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

Showing 25 of 2405 results for

domain:alakasa.substack.com

I am a hlynkian right-wing progressive, and I don't recognize any of you as such.

Politically, my preferred outcome would be to exalt White bisexual antitheistic males above all others and make this identity the pass to being treated as aristocracy. I don't want meritocracy, equality of opportunity, judging the content of someone's character. I certainly don't want any retvrn. All I want is progressive stack with me at the top, laughing as I kick those below.

Aesthetically, I subscribe to everything my enemies love. Promiscuous girls with tattoos and one side of their head shaved make me go crazy. Some of my favorite sci-fi series are Ninefox Gambit and Gideon the Ninth (the same number in the title is not a coincidence, because nothing is ever a coincidence — the author of that reference is hardly a tradcath himself). I adore skyscrapers and strive to spend as little time in nature as humanly possible.

Does this describe anybody else here? And if it doesn't, you are not progressives with a palette swap, as alleged. And does this describe anyone anywhere at all?

I don't know. I think if some activity X is generally banned, but with an exception for Y, then you remove the exception for Y, your action is fairly characterized as "banning Y." You used to be able to do Y. Now you can't. Sounds like a ban to me!

  • -11

Do you think there are no Indian or Chinese, bay-area tech workers on this forum? I thought part of conceit of a public forum like this is that you are talking to some notion of "everyone". Either way, I'm definitely sure there aren't any antebellum southerners on this forum (they're all dead), so it's still super confusing why my linked comment wasn't also not antagonistic by this standard.

  • -11

Rape's not that rare. Lots of men go to the trouble of putting date rape drugs in women's drinks to do precisely what the author claims that random dude did. I hardly think it's impossible that a guy would take advantage of an "opportunity" he stumbled upon that other men go out of their way to arrange.

Okay, but Yasuke kicks ass. He’s a semi-mythical figure from one of Japan’s most famous historical periods. As a result, I’ve seen callouts to him in some weird places.

  • -10

"the outgroup" in this comment is pretty clearly referring to contemporary people, not the Confederate slavers.

This is not clear at all (except for literal neo-confederates who want to bring things like slavery back). The confederacy is a completely different culture from the modern south and making the connection from destroying a statue of a confederate leader to somehow teabagging modern southerners is almost a non-sequitur! Sure, some people mistaken about who actually represents their values might be upset but this is an unfortunate side-effect and really the fault of those people. It's definitely not anyone's intention in melting down the statue and really confusing if it's referred to by such a motivated word as "teabagging"---to the point where the most natural thing is to immediately dismiss that as a possibility.

Again, the far-and-away most reasonable interpretation for which group is being teabagged by a statue being destroyed....is group the person led/was part of.

I'm clearly missing something here that made modern southerners an at-all reasonable interpretation for that group: which of the following is it?

  1. Most modern southerners somehow still identify with Confederate leaders even though Confederate values are completely antithetical to their own and everyone here just buys that this is a reasonable thing for them to do.
  2. There's some weird politics bubble thing going on here where it's just accepted that lots of things are some sort of "liberal elite" or whatever attack against people who don't live in the Northeast or California
  3. Because the above two are too uncharitable to possibly be true, something else?

He's talking about one thing, you respond with a line that makes it seem like he's talking about something else

Like maybe it was clear to you he was talking about one thing, but that's completely opaque to anyone who doesn't share the politics of this place.

I find it doubtful that you were actually confused by what he meant by "moderate".

I thought he was referring to neo-confederates as moderates and trying to double-check this because that isn't really a reasonable definition of moderate.

  • -10

It was not his job to drive through a road blockade.

And you know what? This will only happen when California's voters are minority white (and when that happens a Prop 13 repeal will follow shortly). Older whites use their entrenched position in western countries to benefit themselves at the expense of more dynamic and younger non-white immigrants, it's a tale as old as mass immigration itself and California is no different to the other places this is happening, see how the UK is using the taxes of the young (disproportionately non-white immigrants) to pay for the social care of the old (disproportionately white "natives", especailly so because non-whites are more likely to believe in filial responsibility and take care of their parents instead of thrusting them upon the state).

