domain:arjunpanickssery.substack.com
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
5m ago
Because up until that point, they think it's hot that he could attack other people with a samurai sword, but he could never do that to them because he just loves them that much / they alone have the power to tame him / he's so emotionally dependent on them that his world would collapse without them / insert-their-preferred-framing-here.
You and most other posters on this thread seem to think that women are only interested in dangerous men being dangerous to other people and are obviously in denial about the possibility that dangerous men are dangerous to them. I don't see any reason to assume that. Why can't women (well some women, I'm not a believer in the redpill position that all women. are the same) be actively attracted to men that are dangerous to themselves. I don't really think that the women that feel a strong attraction of total lunatics like this (as opposed to the normal attraction to bad-ish boys) are deluded about the fact that they may themselves be harmed by them, in fact that may add to appeal. Plenty of men and women like to jump out of planes or free climb, I don't see why these women have to be lying to themselves about danger to involve themselves with dangerous men.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
16m ago
people covered in tattoos and/or piercings are the human equivalent of aposematism, change my mind.
In some cases and otherwise to some degree, yeah. Tattoos signal any of the following:
- Stupidity
- Short-sightedness
- Addiction
- Insecurity
- Bad taste
- A desire to fit in
- A good sense of what is currently fashionable
Nobody will ever convince me that the one-billionth "tribal" tattoo or chinese lettering down the spine of a non-chinese-speaker is meaningful or artistically valuable.
Most people look like either a toddler slapped stickers on them, or like a derelict wall in a shit part of down.
as @Iconochasm said. Hits the nail on the head.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
38m ago
All you have done is clearly demonstrate that you have already made up your mind and no matter what hoops people jump through will not be sufficient.
first you lie
you would not bother to engage with and would dismiss it all out of hand
All you have done is make me update towards you also being a net-negative.
Yeesh, no thanks.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
49m ago
If AOC says something and isn't broadly getting a lot of pushback from her party, that would be quite indicative that at least a major fraction of the left believed something, or at least doesn't disagree with her. This is not weakmanning.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
50m ago
You're broadly correct here: the anti-immigrant right (or "racialist Right") definitely don't regularly push back against claims that legal Americans would be willing to do those types of jobs. If they did, it would undercut their position that we should do mass deportations, so they either ignore it (like Catturd and friends) or they say legal Americans would do it if the price is right. The people claiming you're strawmanning Republicans in this specific post are hard to take seriously.
KingOfTheBailey
51m ago
Sailors' tattoos were also earned e.g. a swallow meant you'd sailed 5000 miles. It wasn't all just covering yourself in random pictures.
Arnaud
52m ago
In fairness, SEALs have something of a reputation of being the idiot frat boys of the special forces world. Pretty much every negative story I've heard about US special forces was about the SEALs.
Probably comes from them being able to walk in off the street and sign up, rather than the more usual system of only allowing applicants that are already in the military.
Browser
56m ago
I feel like the social filtering of casual violence also means that to get the 'woah badboy' experience and vibes you've got to go to people who almost totally reject the social contract since the current legal and professional moment makes it hard to be only partway rebellious
The difference being that "the establishment" is meant to specify the criticism to the people with actual power, rather than generalize to everyone who might hold a particular view, and expecting them to defend it. For example, even though you call yourself "The Antipopulist" I would not lump you in with the establishment, and I would not demand that you, personally, defend the establishment's more controversial views and actions (unless there's something we don't know about you, and your position in mainstream institutions).
As for the claim that moderation has become asymmetrical in an anti-left direction, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you're not helping. You listed several examples of "bad posts" the last time this was brought up, and while I can agree there was something bad about them in that they contained heat that could be taken out to leave more light, you went on to defend posts that were much, much worse, and you're continuing to do so here. One of your examples was "outgroup politicians are 'foreign agents'", but the actual post is much closer to "Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent".
Like I said, I don't even mind having Turok around, he's mostly an asset for people like me. The only downside of his presence would actually affect people on the left than people on the right - his tone is contagious. You said you want moderation applied equally to everyone, well if he gets to post the way he post, and the same standard gets applied to the median motteposter, the level of aggression on this forum is going to rise substantially, and the quality of discussion is going to drop, and you'll again be distraught about how much the right-wingers are getting away with.
More options
Context Copy link