domain:anarchonomicon.com
Was he flirting with her? Were you? Was she someone you wanted to go out with?
Thanks for finding that, it is close, but actually that articles contains a link to a separate incident with clearer and potentially closer video. I'm surprised I didn't come across the second video since it contains exact terms I searched: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israeli-forces-shoot-woman-with-child-holding-white-flag-video/
Priors updated. I'll look harder.
I think I should warn as graphic, in her being shot, falling, and a pool of blood forming, but too far for specific detail. "The fate of the woman is unknown," maybe they say that as a courtesy for hope.
We had a baby in a 500 sq ft apartment, didn't want to continue that way, threw out and gave away a bunch of our possessions, and moved across the country in a single vehicle to a place where we could afford a 2400 sq ft house on one income for five years (though we're going to have to make some changes soon). This is fine, because we aren't working white collar finance jobs that require a city. Also, we like that kind of thing. There are real industries as well, several of the fathers in my homeschool group growing up worked for the missile company, for instance.
Inconveniently, trading kids is just not a thing in American culture, even church culture, even with cousins (or when I was a kid, actually. My introverted parents were responsible for all childcare despite living in the same area as grandparents and siblings). If the kids are invited to something, I have to stay there and supervise them the entire time, and do nothing else. Everything is Childcare, including church, and hanging out with mother friends, and going out to restaurants. C'est la vie.
very easy to do if you've conquered them and can walk right up
Taking a stroll on the moon is quite easy, if you've successfully travelled there by rocket. You just skipped the hard part.
Successfully invading Iran would be an insane clusterfuck, and would be the biggest Chinese strategic victory this side of the 1940s (followed shortly by a bigger one, conquering Taiwan).
I actually would have said it would be impossible to invade Iran period a week ago. but they've folded so hard I'll downgrade to "unbelievably expensive and profoundly wasteful".
For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not.
Somebody needs to spend more time at the gym! (it isn't that hard to bench press 300)
Libya was run by a clown moron that looked like a parody of what a dictator should be. He was also sponsoring terrorist attacks that managed to actually kill a sizable number of people, in addition to just enriching many terrorists groups that were not competent enough to achieve their goals. The reality is that terrorism has a fairly low capability bar to clear, and maintaining the discipline of agents until a target of opportunity arises is the largest problem. Even after Gadafi died Libya still hosted terrorist training camps that resulted in the manchester bombing, killing dozens of actual children - prepubescent little girls not 17 year old bearded boys - to no response from the UK authorities. Perhaps the irritating Syrian minnow should not be brushed off as irrelevant just because you wish to focus energies on preferred aggressors. Thats not very aladeen of you if you only aladeen the aladeen aladeen.
They don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead, and can't accept that it's possible. That's pretty straightforward, no?
I thought so, but you threw some stank on the concept of the zeitgeist in that other post, and that's all I ever talk about. And then it occurred to me that the last time I explained the non-recreational reason I enjoy talking about and to the adherents of that kind of mysticism, I was explaining it to a guy who thought I was trying to turn Christianity into a mystery cult. So I put those things together and thought 'this guy might actually be sick of my bullshit too'.
One's whims cannot enslave oneself. One who is free to indulge one's whims is truly more free than one whose responsibilities result in them being constrained to a much narrower and (to them) less desirable set of choices, and certainly more free than one whose actions are externally constrained by a paternalistic entity for their own good -- even if it really is for their own good.
I'm not a fan of rent control, and I fully understand and agree how shitty of a policy it is.
I vote for the most economically literate politicians in every election (which is about as effective as spoiling my ballot, which I have also done). So I've done my part.
However, the clusterfuck that is housing policy carries on with or without me, so you fucking bet I am going to work what I can to my advantage.
Also, I find anti-rent control people (read: the entirety of /r/neoliberal) somewhat obnoxious in their "just get rid of rent control bro it's that easy it'll fix the market" prescription. They are right, in a vacuum. However, when NIMBYs get to block everything forever for any reason, getting rid of rent control is marginal at best.
