domain:freddiedeboer.substack.com
sliders1234
18m ago
The girls should have been smarter and not wore that skirt it’s her fault she was raped
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19m ago
OK, looking at the video, that looks correct. Rittenhouse is running from Rosenbaum, turns and points his gun at Rosenbaum, turns away and runs further, is blocked, turns and fires. This isn't clear in the testimony but it would have made sense to the jury seeing the video at the same time.
ArmedTooHeavily
22m ago
Ffs people, don't feed the trolls.
Hlynka’s framework doesn’t really mean anything, it’s nonsensical, internally contradictory and deliberately designed primarily to include literally all his political enemies.
The core grain of truth is captured much more effectively by Scott’s own ‘blue tribe’ designation, which includes for example neoreactionaries, much of the dissident right and many urbane conservatives of the more centrist persuasion.
On the dissident right, “racist libs” is a longstanding accusation toward eg. racists who supposedly aren’t sufficiently hostile towards feminism or gay rights. But there too it’s largely a form of in-group policing, much like SecureSignals’ exhortation that any reactionary who isn’t sufficiently hostile to Jews isn’t actually a “dissident rightist”.
to being treated as aristocracy
Because aristocracy is a hereditary status, I don’t think it’s possible to have one without women. And - at least depending on the test you propose to verify bisexuality (top or bottom?) - there are probably far too many eligible men to qualify.
And does this describe anyone anywhere at all?
I don’t think your ideology is wholly unusual. A milder version (sci-fi techno-futurist social liberalist anti-democracy) has its supporters in Silicon Valley. I suppose Peter Thiel is gay rather than bi, but he comes close.
Does this describe anybody else here?
All I want to do is to live in a civilized and functioning society. I have nothing against nativist sentiment (except in as much as it affects me) but do not demand that it be peopled primarily by my co-ethnics (drawn broadly or narrowly), but I want it to be a safe, peaceful, well-managed place. Somewhere the weak are cared for but the strong are celebrated. Somewhere where the best have (many) more children than the worst. Somewhere people marry young and happily, and stay married. Somewhere where the streets are always clean, where the people are fit and healthy, where the buildings are beautiful, where crafts are celebrated. A beautiful society, full of beautiful people, who live well, who drink but not to excess, who spend lively evenings singing on the piazza, who prioritize friends and family above work, but who work hard. Who live in cities that are neither full of ugly glass towers or sprawling McMansion suburbs, but instead draw from Haussmann’s Paris and Regency stucco London; cities of boulevards and parks and six-story buildings built in traditional styles, symmetrical, with high ceilings and large windows. I abhor the mob above all else; among all modernity’s ugliness democracy is perhaps the most grating institution.
I have few views about other tribes, sexualities or identities except in so much as they may or may not make such a vision more difficult to achieve. I happily work and am friends with people of many identities from around the world.
Does this make me a conservative?
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
The issue is the American (mostly Red Tribe) culture of escalatory self-defence.
What about the Blue Tribe culture of aggressively taking over and blocking explicitly public transit spaces? That action happens to be illegal (at least as the laws are written) in most US jurisdictions.
KMC
2hr ago
Rittenhouse was not a fight by your own standards, which calls into question the entirety of your post.
Kyle was attacked by Rosenbaum, after some third party fired the first shots. Kyle ran, Rosenbaum chased him. Then Huber chased him. Then Grosskruetz tried to trick him into dropping his guard, so Gaige could shoot him. This was not a fight, and Kyle Rittenhouse literally, truthfully, did nothing wrong.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
This comment is an example of the same thing I mentioned earlier - a narrative which blurs much detail in order to claim two things are much more similar than they are, in this case in order to promote gun control.
No, there is not just a "thin knife" of difference between a man with a rifle at the ready approaching a car and demanding the driver lower the window, and the driver being in the car with a handgun. Perry was allowed to drive on the street. The group Foster was part of was not allowed to detain Perry in his car, nor to beat on said car.
There's no dilemma here which requires Americans lose access to firearms.
Unlike 'experts' like General Petraeus or Ben Hodges, Mearsheimer actually gets things right.
If you ignore the things Mearsheimer actually got wrong and ignore things that Petraeus or Hodges actually got right, this would indeed be a compelling line of argument. But if we don't, it's not, and little more than cherry picking.
The war's progression defied multiple of Mearsheimer's prognosis, starting from whether it would start, to how it would last. Other parts of Mearsheimer's prognosis that have been born out- like Ukraine being wrecked- were never contested in the first place. Even the tools of prognosis have repeatedly been exposed as lacking- the crux of Mearsheimer's analysis on inevitable attrition has rested on artillery advantage, even as the late/post-23 trends have demonstrated that the artillery was far more circumstantial, while he's regularly made arguments on capabilities (such as Russia eviscerating Ukrainian air defenses) that have been more than a little overreaching. There's a reason that Russia's turn to airpower has hinged on glide bombs from the ranges they have.
