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

Showing 25 of 10081 results for

domain:cafeamericainmag.com

That doesn't follow whatsoever. It presupposes that we're always capable of evaluating deep consequences, which is plainly not the case. It also presupposes a ton of wisdom on the part of the person being persuaded.

Yes, progressives say "it's not my job to educate you" as well. (Traditionalists are just the progressives of 50 years ago, after all.)

If the only difference between you and them is that they have the social power to enforce it and you don't [because your thing is Totally 100% True Trust Me Gaise] then you're worthless and offensive as a movement, and people are right to reject you.

People generally don't like being tricked or called stupid; when you do that I'd argue it costs you a bit of your saltiness.

It seems odd to write a massive post about Democratic infighting and barely mention Gaza.

Support for Israel among Dems is underwater. It's also declining among Republicans. 71% of Democrats under 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel.

Democrats have nonetheless failed to offer any coherent policy against Israel, even now when they can do so irresponsibly. Democrats failed to offer any organized opposition to Trump when he launched an illegal war (which he has since hopefully concluded). Democrats have failed to speak to their base's concerns, and abandoned their principles.

It cost Dems in 2024, and if they can't get out of it, it will cost them in 2026.

I think you have been well trained by enemies of Christianity.

I was, yes.

Solid statistical evidence is a pretty recent invention, and its accessibility to the public even more recent. In the meantime humans live human lives and require human guidance.

Succeed in providing that guidance, and you may remove the proof needed to demonstrate why the guidance should be tolerated.

I was raised evangelical and converted to Orthodoxy and have never heard it suggested that swearing is somehow implicitly sinful.

Raised Church of Christ and returned to it, here. We were taught to avoid both blasphemy and obscenity as sinful. "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth..."

Apart from failing to cultivate a relationship with Christ I'm unable to think of any behavior typically described as sinful that doesn't have observable material costs.

I think you might well be correct, but it's very easy to lie to oneself about this.

That's the one

setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)

US TFR (and teenage pregnancy, as a related metric) hit its highest post-industrial point under that exact system; it's just that to institute such a system you just need to explode half of Europe.

You've fallen into a pattern of thinking that prevents solutions. "We need to make young men rich and successful" before they can have families is not really a viable plan. It will always take time to become rich and successful, at least in relative terms; setting up a system where men are most successful in their early 20s seems unlikely (and even if it could happen, would put a crimp in family formation)

Ok, well let's just take a look at the undefeated Uno Reverso.

Indeed. Suppose Ignatiev were to reply to your comment (and general worldview) with:

“My dear SS, I agree completely. I think all practicing Jews should renounce their religious practice (including, as I have already argued, kosher dining and food preparation), and all ethnic Jews should abandon their cultural particularity. Jews should convert to mainstream Protestant Christianity, the predominant gentile religion in the United States, or practice no faith. They should marry gentiles (of course most already do, but let’s say all of them). All Jewish religious institutions (synagogues, museums of tolerance, etc) should be closed, all religious clothing banned. Those who refuse these terms ought to go to Israel, but those who accept them can remain in America with no further restrictions placed on their participation in society, culture, politics or the economy. Furthermore, any racial agitation by white nationalists towards those former Jews who fully, sincerely renounce and abandon their Jewishness will be strictly prohibited.”

Would you accept his offer?

Because that is the difference between Ignatiev’s position and those of the dissident rightists who borrow his words in this case. He (like all communists) allowed for conversion; even the last emperor of china was converted, after all. You do not.

You don't count that conflict as war between Iran and Israel? That's just bad faith. Even Trump is lobbying to call it the "12 day war." America undeniably was drawn into the war, both defensively and offensively. Syria falling was directly related to the conflict between Israel and Iran's proxies, Hezbollah in particular.

"Solve the Gaza Question" is undeniably underway, he didn't say it would be resolved immediately he said the attack gave the Israelis cover to solve it, which is ongoing. Basically Iran regime change is the only thing that hasn't happened yet, even though that was clearly an objective of Israeli aggression.

Are there actual examples of companies going under because of excessively high salaries? AFAIK unions where they damage companies mostly do it by protecting poor performers.

No one has a credible plan for that. Because the solution to the problem of 'We need to make young men rich and successful so they can have families and children' is a multi-facet plan that needed to be implemented 20 years ago, not today.

Can you explain to me how that's relevant at all to what I said?

(Since you tagged me) It literally serves as an example of him opposing Jewish particularism, which is ultimately what you accuse him of.

Example of non-socialists pushing co-operatives for those who are curious about this claim.

But you have to be fair and also include repair costs in the delta between owning an efficient sedan vs. a big ol' truck.

