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

Showing 24 of 9754 results for

domain:freddiedeboer.substack.com

If you have a problem with the idea that some women think acting the part of a "girl boss" is stupid and exhausting, ideally you should talk about that idea, or charitably engage with the ideas of some specific person who said it.

Why would I have a problem with it? I am a pronatalist, eugenics-supporting, 4chan-brained guy with "Alt" in my flair. I am you, the difference is I can see Winters for what she is rather than what I want her to be.

The story featured a woman in a Right-wing space assumed by its denizens to be liberal, who by the end realized she wasn't. Almost as if there's an analogy there.

  • -15

Child support payments are part of modernity, not social conservatism

Those two are not antonyms. Contemporary American Social conservatism perceives itself as being "timeless" "common sense morality," but it's very modern. Imagine trying to convince your 1800s great great grandmother that a fertilized egg that's barely visible to the naked eye is a "baby" or "person." It's something social conservatives believe they've logicked themselves into, much like leftists believe they've logicked themselves into "trans women are women!" I'm skeptical either "really" believes it, deep down.

  • -14

Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves.

This reminds me of the "libertarian" on Twitter who thought "the government opening the border" was "statism."

  • -14

You're broadly correct here: the anti-immigrant right (or "racialist Right") definitely don't regularly push back against claims that legal Americans would be willing to do those types of jobs. If they did, it would undercut their position that we should do mass deportations, so they either ignore it (like Catturd and friends) or they say legal Americans would do it if the price is right. The people claiming you're strawmanning Republicans in this specific post are hard to take seriously.

  • -14

Do you have an actual point here?

  • -14

Can't even begin to respond to how hateful this message is.

If you read more carefully, you'd realize I was mocking the message and saying it was wrong.

  • -14

On top of that, I don't see any possible way the Dems can attract young male voters back. They've gone way too far out on the "men are inherently evil" limb. Can't reel that back in without pissing off the unmarried white female demographic that is their backbone. But any guy who looks and sees how they force any popular young Democrat male through a struggle session, like with Harry Sisson, will balk at anything they say. There's NOTHING to offer them.

I could imagine it. Much of the Republican coalition would also like to put the average young male voter through a struggle session for such crimes as watching pornography, playing video games, engaging in "devil worshipping" activities like D&D, and not being married. Trump won because he wasn't identified with that faction of the party. If the 2028 candidate decides to wrap themselves in conservative Christianity, those young men could decide to take a hike. Remember, it won't be BASED Christianity developed by and for young men, it will be the Christianity of boomer-brained Gen-X-er preachers and middle-aged church ladies.

  • -14

Unfortunately

  • -14

My gut says that living in dense cities is somehow injurious to the human spirit and generates a lot of sicknesses downstream. If someone lives in an entirely man-made environment, why wouldn't they believe that everything's a social construct? Whereas if they're raised in and around nature, they will also perforce have to contend with nature, which would seem to inculcate some common sense in addition to other virtues.

Sounds like the kind of thinking that got us "banning abortion will strengthen the family." None of the people who said that admitted they were wrong when the experiment was carried out. We shouldn't base government policy on "gut feelings" of these people.

  • -14

Imagine trying to convince my 1800s great great grandmother that my great grandmother, who just kicked her from the inside, was not a baby.

Would be difficult. Fortunately nobody not made of straw would need to. All pro-choicers say is that if she wants an abortion she can get one.

  • -13

I feel like this discussion is the missing ingredient to lots of the topics du jour. Let's take the leftward drift of young women- well social conservatism today seems to have, uh, not discussed what other people owe to them, only what they owe to other people.

Yep. There was a commenter here who said women lacked "accountability" because they want to be able to f*** without risking being pregnant for nine months. I'm going to hazard a guess that that message won't be a particularly popular one among young women, as like with most voters they prefer politicians who will make their lives easier rather than harder.

That said, one should be wary of parts of the gender-divide narrative. Trump's performance among white men was actually worse in 2024 than in 2016, while his performance among white women improved. CNN exit polls confirm the same phenomenon.

  • -13

There are reasons to “uplift the in-group” and you need to articulate why this is an innoble goal in and of itself

I never said it was. I think uplifting the in-group by getting them jobs sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain is pathetic.

They are raised with values that are de-socialized by our ridiculous mandatory education culture, and this isn’t the kind of thing you can arbitrarily re-socialize at will

The fundamental difference between me and you is that I like white people more, which extends to liking first-world societies that white people built. I'm not concerned that these Guatemalans coming across the border are going to out-compete whites because they have a "better" culture.

  • -13

I have a laundry list of bad interactions with MAGA aligned people on this forum, but I can't really supply evidence of any specific poster being bad over and over again since I typically just block them if they're sufficiently bad even once. The fact it keeps happening over and over across many different posters should be sufficient evidence that it's a systemic issue, and not just one or two bad apples that slip through the cracks.

Moderation never worked on a "specific sentences get you banned" basis, it was always about whether the post as whole

This type of vibes-based moderation is just a glaring invitation for mods to be arbitrary. At the very least there should be a sentence or two that should be close-enough to breaking the rules that it can be cited as the issue, and then the rest of the post's tone can be used as context for whether to pull the trigger. Right-leaning mods are naturally going to feel that left-leaning posts are far more hostile and delusional than the average right-leaning post, which is probably why a post like Turok's gets banned while something like this gets AAQC'd.

