domain:link.springer.com
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
5m ago
large scale illegal migration from Central and South America I can’t countenance the wasting of that singular political moment and energy on the irrelevant sexual proclivities of a disgusting but dead man decades ago.
Until mass immigration is solved, this is the absolute political issue, above anything else, beyond everything else. The same is true about other irrelevancies, like Iran, Ukraine, tariffs.
Then don't comment on these threads, or just comment one sentence that you don't care about anything more than you care about Blanqueamiento, and move on.
The motte is for truth seeking, not petty dishonest political persuasion. It probably won't work for the latter anyway, and even if it did the US voting population of the forum might be 50 on a good day, of which I'm not sure you yourself are included.
How am I supposed to trust anything you say about the matter after you tell me that nothing else matters except deporting brown people? Your top level post the other day, do you actually believe that Epstein was just a particularly hot gay hustler, a Gold Digging Hall of Famer, or is that what you determined was the best thing to say to protect Stephen Miller's political project? Is everything you say about all the issues you just told me don't matter to be ignored, just a weather-vane tested method of finding the right piece of whataboutism to get everyone to shut up and give ICE more money?
I just don't understand how one goes on the motte and says "stop talking about X, it doesn't matter compared to Y." Because nothing we talk about on the motte matters; thus the truth is all that matters. And I'm disappointed that you've disavowed it.
2rafa
32m ago
Another dubious extrapolation - the scale of the gangs we know about increased a lot after 1997 when Blair legalised fetching marriage.
Do you read j’accuse on substack? While I find him histrionic and extremist much of the time (and wouldn’t endorse his politics), he tracked down an extensive list of old newspaper articles about criminal cases that made very clear this was going on in a major way since the mid-1950s, single-digit years or even months after any non-negligible immigration from Pakistan began. Even I was quite surprised at that. There are quotes in many of them from police and others that suggest this was already a widely-known about issue among local police and councils by the mid-1960s at the latest, when pressure began on the left to take action to reduce the chance of race riots in the wake of Powell’s peak popularity.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
40m ago
based on the rates in Rotherham
Most of the other gangs that have been busted were an order of magnitude smaller than Rotherham. The coverup ended a decade ago - we have a pretty good handle on the size of the problem, and we now know that Rotherham and Telford were unusually bad. This wasn't known at the time Sarah Champion took up the issue - so she was making a reasonable guess at the time.
(over the 65 year period of mass immigration from Pakistan)
Another dubious extrapolation - the scale of the gangs we know about increased a lot after 1997 when Blair legalised fetching marriage. Apart from a few places with powerful local ethnic-Pakistani political machines (Bradford/Halifax is the only one of the local grooming gangs where this is a plausible factor) the police would not have gone soft on Pakistani sex offenders until well into the 1990's.
2rafa
41m ago
There are people (all women I believe) on those prisoner letter writing forums who are in touch with her.
2rafa
42m ago
Pearson’s method extrapolated from both Rotherham’s population and the rate there and the relatively population and distribution of the Mirpuri/Pakistani community in England.
TowardsPanna
48m ago
Buddhism isn't really religion. It's psychology. The way out of the cycles of suffering can be reached in this lifetime with correct practice. The Buddha told us how. It was later that people added all sorts of mumbo jumbo around it. I'm well on the way to liberation myself. No other way of life offers a concrete and comprehensive framework for comprehending and working well with the mind. To say that sheer atheism can compete with the buddhadharma is a very silly statement born out of ignorance. No offense.
I’m at most an ambivalent Trump supporter, it’s disingenuous to imply I haven’t criticized him and his more naive fans countless times on this board over the last decade.
This person was always a liar and a scumbag. I remember writing about what he did to the priceless Bonwit Teller sculptures, rare examples of good art deco (along with the rest of the building), his treatment of his business partners, lenders, investors and so on. His treatment of his wives, cheating on pregnant Melania with prostitutes etc.
But when in Stephen Miller and to some extent Homan the US has its best in 30 years and probably final chance to do even a small amount (which will have big effects down the line) about large scale illegal migration from Central and South America I can’t countenance the wasting of that singular political moment and energy on the irrelevant sexual proclivities of a disgusting but dead man decades ago.
I want my children to inherit a functioning country inhabited by civilized people with public services that function and with the smallest possible violent and dysfunctional criminal underclass. Until mass immigration is solved, this is the absolute political issue, above anything else, beyond everything else. The same is true about other irrelevancies, like Iran, Ukraine, tariffs.
