domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
This seems obviously correct to me, and has a ton of explanatory power when considering the motivations of advocates for childhood puberty blockers. There is a subset of the larger trans activist sphere who clearly see puberty as (at least in some cases, for some children) a profoundly traumatic and unwelcome experience. They want to introduce methods by which kids can have more control and more agency around their pubertal experiences, because they assume most kids (and even most adults) are dealing with the same level of angst about it that they are. These people are obviously typical-minding to an extreme degree — the vast majority of people navigate puberty without too much trauma and get over the awkwardness pretty smoothly — but it’s useful to understand their perspectives.
I mean this is why I wouldn't film an incident like this since it feels like the percentage of it prompting a stabby escalation is greater than the police accomplishing anything
There's definitely strong selection bias in effect. The people who aren't hardcore fans are almost certainly not paying money for access.
Funnily enough, I personally think that the war in Afghanistan wasn't violent enough. If you can't solve your problems through violence, you're not applying enough violence. The American brass thought you could win against an insurgency by being nice, and that never gets you anywhere I'm afraid.
I have heard of Combat Mission before, but haven't had the pleasure of playing it. Looking at it, definitely seems up my alley. I'll see about tracking down a copy, thanks!
That both of the recent transgender terrorists targeted their own childhood school could mean something. Does their mental illness spring from a form of arrested development occurring at the puberty age? Could it have to do with a failure on behalf of those around them to reinforcement and affirm the biological changes that happened at this age? Could transgenderism — for the ones not seeking sexual gratification — be caused by the mind being “stuck” in the age where one learns about their body, due to some obscure early life trauma or a lack of social affirmation, and their mind tries to rekindle the feelings of that age through the artificial rediscovery of their body via “coming out” and hormones? This is something to dwell on, because there does seem to be a sub-expression of transgenderism which is obsessed with nostalgic things but which is not sexualized, and this is a distinct from the other subexpression which craves its own sexual humiliation (eg that Canadian teacher with the enormous boobs who sent her one sextape to her HR lady; the Matrix-dominatrix brothers…)
The union has a veto over the style guide that no doubt mandates specific pronouns (or at least a big say in it), and I highly doubt the style guide has carve-outs for sufficiently evil criminals.
Are you familiar with the Combat Mission series? Real time with pause (…and turns), small unit tactics, obsessed with hardware, semi-autonomous, models the limitations of command. All the features you’d expect from a milsim in a strategy game. Has campaigns where you have to preserve your assets; I don’t know if anyone has made ones that let you progress in tech.
I have my own submission for the dream video game question. Maybe I’ll write something up for Friday.
There was a suicide note written in plain English, and a journal/diary written in mostly-English but Cyrillic script. I wouldn't' call either a "mainfesto" though both provide a window into the motive.
It was probably "the shooter was assigned male at birth". I was surprised at any acknowledgment.
I hear NPR say he was born male yesterday.
Do you remember if they said "he was born male" or something like "the shooter was assigned male at birth"? I know it's a small distinction, but NPR flat out saying "he was born male" seems uncharacteristic. It would be a welcome surprise.
From what I've seen, the episodes on their platform are way darker and more serious. Also the people that leave comments there tend to seem very serious like "yell yeah! Truth! That's how it was!" So I'm a little concerned that maybe most of our military vets wish the war in Afghanistan was much more violent...
Yeah, for sure it's intended for an audience of ex-enlisted. And yet it's still weirdly captivating to me as someone who was never in the military at all. It seems like Generation Kill is from 2008, so that's still... not so modern, compared to this. A big theme in this is the role smart phones and social media have had on the modern military experience. Not to mention women and gays.
edit: one thing that jumps out at me from watching this is how young most of the characters are. Typically they enlist at age 18, and then get out as soon as possible. So a typical marine now would have barely even been born when that movie came out.
Well, you've turned the "shooter" from your first cop into specifically a cop, which already changes the odds a bit. I do agree a cop who'd shot her would have better odds at the trial than a civilian who'd shot her in self-defense, which was where my mind initially went.
Still, I just don't think that that's realistically how it would go. Forget the legal risks - cop or not, nobody wants a twelve-year-old girl's death on his conscience. And, more cynically, nobody wants to be known for the rest of their life as the guy who killed a twelve-year-old girl at point blank range. Unless she's actually coming for your jugular right now, I just don't think you pull the trigger. Come to that, I'm pretty sure someone drawing a gun would be enough to make the girl drop the hatchet; we aren't dealing with a berserk druggie here.
tl;dr, it's not so much "the shooter would walk free" that strikes me as particularly implausible so much as the assertion that "in the US she would have been shot". It would certainly have been a more likely outcome than in the UK, but it doesn't scan as what would inevitably happen, not by a longshot.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE or maybe https://youtube.com/watch?v=rRm0NDo1CiY, I can't decide which one is better.
