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

Showing 25 of 10381 results for

domain:drmanhattan16.substack.com

Let me first say what he did was wrong and I support him exiting the race and resigning from any public office he currently holds. I hate politicians like him.

But I don't really care that partisans on the motte are pearl clutching. If Trump said similar things in a leaked private chat, like calling Kamala's kids little communists or whatever, or he'd shoot Hilary twice, you think that would move the needle at all? Nope. We are far beyond that point.

I would say hot and frumpy women both attack and defend men, without a strong trend. The bigger difference is that men don't value the defenses offered by the frumpy women, while they excuse the attacks of the hot women. So the frumpy women get more of the blame for misandry, while the hot women remain simped for.

A Democrat Trump would have to run roughshod through his own party, goring their oxen, while overwhelming any party resistance.

Yeah, that sure does look like the likely outcome of a Democrat Trump equivalent. I expect a nominally Democrat Trump would be at least as bad for the country as the nominally Republican one we have now, I'd guess even worse.

A saw a twitter post responding to some leftwinger who was failing to comprehend why people cared that Charlie Kirk was murdered. The clapback went something like "Imagine this happened to someone you actually feel empathy for, like a black rapist".

A core part of the problem that @WhiningCoil was posting about downthread is that if the Democrat Party as a whole got the Biblical choice to spare my white/Jewish teenage daughter, or the non-white career criminal who would otherwise rape and kill her, I would bet they'd save the criminal. Maybe that's a false perspective based on their fringe. The odds are definitely not 10-0, but maybe it's below 5-5, maybe 2-8.

But with the Republicans it's 0-10, no matter the race or Islamicity of the criminal. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, and some people have been openly reveling in cruelty for 5+ years.

There are many video compilations arguing otherwise. I actually think it's at least partially causal - the less attractive women can get a septum piercing and a few other disfigurements and start openly hating men as a way of protecting the ego.

Democrats don't want you dead, because the democrats asking for your head don't have any understanding of violence.

I live in the bluest of blue America, and I've heard a few people express glee at the idea of Trump's death. It comes from the oddest of places. The nicest boomer white ladies, the tiniest granola girlies, men so feminine they couldn't hurt a bee. (Literally. I recently happened to be a +1 for a friends event where they tried to resuscitate a bee. Safe to say, I held my tongue the entire afternoon. Wonderful people and not an ounce of violence in their body). Look at Jay Jones, he's the lowest testosterone black man I've seen in my life. What a woman dressed as a man would look like.

My point is, they shout about killing Trump because they are unable to imagine the act of killing, punching or drawing blood. Even when they express this emotion, it's usually with a glint of mischief rather than anger. They're not just angry at him. They are also indulging the kid inside of them that never got to say the word 'fuck'. It's no surprise that many of the left-wing terrorists have grown up in dysfunctional conservative families or are gamers. These communities have a clearer relationship with violence as children, having coopted vanilla progressivism at a later age.

They are angry at Trump. But not in a "bullied kids shoots up a school" way. But in a, "I cry in every therapy session" way.

I like to believe I am well adjusted. But, I had my fair share of fighting violent bullies in school. Once in a while you push someone too hard and they fall on their head or you misplace a punch and you see a man in true pain. In a "my actions could have caused real harm and I'm lucky I missed" sort of way. Life flashes in front of your face. It snaps you out of anger, and leaves you with a pit in your stomach. The slightest glimpse into real violence leaves a lasting negative taste in one's mouth (unless you're a psychopath). That's why well adjusted men don't make violent threats easily. The mental return damage of living with hurting someone is not worth it. It isn't a good feeling.

You need not be worried about the ones making threats. Not this group. Now, if demographics with a relationship with violence start saying the same things.......then, call in the national guard.

Some among them, surely. The Qanon true believers who think he is fighting a secret war against the adrenochrome-addicted establishment.

Still, my model of the median Trump voter is that they know that Trump is bullshitting all day long and corrupt AF. But the establishment hating him so much makes it all worth it.

In particular, I would argue that outside your odd lizardman, none of the smarter MAGA people believe the narrative. I think it highly unlikely that Charlie Kirk thought, in his heart of hearts, that Biden was committing treason for which his countrymen would sent him to the gallows if they knew about it. But the narrative played really well with the idiots, so he spread it.

