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

Showing 25 of 350251 results for

domain:drmanhattan16.substack.com

Even Naraburns thought she would win IIRC, and I remember Netstack's top level comment how the vibe shift even affected his parents. I think there were two posts about kids sending memes (I didn't make thisbshit up, dude), but one of them was deleted shortly after it was posted. I think Netstack can confirm it's existence, because I asked him about it once (mods can see deleted posts), though I guess if it was deleted ao quickly, it couls have been some astroturf op.

I'll look for this stuff later (am on mobile now), but it's insane we're pretending that there wasn't a fever of pro-Kamala sentiment.

Harris's online presence was so fake it was pathetic. Not even the usual shills showed any enthusiasm

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. It absolutely was fake, but every left-winger was going along with it.

Stuart Applebaum

He looks jewish to me, not white.

Ah, I misunderstood you then - I thought you were proposing throwing out the principle of charity for quantumfreakonomics because you thought their post was not a realistic level of naivety and thus must be bad faith.

I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is. How she brought on the vibe shift, how optimistic everyone is thanks to her, how all the kids are sending each other coconut memes.

Press X to doubt. Harris's online presence was so fake it was pathetic. Not even the usual shills showed any enthusiasm, (ignoring the Eglin Air Force Base glowies on reddit)

I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is.

I found it! Perhaps the only comment on the entire Motte that is unequivocably pro-Harris. Oh wait, I found one more, and a third that might count.

I suppose the plural is valid, but I expected a lot more than that when I skimmed through the entirety of those two threads.

I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is.

Receipts please. This really does not mesh with my memory of the period; are you sure it was not just one stray poster somewhere leaving an outsize memory because you found what they said so outrageous?

To Jay Jones.

Saying that we "don't have the context" for him doing that is giving charity where it is not warranted.

I hate him for being a blue-tribe brahmin who believes in the progressive shibboleths: the left hates him for not being maximally accelerationist revolutionary Che Guevara. The magnitude of dislike is not equal.

When he goes 'trans issues are not tactically wise for politics, we should get into power and then implement them', I think, 'oh, he's a liar.' They go, 'oh, he's a HERETIC!'

Are you proposing being uncharitable to Jay Jones or to other people on this forum? I don't think principle of charity ever said you had to be charitable about statements made by public figures, just about the person you are currently arguing with.

In response, someone in the red tribe claimed that “the Obama administrations lawsuit in Ohio is meant to prevent active duty servicemen from being allowed to vote early”.

I couldn't find that in your link, either as a direct quote or a more general sentiment. Could you point to it more directly?

Is this the same Klein who supported (and probably still supports) the Californian YMY / affirmative consent law? Because yeah, it doesn't seem so bizarre to me.

Oh of course. Your mention of this time last year made me think there was something election related involved and I got lost in trying to remember what the youths were saying back then.

You have gained +5 to neuroticism

Is life in prison due to a kangaroo court much better? As that is something Dem actually attempted to do to Trump. And certainly I don't remember if any Dems were vocally against it.

I'd guess he feels Dems are more comfortable supporting Pol Pot rather than Bin Laden. Assuming the 3 bullets are going Hitler/Gilbert/Gilbert at least.

If it wasn't for huge blunders like Harris and Hillary

Harris was a blunder? I distinctly remember posters here telling me how great she is. How she broght on the vibe shift, how optimistic everyone is thanks to her, how all the kids are sending each other coconut memes. LANDSLIDE ENERGY!

2016 was a while back, but the only people I recall dooming about Hillary were the Bernie Bros.

If the democrats could field another Obama

They can't. Even if Obama could run for a third term he would just end up becomming as insufferable as Harris. This is what the Blue Tribe is now.

I'm not seeing it. If the democrats could field another Obama the Republicans would get annihilated. If it wasn't for huge blunders like Harris and Hillary, and Trump being a lightning in a bottle candidate.

When push comes to shove, most young people in the western world are loaded up with liberal/leftist/progressive priors. You just need to properly activate them. To that extent Trump doesn't even represent a real world right wing movement. It's just soft liberalism with a lot of bloviating.

To top it all off, the only youth demographic that isn't completely in the tank for democrats is shrinking. Ethnic replacement was a winning strategy and the only thing Democrats need to do is wait.

yeah like the other guy said, it's not really something you'd see as a tourist, and it's not at all common for younger generations, but used to be common for older generations. Apparently it was just banned last year, but I have no idea how effective that ban is. I'll be the countryside still has places for it.

According to a 2020 survey of South Koreans, 83.8% of respondents reported to never having consumed dog meat before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea

It was more common several decades ago, but it's in decline. The people who have eaten it before are of the older generation, and most of them do not consume it regularly.

If you're talking to a Korean online (especially in English), they probably have never eaten dog before.

Weird flex, but okay.

When is the last time, genuinely, you've seen any article published in any mainstream new media that was written from the perspective of a disaffected male where he was able to express what his perceived grievances were, and explain what he might want from a political party?

Or even something less direct: what about an article that takes men's complaints in good faith, listens to them, doesn't immediately blame them on the men in question, and considers that they're actually being honest about what they want and that we should devote some resources to addressing their concerns.

I've seen like a dozen from the past few months where a woman tries to explain why she thinks men have gone missing, or entreats them to 'come back' (here's a hint, don't publish it in the 'style' section), or an explicitly female perspective on how male's politics are concerning. Literally, read the article about how women having the desire to be with men at all makes her the actual victim.

Oh, remember that controversy over the "Tea" app that would let women anonymously report on alleged male misbehavior. Women of course were the victim of male rage in that whole debacle.

And we intermittently see articles like this, written by "Helen Coster" that handwrings over it as if its an intractable problem that we simply lack the technology to understand let alone address. But at least notes (correctly) that this is going to be catastrophic for Dems over the longer term.

Here's the only recent article I could find that even tries to consider the male perspective (and written by a dude) but it stops very short of elevating any possible proposals and of course balances the male perspective with the female.

I'm so. so. SO tired of there being literally only ONE side on the microphone, screaming the same 3ish complaints and then trying to entice men into solving the problem by compromising on everything they actually want and voting Democrat against their own instincts.

I'd say this is all proof by demonstration that the Democrats don't actually want to reach young men. It would be trivial to give them a platform to explain what they're actually looking for, to publish their words directly, rather than a third party puzzling about their internal processes and proposing half-baked 'solutions' that don't actually cede anything.

But they do not give men such a platform. The implication as I read it is that they really want men to just shut up and follow 'instructions' rather than voice concerns that, from the Dems perspective, don't matter, aren't actually concerns, and would require compromising on their various policy goals (and rouse the ire of their other interest groups) to actually address.

And this is all you would need to realize they will never, EVER actually make traction with the men, so place your bets for future political outcomes on that assumption. Also notice how J.D. Vance is quite adept plugging in to male cultural touchstones and echoing certain male concerns in a way that encourages them to engage with the GOP politically. CUE THE HANDWRINGING. Don't listen to J.D. Vance, the guy with the wife, kids, whose whole life is basically a male-coded success story. Listen to "Leila Atassi" instead, she sounds like an ideal commentator on masculinity.

Journo List and this would be where I'd start to understand the reaction from Reds.

Why is it that I will forever know

As long as you keep bringing it up it'll get stored in your memory more. If you said your mother's middle name every day for a week and every week for a month and every month for a year and every year for the rest of your life, you'd probably remember that too.

The problem is that normie progressives are increasingly becoming like moderate Muslims.