domain:felipec.substack.com
You think you could find 10 right-wingers or just mercenary guys willing to do 10 year in federal prison, on a lie?
Laddie, you posted the incident where ten Americans were willing to risk 10 years or more in federal prison for attempted murder. You have been referred to a decade where magnitudes more people were willing to endure magnitudes worse than prison. You have also been referred to the prisons where people willing to risk 10 years in federal prison already exist.
The answer is yes. People willing to do things that could result in 10 years in federal prison, or worse, already exist. They do not draw the line at adding a lie to that.
Go to a serving infantry soldier and tell him LMGs are 'tacticool'
An AR-15 modified for an automatic rate of fire is not a LMG. People pretending they are the same would very much fall under the tacticool coolaid.
and 'not actually very useful'.
Spraying and praying beyond effective range not being very useful is why infantry soldiers look down upon people who spray and pray.
AR rifles are fairly controllable in full auto, and with a bipod they're probably extremely controllable.
If all you mean by 'fairly controllable' is 'in the general direction,' this would be missing the point, much like firing at full auto at the ranges of this incident.
Whoever they'd have been shooting at would have been dead. Swapping out mags isn't that hard either.
Unless they missed because they were playing with full auto beyond the effective range of auto. Like what happened in Texas.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18m ago
Is ridiculously selectively applied, e.g. basically any time people use "the establishment" as a foil they're guilty of this, but they don't get modhatted. As it stands, the rule is merely another cudgel to use against people making left-leaning arguments
The difference being that "the establishment" is meant to specify the criticism to the people with actual power, rather than generalize to everyone who might hold a particular view, and expecting them to defend it. For example, even though you call yourself "The Antipopulist" I would not lump you in with the establishment, and I would not demand that you, personally, defend the establishment's more controversial views and actions (unless there's something we don't know about you, and your position in mainstream institutions).
As for the claim that moderation has become asymmetrical in an anti-left direction, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you're not helping. You listed several examples of "bad posts" the last time this was brought up, and while I can agree there was something bad about them in that they contained heat that could be taken out to leave more light, you went on to defend posts that were much, much worse, and you're continuing to do so here. One of your examples was "outgroup politicians are 'foreign agents'", but the actual post is much closer to "Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent".
Like I said, I don't even mind having Turok around, he's mostly an asset for people like me. The only downside of his presence would actually affect people on the left than people on the right - his tone is contagious. You said you want moderation applied equally to everyone, well if he gets to post the way he post, and the same standard gets applied to the median motteposter, the level of aggression on this forum is going to rise substantially, and the quality of discussion is going to drop, and you'll again be distraught about how much the right-wingers are getting away with.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
19m ago
Because up until that point, they think it's hot that he could attack other people with a samurai sword, but he could never do that to them because he just loves them that much / they alone have the power to tame him / he's so emotionally dependent on them that his world would collapse without them / insert-their-preferred-framing-here.
You and most other posters on this thread seem to think that women are only interested in dangerous men being dangerous to other people and are obviously in denial about the possibility that dangerous men are dangerous to them. I don't see any reason to assume that. Why can't women (well some women, I'm not a believer in the redpill position that all women. are the same) be actively attracted to men that are dangerous to themselves. I don't really think that the women that feel a strong attraction of total lunatics like this (as opposed to the normal attraction to bad-ish boys) are deluded about the fact that they may themselves be harmed by them, in fact that may add to appeal. Plenty of men and women like to jump out of planes or free climb, I don't see why these women have to be lying to themselves about danger to involve themselves with dangerous men.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
31m ago
people covered in tattoos and/or piercings are the human equivalent of aposematism, change my mind.
In some cases and otherwise to some degree, yeah. Tattoos signal any of the following:
- Stupidity
- Short-sightedness
- Addiction
- Insecurity
- Bad taste
- A desire to fit in
- A good sense of what is currently fashionable
Nobody will ever convince me that the one-billionth "tribal" tattoo or chinese lettering down the spine of a non-chinese-speaker is meaningful or artistically valuable.
Most people look like either a toddler slapped stickers on them, or like a derelict wall in a shit part of down.
as @Iconochasm said. Hits the nail on the head.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
53m ago
All you have done is clearly demonstrate that you have already made up your mind and no matter what hoops people jump through will not be sufficient.
first you lie
you would not bother to engage with and would dismiss it all out of hand
All you have done is make me update towards you also being a net-negative.
Yeesh, no thanks.
I would never get a tattoo and have judgements about tattoos but this doesn't really indicate that tattoos are a red flag. I mean, they are. But this goes well beyond that. There's a big difference between a tattoo of a bird on your arm, and what this person has which is the equivalent of having "I am an insane and dangerous person" tattooed across your forehead.
Does anyone who isn't a full on progressive zealot disagree with you that a person tatted up that that guy is probably bad news? I really doubt it. And the progressive zealots actually agree with you too, they know that person is bad news, they just see protecting and creating people who are bad news as a core goal.
They're not stupid. They know that they are flirting with genuine danger. That's the appeal.
More options
Context Copy link