You like to appeal back to 2014 for Mearsheimer, but I see no reason not to go further to the 1990's- as early as 1992- when Mearsheimer was on record advocating for nuclear proliferation to the Germans and Japanese, aka historic Russian strategic rivals, which would have brought permanent nuclear presence to the border of the Russian sphere of influence that Mearsheimer called for respecting... which has been part of the nominal cassus belli for Russian intervention on grounds of proximate nuclear threat.
In other words, Mearsheimer has been advocating crossing contemporary Russian narratives of security red lines for about as long as the Soviet Union's been dead. He's just done it in different forms, but not forms that would escape a revanchist narrative of malign activity of western encroachment.
Mearsheimer is as deserving as the 'expert' title as anyone else, and unsurprisingly not any more impressive outside his field of actual expertise than anyone else. People just tend to forget his field of expertise is international relations theory as a political scientist, not international relations in action, or in policy, or anything particularly to do with the military in general, or as any kind of analyst of the countries he opines on.
And why should we
I tend not to ask, but what nationality are you for the 'we'?
For whatever reason- admittedly perhaps conflating you with someone else- I'd thought you a German, or at least European, which wouldn't make sense in this more recent context unless the 'we' is rather expansive.
quiet_NaN
20m ago
Unfortunately for the police, they don't set the laws and their concerns aren't what determines how we limit our government.
How often does it happen in the US that someone gets acquitted for killing a cop because they thought a no-knock-raid was a robbery and shot first? How often are police convicted of using excessive force during no-knock raids?
KMC
2hr ago
Foster was allowed to open carry a rifle. He was allowed to walk up to a car on the street. He was allowed to have a hand on his rifle. ... He's allowed to have two hands on his rifle?
He's allowed to do all of those things. He's not allowed to stop people going where they want, and he's not allowed to use his rifle to threaten and intimidate people who want to move past him. If, like Kyle Rittenhouse, he was simply there to render aid, instead of acting as an enforcer for the aggressive protests, then he'd still be alive, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Seems like a pretty thin knife edge to balance the lives of two men on.
I don't see how this is hard. Just because you have the right to own and bear a gun doesn't mean you can do anything you want, especially when it interferes with other people.
If you give your citizens free access to devices which can kill in a split second it's understandable that the police don't particularly feel like politely knocking at the door of the crack house and giving some PCP-addled junkie the opportunity to fill them full of buckshot.
Unfortunately for the police, they don't set the laws and their concerns aren't what determines how we limit our government.
this is simply a price that Americans are willing to pay to ensure they have access to firearms.
It's not just about firearms, it's about the government having limited powers that they constantly try to expand. However, firearms discourage the worst abuses, and serve as a backstop of violence if necessary.
jeroboam
just now
Dean
46m ago
Perun IDK how this guy got so big but /r/credibledefense loves him and I like his powerpoints.
Short version is that Perun is both an actual subject-matter expert in how states develop military capabilities to meet their strategies, and he was able to succinctly cut through both a significant amount of early-war propaganda by looking at publicly available information and made a number of predictions extremely early in the war- particularly that the Russian military wasn't built to be as much as an overmatch as the early-war consensus was- that were vindicated with time. These created an early credibility bonus that over time allowed his military-industrial-policy expertise to show through.
More to the point, he was able to do so by distilling extremely complex subjects to more understandable points, and do so in a way that is explicit in acknowledging information limitations and yet still able to do so with strong references, both relatively undisputed (drawing implications from visual loss data) and from the utility of using extremely biased sources' own positions (using official Russian positions as a means of establishing numeric floors / ceilings for the purpose of establishing contexts of scale).
As Perun doesn't try to analyze the war as a horse race, but to use observed tactical/system evolutions to demonstrate broader points regarding military capabilities, he tends to avoid day-by-day catastrophizing of positions that retain relevance months or even years later. In so much that he does do 'state of the war' reviews, they tend to be retrospective, not contemporary, mitigating current-time bias.
WhiningCoil
2hr ago
Wasn't there a way to escape that barricade using the vehicle rather than shooting his way out? How would he know that escalating with his firearm would not start a broader shoot-out with other armed protesters? Was he ready to shoot at a crowd if needed?
You know, I was going to put together a whole post about how, for whatever reason, it seems less legally dubious to shoot a protestor pointing a gun at you in your car, than it does to run over dozens in an attempt to flee an angry mob. But as I kept trying to find supporting evidence, minus the poor bastard in Charlottesville, it seems people who run over protestors that are menacing them get away with it. And a lot of Republican states have specifically enshrined your right to do so.
I mean, I still wouldn't roll my dice on that in a district with a Soros DA. You'll just spend 5 years behind bars without bail fighting in the appeals courts, over behavior that was specifically legalized by your state. And you'll probably still lose, and be bankrupted to boot.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
34m ago
Yes. In point of fact, intelligent people have already thought about this and brandishing is a crime even if openly carrying is not: https://california.public.law/codes/ca_penal_code_section_417
(1)Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days. Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows:
Harlequin5942
37m ago
A lot of our GDP is in services, finance and real estate, not heavy industry.