Okay, well this is a classic illustration of my frustration. We have some words, hydro above listed some more, but we don't use them. You might as well say they don't exist, at least when we talk race. When I say race, 95% of everyone thinks about the big categories. Ethnicity as I've already said is a better word, even if it's still imprecise. I'm also not saying that no one can tell differences between genetic clusters, or that there aren't a handful of discernable phenotypic differences. It should come as no surprise to anyone that babies can pick out race differences, humans are super-learners after all, and that goes double for facial processing and recognition. (It's also true that even adults suffer difficulties in telling faces apart in other races when less familiar with other races).
But words like "octoroon" actually run contrary to your point: that it was used at all historically actually underscores how race is often a social construct in actual practice (reality). If you're 7/8ths white, you are probably going to pass as white, and probably going to be functionally white. Only a society with major socioeconomic and political hang-ups would ever invent some hyper-specific word to describe someone with 1/8th Black parentage on a particular side of the family, I mean that's pretty self-evident, yes?
The simple math of the matter is that words like "mulatto" and the other "halves" hydro listed are only useful for exactly one generation! That makes their utility highly questionable. What's the daughter of a mulatto and a Hispanic man? etc.
The liberal idea that the "experience" of race matters more than the actual facts of race is taken to the extreme by some loonies, bandwagoners, and idiots... but the idea behind it isn't that wrong actually. Say you are highly embedded in Black culture, maybe you're 3/4 Black, but your skin comes out lighter and you pass as White. Are you Black? Are you treated as Black? Many of them say that they feel like they got the worst of both worlds, others think but don't say that they get the best of both worlds, and the situation gets more complicated if you're raised without Black culture at all, or confounded in either case depending on your economic status. Again, on the spectrum of consistent, useful, biological genetic cluster to somewhat arbitrary, contextually influenced social construct, race seems to fall much more on the social construct side in most of the ways that matter.
popocatepetl
1hr ago
Where the message of 'Patterns of Force' is something like "you can't separate the good from the bad, and the advantages of Nazism cannot outweigh its disadvantages", I think the message you'd get from a modern historian would be that Nazism is just bad overall.
Can modern historians be trusted? The very topic of this thread is that De naziis nil nisi malum in left-leaning circles, of which academia is certainly one. I read Richard Evans' series on the Third Reich and recall reading a lot of stupid policies from the Nazis. Nonetheless, I can't get past — and I can't see how detractors get past — that in twelve years Nazi Germany saw rapid economic growth, and then lost a war against four great powers with only the help of two minor powers. They gave a pretty good fight. Of course, you can say that the insanity of Nazism lead to them starting an unwinnable war, but they must have been doing some good things to even acquit themselves as well as they did.
TowardsPanna
1hr ago
Hmm yeah. That makes sense. Sounds useful actually.
Can you give a concrete example of how the tarot cards were more stimulating than a coin toss would have been? I'm curious.
I dug out a tarot deck that I had collecting dust, no idea when or why it was acquired. Nearly all the cards have obese women. Gee, I wonder what the creator of them looks like. Lol.
Is anyone denying dogs have more variance? The only point is that the variance, in both cases, is a material fact, not a social construct.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
So there's this idea of "variance" right? Variance between human ethnic clusters is a completely different universe than variance between dog breeds, to say nothing of the fact that human social interactions and networks are a unique layer that have no clear analogue in any animal species.
I feel like (1) is partly a consequence of necessity: you have a major deadline, and so it doesn't make much sense to do a major re-org. Though of course staffing decisions at the top matter. Which brings us to (2), and I think that's probably very, very true. I remember reading even way before, during her own primary campaign, about how chaotic her organizational and decision skills were. That is, she'd constantly change her mind after listening to a few advisors outside the actual structure (such as her more-talented sister), and that chain-of-command was always super up in the air, and that made for constant inefficiency and poor messaging. So ultimately, yeah, I agree that it's fundamentally a Kamala issue, and she never really was going to take road #2, the road less traveled.
So to be clear, I think when people say that she was in an unwinnable situation, they are super wrong. The logic for what she actually chose was pretty attractive, but we shouldn't mix up the attractiveness of a choice with its actual truth. As someone who closely follows political polling and focus-grouping, Road #2 is what an advisor would recommend to you, almost every time, even if the political establishment as a whole would recommend road #1, the play-it-safe road. You actually can still do a roll-out of Kamala-specific policies even with a Biden-staffed crowd! Yes, Democrats writ large would moan and complain a lot, because that's their nature, but the actual core political machinery is usually still pretty good at following marching orders. She (or more specifically, a better-organized, more decisive version of her) could totally have pulled it off.