Are these significantly different over the lifetime of a like-for-like comparison? Does a Tacoma or Tundra have that much higher costs than a Rav4 or Camry?

I don't think that has been my experience where usage is similar.

I've been seeing two competing explanations for Mamdani's success:

  1. New Yorkers elected a self-described socialist because the city is getting better – crime is down after COVID, the migrant crisis has abated – and they can afford to try something new for a little while.

  2. New Yorkers had to elect a self-described socialist because the city is so fucked up – especially housing – and has been trending downward after years of picking mainstream candidates.

I see a parallel fault line within socialism, with Syndicalism in conflict with Central Planning. For me, this goes back to the 1973 miners' strike in the UK. The mines were owned by the National Coal Board(NCB), a branch of the government. Much of the coal was sold to the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), another branch of the government. The basic idea of the strike was to raise electricity prices (by government fiat) to get the money for higher coal prices to get the money to pay the miners higher wages. Or just subsidise the NCB out of general taxation. That was the Trades Union perspective, but the Socialist Planning perspective was that the British coal fields were pretty much worked out. Paying high wages for the horrible job of going under the North Sea to mine small amounts of coal from narrow, wet, fractured seams was a bad plan. Much better was to send the miners to work in factories above ground manufacturing things and stuff to trade for coal from places with more favourable geology.

Basically the National Union of Mine Workers was butting heads with the planners in the socialist part of the British economy and seeking rents based on their ability to crash the economy by coming out on strike.

In a capitalist economy, with fragmented private ownership of the means of production, and lacking national trades unions, this specific kind of rent seeking works badly. The employees at one company come out on strike. They win an excessive pay rise. Their employer starts losing money, and goes bankrupt. The workers lose their well paid jobs. Whoops! Both capitalism and socialism suffer from rent seeking and capitalism has some internal defences to it. Capitalists are entitled to say that rent seeking is not narrowly specific to capitalism; they don't have to own it.

Two Notes on Women in BJJ

I went up to New England to visit my in laws over the weekend. While there I visited a local BJJ gym three times. It was great to get a new flow, some new partners, some different tricks thrown at me and some more success with stuff I normally can't hit. But two funny things happened:

Sunday night, after too many cocktails, we were sitting around with some of her older family members and we were chatting about the new gym I had found up there. And I was trying to explain the sport, and naturally this turned into "Show us something on Mrs. Fivehour!" So I have her get on top of me on the ground, and slap me like she's throwing punches. Then, gently and smoothly, just to demonstrate not with any force or intent to harm, I swung her into closed guard, tied up her hands, and then went for the triangle choke. I never even fully locked the triangle, I was just bringing it around to lock it in casually when she tapped as hard as she could and let out a yelp. I untangled myself and she was flabbergasted "Holy shit I couldn't breathe, oh my God, wow, that was terrifying! How did you do that? You can just do that?" I'm not particularly good, and I certainly wasn't abusing my strength, I was just playing around; but I have pretty thick hamstrings and I often catch training partners earlier in a triangle before it is "technically" closed. Everyone laughed, we talked more about it, totally normal.

That night, we go to bed, to set the scene when we're in New England at her parent's house we sleep in Lucy and Ricky style single beds next to each other. She comes over to my bed and says, hey, FiveHour, can we snuggle? I was really freaked out when you choked me earlier. She said she's looking at me differently because she suddenly realized how easily I could kill her, that just for a second the air had been completely cut off and she was terrified. She said it was like when she saw our dog murder a rabbit, and she suddenly realized the dog was capable of that, that she'd never realized I could do that to her.

Now, Mrs. FiveHour is a very strong athletic woman. I shit you not, I have seen men on the motte or similar internet forums talk about their lifts when they're doing Starting Strength who were months in and still squatting less than her. And we lift together so she knows I can knock out deadlifts that are better than twice hers. But still, she wasn't ready for just how easy it was for me.

Point for those who claim that the male-female gender gap isn't sufficiently understood by most people.

On the other hand, Monday morning I went to the gym, and I rolled with everyone at the new gym, and I tried not to be overly aggressive because I was new. And at any gym, I basically never turn down a roll unless I'm injured. I do typically avoid the girls at my home gym, but mostly just by positioning myself away from them when everyone is pairing up, if they ask me to drill or roll I will. More of a Pence Rule thing than anything.

