Fruck
Lacks all conviction
Fruck is just this guy, you know?
User ID: 889
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
6hr ago
Lmao did I offend you somehow? That was not my intention, but this is a terser response than I expected.
No I am not 'insanely' projecting my post-protestant American work ethic on a culture that blah blah blah. I am describing the mindset of a particular type of person, the kind of person who gets given everything by the government but still works - as a doctor no less - and still also finds time to lobby the government, but still thinks he failed at life. That is the kind of guy who sees handouts as stripping him of purpose - if he didn't he'd be like your pot smoking buddies, languishing in ennui.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
7hr ago
No don't you see it man? When the state gives you everything it takes away the only thing that matters - purpose. You have 'failed at life' because you were just given all that, you didn't achieve it through hard work, and it is therefore worth less to you. This is felt especially innately by men coming from a culture that values the masculine provider, like the middle east - no matter what rationalisations our Muslim freeloader hears, deep in his heart he knows his father thinks less of him and his father's father wouldn't even spit on him. And it's not like he's too busy at work to brood and plan.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
7hr ago
The reason for the anger and resentment of the Magdeburg attacker is fairly clear. He was in contact with numerous people from his region of origin and felt that they were, in some specific cases, not treated fairly by German society. In the case of Alexander S., I'm not sure what to think. He appears to have simply been a loser.
What does that mean he was simply a loser? That seems enormously disrespectful to the victims - imagine how much of a worthless failure you would have to be to be killed by a guy whose only notable feature is his inability to do anything right? And is 'fucks up a terrorist attack' on the list of typical loser behaviours? 1. Bad at sports 2. No friends 3. Never kissed a girl 4. Can't even slaughter a crowd effectively?
If you don't know his motive, just say that. Or at least go with mental illness, that doesn't throw the victims under the bus.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
23hr ago
Ah shit, you have said that to me before, sorry for dragging you onto the battlefield.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1d ago
I might not agree with you on much, but I think you are a great motter. I was going to say commenter, but it's more than that, it has been obvious to me from almost the first time I read one of your posts that you believe in and appreciate the motte's goals. You should post more.
That applies to a lot of our less frequent posters actually, there are quite a few very insightful lurkers on the motte who should post more. @omw_68 comes to mind and.... Shit, I had another poster I'd spoken to briefly a few weeks ago in mind but now I'm blanking. If you are a lurker and you have interacted with me in the past month, post more.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1d ago
He's going to send troops into every home to make sure people are being appropriately appreciative for any help or good news they get. Don't thank your mum for dinner? Prison. Don't thank your co-worker for being the driver in your ride share this week? Prison. He's especially focused on celebrating achievements. Don't stand when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Prison. But don't clap when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Solitary confinement. And if you don't cheer when someone is behind a podium for any reason? Death sentence.
Make America Grateful Again!
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
2d ago
Elon would say he isn't an elected leader, but I agree and I think his position necessitates some distance. I doubt we'll see it though.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
2d ago
The neoliberal playbook: commit crimes like you derive sustenance from the process and darvo anyone who notices.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
2d ago
Reminder - the conspiracy theory was pathologised by the CIA in the 60s to discredit alternative theories about the JFK assassination. Prior to that conspiracies were an important part of a healthy breakfast. But seriously, prior to the CIA propaganda the conspiratorial mindset did not have the stigma of irrationality and mental instability it does today. It was, quite sensibly, accepted that powerful groups behind closed doors can be easily tempted to conspiratorial behaviour.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
3d ago
These types of "actually everything is under control, it's just nation-states acting in their own rational self-interest" stories
Who is arguing that? I haven't seen that argument, but I have seen, and see the value in the argument 'this isn't good guys vs bad guys, its nations acting in their own self interest.' It is a position you can only reach when you accept that nobody is in control, and we live in a multi polar world where different cultures have different values.
To be clear, I don't know why Trump did that. I can assume he did it because he's worried Ukraine will break the ceasefire, because that's why he said he did it. Does that reasoning make sense? Yeah I'd say so. It looks like you'd say so too given the joke you made at the start of your post. Zelynsky tried to argue the ceasefire wouldn't work in the white house, is it so strange to think he still feels that way?
