domain:astralcodexten.com
ThenElection
1hr ago
(Tongue in cheek) Throwing this out there as a proposal: it's a double false flag, a lefty pretending to be a righty pretending to be a lefty. All the hints that he's a right-wing 4chan kid are so explicit that no one earnestly trying to cover his tracks would be so obvious.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
I do not disagree with the idea people can be different degrees of bad.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
US can't do anything about PRC and no county save Russia has enough nukes to engage it,
I'm going to assume there's an unstated "in this scenario" there, because obviously outside of this scenario the USA also has enough nukes to send China back to being a basket-case.
so what are you talking about
There'd be a combination of 1) various US military assets, likely including nukes to at least some extent, being "adopted" by allied countries, 2) a large number of First World countries (most obviously South Korea and Japan) denouncing the NPT and making a mad sprint to build their own nukes.
The time pressure and uncertainty created by all of that could well end in a nuclear exchange.
Blueberry
1hr ago
On X they post pictures from him as a kid with lots of guns and his conservative mormon family. The internet fried his brain but I can't say if in the antifa or far-right direction....
SkoomaDentist
1hr ago
Look man, don’t go all reasony to me when I’m just looking for a cheap excuse to shit on furries as is sacred interwebs tradition.
edmund-nelson
Filthy Anime Memester
1hr ago
ok, so that means you probably were hit the hardest by price changes!
The biggest changes price wise in the positive direction are medical care, housing and restaurant food.
So basically if you live in an apartment and eat out a lot you were hit the hardest by the recent changes in relative prices.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1hr ago
It neatly denotes a cohesive cultural subgroup which otherwise requires a confusing counterintuitive stew of euphemisms
By this argument, both capital B Black and capital W White make a lot of sense. Both are new ethnicities divorced from "Old World" roots, some by force and some by choice. Both occupy a strange checkbox of culture and ethnicity. Alas, the NYT style guide doesn't use your much stronger argument.
Black refers to all black people around the world:
Based on those discussions, we’ve decided to adopt the change and start using uppercase “Black” to describe people and cultures of African origin, both in the United States and elsewhere. We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover.
Emphasis mine. As far as I'm concerned this is deeply racist and, of course, quietly white supremacist (or slightly more charitable and using progressive language, their argument continues to center the experience and importance of white people behind a mask of false respect for Blackness). Black people in America, in the UK, in Africa, everywhere? Basically all the same, according to Dean Baquet and Phil Corbett.
We will retain lowercase treatment for “white.” While there is an obvious question of parallelism, there has been no comparable movement toward widespread adoption of a new style for “white,” and there is less of a sense that “white” describes a shared culture and history. Moreover, hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style, which in itself is reason to avoid it.
White people are just too doggone diverse and unique to have a shared anything. Plus bad people used it, so it's radioactive.
Garfielf
1hr ago
Christians acknowledge there were "virtuous pagans", Jews acknowledge gentiles who lived righteously. Even Marxists developed the concept of someone in the past being "historically progressive."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
What is the alternative? If one is not a moral relativist this position is something of a necessity.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
Kirk recognized the political expediencies necessary to have the reach he does. No one doubted he was a savvy operator.
Garfielf
1hr ago
What an utterly fascinating worldview. If that's the case, perhaps you should use your eminently correct modern values to triangulate when the first good person in the world was born, so we can know the first funeral it was moral to shed tears at.
vorpa-glavo
1hr ago
But Kash says he'll see him there, implying that Kash is going to Valhalla as well. Really, I don't think Kash meant it literally at all. It was just a fancy way of saying, 'I see you as a fallen warrior for our side, and I will keep up the good fight, and metaphorically warrant a place by your side in Valhalla.'
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
Sure. People in the past often had pretty values, I think. I reserve judgement about whether any of their deaths was "sad" but I think lionizing them as moral paragons would be bad.
NullHypothesis
1hr ago
I don't think Kash Patel literally believes in Valhalla so much as he's trying to create the image of Charlie Kirk being a warrior.
But also when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
I mean, that would have still made sense coming from a protestant. Kash Patel is trying to say Charlie Kirk was a warrior for his side, who died a warrior's death. Whether it landed or not is a separate issue.
How can/should Hindus appeal to the divine and the afterlife in public pleasantries like this? Should they invoke their own religious mythos? Or should they just appeal to "God" even though they are not talking about the same literary figure(s) as everyone else? Should/are they all going to convert to Christianity? Seems unlikely. They should probably just avoid this trap altogether although that's difficult to do for a Conservative constituency.
I feel like this issue already played out in the Greater Indian sphere, with the end result being that Muslims in that sphere grudgingly accepted Hindus as People of the Book. You can see this today in the weird Islamicized version of Hinduism supposedly practiced in Bali.
