domain:alakasa.substack.com
Pigeon
coo coo
9m ago
Childish Gambino's This is America - except This is America was fuelled by the progressive zeitgeist, and thus was basically substance free, reliant on censorship to both provide substance and shield the song from critics, so my progressive friends' opinion of it was along the lines of 'we have to prop up black people so even if it's kind of empty we can praise it for what it didn't say'.
I always did feel that the This Is America MV was shallow even compared to the visual composition of things like Gangnam Style…
Owlify
11m ago
This, additionally creating deepfakes is not the same as vividly imagining someone naked, otherwise men wouldn't take the effort to create them.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
15m ago
You can be arrested in Ukraine for questioning Holodomor. Does this falsify Holodomor?
This seems like a fairly odd rule in general. People have been arrested throughout history for advocating claims that are not true. For instance, it is literally impossible for the claims of all religions (or the central claim of atheism) to be true, and yet, throughout history, it has been typical for people to get arrested for advocating all and sundry religions or for advancing atheism.
RenOS
Technology giveth, Sociology taketh
19m ago
From my experience talking with women about it, many hate men vividly imagining them naked just the same, they just can't do anything about it. If a mindreader was created tomorrow, I'm pretty sure a group would get together to lobby to outlaw sexual fantasies about a person without their consent the day after.
Add the risk of circulation (even by accident!) and the implied threat from the possibility of people mistakenly believing it to be real, it's obvious why the women react so badly.
Tree
27m ago
Why should women take more risks? What kinds of risks should they take more of? We've probably gone a bit too far into saftyism, but high risk taking in men pays off in winning wars or having lots of sex with women they're attracted to. What does it get women?
I suspect we’d all be super-rich. If you think about it, a very large part of society is structured as a giant insurance scheme, designed purely to mitigate the irrational loss aversion of people (especially women, but also men of course). Naturally, a lot of money gets lost in the pipes.
If I work in a developed european country, roughly half of my paycheck is immediately and largely unavoidably funnelled to insurance-like institutions to quiet the neurotic voice that goes ”What if you’re unemployed? What if you’re sick? What if you’re old? What if you die?”.
Well, what about it? I’d be worse off. Trying to financially compensate for the hypothetical loss is not rationally required. There is no good economic reason why one’s standard of living should never, ever sink.
All kinds of different things get thrown into the ‘risk aversion’ bucket. Driving a motorcycle drunk and naked and other young male antics are not low risk aversion, they’re high idiocy. The insurance problem strangling society should have its own term, ‘small loss aversion’. Financially, risk has been defined as volatility, which Warren Buffett and I think makes no sense.
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
39m ago
Not a reply to you, strictly, but man am I bothered by "the nazis are the absolute zero of morality and we must forever obsess about them".
Alexander Gauland (a senior figure of the German far-right political landscape) called the Nazi years a "bird-shit-stain on German history". I think it somewhat undersells the impact of the events, but I agree with his overall sentiment. Man, I do wish we could just collectively damnatio memoriae the entire time period. Throw it into the nearest dumpster. Burn the records. There's nothing left to be learned from it. The well of valuable experience has been poisoned by all sides that ever had a damn thing to do with it. Who still stands to gain from keeping it open? What good does it serve? People who suffered negative events can deepen and prolong their trauma by focusing on it, and even create trauma where there needn't have been any. The nazis may have killed me for a mongrel. Who cares, they're gone. Germany is doomed to lose itself in the 21th century no matter what happens, demography being destiny. What does it matter then what the Germans of 80 years ago did? You may as well believe in Nazis in Antarctica or hiding on the far side of the moon as in the continued actual relevance of the events of the mid-20th century. Wake up babe, a new millenium just dropped and we - no matter who we is - have enough on our hands without keeping them both full wringing and whinging about the antichrist of yesteryear.
So to the latter-day revisionists who decry the holocaust as false, and the propagandists who still try to make hay of the deadest horse on Earth: Yes you're perfectly right, the other guy is completely wrong, now shut the fuck up, bury your obsession and face the future.
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
1hr ago
Sure, but then focusing on misogyny and homophobia next to jew-hatred as his "defining, animating opinions" still seems non-central. It's not a big deal either way.
FtttG
1hr ago
I presumed it went without saying that, as an Islamofascist terrorist organisation, Hamas is just as militaristic, authoritarian, totalitarian and expansionist as Hitler was, and, in its quixotic, decades-long, suicidal battle against an obviously militarily, economically, technologically and numerically superior opponent, just as out of its depth.
