domain:mattlakeman.org
non_radical_centrist
57m ago
Someone is trying to market that person to me.
Or she just went temporarily viral, attracted some fans, and now the fans are spreading her work? You're seeing her here because I posted the link. I posted the link because I liked her writing after seeing Richard Hanania endorse her videos debating red pillers.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
51m ago
I'm old fashioned in that I don't really see a lot of value in a human life until they come a little closer to personhood. I'm the opposite of the "every sperm is sacred" idea. Most children used to die. Other than wasted resources that parents should rightly be upset about dealing with, including pregnancy risk, I think parents should have right to terminate defective or unwanted children for even a bit after they have come to full term. Should we really force a family and society to raise a retarded child that they will neve be free from and that wouldn't even survive without modern medicine anyway?
non_radical_centrist
51m ago
There are a couple levels to explain things on, from neurochemical to evolutionarily. Neurochemically, I couldn't say why two birds would end up mating for life- although I will note a lot of species that ostensibly mate for life also "cheat" on each other a lot. Evolutionarily, it happens because both the mother and father of children get more expected gene-spreading value from raising and investing in their children in the niche that species operates in, instead of the father or even both the father and mother ditching the children after birth.
Is your point that lots of partners early degrades whatever neurochemical method the human brain uses to pair bond, making you unable to fully do so when you'd want to? If so, I just want to see some better evidence of it. A more rigorous neurochemical explanation of how that degradation happens, or good stats about how people who've had many partners early in life are more likely to dislike their spouse later in life.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
50m ago
I haven't seen that fracas, but Louis CK has a similar bit about a woman who was similarly disappointed that he backed down when she pushed him away. As he put it: "are you out of your fucking mind? You want me to rape you, just on the off chance you're into that kind of thing?".
To what degree did the protestors' tactics of illegally barricading streets, widespread throughout the Floyd riots and a recurring prelude to tragedy, bear responsibility for the outcome?
Close to one hundred percent. The tactic is classic dilemma action, penning people into a position where they must either submit to the intimidation tactics of the mob or become violent against the mob. In either case, the mob organizers like the optics of the outcome - heads they have shut things down and flexed their might, tails and they're the poor innocent victims. No one should ever treat these tactics as "peaceful".
How should we interpret Perry's comments prior to the shooting, or Foster's for that matter?
As I wrote elsewhere:
Allow us, for a moment, to consider that everyone involved here is telling their truth to the best of their ability. Garrett Foster was a good and decent man that lovingly cared for his tragically quadriplegic fiancée. He was at these protests due to a deeply felt conviction that black people are oppressed by the police and was personally invested in the matter because the love of his life is a black woman. He carried a firearm at the protests because this is his constitutional right and he wanted to protect his ingroup from agitators. Daniel Perry was just an Uber driver trying to go about his business. He got confused because BLM protests occupy streets that one can normally drive down, he made a mistake in traffic, and found himself surrounded by protestors. The protestors were panicky because they're familiar with the widely broadcast Charlottesville story. Perry was frightened because many protests have turned violent. Foster attempted to defuse the situation and move Perry along.
If all of that were true (and I don't accept that it is, but let's run the thought experiment), this highlights why I was so goddamned angry at the people that allowed BLM riots to happen. The above all could be true and we would wind up with one good man's life ended and another good man's life ruined because these absolute donkeys running the show couldn't be bothered to stop BLM from rioting. Take away the riots and there's no need for Foster to arm up. Take away the riots and there is no plausible reason for Perry to be genuinely fearful. But no, we got tacit support from leftist mayors and governors around the country and a bunch of people died because of it. I am never, ever going to forgive these people.
Note - I don't really believe that this charitable view of the two men is accurate, but the point is that it could be and the same thing could have happened because of the context.
