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

Showing 25 of 194245 results for

domain:firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com

Why isn't that fear enough?

Because, in my assessment, it's not rational. It appears that others agree with me, Abbott and DeSantis among them, among a number of other leaders and their supporters. Defiance of Federal authority is observably being coordinated, right out in the open where you can watch it happen.

You can believe that such defiance is inevitably doomed to fail, but I disagree, and it appears others disagree as well. Very well: we've made our predictions, and the outcomes will be as they will be.

What matters is not respect, but obedience. Blues don't need or want Reds' respect, only their submission.

It doesn't seem to me that they're getting it, and the trend seems to be that they're getting less of it over time.

Because you will be punished if you don't?

It seems to me that their capacity for punishment is declining, and that well-chosen actions can force it further into decline.

Trump is certainly being punished. He has survived so far, and is plausibly going to win the election. If he does, they will stonewall him and continue their efforts to destroy him, and the result that matters is that the system will continue to bleed credibility and thus capacity. If he does not win the election, or if they succeed in destroying him, the system will likewise continue to bleed credibility and thus capacity. I do not see a route by which the establishment arm of the GOP regain authority over and support from their base, which has been in open rebellion for some years now. Abbott has not yet been punished, and neither has DeSantis. Even if Trump is destroyed, and Abbott is destroyed, and DeSantis is destroyed, someone else will step up to take their respective places, and the process will continue.

This implies we have any meaningful ability to do so.

Abbott has done so before, and Biden backed down. Abbott is doing so again, and Biden is very likely to back down this time too.

There is more defiance to Federal authority now than there was two years ago, five years ago, ten years ago. It does not seem to me that the trend supports your interpretations or predictions.

...As for the rest, I maintain that the ultima ration is preferable to an uncontested blue tribe win, and that it favors Red Tribe. I also maintain that it would be a tragedy of almost unimaginable scale, think it should be our last resort, and do not believe that discussing it in detail is a good idea, especially in this forum. I continue to decline discussion of the ultima ratio beyond these points, and continue to be comfortable with your assumption and assertion that this means there is no substance to my argument. I invite you to dispense with the questions and simply proceed to state that I offer no explanation and thus should not be listened to. Others are free to draw their own conclusions.

Glen Youngkin won in VA largely because he said "Hey, stop teaching kids woke stuff in public school."

Maybe, but I think there's a difference between "stop teaching woke stuff" and "stop copying the Catholic Church's playbook". I seem to recall a significant rape scandal at that time (the school administration was just relocating the boy-in-a-skirt rapist from school to school, then the cops arrested the victim's fathers when they dared to complain)?

There's a lot of tolerance for the former and most parents don't really care all that much about it (considering how averse they seem to be in terms of trying to reclaim their rights). Heck, even a "we're so powerful we won't even bother to cover up the fact that trans rapists are A-OK in our books" has only so far prompted the election of one more sympathetic governor; if that's the full extent of parental organization and power here, well...

I don't recall anyone claiming that the other side was lying.

Here's a sentence out of that paragraph

But why did you ignore the other two sentences I quoted?

The institutions of a socialist society, even in their most democratic form, could never resolve all the conflicts between the universal and the particular, between human beings and nature, between individual and individual. Socialism does not and cannot liberate Eros from Thanatos.

Why do you think these sentences say "we know how to solve all our problems"?

Shit man, I had 0 dates up until age 30. I somehow got married, much to my infinite surprise. Just goes to show that you never can really know the future for sure, I guess.

I'm trad and generally supportive of MAGA-Style socio-populism. What am I, Left?

6 months is objectively grim but I had 0 dates from age 23 to 26... So all I can say is you'll get through it :P, and also increasingly the norm for the average young man. If they get laid at all that is.

I'm in a similar boat to you I've dated two women in the recent past, both from the apps, atleast they converted to dates, but my god are they boring and lack any moving parts inside their heads... It's going to be a long road lol

The AuthLeft and AuthRight are defined by a belief in the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint - all members of the AuthLeft and AuthRight believe this, and furthermore members of other political ideologies don't believe it, and This belief is the most salient factor in determining identity among political ideologies

Why would any other feature of an ideology be more salient than a belief that "we have the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint"? What does it matter what you call it, or what theory you use to justify it, if that is where it cashes out?

Further, you seem to be implying that this is about labels, that Libertarians or Christians don't suffer this problem because they're Libertarians and Christians, as though it is the label that provides the immunity. People can absolutely hold this belief while calling themselves Libertarian or Christian. I can point to a lot of Libertarians and Christians that don't hold this belief, and I can point to core axioms of the two ideologies that directly contradict this belief, and thus plausibly provide some immunity from its contagion. But the question is whether or not it is present, and the labels applied are entirely superfluous to that question. Libertarians do not have a long history of governance to examine, but people who called themselves Christian have in the past and do in the present absolutely hold this belief. That is something I would dearly like to help solve, by providing strong arguments as to why they shouldn't.

You're using these idiosyncratic concepts "AuthLeft" and "AuthRight" whose applicability to broader political discussions is questionable.

I'd be interested to drill down on why you think it's questionable.

  • Do you reject the idea as incoherent in and of itself?

  • Do you grant that it's coherent, but don't see the connection to the examples I've provided?

  • Do you see the connection in those examples, but think I'm overstating it?