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
1hr ago
get the stitches out and go right back to it
Do this. Don't worry until the same thing happens at least once more. Until then it's a fluke.
HalloweenSnarry
1hr ago
Yeah, but among who? I am skeptical the left will suddenly cancel the Maoists because of some shifting valences.
HalloweenSnarry
1hr ago
Wait, really, everyone just changed their tune about this? When did that happen, and how?
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
1hr ago
The PKK, the Kurdish Worker's party which spent the last decades fighting the Turks who occupy much of Kurdistan, has dissolved.
Source, in German, which provides no details: https://www.tagesschau.de/eilmeldung/eilmeldung-8610.html
Southkraut
Vibe of vibes, saith the Preacher, vibe of vibes; all is vibe.
2hr ago
Hitler's defining, animating opinions (hatred of Jews and desire to exterminate them, homophobia, misogyny etc.)
Either the etc. is doing some dangerously heavy lifting here, or this is a really rather woke opinion of Adolf Hitler.
His defining, animating opinions other than hatred of jews were...homophobia and misogyny? Really? Nothing about the militarism, the authoritarianism, the totalitarianism, the expansionism, the sheer magnitude of out-of-his-depth the man was as dictator of Germany, the enormity of ego he acquired over the years?
No, no, he didn't like the gays and thought women should be homemakers.
Crowstep
2hr ago
Testing that would run into general statistical illiteracy among the population, I think. if we asked the average person to say how much taller and heavier men are than women, I'm sure you'd get some zany answers, even though people intuitively know how large the difference is from constant observation.
aldomilyar
2hr ago
I think it's a transgression but I also feel like the consequences are a bit too hardcore for what's essentially masturbation. Dude's essentially been exiled from his life, whilst having hung out with some of the guys who are in the B Team orbit they're hardly above locker room behavior and a lot of that stuff is essentially Craig Jones' personal brand. His main media thing last year was a bunch of sexually charged stuff around Gabi Garcia/challenging her to do an Onlyfans shoot with him if he caught her in a particular submission that he actively went for and only relented when she essentially said 'I will let you break my leg instead of tapping since I don't want to play into the onlyfans thing' (https://youtube.com/watch?v=HID-Xi8hOUw&t=741) which IMO is way more of a consent issue than anything Rod did.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2hr ago
All you’ve done is mistake familiarity with openness, and mistake newness with secrecy. They are not the same. Obviously if I were to convert to Islam, I would have more homework and research to do than if I were to become a Southern Baptist, but that doesn’t somehow mean that Islam is a secretive religion trying to hide things from you…
Ironically, the push to call ourselves by the mouthful “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” was prompted by a desire to be more transparent, not less. The reason being that sometimes people thought we worshipped a god named Mormon. That’s not linguistic poisoning. It’s accuracy. Our church’s name has been identical since 1838 (first 8 years had a few variations, but never Mormon, not internally, though Smith was known to use the phrase “Mormonism” from time to time.) A fact that is betrayed by your own words (!): Joseph Smith is not “the” central figure. It’s still Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is by our own doctrine like, maybe third at best? Joseph Smith to Mormons is definitely a weaker link than Muhammad to Muslims, for example.
The precise degree of and debate over what doctrines are essential and core vs merely informative is common to all religions, but it seems surprising to me that you think you are better suited to answer this than an actual member?
Funny enough, unlike many other religions, we do actually have a standardized “worthiness interview” that asks about basic questions of faith. You can look them up. They are quite simple and are, generally, yes/no. On that basis I’d argue we are MORE transparent than other religions, where beliefs vary widely within a congregation (let alone sect or branch) even on self-admitted core topics with little to no effort at correction, and where most members wouldn’t even know where to look to find, for example, what makes a Baptist a Baptist and not a Methodist instead (at least that’s my personal experience).
No problem, still appreciate the reply. Hope it's been interesting for you as it has in return. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands.
I respect and appreciate the enthusiasm.
To be frank, my ADHD makes it hard for me to handle all the subjects of discussion in our exchange and consistently organize my replies in a useful way. As a younger man perhaps I would have made it work by hyperfocusing on the thread to the exclusion of all else, but that’s rare these days. Since it’s the best I can do tonight, rather than leave you hanging I am going to summarize a couple of partial thoughts.
I agree that Hebrews was probably not written by Paul but by someone in his circle. In the absence of internal attribution I am partial to the Barnabas theory, but that’s really underinformed speculation on my part.