Granted, that's a slightly easier posture to adopt in Islam, where the Quran says God has sent prophets to every nation. If you already accept that Judaism and Christianity are corrupted forms of Islam (with mainstream Christianity even having polytheism/shirk from an Islamic perspective), why not accept that Hinduism is a super corrupted form of a true revelation sent from God?
From an orthodox Christian perspective, Hinduism is demon worship writ large. And while the British were practical enough to not actually convert the Indian subcontinent to Christianity, it sits uneasily in the Christian sphere.
I think a compromise invocation of "God" probably works okay (since there are monotheistic sects of Hinduism, and the nature of logical identity is that if there is a God, they're all the same god), but things get dicier when you start to get to the exact specifics of what state Charlie Kirk's soul is in from a Hindu perspective. (He presumably hasn't achieved Moksha or some other higher spiritual state, so he's still part of Samsara, and thus reincarnated based on his karma.) I think referring to secular legacy elements might be the safest compromise. Something like, "You'll live on in our hearts and minds, and in the amazing legacy you've left behind for all of us, but especially for your wife and two kids."
Browser
1hr ago
Honestly I'm curious if that guy on Twitter who got flagged for posting that something big might happen but was cleared as the shooter might have been in a discord with him or sometimg
Garfielf
1hr ago
So then you believe that, in round terms, 100% of Christians and Jews (and Europeans more generally) who lived before the 1860s, when buggery started being bumped down from being a capital crime, were bad people, and none of the deaths of anyone who fought in any European war, or was murdered in Christendom before then, was sad?
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1hr ago
I can't think of any non-fringe right-wing group that celebrates political violence on the right.
You would be correct.
Quantumfreakonomics
1hr ago
when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
Is modern Hinduism syncretic? It would not be out of place in pagan Europe to think that different ethnicities have different gods. It might be coherent in Hinduism to think, "well obviously this Jesus stuff doesn't make any sense, but maybe white people were right about Thor and Odin?"
07mk
1hr ago
But we don't want to say "the US shouldn't have invaded Nazi Germany in the 1940s. After all, if you make it permissible to hurt Nazis, you'll end up calling everyone you hate Nazis".
The justification for US invading Nazi Germany wasn't because US hated Nazis, though. US invaded them because their allies attacked US and also they declared war on US, IIRC. Rejecting "punching Nazis" doesn't mean rejecting "punching anyone who is a Nazi," it's rejecting "merely being a Nazi means that that person deserves to be punched." If Hitler in the 30s hung out at home jerking it all day to fantasies of his Nazi ideology dominating the Earth or whatever and took no steps to make it happen through violence, I don't think it would be justified to go and kill him or drive him to suicide just because he happens to have Nazi opinions. It's that he and other Nazis decided to commit violence and commit to future violence against US that justified US attacking the Nazis.
With Nazis, one can also make a humanitarian case for attacking them so that the minorities they oppress don't get oppressed. But that, too, would be in reaction to the act of oppressing minorities, not their opinion that "minorities ought to be oppressed" or whatever. Again with the Hitler jerking it at home example, except fantasizing about murdering Jews or something. Of course, this also does mean that the label "oppresses minorities" becomes a useful one to stick on to people one dislikes, which is why we'd also need an extremely high bar for what counts as "oppresses minorities" to the point of justifying violence.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1hr ago
Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered?
Yea. I think if you believe it is a moral imperative to stone gay people to death you are a bad person.
And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
I am sure there are practical reasons (they will go to jail) they don't want to.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Because imageboard slang is incomprehensible to normies, and they're not going to follow you along as you try to explain it to them, while they will immediately understand "leftist shot right-winger". Trying to redirect the ire at gamers is going to come off as utter desperation. Like I said, I'm taking bets.
Tretiak
1hr ago
All I know now is that I want Kash Patel giving my eulogy. That’s hilarious.
A general appeal to God is good enough. Conservatives should appreciate where K.P. was trying to come from. Just like in serious court cases you’re called to swear before God or make an affirmation, it’s a gesture or sorts that for better or worse people don’t take too seriously. If K.P. was giving this statement in some theocracy, he’d have reason to worry.
Garfielf
1hr ago
I can't speak for Jews, but for observant Christians (such as Charlie Kirk), they believe Jesus Christ deliberately gave requirements for carrying out stoning that are impossible (anyone throwing a stone must be without sin) and therefore they are not supposed to stone anyone, homosexual or otherwise - though men having sex with men remains sexually immoral.
Noahides are not "bad" from a Jewish perspective at all. Virtuous pagans were fundamentally good people (whose deaths should be mourned) unable to know the truth of Christ. They were not 'less bad'. (IDK about marxists though)
More options
Context Copy link