Folamh3
User ID: 1175
Folamh3
24d ago
I know what you mean, but there's two different things going on here.
Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as something other than heterosexual has shot up. But the proportion of young people actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity has plummeted (as part of a secular trend towards sexlessness which is also visible in trends in opposite-sex sexual behaviour in that generation). This is a negative correlation (and not causally linked: the increase in sexlessness is largely caused by technology, social atomisation, smaller family sizes and so on; the increase in LGB identification is driven by fashion and social contagion).
Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as transgender (or related terms like non-binary) has shot up. The proportion of young people pursuing medical transition has also increased dramatically. Not at the same rate, of course: only a minority of people identifying as trans will even take hormones, never mind undergo surgery. But the two trends are positively correlated.
Folamh3
24d ago
I don't think underaged suicide bombers is anyone's idea of "classic" guerrilla warfare.
I'm sorry, did you just refer to Winston Churchill as pro-compassion? Churchill the same guy whose inaction during the Bengal famine probably caused millions of additional deaths, and who stated that any relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians were "breeding like rabbits"?
On Native Americans and aboriginals:
I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
On migration to the UK:
In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" with regards to immigration from the West Indies.
On Arabs:
Churchill described the Arabs as a "lower manifestation" than the Jews, whom he viewed as a "higher grade race" compared to the "great hordes of Islam". He referred to Palestinians as "barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung".
On the Chinese:
In 1902 Churchill called China a "barbaric nation" and advocated for the "partition of China". He wrote:
I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China – I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.
More on the Chinese:
Violet Bonham-Carter asked Churchill's opinion about a Labour Party visit to China. Churchill replied: "I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill
The fact that you're arguing "Trump comes off as so racist and cruel - he should be more like Churchill" leads me to wonder if this entire thread is just an elaborate troll. Or if you're really just that historically illiterate.
or just infer from the fact that they're humans who just did a dangerous and difficult thing that they had a plan
What on earth is this meant to mean? "These migrants just made the dangerous and difficult journey to the US, obviously they fully intended to stay in Texas indefinitely"? How does the former in any way imply the latter? If they were planning to stay in New York, Massachusetts, Florida etc. they would almost certainly have had to go through Texas on their way, right?
Be that as it may, there's a world of difference between "authorities should look the other way while ordinary civilians dispense mob justice on the criminals who are victimising the ordinary civilians" and "authorities should look the other way while ordinary civilians go around beating up members of a specific ethnic group". Both assertions are troubling for different reasons, but I can imagine certain specific circumstances in which the former might be defensible (e.g. when the authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce the law themselves and ordinary civilians must choose between taking the law into their own hands or allowing themselves to be victimised - if I owned a grocery shop in the middle of the 1992 LA riots, I probably would have followed the rooftop Koreans' lead). I don't for a moment accept your inference that the former implies the latter. Ergo, I think your claim that Trump was directly calling for a pogrom is ridiculous, unless you're using an extremely expansive definition of "pogrom" in which you're essentially treating "career criminals" as an ethnic group.
Folamh3
26d ago
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking me by questions A and B.
Folamh3
26d ago
I'm by no means a fan of Donald Trump, and if I was an American citizen there's no question in my mind that I would've voted for Hillary in 2016. But regardless of my opinion of Trump's politics, his authoritarian tendencies, his disregard for principles, his emotional incontinence etc., credit where credit is due - the man is a remarkably compelling public speaker. I watched the first ten minutes of the podcast, having never watched Joe Rogan before, and I was riveted. People used to say that Johnny Cash could read the phonebook and make it interesting - I think I could listen to Trump go off on weird tangents about his real estate ventures and Lincoln for an hour and not feel like my time was wasted. This is not the rambling of a senile old man suffering from the onset of dementia: this is an extremely practiced, keenly honed skill. He knows exactly what he's doing.
