilles heel.

Also, your example is of someone being unjustly and arbitrarily executed, not someone being justly punished for his actions.

Right, but I don't think Hlynka thinks he's been justly punished for his actions. Personally I don't consider most of the permabans the mods hand out justified.

but my confidence was fairly low then and remains a bit shaky even now.

Can you explain why? Similar to you, I also thought that it was Hlynka four months ago, but with much higher confidence. What convinces me then as now is the last point from my post: TequilaMockingbird talked in the way someone deeply familiar with this forum, its history and connection to Scott Alexander would.

There plausibly are many other people with beliefs similar to Hlynka, so TequilaMockingbird having exactly the same views (and rhetoric! seriously, the Steve Sailer thing isn't the first time he's let his old ticks shine through) on every single issue as him isn't dispositive. The fact that an account with such beliefs is created three months after Hlynka's ban and immediately participates in discourse as an old regular would, even calling out specific users' post histories and ideologies, is though, especially when no other well known long-time poster was missing/banned at the time. It was very, very obvious that he was Hlynka from the start.

Was this when we were all nostalgic for Hlynka and he was joking that Hlynka might be JD Vance? Because I thought he basically came right out and said it lol. I thought everyone else had already figured it out and known for ages.

He was a former mod, greatly respected by many members and absolutely hated by many others. He was eventually removed as a mod for being too antagonistic towards people he despised, and then when he wouldn't amend his behavior, he was banned entirely.

I mean, sure, but, we're talking about being banned from the Motte.

No. Hydro has been around for a long time, and he and Kulak are entirely different people.

If you really believe that begging might save you, there is an argument for it, but otherwise, no, I can only despise the "morality" you advocate.

Also, your example is of someone being unjustly and arbitrarily executed, not someone being justly punished for his actions.

Yeah, that's true, but did they really have anything to say about that? If I recall, that episode still ended with the "real" Kathleen Kennedy coming back and her viewpoint being mostly vindicated. I'm just throwing this out there, but I feel like maybe their worldview these days skews towards, leftists are right but take it too far, and conservatives are just wrong.

There is a bunch of research out there suggesting that OTC and milder agents are just as good as stronger agents for managing acute pain. Example:

Yes, I'm aware of the risible drug warrior shit research. The drug warriors would love to eliminate legal opiods entirely, and they will lie about this being no loss, because they're drug warriors and do not care about pain as long as they can fight drugs.

They're just going to remember you as a whiny, blubbering coward.

Pure vanity. A grave injustice and your life hang in the balance, this is not the time for such superficial concerns. If morality requires you to cry, you cry. If your duty requires you to die despised, then you swallow your ego and holler like a bahamian.

Btw, I don’t know, and thanks to mods’ I won’t know, but I’m pretty sure that Hlynka, as the NCO law-order-honor-type, would not back my defense at all, which I find amusing. As is tradition, since I’ve always maintained he should not be banned, even though he himself was the most pro-censorship of the mods.

Hopefully I haven't made a wrong turn somewhere, and we're still talking about euthanasia, rather than anesthesia.

It's true that my view of doctors is rather mixed, but your argument leaves my scratching my head. I imagine most of them don't perform such procedures.

A school near me has one of the highest reading test pass rates of any school in the state. I recently got into an argument with a parent whose children attend the school. She is adamant that the scores are fake and that the school is just cheating—in precisely the same way that Mississippi is “cheating”—by holding back any students who don’t pass the test. Like you, I think that argument is insane, but I know a sizable minority of parents disagree with the school’s approach.

Yeah, I think a lot of this is top-down, not grassroots. Unfortunately, the people going through the universities and the training get this imposed on them. So even if they're not progressive themselves, they are being taught "this is how you do it" and not given alternative tools.

Oh, I agree, but the ones most online are the most vociferous, and they that shout the loudest get heard most. So the extreme positions get pushed because the majority are silent or don't know the shenanigans going on until it's too late.

I would find that extremely surprising, given my interactions with Kulak and my observations of his personal interactions with others. (There are places other than TheMotte where he dwells, and I’ve also been known to dwell in some of them.) Mostly I’d just be very surprised to learn that Kulak has a second, way less strident, persona. I’ve watched him have embarrassing and quite personally-vindictive crash-outs over relatively minor disagreements — something which I’ve never seen from @hydroacetylene.

Out of the loop: can someone give a short explanation who Hlynka is and why he is banned? (I am a long term regular, but I don’t often (almost never) give attention to user names.)

My extreme scepticism around these kinds of bills comes from abortion legislation (elsewhere and here in Ireland). The activists pushing for it run the most extreme cases, swear up down and sideways only a very teeny-tiny few will ever need to avail of this if made legal, and then work their socks off behind the scenes to have the language in the legislation as vague as possible (so it can be challenged in court if necessary) and that a way of gaming the system (e.g. having two doctors sign off on abortion in the UK became 'this is only rote rubber stamping') can be introduced to get what they want.

"Intolerable suffering from incurable condition" means what, exactly? If I'm thirty years old and claim that my depression means I have no boyfriend or no career (instead of a dull job) and I see no change on the horizon, am I not intolerably suffering?

There's a lot of wiggle room between "let everyone assume we mean people dying in horrible pain from mortal cancer" and "in practice, just tell the doctor this script with this exact wording to get it".