Well we were doing positional 2 minute rounds starting with one partner in front headlock position, and a nice young woman about eight inches shorter and eighty pounds lighter than me asked me to roll with her. I let her get the front headlock, and I probably let her get it in a little deeper before we started than I would have let a man. And I tried to avoid using any muscle or weight, just flowing through the moves and trying to use good technique, letting her work. And the little bitch managed to tap me out. I gave her too much slack and she hanged me with it. It's the first time I've been tapped by a woman, and for several seconds I couldn't believe it. She got me in a perfect front headlock strangle, and there was no way I was getting out of it without trying something desperate and more likely to injure someone than escape smoothly. And anyway, she had earned it, she had the strangle on tight, and I tapped. She was the only one to tap me that practice.

So on the other hand, that was humbling, a point for women in the battle of the sexes: there is a point at which a woman can submit me, if I'm not at least a little careful.

I've actually started, when rolling with partners who are much smaller/weaker/estrogenic, listening to one of the coaches and once we are in contact on the ground in guard, I'll close my eyes and try to flow roll without looking, trying to feel their bodyweight shifting and reacting to mine. I'm not sure if it has "helped," but it is a really neat experience.

I'd guess that the quote or something like it was independently created by many people around the same time. The idea that Joe Rogan was a leftist who supported Democrats such as Bernie Sanders is just an obvious fact backed up by mountains of historical evidence that no one denies, and the idea that Democrats look for heretics to drive away is also a pretty non-controversial one (the only real controversy being on whether this is a good thing or not, perhaps because these heretics actually wanted to be driven away and were just looking for an excuse). And so putting those together into a pithy comment poking fun at the self-induced misery of modern Democrats bemoaning the lack of their own Joe Rogan to aid in their propagandizing is something that's almost trivial to do. Certainly the thought occurred to me long before I'd encountered the quote externally, but I'm not a public commentator who would state such a quote out loud and who wouldn't be noticed even if I had.

Exactly. Maybe there’s something analogous in the way certain states recognize different corporate structures? There are only a few which allow forming anonymous LLCs.

Yes?

Never mind, I probably interpreted your post wrong.

Wait, Wikipedia says that KF and Konsum were specifically the predecessors of Coop?

Yes?

The Finnish grocery market is similarly dominated by the co-operative S Group, which has also attracted the attention of American progressives, but co-operatives have also always been specifically an alternative to not only standard private enterprise but also public ownership, and have been pushed by non-socialists, too, as such an alternative.

Absolutely and there was some criticism to that effect in the 19th century and early 20th century but the cooperatives and the workers movement got so intertwined that the criticism died down.

Nobody has argued about embryonic stem cell research in a while. Although we have had left-coded arguments about HeLa cell line research.

I would bet on that being true, but not a complete explanation. I'd add:

A) Crime statistics don't capture all crime. A lot of stuff is never reported. Property crimes so minor that they don't merit the time because you know the cops won't do anything about it, like stuff stolen off your front porch or out of the back of a pickup truck. Scuffles that don't result in major injury. Things that happen to shitbirds while they are engaged in shitbird activities and would prefer not to involve the law. Sexual harassment or assault under gray circumstances. People observe or hear about those even if they aren't reported to police and it figures into their perceptions.

A1) Attempted crimes that don't rise to the level of being worth reporting or prosecuting. I see a guy hanging around my truck in the parking lot and yell hey can I help you and he runs off. The guy that follows my wife for a block or two so she goes into a store and he disappears. Those don't show up in statistics. This largely overlaps with what you are saying.

B) A lot of people are wildly paranoid, and will over-react to news reports of crimes. People will tell me that in a local small city "Two or three people get killed there every weekend;" if I look at the statistics 13 people were killed there in 2021, 9 in 2022, 17 in 2023, 4 in 2024. But that's enough that they can remember a story about a person getting shot, and it makes them start to worry about going downtown.

C) People who are victims of crime talk about it a lot, and typically write over anything they did to "deserve" it.

I'm maybe somewhere in the middle of Alexander, faceh, and you. I think the left has the progressive and center factions, and the right has the evangelical and libertarian/populist factions. Right now the populists are winning so hard you barely even hear the evangelical faction any more, but that doesn't mean the evangelicals have stopped existing. They're a minority, but they absolutely would push for a federal ban if they thought they would succeed. The moral framework of pro-life demands it, because if the neighboring state legalized murder the median person would be outraged by the decision and wouldn't care if someone else tried arguing about state's rights. That's why you have things like Texas outlawing traveling to another state to get an abortion. And if they succeeded in it, I doubt the pro-choice right would defect because of it.

Younger commenters seem to consistently under overestimate how long the South has been "Deep Red" territory: the legacy of the Southern Democrats held on at the state level well into the '90s. I am frequently amused at local Blue commenters in my Red state complaining about (perceived Red) state laws and policies that were actually enacted by the Blue team 40 years ago.

Was Manchin the last of that breed? He just left office this year.

To give proper credit, the quote was originally from Shoe0nHead.