Obviously the job of being a compelling public speaker and the job of being President are very different things, and I am confident that skill in the former is only very weakly correlated with skill in the latter. But to the extent that it's correlated at all - well, it's a skill that Trump and Obama have, Kamala and Hillary don't have, and that Biden probably had at one point but no longer has. Kamala appearing on the Rogan podcast would have been an awkward, unproductive and uncomfortable experience for everyone involved, and I'm sure everyone involved knows this, up to and including Kamala herself. If Kamala's campaign manager had made an appearance on the podcast, he or she would have come off better than Kamala herself.
Regarding Coen brothers, I thoroughly enjoyed Fargo, The Big Lebowski and Burn After Reading. The Hudsucker Proxy was decent, but not as successful a comedy as either Burn After Reading or The Big Lebowski. A Serious Man is weird, and I still have no idea what to make of it, ~15 years later. I only got around to seeing No Country for Old Men this year, and in all honesty I was decidedly underwhelmed, excellent villain performance from Javier Bardem notwithstanding. It's not at all representative of their oeuvre.
Folamh3
28d ago
6 years should be plenty.
After Trump takes office, or leaves office?
I do think it's pretty reasonable to characterize e.g. this video https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1840483582433009711 as Trump calling for a pogrom, but the implication is that you're only supposed to get really violent with known thieves who are maybe even actively robbing you.
I don't see anything untoward about the claim that you're entitled to defend yourself if someone is trying to steal from you. It may not always be the best idea, and in many cases from a self-preservation perspective one might be better off just taking the L and letting the mugger take your wallet rather than fighting back and risking getting yourself killed. But in terms of ethics, if someone comes up to you on the street and says "give me your wallet or I'll stab you", you are perfectly entitled to defend yourself.
As an aside, the fact that Trump says "if someone's trying to steal from you, you're entitled to defend yourself using force if necessary" and you apparently hear "oh my God he's encouraging people to go out and beat up Hispanic people!" in itself strikes me as more than a little racist.
Of course you can and should use "this politician might do X" to inform your voting decisions. I'm just countenancing you that you ought to consider the fact that Trump has already been in office for four years and nothing remotely like the sequence of events you're describing transpired.
I mostly attribute them to weakness, not ideology.
How convenient, that whenever Republicans do something one disapproves of it's because they're moral mutants, but whenever Democrats do something one disapproves of (up to and including literally the same thing you were just criticising Republicans for) it's because their hands were forced. It couldn't possibly be that Biden (who co-authored the 1986 bill introducing sentencing disparities for crack vs. cocaine, widely criticised as racist; and who once eulogized a former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK) is more racist than he presents himself, or that spending 8 years as VP for a President who got elected on an anti-immigration platform might have rubbed off on him? No, perish the thought.
Fundamental attribution error in a nutshell. Out of curiosity, is there anything a Democrat President has done which you disapprove of and which you believe represents a moral failing on their part?
Folamh3
28d ago
To reiterate, the OP quoted Yarvin as stating "there is no way [Bezos] can use the Post." Vetoing a specific news article or editorial absolutely counts as "using".
Folamh3
28d ago
I don't think the rightness or wrongness of an action can be determined solely on the basis of which moods are missing.
Netanyahu: "I will not rest until Yahya Sinwar and the rest of Hamas leadership are dead in the ground, as punishment for the shocking cruelty of October 7th."
You: "Boooo!"
Alternatively:
Netanyahu: "While I'm not happy about it, the destruction of Hamas is the only way to ensure peace and stability in Israel, Palestine and the surrounding region. I wish there was another way, but we've exhausted all other possibilities."
You: "Yaaay!"
Followed by literally zero difference in the military strategy and tactics the IDF pursue.