The worst offender for an American university name has to be Colgate, to me Colgate is what I brush my teeth with...

It is, in fact, the same Colgate family.

Direct advocacy of violence goes well beyond what "stochastic terrorism" was supposed to be. The idea of stochastic terrorism is basically that saying bad things about people -- not advocacy of violence, just that the people were terrible in some way -- might make crazies kill them.

I've begun to actively loathe twitter, because so many good source of information are now trapped in twisted, labyrinthian multi-threaded posts that are a bitch and a half to store offline.

Anyways, here's a good thread that breaks down the entire charlottesville debacle. Take away from that what you want, but I personally feel this was yet another case of a political lynching.

Oh, and one of the protesters blatantly admitted to brandishing rifle at the guy earlier.

Hm. That's definitely part of it. But I don't think it's the whole thing.

When the rule was compassion and conversation, I supported the dems as a matter of principle. I didn't personally benefit from most of the work. When the rule became "actually, it's okay to hate people for being born with the wrong immutable characteristics," I just supported whoever was in my own interest. "Do as the Romans do."

I'm not convinced that's a reversible transition. Maybe it's minority enough to say "irrelevant."

This – perceived lameness – is pervasive across the west. The sad thing (for democrats in the US, or progressives or liberals or lefties or whatever they’re called elsewhere) is that in general they are compassionate people, with empathy towards others, especially those who have fallen through the cracks, and they’re interested more in civic society than in individual gain, but online media has no proven way of effectively showing the OTHERS whom they have compassion for.

No, they aren't. That's their self-image, and their advertisement of themselves. But their compassion is very selective. They feel for the criminal, but not really the victim. They feel even less for the would-be victim who defends himself. They are willing to let civic society fall apart rather than harm the wretched who are actively destroying it. They feel for the member of some designated oppressed group, but not for the member of some designated oppressor group. Even when a member of that oppressor group is in fact being harmed, and begs for their compassion, they will tell them that they are the oppressors and deserve what they were getting. I've seen that happen, and be widely supported, in a progressive mileu.

It’s the same as the problem with Jihadists. Sure only 10% want to kill people, but it’s not like the other 90% are willing to do anything about it. The TDS faction is certainly bad, but im not seeing anything that suggests that the rest of the liberals are opposed to political violence in anything other than the fig-leaf sense. They just don’t want the blame, they don’t want to be tarnished by association with those TDS factions. But they also can’t muster the energy to stop it, or even to say this is wrong, full stop..

You are aware that the DNC chair is a white man and 5 of the 11 board seats are also men, 7 of 13 if you include the ranking House and Senate leaders who serve on the board? You are also aware that local Democratic committees are composed of 1 man and 1 woman per precinct by rule? And I don't expect you to be aware of this, but in Allegheny County at least, the local board is mostly straight, white men. Are you also aware that these positions are elected and there are usually plenty of vacancies due to lack of interest and unwillingness to actually put the work in, and that it's not that hard to get on the ballot? Do you really think that men are turning away from the Democratic Party because they can't get work with them?

In practice, that kind of partisanship results in ultra-pillarized societies like eg Lebanon. Red children would go to red elementary schools and blue children to blue ones. This is basically a law of nature about ultra-pillarized societies and not something subject to negotiation based on the structure of that society's schooling.

As an unrelated aside, it's very interesting to see Klein and especially Yglesias struggle with '24. They both recognize there are real issues in the Democratic Party now, beyond bad marketing and the failure of the deplorable electorate not seeing its obvious superiority. But even they have to carefully avoid triggering those same antibodies I mentioned earlier. I think there's a reasonable chance Yglesias eventually steps on a mine and gets fully excommunicated.

And then he goes on to put Confederate generals in the same league as the founding fathers, just so you know whose side he's really on.

That of his supporters?

They aren’t just conformists, in many cases they’re the old church ladies telling you anything you find fun is somehow wrong. You can’t enjoy foreign food, clothing, or music. You can’t like your own either, you can’t like traditionally masculine things, or traditional things in general. It’s just a narrow rather boring and uninteresting slice of things that democrats think are okay to like unironically.