4plex houses are being denied in Toronto neighborhoods because they "change neighborhood character" despite them being literally the most gentle form of density possible. They're also legal "as of right" but it turns out that was a total bait and switch because other zoning laws prevent them despite being "as right". Less than 400 4plex homes have been approved in 2 years, so it's safe to say this was an absolute fucking scam of a policy "win".
If any politician ran on a platform of "I'll get rid of rent control, making zoning identical to Japan, and cut development charges dramatically" I'd be out there knocking on doors for them every day, and I'd probably suck their dick too.
Unfortunately, the median voter is fucking retarded and this is an "instant lose" platform. So I'll keep abusing rent control until a better option presents itself.
I truly truly do not understand why these people don't just go be Catholic.
-
It's ancient, and mysterious (it's 2000 years old)
-
It has nearly unlimited "aura"; home to the most beautiful buildings and art on earth
-
There is unlimited amounts of "mysticism" if that's what you're looking for. Most churches hold something called "adoration" where they open the tabernacle and allow people to sit and pray in what they (we) consider the true presence of the body of Christ.
-
Continuing on the mysticism, there are things like The Rosary, and holy water.
-
If you want to try and get "Buddhism but Christian", you're in luck. We have prayer beads (the rosary), mantras (prayers), monks, ancient philosophy and meditation.
I don't even know how to properly address the "science" question that people seem to want to throw at religious people as a Catholic. There is nothing in Catholicism which is incompatible with wanting to pursue science and we Catholics would consider scientific inquiry a good thing. The big bang, evolution, whatever els, etc. these things are all not just "allowed" within the doctrine, but encouraged.
I think there's a weird thing happening where the new atheists did a good job of attacking the absurd claims of evangelical protestantism, but somehow lumped the Catholics in with them. I think people are waking up to this, but the contrarianism that led them to atheism to begin with doesn't let them just return to the obvious answer (the Catholic church). I think that's basically also why you see some of these people gravitating towards the Eastern Orthodox church. They can't just go be OG Christians, you see, they have to find this other offshoot thing so that they can maintain some sense that they were always right, and that the "real" church was hidden or something.
Just go be Catholic. It's annoying how obvious the answer to all of this is. There's nothing clever or surprising, it really just was the most obvious thing all along.
I personally “bother” more as a way to test my hypothetical understanding of an issue against interested and sometimes hostile perspectives. I do so understanding that no idea is off limits, which makes it much more interesting. My perspectives are probably somewhat eccentric, which again makes things more fun. The point is to learn, to listen. I don’t honestly care if I change your mind. I care that I’m learning.
If you cannot imagine a life more fulfilling than drugs, then maybe it's really not worth quitting.
The problem is that this would actually fix the problem, which no one in power actually wants to do
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply does not work.
Rightward leaning folks essentially re-inventing the Chinese government is potentially one of my favorite things about the mid 2020s.
I just listened to an interview with Oren Cass and you change about 10 words and this dude would have made Daddy Xi proud.
Can't wait for "the shining city on the hill with Chinese characteristics"
I asked it last week. My husband has a highly tuned llm (granted, he buys access) and we have an ongoing friendly argument about how useful (him) or useless (me) they are. So whenever it comes up I ask chatgpt some dead simple question to see if it gets in the right ballpark. In this case (and often) it didn't - it gave me bodyweight stuff like deadbug. Don't get me wrong, deadbug is useful! But the whole point of LIFTMOR is that us oldsters need to be lifting heavy (safely) to increase bone strength. Stretching and bodyweight is helpful but not enough.
You can do sensationalism and flatten NYT reader’s PC sensibilities at the same time.