Still, again, she was chosen for being loyal, and a marginal GOTV help, and being loyal somewhat runs counter to ambitious competence. I do wonder if her selection, designed to bolster Biden rather than to be a protégé of any kind, was an early sign that Biden didn't actually intend to step down after one term, in retrospect...
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2hr ago
But the American president is not a figurehead, he is meant to be the one running the country.
It's unfortunate that so many people believe this, but this isn't really the case. The perception of this has more to do with candidates over-promising on the campaign trail than what civics classes actually teach. Let's check the Constitution and see what kind of language it uses about the President. I'll pick out the most relevant bits:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President.... The President shall be Commander in Chief...; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices... He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments... He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ...he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
What kind of vibe do you get from this? He's in charge of the military, pretty much full stop (exceptions for declarations of war), but most of the other duties? Notice how often there's a give and take between Congress, the officers that the President supervises, heads of departments, and the President. Even the foreign policy stuff is supposed to be "by and with the Consent of the Senate". The Constitution is pretty clear that although he's supervising the executive structure, he doesn't have full control. He can appoint a lot of people, but the most important ones must have Senate approval. He can appoint (and nowadays, does extensively) a lot of "inferior Officers", but the Constitution is pretty clear that this is actually Congress' right intrinsically, but that they may choose to delegate to the President (or alternatively the department heads themselves, who are Senate-confirmed, and this is also decided by Law, i.e. both houses of Congress). To me, this doesn't really sound a whole lot like "running the country". The whole point actually IS that a very large number of the actual bureaucracy is a supposed to be a joint effort between the legislative and executive branches, with the whole back and forth between appointments, nominations, confirmations, etc.
That is, the people with the levers of power are still chosen by an indirect democratic process. That's why the US is a representative democracy, we are supposed to elect people with good judgement, and then there's a series of checks and balances between those people as they hash out the details amongst themselves, so to speak, with periodic input from the electorate. Even the design of the elections, famously, is intended to strike a balance between responsiveness to public will (which is good) and resistance to fads (which are bad). Of course the two are difficult to distinguish, so you kind of want the best of both worlds: that's why there are two houses of Congress, for example, and you'll notice a lot of this "Advice and Consent" is specifically given to the Senate, which is the more long-term outlook of the two (six year terms, with only a third up for election at one time in any given cycle). Again, that's by design!
The modern fact that the Senate, specifically, has devolved way too much power to the President is a known issue, and publicized if you're paying close attention, but not really a Constitutional one per se. They could claw back a lot of this power if they wanted to, even now.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
what then?
Ho, where is my rifle?
Ho, where is my saber?
In an even field, wide and open,
Beyond the field, a green forest.
In the forest, a tall tree,
Tall and mighty-trunked.
On the tree, a bird—a nightingale,
The little bird sings, it says:
"Who has a beloved so fair,
Let them love, let them cherish,
For turbulent years are coming,
Lest only regret remains."
They have their own category.
Perhaps to you. How would you define a quadroon? In Japan the term used is (quarter) クオーター which refers to a Japanese person who had one grandparent who is non-Japanese (in other words, if they had a non-Japanese parent they would be half (ハーフ) thus the non-Japanese grandparent splits it more finely.
I have always found this odd because, in the same way as the terms you list above--which I have only ever used in reference to black influence on whites--in Japan the terms are only used for white influence on Japanese. In other words when a child has a black (or otherwise non-white) grandparent or parent here they are typically not referred to as half / ハーフ. Or if they are, there is a specific mention of 黒人 (or black) or maybe Chinese or Korean or whatever (but these people are typically just referred to as Chinese or Korean, regardless of Japanese parentage.) In conversation if you were to hear someone say "She is haafu" you would assume that her mother or father is white. Not black, not Southeast Asian, Pakistani, or whatever.
I'm curious how you personally use the terms you list, if you do use them. I haven't heard the words (quadroon, etc.) uttered out loud unironically ever in my life, and I was born and raised in more or less rural Alabama, and both sets of grandparents regularly used the term "nigger" though notably (to me) neither of my parents ever said the word within my earshot and wouldn't allow it said in the house (by me or my brother.) Of course we couldn't swear, either, and get away with it.
I'm also interested in your claim about babies. Is that from a sociological study? If so, could you produce it? I have noticed many--not all of course, but many--on this site are quick to reject all sociology (or other soft science) as hookum, until of course a study pops up which reinforces an idea that is not a progressive talking point. The conclusion itself, in any case, would not be particularly surprising, and I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting that, if generally true, it indicates. After three years living in the Kalahari I remember looking at staff photos and having a mild jarring sensation when I saw how much my own white face stood out, how clearly different I was in appearance to my colleagues. I would imagine the starkness of difference would be relevant to the babies with whom this study was conducted. In other words, could you show a Japanese baby a Korean woman or, to get a bit further afield, a Nepalese woman, and have the baby "respond differently"? I assure you many Japanese would consider the Korean and Nepalese a different race entirely to Japanese. Though you are of course free to argue with them.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
3hr ago
Gepards are not the only things that can shoot down drones. Tunguska is not exactly a cutting-edge product (neither is Gepard), but it works.