What young, working class males- most of them nontraditional Republican voters- have told me about why they're voting for Trump now:

  1. He's not afraid to offend people, and sometimes that's what stops politicians from getting stuff done. This is, essentially, just true, even if you can argue that Trump isn't a solution.
  2. No tax on overtime/tips. This is, in a lot of the working class's view, the first thing the government has ever done to make their lives easier*. And young men are not generally beneficiaries of welfare, so in their specific case this is literally the first cash handout they've ever been promised in exchange for their vote.
  3. He's not beholden to Israel- while he's less pro-Israel than I would have thought he was going to be this time last year, I admit I'm pretty baffled by this one.
  4. Kamala this that and the other. Fact remains, democrats can't seem to stop and consider 'this chick is an awful screaming karen who can't even speak coherently' as a reason not to make her a party frontman.
  5. LGBT, especially the T. Most of these guys are 'pro gay rights', even if they maybe think 'little fags' are just wrong. They're upset about pushing LGBT indoctrination everywhere, and they don't like trans.

*There's also a tendency to identify Trump with stimmy checks or extra unemployment for laid-off blue collar workers- even if these people understand that these policies were bad for the economy, 'the government was just gonna give it to rich people anyways'.

I should be clear that the persecution fantasy here is specifically that young men are at risk of having their IP addresses traced by a visual basic GUI written by The Liberals unless they use a VPN (which they are all doing), hence why I quoted "young men have been using VPNs to protect their identity from liberal attempts to make their life worse for so long."

I don't argue that doing stuff you don't want people to find out about under your real name is inadvisable. It's just that VPNs are neither necessary or sufficient to avoid this situation.

Idle thought: "doomscroll" sounds like a fantasy artifact.

Even when the Republicans express their disgust for young men watching porn, that's better than being disgusted with young men for being men.

I mean, have you seen the dem ads on the subject? 'We know you're pigs, we want to let you'. People don't really like that.

The democrats lost young men when they stopped staffing young men. The democratic party is split between the faces (who're men) and the staffers (no straight men). The party, from 2nd in command to bottom, is run by women and feminine (I don't mean this as an insult) men. The party talks to men as the 'other' because they are the 'other'.

It's clear that the democratic party would rather see Newsom and Buttigieg fall into a ditch once an electable woman shows up. Unfortunately for them, they can't get a woman elected, so the 2 of them are tolerated. A conventional straight man is only welcomed into the democratic fold if they are muslim or black (and usually communist + nepo baby to boot). Zohran and Hasan being the canonical examples.

In 2022-23, the tech industry cleared itself of the woke scolds. People were fired, replaced and sidelined. Companies rebranded, some quietly some loudly. There has been no such reckoning within the democratic party. We might be seeing the first signs of it, with Bari Weiss taking over CBS. But for the most part, the internal rhetoric of the democratic party is stuck in the last decade. The only outreach they're capable of doing is to the left of them. And that's why the AOC/DSA wing is ascendant.

Today, I can see that milquetoast commentators such as Ezra Klien and Derek Thompson sustain an uncomfortable alliance with the democratic party. I can't imagine how the average young man (who is definitely to the right of them, more patriarchal and more traditionally masculine) could feel welcome in the same democratic party.

Ezra Klein has been making this point in his interviews recently although phrased more like "It doesn't matter what our policies are if people think we don't like them and I think we've been sending out the message that we don't like a lot of people". He seems to have been doing a lot of soul searching since the loss in 24.

It would seem that this weekend, there was a fire at the house of one Diane Goodstein, a judge who Trump does not like. Reddit being Reddit, they immediately assumed the fire was arson and accused the right wing of violence; the linked story made the front page of Reddit. However, the investigation so far shows no evidence of arson: “At this time, there is no evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set. SLED agents have preliminarily found there is no evidence to support a pre-fire explosion.

Point being, the radical left (i.e. Reddit) will say lie after lie after lie how how Charlie Kirk’s killer couldn’t have possibly done it because of his left-wing beliefs, even though the evidence overwhelmingly points that way, then they will turn around and accuse the right of right wing violence without any real evidence to back up their claims.

The truth matters. Objective fact matters. I have decried it when the radical right was telling lies, and will decry it as long as the radical left tells themselves lies.