But things like steel, rare earth metals, and oil are traded on world markets, so nominal GDP is very important. Domestic heavy industry is more important if you're at risk of sanctions by other countries.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1hr ago
From a SYG perspective, the key question is whether Perry was right on the merits, which comes down to how sympathetic you are to street protest in general and BLM in particular.
Isn't the fact that he was driving the car on a public street trying to get to his destination enough to make him right on the merits?
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
5hr ago
America does not really seem to have a coherent philosophy
Of note - "America" isn't a person and can't have a coherent philosophy. Many individuals are equally incoherent to what you posit here, but others really aren't. There are plenty of police-state enthusiasts that think people shouldn't own firearms. There are plenty of firearm enthusiasts that want to eliminate no-knock raids (outside of rare, extreme circumstances).
Foster was allowed to open carry a rifle.
Again, many individuals may have an incoherent stance, but mine is fairly clear - blocking streets is a crime, using a firearm to do so is an escalator, and the government should have cracked down on BLM intimidation tactics. They didn't in Austin because Austin is a left-wing city and the city leadership offered tacit or explicit endorsement of BLM and its tactics.
Women being fighters is to enjoy visceral revenge fantasies in a kinetic manner often unavailable to them
True. But, as someone said above, it's interesting that a lot of this stuff is aimed at men (or in male genres). I may not have been the target audience for Atomic Blonde but it was me and people like me in the theater.
I think that bit would vary by culture.
strongly suspect that hollywood/journalist/academic weaklings also fail to understand how much physical difference there is between men and women,
Oh, 100%.
The funny thing is, people think they've corrected against the pervasive social messaging. Except that same messaging - and their bubble - has ensured that they underestimate the gap. I hear a lot of caveated statements about "well, a really well-trained woman" or "maybe using speed". Um...this isn't a video game. There's no balancing...
That'd be my practical argument against this particular myth: apparently we can't just do kayfabe and leave it at that. But that doesn't mean, prima facie, it's more plausible than other, more recent "woke" myths.
A division between Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat philosophies exists, but in addition to the lines being a lot blurrier than this summary (eg, even a lot of SYG advocates promote deescalation and avoidance, most famously Masaad Ayoob), I think you're badly strawmanning SYG perspectives as RealManTM.
The problem with DTG isn't that retreat is Unmanly, or the various pragmatic problems where a jury second-guesses split-second decisions about ease of retreat. It's that it demands a surrender of the public sphere:
If these riots somehow create a "no rights" zone, where criminals can do as they please but honest people must either stay away or submit to illegitimate violence, then their very existence is a violation of everything we stand for as a country, and it's time to clear the streets with tanks firing canister. In that case, he and I and everyone else have been lax in our duties, because this is a war.
There is no scenario where it is okay to let the criminals run rampant, and honest people are required to let them have their way. I don't care if it reduces the death rate, because that is not a terminal value. Living in peace and freedom is, and submitting to criminals makes such a life impossible.
(Or cfe here)
Even in a perfect world, where police hammer every criminal action, a ton of 'fight' happens well below the level of criminality or what should be seen as criminality. Whoever is willing to defect can commandeer large portions of the public sphere, readily. And we do not, bluntly, live in that perfect world: no small portion of coastal cities have transparently given permission for extralegal actors to crush political positions they don't like, while ignoring (sometimes 'mandatory!') restrictions on bad actors they do like.
Jiro
4hr ago
A corollary is that to make DTR culture work at urban population densities, you need something like broken windows policing to stop obnoxious blowhards ruling the streets by behaving badly and treating a request to stop as a challenge to a fight.
I'd consider a mob of people surrounding a car as such a set of obnoxious blowhards.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
So has installing "self-defense cannon" in a structure as an anti-mob measure. But law has, for better or worse, evolved on that question.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
1hr ago
Not to be a dick, but surely you can see why Is Wine Fake is a more relatable topic for even the typical Mottizen than a hilarious and insightful look at medieval Icelandic literature and law!
SSCReader
14m ago
But he may have been driving a car at the crowd right? If Perry drives car at crowd, then Foster can hold unsling his rifle and presumably open fire and Perry can't claim self-defence because he provoked. Unless of course by blocking the road Foster was provoking Perry.
Its why I think all self-defence shootings should have to to trial. Because most of them hinge on who was reasonable to fear what. And the people best suited to decide that is a jury of peers. But the trial should have to be expedited.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 For more information please reread this post
21m ago
I can’t get myself anywhere without using google maps.
Well, there's your problem!
Knowing how to read a map and find your own way can save your life!
This is just handing over control of whatever an aggressor wants to them. It's already bad when the government allows Gang A to occupy the building. It's worse when the government punishes someone for not respecting Gang A's claim; now the building is de facto Gang As property (even if the title was not some third party but Gang B itself)
More options
Context Copy link