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

Showing 25 of 27 results for

domain:worksinprogress.co

I wrote this up thread

In general I suggest three things for a decent start at a top level post:

  1. Context. What are you talking about. Helpful to have links or quotes, but not always necessary. "There have been a slew of campus protests about the Israel war lately. They were the worst at [this university] (link to news story)."
  2. Interpretation and analysis. Add some of your own interpretation and analysis to these events. "The protests seem to have been treated a bit differently from other protests in recent memory, like the BLM. Police have been called up to break up some of the protests. Donors have threatened to remove funding from universities. Etc"
  3. Opinion. "The protests seem pointless. Israel has not changed its policies at all."

There is a definite problem where people skip step 2. And part 3 sounds like "The protestors seem evil, it would be nice if they were shot." Yes that sort of post will get you dinged for boo outgroup.

Write too little, and you get a lot of "This isn't what we like to see from a top level post" mod warnings.

Warnings for effort on top level posts are handed out pretty rarely. I made this very short post about Iran's attack on Israel (over half of it was copy-pasted quotes) and I didn't get modded for that. The bar is pretty low.

In fact, posting virtually any topical bit of news often gets you a "boo outgroup" warning

Going through last week's top level posts, the Eurovision post didn't get modded, the Mike Cernovich post didn't get modded, the summary of Trump's trials didn't get modded, the post about DEI at MIT didn't get modded... there are lots of topical posts that don't get modded.

I definitely don't agree with all the mod decisions here. But it's also false to claim that the mods are paralyzing all discussion, because it's just a fact that the vast majority of posts don't get modded.

Attempting to reach this goal by conducting a war of annihilation

I'm going to get accused of being a "Putinist" surely, but Russia is not waging a war of annihilation. They are conspicuously avoiding civilian casualties.

As usual, the worst victims of war are the men actually doing the fighting, whose lives are treated as worthless by basically everyone.

@Primaprimaprima is correct. Write about a paragraph of original thought and you are fine.

I wrote this up thread:

In general I suggest three things for a decent start at a top level post:

  1. Context. What are you talking about. Helpful to have links or quotes, but not always necessary. "There have been a slew of campus protests about the Israel war lately. They were the worst at [this university] (link to news story)."
  2. Interpretation and analysis. Add some of your own interpretation and analysis to these events. "The protests seem to have been treated a bit differently from other protests in recent memory, like the BLM. Police have been called up to break up some of the protests. Donors have threatened to remove funding from universities. Etc"
  3. Opinion. "The protests seem pointless. Israel has not changed its policies at all."

Yeah that's supposed to be the official explanation, right?

And then within a week planned and carried out a bio-weapons attack? And the Israelis claimed that an Iraqi spy supplied a 9/11 hijacker with anthrax at a meeting in Prague- total fiction. Does not add up at all.

For top level posts in the culture war roundup there needs to be more effort and content.

In general I suggest three things for a decent start at a top level post:

  1. Context. What are you talking about. Helpful to have links or quotes, but not always necessary. "There have been a slew of campus protests about the Israel war lately. They were the worst at [this university] (link to news story)."
  2. Interpretation and analysis. Add some of your own interpretation and analysis to these events. "The protests seem to have been treated a bit differently from other protests in recent memory, like the BLM. Police have been called up to break up some of the protests. Donors have threatened to remove funding from universities. Etc"
  3. Opinion. "The protests seem pointless. Israel has not changed its policies at all."

/u/johnfabian referred to a good 15-year window after 1991, ie 1991~2006. Do you think this is the period when woke radical leftism had taken over the humanities? It certainly precedes the word "woke".

A claim that Soviets killed 10-15 million instead of 40-60 million would be an exceedingly odd one from a point of radical leftism, since it's still far too many killed people for communists to be comfortable with it, and anarchists and others would presumably not care that much either way, since they would see Soviet Union as a bad thing either way.

If someone claimed that the Nazis killed 20 million Jews, you would in fact not be arrested for saying that the commonly estimated amount is 5-6 million Jews.

I think there’s also an element of them getting to wear keffiyahs (which look cool) and do a big cultural appropriation without getting in trouble for it socially.

It's too bad that the woke schoolmarms ruined cultural appropriation.

Some people really, really, love to play dress up. Its not for me, but it seems like harmless fun and now its just another fun thing that's been ruined so that some people can signal their own moral superiority.

If some bored college girls want to wear a keffiyah I say go for it. Let's make the keffiyah and low-cut blouse look a thing!

At this stage it would be surprising if someone prominent on the DR wasn’t Jewish (Sailer DNA test reveal when).

I know that this is the talking point making the rounds, but the fact is that the DR is self-aware of a large contingent of Jewish so-called "Dissidents" who may profess interest in HBD and "The West" or whatever, but otherwise ignore or actively countersignal the Jewish Question as critiqued from the Dissident Right.

Everybody on the "DR" who ignores or countersignals the Jewish Question is automatically coded as Jewish by the real DR. That's a model with a high sensitivity and lower specificity, but a high-sensitivity model is what you need to countersignal subversives. Many of these figures orbit around the BAP sphere.

The fact is, racist Jews aren't dissidents, just like white racist liberals are not dissidents. They aren't wolves in sheep's clothing, they are sheep in wolve's clothing.

The whole "the entire DR is secretly Jews" thing is not true, but "the anons who claim to be DR because they poast racists memes, but they countersignal the JQ from the rest of the DR, those are all secretly Jewish" is true enough of the time to be a useful model here. The DR is very aware of what is going on here, nobody is surprised.