'Woman raped! How horrible! And all those people did nothing while she screamed for help! We really live in a society! Imagine being there while he ripped her clothes off! We have failed collectively! Here's a movie of the event so you can vicariously live it, just as it was! But of course we need to interrogate what we as a people have done that it came to this horrible, yet fascinating experience, that requires solutions only the left can provide !'
While your racist uncle’s yellow journalism would go for the trope of the beastly black man towering over the virginal white woman etc.
I think I showed that the specific paper at the time is unlikely to have been trying to cover up a black man committing murder
It seems to me you tried to use that article as evidence of racist reporting from a racist time, but it backfired.
You said:
An investigative article by The New York Times claimed a connection between the Fruit Stand Riot and militant bands of anti-white youth gangs "trained to maim and kill" and "roam the streets of Harlem attacking white people"
as if this was an obviously ridiculous theory, that could only be a racist figment of NYT journos imagination. But something similar to this actually happened.
To go on another tangent, you lifted this whole sentence from this wiki article. This sentence is sourced by wiki by the NYT article I provided – in the article however, those quotes ("trained to maim and kill" and "roam the streets of Harlem attacking white people" ) do not appear. They were possibly paraphrased from “trained in karate and judo fighting techniques” and “connection with two other murders of whites in the Harlem area” by a wiki editor to make the NYT article’s reporting about anti-white groups seem more ridiculous and racist.
We live in a 600sqft 1+1 apartment. It's pretty affordable at this point (thanks rent control)
It's kind of funny how you thank rent control and then describe all the predictable downstream consequences of rent control like high market rate rents and difficulty in relocating. There are grandparents with an empty nest facing the exact reverse scenario an rent control prevents this from being remedied.
Dan Carlin constantly quotes some historian talking about ancient texts, and it goes something like "We cannot believe ancient history, but we have no choice but to believe ancient history."
I know I'm dating myself here, but one of my history professors kicked off the semester by brandishing a Weekly World News and proclaiming it to be equivalent to about 95% of recorded history. Needless to say, I was greatly entertained that semester!
So far we've been beating CoL inflation, so the trend lines look good (even modelling the inevitable slowdown in wage growth with age). It just takes time, which biology doesn't seem to have gotten the memo about.
I haven't done the math, but I also wonder how well this actually plays on net. The best and highest paying jobs are in Toronto. If I move to Calgary and my wages and CoL both decrease (or stagnate), am I ahead? Especially because I can always sell a Toronto home and move to Calgary later, but the reverse doesn't work (assuming Toronto house price growth continues to outpace Calgary).
Also, thanks to my parents I am an east-coast latte-sipping downtown elitist lib-pilled yuppie (see my flair). So moving to Calgary (and Alberta generally, although I liked Austin so if Calgary was cool I'd deal with the awful governance) is not a very appealing option. Soy-jacking aside, I love the vibe of big cities, and the absurd fun and convenience they provide.
Finally, all my friends and family are in Southern Ontario. Most of my friends live a 15 minute walk/5 minute bike from my apartment. If we moved 3000km to have a kid, we'd be completely isolated from everyone we know (which isn't a permanent issue, as you make new friends, but damn...).
Part of the controversy is that Immigration can benefit several groups - such as Big Business(who now has access to cheaper labor), immigrants, who are now getting paid far in excess of what they would have received in thier home country - but it hurts American workers, who are, to quote the person whom wrote the article;
What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it's not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.
This is not a new article. This was written back in 2016, in response to a debate between Trump and Hillary. This has been going on for a very long time, and that we're still debating that immigration comes as an overall positive(for Shareholder-Americans, maybe) astounds me and shows how the narrative is controlled overall.
For me, the pleasure of the sex seems dependent on if I can bench press her or not.
Why? What about bench press-less sex doesn't do it?
Russia has said they would use nuclear weapons if their sovereignty was threatened. While this was a veiled threat along the lines of "Ukraine and the occupied portions of it are part of Russia, so don't you dare take them back", I don't doubt it would ring very true if Russia proper was legitimately under threat of losing territory.
