AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
Just Another Alt-MSNBC Guy. Find me at Substack: https://alexanderturok.substack.com/
User ID: 3346

They could get people to volunteer by paying them. You ever think of that?
Reminder - the conspiracy theory was pathologised by the CIA in the 60s to discredit alternative theories about the JFK assassination.
The conspiracist playbook: accuse people and institutions of crimes and then see the inevitable backlash as confirmation of said accusations.
I'm thinking that Trump administration isn't "defeating wokeness", just updating it to their funhouse mirror version.
The realignment means the Republican party is now the political home for people with conspiratorial mindsets, whether Left-wing or Right-wing. JD Vance informs us:
It seems I'm subject to some weird shadowban.
I was satirizing the Online Right's poverty fetish.
The future is working at the nail factory, watching the barge go down the river, raising chickens in your backyard, getting taken to court for child support, drinking raw milk, refusing to get vaccinated and various other wholesome and natural behaviors...
There's no party that supports all forms of self-defense against biotrash.
The point remains that opinions on political issues correlate with one another. Does the candidate who wants to enforce the law against homeless harassers also want to force women to bear their rapists' babies?
Republicans are a lot like Democrats. They think only the popular parts of their platform are what should matter.
The San Francisco liberal who walks through feces and endures harassment from junkies every day wants it. He’d rather let it persist than send them to rehab or, god forbid, involve a police officer. This is his self interest.
This ignores the fact that California, like all of America, operates on the two party system. All revealed preference says is that he wants the Dem platform more than the GOP platform. It doesn't mean he wants everything on the Dem platform.
I think your argument about vaccines disregards the way in which the culture war eats everything. Being pro/anti-vaccines is not necessarily about vaccines - if the pro-vaccine position wins, that's a step towards the Red Tribe being demoralised and feeling that it is not worth fighting for anything because they will expend effort and lose anyway, and if the anti-vaccine position wins, that's a step towards the mirrored situation.
Sounds like sanewashing.
Do you think going to an anti-weed position would lose some of the young men the GOP has recently picked up?
Scott Greer has an article about "simping" where he says this about abortion:
Conservatives uphold this attitude towards abortion. They insist the women who get abortion are blameless–it’s all the men’s fault. One pro-life leader recently said legalized abortion is “100%” the fault of men. “It’s a tool they use to cover up their crimes or neglect women & children they should take care of or have convinced some women they need in order to be ‘equal’ to them in the workplace,” exhorted Students for Life 39-year-old president Kristan Hawkins. She ended her post by emphasizing how her husband knows his place. This simp attitude is why Pro-Life Inc. was furious when Trump suggested in 2016 that women who get abortions may face criminal penalties. Only the (presumably male) doctors should be punished if abortion is illegal. This makes as much sense as not punishing a woman who hires a hitman to kill her husband. Such are the wages of simping.
I would ask Greer whether pro-lifers were "simps" throughout America's history, when state laws almost exclusively targeted abortion doctors rather than women:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-abortion-wrong-punishing-women/
On the abortion issue, I bet there are a lot of people out there who don't really care about abortion but figure that pro-life is just going back to the situation in 1973. People like Trump, who remembers America in 1973, and figure that the illegality of abortion wasn't a big problem back then and won't be a big problem now. But pro-life in 2025 is not the same as pro-life in 1973. The thing about making hyperbolic, propagandistic statements (abortion is murder!) that are intended to be taken metaphorically is that some among your followers may take them literally. Radical feminists who proclaimed that "gender is a social construct" helped create the transgender movement that would later turn on them. What happens in twenty years when men who today read Scott Greer are sitting in state legislatures and writing bills that would punish women who get abortions with the death penalty?
Are you trying to argue that the “muh trad”-posters in this thread are only secretly jealous of the rich gay jews commissioning the existence of children
Not so much the rich gay Jews but upper-class people in general. They feel perfectly comfortable talking about the gay Jew, it's the blond haired, blue-eyed, highly educated, heterosexual, married WASP that they have an inferiority complex toward. Particularly when he's a Democrat or Mitt Romney-type Republican.
Take George_E_Hale's original comment:
I know at least one woman (white, American) who "had" a child via gestational surrogacy--she is now both divorced and living about 4,800 miles (7,725 km) apart from her daughter. Life's a bitch.
I'm not saying Hale's lying. But you can give a very misleading view of the world by selectively shining a light on some and not others. I don't know of statistics on those who use surrogates specifically, but given that nearly all are affluent I'd assume they have a lower rate of divorce and family instability than the general population. If you relied entirely on certain dissident right personalities, you'd get a very warped view of which classes have the most stable families in America. I don't think it's a coincidence that the opposition to assisted reproductive technology has grown at the same time that opposition to having kids out of wedlock has declined and at the same time that the GOP has increasingly become a political home for low-income, less-educated whites.