  • -13

Here’s an idea: Just fucking take it. Argue whatever the hypothetical is. Or don’t. But don’t censor. You are among friends here, right-winger. You don’t need to use the mods to crush your political opposition. You have your numbers, your downvotes (Turok is consistently downvoted even for neutral comments, which btw already censors him). This burning hatred for any left-of center commenter is embarassing.

  • -13

The Online Right is small and powerless

Not true. Google Marko Elez.

So, again, let's start with the heart of the issue: why does the concept of white solidarity make you uncomfortable?

It doesn't. Nothing in the post was directed against white solidarity, which I have no problem with.

  • -13

Yeah that was what reminded me of the subject.

  • -13

If that's your definition of nuance, then I'm sure phrenology and alchemy are right up your alley as well.

There's the difference between HBD as-in "Human genetics drift over time as populations are isolated, let's explore those differences" and HBD as-in "The genetic differences between populations can explain why the world looks like it does today[1]." Too often the former acts as a Trojan horse for the latter, and I guess people can't be trusted with the responsibility of communicating with nuance so they get called racist.

[1] Nearly every grand-theory-of-everything of why the world looks like it does today gets laughed out of any room with people who capable of deep critical thought in adjacent topics (see how anthropologists feel about Guns, Germs, and Steel) - HBD is not unique in this regard.

Edit: To add, the invocation of HBD in this thread was of the latter type, and not of the former type.

  • -13

Why is a Mexican meatpacker hired over the American one?

Why are you beating your wife?

My whole contention here is that illegals are doing that work because both illegals and Americans do not want to do it but only the latter have the skills to do better jobs.

An American worker cannot compete with a Mexican agricultural worker for the same reason he can't compete with a Chinese industrial factory worker

Odd, then, that American workers make far more money than Chinese industrial factory workers or Mexican agricultural workers on either side of the border.

It's the woke left vs the woke right. The woke left demands affirmative action for blacks so they can work in business, law, medicine, and government. Envy is felt toward whites for their higher-paying and better jobs. "The test is culturally biased!" The woke right demands set-aside jobs for Americans so they can pick fruit in the summer sun, being envious of illegal aliens for some reason.

  • -12

Amadan, you are a fucking hypocrite and you're a disgrace of a mod. You constantly spread Zionist propaganda while pretending to be politically neutral.

You intentionally conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and deride criticism of Zionism as “Joo-posting”, an intrinsically dismissive term, as if the people who have some concerns about the genocide-in-all-but-name that is being perpetrated by Israel in the middle east are just cuckoo-bananas.

Again in this comment, you create a false dichotomy between “Jews and Jew-haters” as if you can be either in support of Israel, or you must hate the Jews, which is far from the truth. I have no issue whatsoever with the many Jews who live in my neighbourhood, nor with those Israelis who are content to remain within the internationally recognized borders of Israel. I do hate anyone who supports the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, whether they are Jewish or not. I make no secret of this. Any attempt to conflate that opposition to Zionism to “hating Jews” is obviously disingeneous.

Even in this reply you stroke your own dick by waxing poetically about how you magnanimously tolerate the “Joo-posters” (a derisive term you invented to ridicule those who don't share your pro-Israel bias), as if banning people for disagreeing with you wouldn't violate half a dozen stated rules. Your tolerance of anti-Zionists is only commendable if this is an explicit Zionist space which is founded on the principle of promoting Israels divine right to annex Palestinian land and carpet bomb Palestinian civilians. If that's not a founding principle, you don't get brownie points for tolerating people who are calling out the state of Israel on its gross violation of international law.

I wouldn't be writing this reply if you were just another random Zionist voicing his dumb opinions. In that case, I would just flip the bozo bit on you and ignore your stupid takes from now on. But the fact that you're an actual moderator makes that impossible. I would think moderators should be extra committed to following the rules of the Motte, including being kind, charitable, not antagonistic, avoiding weakmen, not being egregiously obnoxious—all standards you fail here.

  • -12

He openly admits he's a eugenicist

No s***. It always circles back to DemsRRealRacist, Bible thumping, and not being very bright.

  • -12

Good faith doesn't require such petty sneers.

Indeed. I can forgive you for this one instance, though.

  • -12

Yeah, I knew asking Jiro to be arsed to write more than two sentences was a pretty monumental ask. You shouldn't be so pessimistic though! Hope springs eternal and all that.

  • -12

What was wrong with it?

  • -11

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic - Abortion.

It sounds to me like Congress put a condition on federal Medicaid funding, South Carolina is ignoring it, and the Supreme Court is saying "the federal government can enforce the condition by taking away South Carolina's Medicaid funding" knowing it will not actually do so, effectively nullifying the condition Congress put in place. Maybe the court decision was right, you don't want to create a situation where the government is buried in endless lawsuits, but it certainly looks like the executive branch is just blatantly ignoring the law. If that's acceptable, I don't want to hear any complaints about Democrats refusing to enforce immigration laws.

  • -11