@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

According to an article published in an 1998 issue of a Hungarian periodical of social sciences, reproduced online in .txt format, the young Jewish woman in question was carrying forged papers and hiding in a safehouse which she had to leave because it got compromised, and no replacement could be found. Fearing that her likely capture will compromise them all, the cell members (including her partner/lover) all unanimously voted to force her to commit suicide. In 1950, party organs investigated the matter and concluded that Lakatos formed the underground cell without permission from above and was the main culprit in this suicide, was expelled from the party as a consequence and was sent to a notorious forced labor camp (interned, technically speaking, although in retrospect it’s impossible to confirm what further considerations, if any, were decisive in that). According to his social circle he was pretty much a Dostoevsky character.

"Accepting the risk of death" is probably a more accurate description than "choosing to die for the cause" in this context.

Family size has also become smaller on average. Compared to 1995, the long-term consequences of demographic implosion are surely starting to bite by now.

Reindustrialization would inevitably entail giving well-paying jobs to universally reviled toxic smelly dudebros. We need to keep that in mind.

Also, judging by Wikipedia, it was not even in the US that Coleman gained fame for herself but in Europe.

Was he a bad president in the sense that he was guilty of the grave moral failing of racism or in the sense that his actions sabotaged the interests and conditions of the nation? Also, in what sense of the word was his racism seen as severe?

I’ll not reject this interpretation but we can look at this more charitably even without subscribing to femcel views (whether femcels actually exist is highly debatable in itself, but that’s another subject). I think it’s entirely understandable that many bog standard women find it tiresome and cringey to live in a culture where they’re implicitly expected to engage in a sexual arms race for the attention of the men they find desirable, after the female sexual cartel has collapsed. It’s cringey in the same way normal men cringe at the sight of an army of simps competing for the social attention of e-thots.

Before porn was widespread, a successful 30yo married guy was (at least to the West of the Hajnal Line) typically someone who has been married for a few years already, to a woman 3-6 years his junior, plus he was probably someone with more or less ample experience in sex before marriage. Unless he had a specific penchant for 19-year-olds and nobody else, which doesn't seem likely, it's not like he experienced his situation as greatly frustrating.

On another note, I find it curious that you're not addressing all the negative externalities of the porn industry at all.

It's interesting to see how porn has become somewhat of an obsession not only at opposite sides of the political/cultural spectrum, but all across it.

To the extent that this is true, and I think it largely is, it mainly is so in my view because it's interpreted as another male problem in general. Take note that the female consumption of pornographic literature is reaching unprecedented levels at the same time but without inviting any negative reactions from the mainstream media.

I'd argue the social normalization of the porn industry reached a peak in the West about 20 or 30 years ago, and a reversal has been palpable since then. I mentioned it before here. So the article is probably correct about the overall trend.

If you argue that porn was banned in the USSR or is banned in Iran for example, than my cursory knowledge of the matter will compel me to agree with you, because in these cases state control of the media and the country’s borders was sufficiently thorough that whatever level of cultural presence illegal pornography had was bound to be marginal. If your argument is that it’s banned in South Korea, a late-stage capitalist cyberpunk hellscape where I imagine a large segment of the population is addicted to the internet, a society that is usually said to be overall conservative but where the cultural heritage of ancient Korea has zero significance, I’ll not assume that whatever law it is that is technically on the books regarding this matter will limit porn use to any significant degree.

Does that practically bar South Koreans from watching porn?

As opposed to ascribing it to Democratic Kampuchea?

In what practical sense of the word is porn banned in South Korea?

According to this fantastic animation about the history of division in Congress, the turning point was sometime during Reagan's 2nd term.

For clarification, Brian Kilmeade suggested killing the mentally ill homeless.

According to the article linked to by the OP, very specifically mentally ill (implicitly criminal and socially dangerous) homeless who refuse help from social services.

Can you elaborate please?

I'm gonna be honest, I'm fairly distressed over this. This is how Pogroms work. In the famed Jewish Pogroms of 1881, 40 Jews were killed leading to a mass emigration from Russia. I wonder if we'll hit that number in Virginia the next 4 years.

Czarist Russia did not have something like the "Big Sort". The US, on the other hand, does.

It was basically a Reginald Denny situation.

I'd guess he feels Dems are more comfortable supporting Pol Pot rather than Bin Laden.

...indeed; which is precisely the reason for my question.

Is this the same Klein who supported (and probably still supports) the Californian YMY / affirmative consent law? Because yeah, it doesn't seem so bizarre to me.

Anyone care to explain why he switched bin Laden with Pol Pot of all people in his texts from the original?

The male perpetrators of "petty" political violence during the '70s were anything but "low status, violent men who have not much to lose".

I wonder about the extent to which all this is driving the 'black fatigue' phenomenon popularized on certain segments of US social media.

Good point. Now that I think of it, the white underclass is rarely seen on public transit or in inner cities.