A few months ago, this story was going around Twitter about women using fertility treatments to conceive alone:
Twitter trads were saying muh brave new world, blah blah blah. Because that's their worldview, bad things come from affluent urban people in big cities working in universities and applying technology to the human body, doing all this evil unethical stuff because they stopped reading the Bible. While I thought "hey, wait a second, this idea of women raising children without fathers is not new. We're up to 40% of children born out of wedlock, disproportionately among the poor and non-white. Why aren't you talking about that?"
Especially given that it's not like Christians are being at all successful in getting rid of it.
Reminded me of this:
That reply is understandable, if seculars are going to take away Christians' rights, Christians are going to try and preemptively suppress seculars to prevent that. And likewise seculars will point to this and say, "look, this is why we need to suppress Christians before they suppress us." Might there be some way that these two groups can get along, say, come to an agreement not to force their morality on one another? And yes, this will mean woke seculars, who I despise just as much as Bible thumpers, will stop trying to use anti-discrimination law to violate the free association rights of their enemies.
Further, it's not like everyone will stop if you just ask nicely. You're going to have to kill a bunch of people. What benefit do you have that's worth killing a bunch of productive citizens?
This is correct. You should always consider that the people you try to repress might retaliate against you violently. Religious fundamentalists should likewise consider this before trying to force their religious morality on secular people. Some people here have said that physicians in Texas are refusing to treat pregnant women as part of some pro-choice political agenda. I doubt this, but if it's true I say, what'd you expect? You think they're demonic, well, the demonic people don't feel like giving you medical treatment.
motherhood is a biological reality
This is correct. And Corvos would say that the person who shows up on a DNA test as the child's mother, and who raised him for eighteen years, isn't really his mother in favor of the surrogate. It's a bizarre attempt to retcon the English language in the service of the Online Right's pregnancy fetish.
I suspect a society willing/able to repress Christian fundamentalism is one you do not wish to live in; it probably takes China-tier totalitarianism.
This slippery-slope objection never seems to stop religious fundamentalists from demanding their morality be the basis of state policy, so you'll forgive me if I wonder whether it's being put fourth in good faith.
There are many good contingent arguments why suppressing conservative Christianity would be a poor idea; Christians are pretty near the core of good citizens, at least under a standard of "good citizen" that has prevailed until recently, and also they are a very old and thus fairly well-understood phenomenon, so there's an argument to stick to the devil you know, as it were. Ultimately, however, toleration is a question of value, and values observably change over time. If your values have changed sufficiently that toleration of conservative Christians no longer seems like a good idea, that's sorta the whole ball game, isn't it?
This assumes that Christians are the ones standing still and others are the ones whose values are changing. This does not fit with the last few years, where people who previously didn't know what IVF was have made opposition to it central to their politics. As you say, the question of whether a religion should be tolerated depends on what it's actually doing, and that can change over time.
As with a lot of this stuff, there's a crypto-class element to it. The low-class crack addict who gave up the baby hours after birth is a "mother" while the upper-class woman who raised the child for eighteen years isn't.
Honest question for religious conservatives here, why shouldn't secular people just straight up make your religion illegal, shut down your churches, burn your bibles, etc? Sure, advocating that would lead to a politically damaging public backlash. But is there a principled reason why they shouldn't do those things?
Yes, at least the child will have a mother figure but you have knowingly taken it away from its actual mother, forever.
Such an utterly bizarre statement.
Wrote a whole post on it:
https://alexanderturok.substack.com/p/somewhere-in-america-2
"It's the fact that we don't approach it with a clear and widespread understanding that it is in fact transhumanist to do."
Who's this "we" here? I assume you're talking about the United States, a country of crypto grifters, tradthot inflooencers, transgender mixed martial artists, strip club owners, obese Alex Jones fans, feminists horrified by male sexuality, white nationalists with Asian wives, bible thumpers predicting the return of Jesus that never happens and elderly Jews still mad they got blackballed from the country club in 1972. Are "we" supposed to come together and have some reasonable, rational "conversation?"
If you don't think kids should be raised by two male homosexuals, you don't need "bioethics" for that. You could have gotten that from an illiterate peasant in Guatemala. "Bioethics" has not done a single good thing since it was thought up and belongs on the railroad tracks.
- Prev
- Next
Paying 200,000 guys 200,000 a year would cost 40 billion. Europe could easily afford that.
More options
Context Copy link