The space of possible political positions is much broader than you give it credit for. I would encourage you to read some of the original works by any of the thinkers we've been discussing lately - Zizek, Lacan, Marcuse, Derrida, Nietzsche, or Heidegger - and see if there's anything in there that surprises you.

I look at the history of the modern world, and I see a lot of mistakes made. I notice patterns in these mistakes, a correlation, a commonality between apparently disparate theories and ideologies, that seems to explain things that are otherwise mysterious. Why is this a bad idea?

Which makes more sense: Using the theory to understand the practice, or using the practice to understand the theory? The point of philosophy is to teach, to shape the minds of other humans, individually and collectively. The shape of the minds at the end of this process is the best measure there is of the quality of the theory, is it not? What those minds say and do is the best measure of how they have been shaped, is it not? We have three hundred years of history available to us. Why appeal straight to the sacred texts? Is that how you treat ideologies you don't have a personal sympathy for?

...Let's suppose I'm wrong. Let's suppose that I should be looking at the text. Here's a sentence out of that paragraph:

Here is the limit which drives the revolution beyond any accomplished stage of freedom : it is the struggle for the impossible, against the unconquerable whose domain can perhaps nevertheless be reduced.

...Nothing here is surprising me. Nothing in the rest of the paragraph is surprising me. I've gone and read the chapter it's from, and I'll freely admit that I'm not confident that I understood it all, but what I think I grasped didn't surprise me. I'm entirely open to the idea that I'm totally missing his point, or that I'm falling into confirmation bias, but he seems to be advocating permanent revolution, with an assurance that This Time It Will Be Different. Am I wrong? What am I missing? How is this incompatible with "we know how to solve all our problems"?

It's literally a coupon clipping/deal-searching forum but there seem to be a lot of unrelated dramatic threads. I don't speak korean so I have no idea.

https://www.missycoupons.com/

Who’s that behind him? Is that… Candlejack? Man I haven’t heard of him in a long t

That's fair.

The chamber of commerce & friends represent the right. The actual, traditional right, not MAGA-style socio-populism. They back the GOP for low taxes and low regulations.

Wow, I just read that debate, and it's truly fascinating and somewhat distressing. A lot of the anxiety I have about culture at large comes from the idea of post-modernism, something only truly accessible and enjoyable to a select few, but forced on the many. And somehow it has come to prominence due to the fact that the aforementioned select few are often in places of prestige and power. And more than that, it's self-sustaining; not, as is said in the notes on that debate, simply within the circles, but in society at large. A lot of people are swept up in liking, or at least defending, these inexplicably ugly tastes, which is much more offensive than those styles merely existing.

I am well placed enough in my IRL tradcath community to know at least a few details on every couple marrying this year. 50%+1 were introduced by their siblings(this group grew up in the community, by and large, and so large families plus teenagers with lots of free time[because homeschooling] and young adults who don’t move out of their parents house as soon as they can afford to). Subtract online dating and there’s not a lot of possible room for meeting organically left- and elders of the community think this number of marriages is too low.

Ironically one of the bigger challenges is getting Sally to show up for that church dance, although tradcaths put enough effort into stopping teenaged Joseph and Maria from having a relationship that grown-up Joseph is also probably in for an awkward start to pursuing the girl who does show up at the church dance anyways just from aftereffects. Everyone has a different solution and that solution is always one which doesn’t entail that particular person to make any changes.

In the francophone world I believe the problem has been solved by a strong, formal expectation that eligible young adults not seeking the religious life attend the parish young adult group. This expectation has, for whatever reason, not made it to Anglosphere trads- partly due to the extended nature of Anglosphere adolescences I suspect, but there’s probably other reasons.

Who's working in the meatpacking plants there?

Lurk https://old.reddit.com/r/linguisticshumor/ and try to understand all the jokes.

That was my main strategy for shifting gears from being a professional machine learning theory researcher to doing computational linguistics work.

Sure, but they're called "latinos", not "iberinos" :p

They got a bunch of Vietnamese, whose descendants are still there today. The equivalent of the Turks in West Germany, though fewer and better-behaved, which is why you don't hear about them much. The same is true of some other ex-Eastern Bloc countries like Czechia.

But no, individuals couldn't just go and move of their own accord. (The exception to that was Yugoslavia, but given the choice, they'd rather go to West Germany obviously.)

If your daughter gets eaten by a bear, the Daughter Question pasta can still apply:

I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having had that daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You were feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she could teehee off into the woods and get eaten by a bear. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it had one simple result: her body was more enjoyable for the bear who would eventually feast on her every limb.

What about just “speaks an Iberian language in the Americas?” Spanish and Portuguese are quite similar to each other (especially given the dialect continuum that exists in certain border regions) and share a clear common linguistic and cultural lineage that sets them apart from French.

I really like this response, I just want to pull out some more details.

"The missing step A" -- Is this the initial meeting between two young people? From what I can gather, it looks like you're saying that tradcath communities are great for getting a young couple on rails into a marriage, but bad at getting Harry to meet Sally at the dance. Is this accurate?

It was for quite a range of occupations IIRC.

I know they did bring in some Cubans and even Vietnamese, but that may have been for propaganda value and "proletarian internationalism" points. Don't think they ever had Poles or Romanians.

The one I know best is from the Cape, comes from an English-speaking family, but went to an Afrikaans-speaking university, and hasn't lived in South Africa for a few decades.