Oh, I was a fan of the series, at least back when they were putting full episodes on YT. I'm not enough of a fan to pay for their bespoke platform. I know quite a few vets, and they heartily endorse the show, most of the jokes have a generalized kernel of truth to them.
I think the target audience is very important here, these shows strike me like exactly the kinds of stories fellow enlisted dream up and tell each other based on a mix of harsh reality, dark fantasy, but mostly just blowing off steam that you can only fully understand if you were there. By far the most accurate portrayal of modern military life in a warzone I've seen is Generation Kill, highly recommend it if you're interested in this kind of thing.
The big unspoken filter is being able to afford a sword. A peasant would have an axe or a knife tucked into his sash. Both of the utility variety.
It's a "lock knife", so it's illegal to carry one if you're not a tradie in the process of doing tradie things.
I'm pretty sure if you're a low-life kid, you get the chef's knife from the kitchen and the hatchet from the shed. Maybe not YOUR kitchen or shed.
No it it isn't. The causation is completely reversed. There's nothing in the comment to which you're replying that indicates that the commenter believes that his ability to believe something implies anything to do with anything, including how bad his enemies are. The commenter is explaining why he has the ability to believe something, and that it is due to his enemies "sources like the BBC and the UK police" having established themselves to be bad as dependable information sources. You can argue that they have not established themselves to be such, but there's nothing in the comment indicating that the commenter's ability to believe this is proof/evidence/argument/etc. for the notion that these sources are bad sources. That they are bad sources is already part of the premise, not something being argued for.
The New York Times seems to have gone out of their way to have affirmed the shooter’s pronouns with the title “Suspect Knew Her Target” and calling the suspect Ms. throughout.
I feel like an odd component of the culture war on trans issues is a tacit agreement (Chris Chan, etc) that respecting someone’s gender identity goes out the window once they have done something bad. I’ve seen this in some left-wing spaces, which kinda shows that people are aware that they’re making an active choice to use pronouns - to be nice to the person using them. It seems like the New York Times position is that pronouns are sacrosanct, obviously.
I just imagine how good the writers room felt about themselves doing this - they probably feel like they’re fighting for civil rights in the 60s or throwing bricks or something in the face of public discontent with trans issues.
It looks like in the US, no one but the random-letter Chinese brands on Amazon calls those things a "hand axe", but in the UK, Rolson, Draper, and Kent and Stowe at least do call them hand axes.
As opposed to a felling axe, I suppose, the long-handled thing used (with a two-handed grip) to chop down trees.
I'm pretty sure it is a "Photo ID, please" ordeal to purchase a hatchet or chef's knife from the store. I do not know to what extent this is enforced. If I were to guess this is easy to work around for teens, just as getting beer as a 16 year old isn't a very serious hurdle in the US. I didn't mean this proves she is some some hardened criminal, but carrying bladed weapons in public has a well understood meaning and is a strong signal in the UK.
10 was the age where I got to own first real knife. I immediately went out and received stitches. Like, within a day. I plan to keep the your-own-knife-at-10 tradition going but hope my safety psyops are more thorough than my father's.
Here's one of the videos. I don't know if the letter here is what people are calling a manifesto, it's more like a suicide note. He apologies to his parents, siblings, and friends says he's dying of undiagnosed cancer because of vaping and doesn't want to go out like that.
The panning over the writing on all the weapons are where things are weird.
Pronouns being, much like many/most things to do with trans/gender ideology, sacrosanct, is pretty mainstream in my experience in progressive/"woke" culture in America, in my experience. I didn't pay much attention to it, but the few times I ran into it on Twitter and such, it was common to see people being berated for not using Chris Chan's preferred pronouns, and in general it tends to pop up whenever there's some news of some trans person doing something most people agree is wrong. I also recall seeing a scene from some CW Batman show where a cop berates another cop for misgendering the suspect they're interrogating and kicks him out of the interrogation room, followed by him telling the suspect something like how they might be on different sides, but that doesn't mean he has to be an asshole to him, or something.
Of course, opinions tend to vary, as always, but one of the core tenets of this ideology is the relationship between someone's position on the progressive stack (i.e. oppression Olympics or the oppression totem pole) and the truth of their words or justice of their actions. As a result, in practice, the most extreme views espoused by some individual at the highest point on the totem pole with the least scruples about exercising social and physical acts for enforcement set the agenda. Straight men/lesbian women not discriminating against transwomen in dating/sex or including transwomen as full, undifferentiated members of women's sports teams and their lockers are other fairly extreme positions that seem not that commonly held when talking to individuals in private, but in practice, there's rarely more than some non-committal mumbling and foot-dragging when the extreme true believers demand all of society submit to these things, resulting in everyone having to behave in public as if they agree with those things.
More options
Context Copy link