The "connection" is that someone saw the news and thought "That's an idea. Terrorism!"

Personally, I'm not interested in philosophical musings, anything about AI, or ratsphere inside-baseball (isuch as anything about Aella), all of which make up a substantial number of each week's postings. I'd love to see more focus on current events to balance the Washington Post and Reddit shoving the woke perspective down people's throats.

There are two definitions of woke on the table; there is the dictionary definition and there is what people refer to in practice as "woke". These are not the same and I am referring explicitly to the Oxford dictionary definition, which does not reference leftism in any way. Hitler definitely espoused a message of wokeness in the dictionary sense, casting the Jews, Slavs, industrialists as historical class exploiters and using this as a pretext for seizing various assets on behalf of the Volk (folks; people). A case can be made that the Ayatollahs were/are woke as well. I don't consider Hirohito a "mass murdering tyrant" because he was beloved by his people and didn't directly kill them.

The California model.

I just got back from a brief trip to California that didn't include the parts where the violent drug zombies live. It was a lovely vacation. California is absolutely beautiful.

Let me introduce the secrets to California's success.

  1. Be blessed with the most amazing geography and weather anywhere in the U.S. and maybe the world

  2. Be the center of the world tech and entertainment industries

  3. Make a deal that baby boomers get to live out their natural lives in splendor and grace while a complete population replacement happens beneath them

As a wealthy tourist, it was all very nice. Whereas the coast of Florida is loaded with aggressive traffic and people, the coast of California is dotted with pleasant beach communities. All the houses cost like $3 million dollars so no one can afford to live there. Despite the best weather and scenery on the planet, the population is going DOWN. People are friendly and nice. The restaurants are full of white retirees, still paying $1000 in annual property tax on their $4 million house they bought for $200,000 in 1981. 95% of the workers are Hispanic. I have no idea where they actually live. But the quality of service was very high and prices were reasonable (at least compared to Seattle).

A quick 5 minute drive from Santa Cruz and you're in a beautiful redwood forest. No houses or people here. Just a beautiful state park with miles of trails. I saw a school group with an earnest white teacher explaining tree rings to a group of about 20 young students. 100% of the students were Hispanic.

People are actually leaving this state, the state that has everything, that was dealt a hand of aces. Productive citizens are taxed at eye-popping rates to prop up the seniors and the underclass. It works for now. It seems kind of similar to what's happening in Europe and where the rest of the U.S. is headed as well.

In any case, I had a wonderful time. I highly recommend California as a tourist destination.

Kind of, but kind of not.

Write too little, and you get a lot of "This isn't what we like to see from a top level post" mod warnings. Write too much, and you risk showing your power level and getting a mod warning for "Boo outgroup" or "consensus building". In fact, posting virtually any topical bit of news often gets you a "boo outgroup" warning, because it's often your outgroup behaving badly, in a public attention seeking manner, driving national policy, that is the news worth talking about.

Everybody talks about Building 7, but the anthrax attacks are the thing that really cannot be explained with anything other than a conspiracy. The fact they happened only a week after 9/11 also suggests a connection between these events which is currently denied by the official investigation. It seems likely that the conspirators who organized the Anthrax attacks were also in the loop for 9/11. The timing is impossible otherwise.

@coffee_enjoyer, that would be cool, I don't have more than basic knowledge of those events and would be interested to know more.

  1. Considerations to divest from Israel are becoming mainstream: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/13/metro/campus-protests-divestment-harvard-antisemitism/ [2].

  2. Youth shift against Israel: “Views of the Israeli people have soured among younger Americans in recent years. The share of adults under 30 with a favorable view of the Israeli people has fallen 17 percentage points since 2019”.

  3. Many formerly agnostic social influencers have come out against Israel specifically thanks to the protests, eg Jack Dorsey, Dan Bilzerian. Presumably many other wealthy and influential players are revising their opinions privately, not wanting to upset the clannish and powerful Israel machine.

I just don't find these sorts of "Ah, but what if [alternative explanation]!" type of arguments very interesting anymore. You caught me: I don't have some convenient within-sibling GWAS where they pinpoint the precise genetic markers that corresponds to "the ability to follow instructions". But considering that, whenever we've bothered to check, behavioral differences that aren't obviously cultural (e.g language spoken) always have some genetic component, I've stopped reflexively hedging when talking about these sorts of things.

However long the sojourn in rationalism, one ultimately returns to "yeah, I know what I know. It's common sense, screw you."

The hero's nerd's journey.

No, is it as good/better than the first one?

Did you also play the sequel?

Yes, please.

Thanks for the feedback.

I am surprised you didn't cite a dictionary in your "quibbles". According to Webster's online dictionary, for example,

  • Identity politics: politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group
  • pogrom : an organized massacre of helpless people. specifically : such a massacre of Jews

and per dictionary.com:

  • identity politics: political activity or movements based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize a group identity
  • pogrom: an organized massacre, especially of Jews

In light of that, I left in the reference to "identity politics", but changed "pogrom" to "campaign of political violence" to avoid the suggestion (though not the strict denotation) of a pogrom specifically against Jews.

More or less exactly describes why I don't bother making many top level post.

You literally just need to write one paragraph. Five to six sentences. I have never seen a post that had at least one paragraph of original thought get modded for effort.