In explaining what I don't believe:
I don't buy that either man was basically an innocent bystander sucked into an unfortunate vortex. They could have been, but I doubt it. I think the evidence that Perry really, really hated protestors is compelling evidence that he embraced the confrontation. On the flip side, I have an extremely negative view of BLM and basically just don't believe anyone that says they're peaceful - I think all BLM marches are intimidation tactics and are only peaceful to the extent that people are effectively cowed into submission. Doing anything other than submitting will tend to result in very unpleasant outcomes. My model of these clashes is much more of communist-fascist streetfighting in the 1930s than it is sincere misunderstandings between well-meaning people. I think BLM rioters relish the fight and Perry enjoyed killing one of them.
Nonetheless, like I said, I think someone could take the maximally charitable view and have that be consistent with the known facts of this incident.
The answer to, "so now what" is to aggressively enforce laws for blocking streets, for false imprisonment, and so on. These aren't legitimate protest tactics and allowing them gets people killed. I don't care whether Perry was a cold-hearted murderer or an innocent victim of the system, the result was an entirely predictable consequence of BLM tactics that have little to do with the individuals in any specific altercation.
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun.
He was driving on the road legally at low speed. his car was blocked by protesters barricading the road illegally, who then mobbed his car, while one of their number, armed with a rifle, advanced on him with the rifle raised. In that situation, how does one disambiguate "seeing the chance and killing for fun" from "legitimately fearing for one's life"?
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
Why do you consider this "likely"? Protestors had been making a habit of attacking motorists for quite some time at this point, if memory serves. Vehicles had been fired upon, and motorists lawlessly threatened with lethal force.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them.
This argument applies even better to Foster as well, doesn't it? Perry "exposed himself" by driving on the road; Foster's fellow protesters illegally detained and harassed him, and Foster threatened him with deadly force by pointing a rifle at him. Why should we not consider Perry shooting him in self-defense to not be Foster paying the "asshole tax"?
100ProofTollBooth
32m ago
ThenElection
32m ago
The gender norms being biologically driven would be almost reassuring: if it were just our genes driving the behaviors, we will at some point in the future be able to move around a couple base pairs and solve the issue entirely.
If they arise purely from social dynamics and have nothing to do with biology, on the other hand, they are self-sustaining and have resisted millenia of attempts to change them, across massive geographic and temporal spaces. That seems much harder to fix.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
31m ago
Out of interest, why Rotterdam over other places in the Netherlands?
Felagund
30m ago
I read that as you saying that you think they are acting inconsistently, by wanting European powers to (I don't follow the crusade part) open borders, while simultaneously wanting to keep outsiders away.
I don't find this a compelling narrative. Here's the problems with that I see:
First, I assume you have something similar to "the left is led by Jews, Jews are Israel, therefore, Israel causes leftism everywhere" going on, motivating your saying "what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them." Correct me if I'm misreading you. But I don't think that is compelling, as a lot of leftist influence is not by Jews, and Israel itself is currently not very leftist. So I don't imagine that your typical American (or wherever) Jew is representative of Israel. (Nor should we trust ethnic representation in general; I would not be happy with Karl Marx or whoever being considered a mouthpiece of my personal opinions, just because we're both white.)
Second, Israel is not ethnically homogeneous. In Israel (not Gaza/West Bank), there is still about a fifth of the population who are Arab, who also are citizens, live in Israel, have voting rights, etc. I have not heard anyone propose expelling those 2 million or so people.
Third, the situations are rather different with immigrants. The modal Palestinian is in favor of genociding Israelis. The Palestinians as a people have a history of doing so. I suppose I don't know where you are, but my sense is that that is rather more extreme than the typical group of migrants. My sense is that most people coming to the United States, even illegally, still appreciate the country, rather than being hostile. That may be less true for Europe, but I would still venture that the average immigrant to Europe does not hate the nations in Europe.
Additionally, I'd be curious as to what rules Israel is breaking.
I'm not too huge a fan of what's going myself. I only really see a solution in making all the Palestinians leave, but no one wants them as refugees. But nothing is likely to change while Israel remains in the range of Gazan rockets, and so I don't really know what should be done, exactly.