I think you're putting far too much stock in the (intrinsically unknowable) motivations and psychological states of political leaders, as opposed to the actual actions they undertake. You seem to be saying that a just war, conducted with humility, a clearly defined goal and taking care (insofar as is practicable) to minimize civilian casualties is wrong if the people behind it are pursuing the destruction of their enemy as a terminal goal; whereas a brutal, bloodthirsty war, with no clearly defined end state, in which war crimes are a commonplace, and displaying utter callousness towards collateral damage - such a war could be a-ok in your book, provided the leaders make the right noises about the military action being "regrettable". (I leave it up to you to decide whether Israel's military action in Gaza is better described by the latter or former.) It's politics of the symbolic, again.
Folamh3
28d ago
Do you have any evidence for the claim that the illegal immigrants in question specifically wanted to live in Texas, as opposed to "somewhere in the US where there are jobs"?
we should treat any willingness to speak like Hitler and court the pro-ethnic-cleansing vote as disqualifying
Per my earlier comment, the Biden administration repatriated as many or more immigrants than the Trump administration. By any objective measure, Biden has done as much or more to promote "ethnic cleansing" in the last four years than Trump did in the four years prior. But that's okay says you, because while Biden's actions may have promoted ethnic cleansing, he wasn't "speaking like Hitler" while doing it. He refused to "court" the pro-ethnic-cleansing vote in his speeches or public statements - he merely gave them a significant chunk of the policy package they wanted.
This is politics of the symbolic from top to bottom. You can do whatever you want as President, as long as you're "nice" and "civil" about it, and don't remind people (even inadvertently) of old Adolf.
Folamh3
29d ago
I understand if you'd rather not get any more specific, but mind my asking what kind of media? Anime, manga, video games, erotic literature?
and deaths in detention will be later found to have been underreported -- 75%
What does "later" mean? During the following administration? Within a decade of Trump taking office? Twenty years?
I think you should put a hard time limit on this prediction, and if no persuasive evidence has been presented to this effect before that time limit expires, you should admit you were mistaken. Without that, this has all the hallmarks of dragon-in-my-garage conspiratorial thinking - "I can't prove that Trump is Literally Hitler, but the evidence proving it will out before long! Any minute now..."
that detentions will happen at a scale, brutality, and death rate high enough that most of the world will view it with horror once the truth comes out -- 25%
This one is sort of meaningless, because "most of the world" (and half of the US) already views anything Trump says or does with horror. Even if what he's doing is objectively less severe in scale to what Democrat Presidents have done (e.g. the aforementioned greater number of deportations under Obama than Trump).
Regardless of whether he wins, he'll call for pogroms more and more explicitly -- 75%
What, in your opinion, would an explicit call for a pogrom from Trump look like? Do you think any public statements he's made to date could reasonably be characterised as such? If so, which ones?
Folamh3
29d ago
Funnily enough, Jesse posted this just an hour and a half ago:
I haven’t become a conservative since [I was 23 years old]; I’ve just become more skeptical, and much, much more aware of the fact that conservatives have no monopoly on groupthink, intolerance, and other forms of bias. I also no longer think that you can just flip a “Liberal Policies” switch and it will fix things, at least not in real life. Just look at cities like San Francisco, which are run entirely by liberals and leftists and beset by serious problems stemming from or exacerbated by the governance decisions these supposed “good guys” have made.
Folamh3
29d ago
Any information on whether these females are disproportionately children of divorce?
Folamh3
29d ago
Well... there is a significant drop in life expectancy associated with being gay vs. straight, although it's narrowing year-on-year since the nightmare of the AIDS epidemic.
For reasons I don't understand, sexuality seems far less susceptible to social contagion than gender identity. Sure, the proportion of Gen Zs identifying as "bisexual" or "queer" has skyrocketed, but this hasn't translated into elevated levels of same-sex sexual activity in that generation. If anything the opposite is true and Gen Z are the most sexless generation probably ever. Hence, Dem staffers and activists can promote homosexuality to their heart's content without fear of the leopards biting their face.
And even beyond that, I genuinely believe that the median Democrat would be far more chill with having a gay son or lesbian daughter than a thot daughter trans child.
Wikipedia reports a lot more than that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups
More options
Context Copy link