I somehow did not predict that the Mormon view of Hebrews would be so different, but in retrospect it would have to be to correspond to the Mormon view of priesthood. I think that view bakes in some assumptions about what the Levitical priesthood is for, though, that I want to dispute. The primary function of the Old Testament priesthood was to present offerings to God, particularly sacrifices. That’s why the author of Hebrews presents it as being not only surpassed but replaced by Christ’s role as a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (e.g., Heb. 10:8–14).
That phrase, “after the order of Melchizedek,” is a reference to Psalm 110, which is a royal psalm. The phrase applied to David as king in Jerusalem, so David is being treated as a type and Christ the antitype. Christ is priest-king in a way that David only foreshadowed, and he is a priest forever unlike Aaron or (metaphorically) David. He made his one sacrifice, himself, and sat down at the right hand of God. But the office of priest-king is unique; since Jesus lives forever, he can have no successor. There cannot be another priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7–10, more or less).
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
2hr ago
It's not just your wife that does that, it seems to be a common trait. Mine certainly does that, squirrel-style.
Whose definition of eudaemonia are we using here?
My own idiosyncratic definition, which rests on certain assumptions:
I take it as an axiom that eudaemonia comes from the exercise of virtues, and that virtues range on a scale from passive virtues to active virtues. Passive (feminine) virtues include chastity, temperance, mercy, and piety: they are something you avoid, or are. Active (masculine) virtues include valor, industry, courage, and nobility: they are something you do, or become.
I take it as further axiom that in general, the active virtues hold greater eudaemonic potential: they are what build monuments. Feminine virtues are absolutely important for individual and civilizational well-being, but they are the mortar and masculine virtues are the brick.
Therefore, the sex who is disinclined towards and incentivized against exercising masculine virtue will suffer lower average potential for human flourishing. Women's maximum capacity for masculine virtue is almost certainly lower that men's maximum capacity due to the consequences of gestation, but I believe that they are capable of more, should be incentivized to exercise what they have, and might hopefully be gifted with greater capacity for excellence.
tl;dr: genetically-modified tomboy supremacy
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
3hr ago
If you liked Snow Crash, try The Rapture of the Nerds.
I'm not saying the Holocaust was a particularly bad crime because it targeted Jews, and I'd be the first to argue that the Holodomor was a comparable atrocity. At the very least, the fact of the Holodomor ought to mean that wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt on a Western university campus is as unacceptable as wearing a swastika t-shirt is. The fact that everyone has heard of the Holocaust and so few have heard of the Holodomor is appalling and didn't happen by accident.
My point is that all of this "recontextualisation" of the Holocaust, talking about how the Nazis also targeted homosexuals and Slavs, is diluting one of the most important and essential facts about a crime: who the victim was. I don't believe it is remotely historically controversial to say that the primary victims of the Holocaust were Europeans who had the poor fortune to be born Jewish, and that this was entirely by design. And yet in our modern culture, it's not remotely uncommon for people to expound at length about what a horrific crime the Holocaust was and how it shines a bright light on the depths of evil to which the human heart can sink - without once specifically mentioning the group which represented the overwhelming majority of the Holocaust's victims. I find this distressing and alarming in much the same way that everyone (myself included, I'm holding my hands up here) knows the names Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, but few can name even of one of their many victims. Or, to cite an example I encountered recently, in the series The People vs. OJ Simpson there's a heartbreaking moment when Ron Goldman's outraged, teary-eyed father is being interviewed on TV and says something to the effect of "this was supposed to be the trial of 'did OJ murder my son?' and instead it's turned into the trial of 'is Mark Fuhrman a racist?'" Think of how suspicious you'd find it if someone did begrudgingly acknowledge that the Transatlantic slave trade happened and it was bad, but seemed to be bending over backwards to avoid mentioning who exactly was enslaved by it.
I think that acknowledging a crime took place but going out of your way to avoid mentioning who the victim of that crime was amounts to a tacit denial of that crime (or at the very least, it's one step removed), and all the more so when the victim's identity characteristics are the entire reason the crime was perpetrated in the first place.
FtttG
3hr ago
It's my understanding that the figure of "5 million non-Jews" was more or less invented from whole cloth and the real figure was as much as an order of magnitude lower. "The Holocaust was mainly a crime against European Jews" is, in my view, the only accurate and responsible way to describe it.
I think its a victimless crime too when undiscovered, but once the girls find out about it it will likely give them the ick/make them feel unsafe.
Guy should just make a public apology, delete everything and keep training until things blow over. In the meantime I hope he broke up with his girlfriend to make a clean start. She torpedoed his career out of jealousy even if she makes some public feminist argument about keeping the girls 'safe'.
More options
Context Copy link