Past whites brought about Prop 13, present whites are tacitly voting to continue it but fututre non-whites will be the ones who get rid of it and free California from all the deadweight loss and misery this policy causes each year.

Are you kidding?

Well, yeah. Isn’t that what asscreed is all about?

If they’d released AC2 in current year, the same people would be complaining that beating up the Pope was an attack on Western civilization.

I agree that they should just play better games, though.

Civil disobedience is is a well worn use of public power in the West. Though I think the French may be the champions at it.

I am not sure it is quite as American as apple pie..but rebelling against authority through acts of civil disobedience were right there at the dawn of the Republic.

The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun. It’s just that the victim was shitting on the commons to an extent that he opened the door for someone to kill him because he didn’t like the victim.

Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.

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. In this case the victim broke public trust to an extent that people are less forgiving. He paid the asshole tax.

Women don't want to spontaneously play pickup basketball because they will be criticised for doing it for 'attention' :/

The objection in that thread, as described to you repeatedly at the time, was that you were conflating people to object to the destruction of Confederate memorials with slave owners.

I never conflated these two groups in that entire conversation and repeatedly tried to explain that I didn't. From the very first post, I tried to be very clear that I was only talking about the antebellum south:

The Confederacy/Antebellum south is one of these---one of the worst cases of hereditarian, anti-egalitarian nonsense in modern-ish history.

This is in fact the main issue. If you try to argue many points on this forum, you get pattern-matched and rounded-off to a very different point that is actually objectionable. You can take however many pains you want to say that you are just talking about the antebellum south, and even the moderation team thinks that you are somehow also talking about the modern south. Like how are you supposed to interpret the group that's being teabagged by melting down a statue as something other than the group led by the person the statue represented?

In the case here, a similar effect creates huge blindspots when applying the guideline:

You do in fact have to be careful about how you talk about any group here

How is "infested with Indian and Chinese tech workers taking over" at all being careful while talking about a group? Pointing this out, however, gets conflated with other crying wolf about racism, so this rule about not casually and unjustifiably sideswiping large groups of people doesn't really get applied properly.

"a whole bunch of illegal voting" I would think that having an order of magnitude error in your thinking pointed out to you would maybe reign in unsubstantiated claims of large amounts of fraudulent votes. There simply is not wide spread voter fraud going on in the United States, when it does happen, even in stupid instances of a college kid voting at school and at home, it is eventually found and prosecuted for the most part.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.

I am skeptical that the particular facts of women playing hard to get are downwind of biology.

You don't have to do what google maps tells you to, you're still responsible for driving your car. If a road is flooded, or there's an accident, or there's a blockade of armed, screaming people...go around even if your phone doesn't tell you to. Obviously.

The prior incidents of protesters shooting at cars is all well and good, but they're only relevant if the defendant knew about them and they influenced his decision, and the only way to admit that evidence is if he testifies to it himself. While that evidence may have helped his case, that help almost certainly would have been outweighed by the fact that he'd have to testify and open himself up to cross examination, which almost never ends well.

On the one hand, I don't doubt it is individually sucky to break away from social norms like this. On the other hand, if we all decide to continue as if these are the rules then they remain the rules. Society does not spontaneously re-order due to nobody doing anything. It is a difficult collective action and coordination problem.

No, before that, when he was walking around, gun pointed slightly down. That was the focus of the prosecution that he was causing people to feel threatened, which was the contention on why Rosenbaum may have felt threatened and charged Rittenhouse and thus had a self defence claim.

If that is all it takes then Rittenhouse was clearly threatening all the people he walked past. My contention is that is probably not true for either Rittenhouse or Foster.

Why does purity have value? If you think it has an intrinsic value, why? If you think it only has value because it deeply shapes impressionable young women, then I think that's the exact argument the author makes.

Not like this.

My point exactly.

Despite any pope-knifing, AC2 was more controversial for its DRM than for its politics. This was objectively more reasonable than today’s squabbles.