KMC
26m ago
Wikipedia (yes, I know)
If you knew, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It wouldn't have even occurred to you to look there, and if you chose to look there anyway, you would have known that it was precisely backwards.
sliders1234
10m ago
I don’t think you can make a legal argument that it wasn’t self defense. But I do think reading the room would tell Perry that it was cosplay.
Do you have a source for vehicles being fired upon? I don’t know of any of these where they randomly killed some guy driving. Annoyed them yes. Delayed them yes.
I am referring to Foster as paying the asshole tax. You cosplay revolutionary, shit on the commons, and then probably actually pointed a gun at a person.
100ProofTollBooth
7m ago
Dude, chill. I went to Wikipedia to get the guys name so I could reference it with specificity here.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
3m ago
He has seen into the abyss and with that you are still a viable candidate. That speaks about both the alternatives he is aware of and likely his calculus of what the baseline mental state of the educated Indian male of your social stature. If his daughter is hot go for it, and rub it in your brothers face that you overcame adversity.
To the best of my knowledge, her dad doesn't know, and I'm immensely grateful. I asked her if he'd ever mentioned me as a patient, and was suitably impressed that he'd never brought it up at all, not even when my dad was around. A far more respectable psychiatrist than I am (even when I do finish my degree), he seems to take client confidentiality seriously while I just file off the serial numbers enough not to get into trouble with my governing body.
I'd have preferred to keep my parents blissfully ignorant, but my brother had other ideas. The sheer ingratitude, when I was the one taking Ritalin to coax and prod him through his finals? (Said Ritalin prescribed by the girl's dad. Sigh.)
Eh, while I'd be lying if I said I didn't think with my dick, it only holds a rotating seat in the Insecurity Council, though of course wielding a veto. But right now, marry a med student with 3 years to go who would then have to worry about her own UK licensing exams? Bruh. I can flex on my own brother in other ways, not that I don't love the cheeky little shit.
If I had to guess, I do think her dad would be open to the suggestion. I haven't really done anything awful, he just happens to know I was pretty depressed at one point and have ADHD. No real skeletons in my closet, just the overflow of my mom's sarees.
Besides, it's rare for girls to get married off while still med students. The only odd case or three I can recall, they were Muslim, from conservative backgrounds. Most Indian parents, the Hindu ones, at least, are kind enough to wait till you're out of med school before the real nagging about the pitter patter of little feet begins. They'd be happy enough to have an informal engagement, all the more so if the couple to be had genuine interest, but the formalities can wait.
Having spent more time examining the London offerings, I would say that if the girls are below 27 it is ok to see. Barely out of university so they haven't had time to adjust their own presentation to match local white standards, old enough to not be blind waifs ignorant of basic functions, amenable enough to listen to their mothers and will get scolded by their own parents if they go against the man. Finding white girls to date in Scotland is all well and good, but do recall my earlier points about mass distribution curves, and also be wary of their extremely low tolerance of UV radiation.
I'm listening. I'm learning. I even look at some of the girls sent my way, not that anyone has convinced me to take them seriously quite yet.
At least my long stint in Oncology means I can tell a melanoma when I see one! I bring a lot to the table 💪
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
2m ago
You need to change your username my guy. It's far too easy to mistake that for asexual, and I might be a horny bastard but I'm not quite that far gone yet haha.
100ProofTollBooth
2m ago
To add another thing that got memory-holed for me; the Blurred Lines song by Robin Thicke and the ensuing controversy.
It's crazy to think that got released (and was a major hit) in 2013. Would any music studio release it just 11 years later?
She is obviously trying to leverage her current fifteen minutes of fame into becoming a political commentator, but that doesn't make her a "grifter". Especially since her comments align with radical feminist beliefs, yet she participates in porn, yet she has done a podcast episode with Richard Hanania. That seems to me the mark of someone who's honestly living their beliefs, not someone trying to tell people what they want to hear in order to scam money off of them.
More options
Context Copy link