Crowstep
3hr ago
TheDemonRazgriz
4hr ago
Warfare was excellent, something really unique and special in the movie world. It comes very close to being an exact minute-by-minute recreation of the events it depicts and had some unique stylistic choices (most obviously the total lack of a soundtrack) that I think made it tremendously effective. My fiancée and I caught it at the tail end of its theatrical run and both loved it. I would highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject matter/genre.
aldomilyar
4hr ago
I have always enjoyed the critique of Red Dead Redemption 2 along the lines of 'bunch of outlaws and brigands happen to hold perfectly progressive 21st century views on gender, race, consent etcetera'
Grauwacht
4hr ago
This seems like a lot of words to say "Islam is right about women". Maybe the Burka is the way to make the glow invisible? If women really wanted that, there is the solution. Why don't they use it? Probably because they actually like the myriad of advantages they get from the glow more than they dislike being seen as women first. I'm convinced that nothing would be more painful for women to just be treated like men all the time. Women, as is tradition, want to have their cake and eat it.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
4hr ago
I think that a month is much too much, given how many right-wingers here get away regularly with breaking the rules and the ethos of trying to bring light instead of heat. Which I'm not blaming the mods for, given how much content there is to mod, but it's a matter of proportionality. I think a week would be fair. Giving him a month just feeds into the narrative that critics of the right are being persecuted here for being critics of the right, instead of just being modded when they are snarky and so on.
I have no particularly strong opinion on the ideal ban duration here. I'd be open to anything from a week to a perma ban. I did say it was provisional, and I'm happy to change it to a different value once the other mods chime in. If the others think a week is more appropriate, I can change the duration retroactively to make it so.
What concerns me, quite immensely, is that Turok has shown no particular signs of being corrigible. Even after multiple warnings from other mods, I can't make out any difference in behavior. Other people who have been banned usually learn to knock it off. If they don't, they earn a PB. For such people, gradual escalation from warnings to short bans to longer bans usually works! For people who don't seem to give a damn? I'm inclined to reach for the gun.
You can mod him for being repetitively unnecessarily inflammatory, same as various right-wingers are modded for that. If you ban AlexanderTurok for writing things that drive people crazy, you should also give WhiningCoil another ban for the same reason.
WC was just modded by Nara for his comment calling black orphans a "virulent invasive species". He wasn't banned, and did manage to come up with a semi-reasonable explanation for that choice of phrasing. You can review the mod log for details.
We didn't ban him for it, but that was absolutely a formal warning, and will be taken into account should he do so again. I'm not going to go into detail about our internal mod discussions, which happen to include concerns about our neutrality in enforcing moderation decisions as well as community sentiment, but rest assured that bans are very much on the table. Just not today.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
4hr ago
The only thing worse than a bare-link is no link at all. Which is uh.. Now that I think about it, an empty comment. You're right, I'll retract that claim, in my defense I wrote it at 5 am.
I think that a month is much too much, given how many right-wingers here get away regularly with breaking the rules and the ethos of trying to bring light instead of heat. Which I'm not blaming the mods for, given how much content there is to mod, but it's a matter of proportionality. I think a week would be fair. Giving him a month just feeds into the narrative that critics of the right are being persecuted here for being critics of the right, instead of just being modded when they are snarky and so on.
I like Amadan's comment a lot, I think it's one of the best mod comments I've ever read on any forum and is very fair, but I think that "Maybe you really are sincere about everything you say, you believe you are making good, valid points, and your manner of expressing yourself is just so off-putting and against the grain here that it drives people crazy." is not really a good reason to mod people, since people really shouldn't be blamed for writing things that are "so against the grain here that it drives people crazy", which can apply to all sorts of good comments. You can mod him for being repetitively unnecessarily inflammatory, same as various right-wingers are modded for that. If you ban AlexanderTurok for writing things that drive people crazy, you should also give WhiningCoil another ban for the same reason.
Consider an alternative possibility, which we've seen demonstrated in public numerous times: The Democratic party lacks balls, has always lacked balls, lacks balls at every level from top to bottom. The strain of trying to pretend to have balls and be a Democrat eventually gave Fetterman a stroke and now he's a blithering retard.
More options
Context Copy link