Yes, I agree with you there.
We rolled over then-one-of-the-largest armies in the world in a month and then immediately pulled out.
The United States and its allies did enter Iraq, but it never got within 100 miles of Baghdad. If Iraq had had a credible WMD program, it would not have been sufficient to neutralize it.
On this note, a large army would likely not be the primary thing we'd need to fight China if they up and decided a US invasion of Iran was the perfect time to strike. In the short term, it would be primarily a naval and air defense, with the biggest land target I can think of being Taiwan (who has their own army - and ideally we'd want to keep the Chinese marines from ever making a landing, making them secondary).
Yes, correct. But the US doctrine is to fight with air support, meaning that US munitions stockpiles would be degraded in an invasion of Iran (as would US missile interceptors given Iran's large stockpile of ballistic missiles). Obviously a sufficiently thorough destruction of the Iranian military by Israel makes that moot, but that hasn't happened yet.
I genuinely hope this puts a bow on the whole situation, and the US never needs to lift a finger to change this.
SAME.
I just explicitly and powerfully do not want a nuclear Iran - or any new nuclear country that has even a chance in hell of using them.
Sovereign states have the right to develop nuclear weapons, if they so choose, and invading them for doing so would be a violation of international law. Many of the next countries to develop nuclear weapons will likely be US allies (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, perhaps Taiwan and Poland; contrast with of course Iran and perhaps Belarus). That's part of why stopping a Chinese invasion is so crucial to US defensive strategy, as a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan dramatically increases the odds of nuclear proliferation.
On the one hand, I understand the desire to limit nuclear proliferation. On the other hand, I think that the nuclear asymmetry arguably makes the world more unstable and more prone to violence.
Because nuclear weapons are, though not a magical item, a potent deterrent, the best method to prevent other countries from getting them might be to explicitly carve up the world into nuclear power blocs (US, Russia, China, India) and give the nuclear sovereigns explicit hegemony and dominion over the other nation-states. The nuclear sovereigns could agree to use their nuclear weapons against any country that attempted to develop or field any independent nuclear capability. They might even be able to develop a shared nuclear monitoring and weapons sharing framework that could gradually grow in time into the true planetary sovereign, the single nuclear monopower.
This would of course be a complete overturn of the post-WW2 global order, but under that current system unilaterally invading countries that decide to develop nuclear weapons is illegal. Doing so would freeze the number of nuclear powers at their current levels (and possibly reduce them), at the price of the destruction of the sovereignty of most nations on Earth – but you seem quite comfortable to ignore national sovereignty if weapons of mass destruction are in play.
Otherwise, if the United States wants to ensure a nuclear-proliferation-free Earth (I am not sure this is actually a good idea, but running with your goal here for a moment), it is presumably on the hook to (illegally) invade and de-nuclearize any country, which means that it is in the national interest of countries like China and Russia to proliferate nuclear weapons programs to hostile states, forcing the United States to bear the costs of intervention. (Of course the United States can play the same game, but doing so risks...proliferating the weapons!)
This was really beautiful, and actually inadvertently addressed something I was writing in a different comment to you (started on my computer, left the apartment, will finish later).
Great stuff! Now to find something to have faith in...
Crystal Society by Raelifin is one of the only ones with an interesting concept that has come out of an actual EY or EY-adjacent community, though the quality drops off hugely after the first half of the first book to be honest. Its first half is extremely good though - its POV character is an unaligned AI attempting to break out of an AI-box, and it's very gripping. I did DNF the book though since quality decreases steadily after the AI gains escape.
For general hard sci-fi that actually fits the ratfic category, I would recommend Peter Watts - Blindsight (probably my favourite book ever) and Greg Egan - Permutation City as good recommendations that won't fail you. Maybe check out some of their short stories as well - I really like Peter Watts' The Island, as well as Greg Egan's Reasons To Be Cheerful.
More options
Context Copy link