Forget about Trump for a second. Do you think he has enemies in the press? Do you think those enemies have any reason to be honest about his actions when they've never been punished for lying about him in the past? I have every reason to believe his enemies in the press will spin every single thing he does as retarded angry bluster, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO. Remember when everyone started using the word dotard as an insult because their hero Kim Jong Un called Trump a dotard? He could tolerate that, but not Zelensky whining in the white house?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
3d ago
From what I've read in the quotes this is a great rebuttal, but the op is filtered -_-;
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
3d ago
Is it motte rerun week? A blast through the past of all our most frustrating arguments?
getting faux-outraged at the stupid 'you didn't build that' (mis-)quotation
No the outrage wasn't fake, that speech was one of the final chinks in the Obama scales over my eyes that had me believing the propaganda that he was a decent guy not into the partisan bullshit. I'm pretty sure someone else has explained this situation better before, but those small business owners were legitimately outraged and rightly so. 'You didn't build that' is not a misquotation, it is precisely what Obama said, and the idea that he was referring to bridges and roads is at best motte and baileying.
Obama's an erudite guy, if he means bridges and roads or infrastructure he is more than capable of saying those words. He said 'that' because it was punchier, encapsulated all he said previously and because it illustrates his position that people who live in a society owe that society in part for their success. It was also a direct and deliberate attack on one of the red tribe's most important values, that through hard work you can get a better life. And those small business owners were correct to view it as the prelude to an attack on small businesses, because that's exactly what happened.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
3d ago
'his dress-up doll'? That's some serious spin for being asked to wear a suit like a grown up instead of larping as Nick Fury.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
4d ago
I guess 'or something' would include 'not see the woke in the same light as an invading military force literally shooting people in the street, obviously, why would we?'
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
4d ago
Interesting, would 'book of hours but with more direction and depth' be an accurate way to describe these games? That's the impression I get. Ordinarily that style plus your effusive recommendation would be enough for me to at least try out one of these but God damn are they expensive!
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
4d ago
If you don't have a response, don't respond. If you have a response, issue it. Responding that you aren't going to respond is just wasting people's time.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
4d ago
I'm sorry, is it your contention that it is the people who thought ivermectin could help who employed FUD? Not the establishment forces who proclaimed it horse medicine and dangerous?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5d ago
So 'the bed you made' was the response to nurses and members of the military who got the axe because they didn't get the covid vaccine. Learn to code was the response to coal miners who didn't want their mines shuttered and sent off shore.
Now is it fair to tar all academics with that brush? No of course not. But if that's how the beautiful, intelligent, charismatic, industrious elites behave, how else can you expect us dirty, stupid, fat, ugly and lazy proles to act?
When progressives assumed control of the zeitgeist I think they assumed they'd always stay in touch with the working class so they didn't need to work at it. As a result their respect for the working class atrophied, and through a blend of corruption and the seductive nature of power (and its accompanying feeling of righteousness) they have become woefully out of touch and almost fully captured by the unscrupulous. But in doing so they ceded the working class to Trump, who - whatever you might say about him - is at least able to feign respect for them.
People in the working class get so few wins that they naturally accept 'not letting the enemy win' as worth celebrating. The elites were supposed to stop this by behaving better, so the working class would have a better example to live up to. The elites stopped behaving better, as those examples demonstrate, so of course the working class does too. Extrapolating that into 'they hate science!' is how we got here in the first place.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5d ago
I don't know who you think I am, so I don't know why you would or would not trust me.
That phrase was meant to have quotes around it sorry, I was synthesising the general sentiment of the public into an shortened statement. I'm surprised really, that you would take it personally even without the quotes - you positioned yourself as in support of fixing academia, so why do you identify with them such that you would feel attacked?
In case you think this is me trying to sneakily call you a crypto leftist, I'm not. My image of you is as a guy with a lot of red tribe values who lives in a deep blue tribe situation.
Then why is all the research getting stopped/slashed?
The public sentiment represents the direction of the administration's aim, which sees academia as riddled with the cancer of wokeness, but with a lot of schadenfreude and spite and shitposting in top. I see it as similar to when blue tribers were quietly saying 'I wish he hadn't missed' after the Butler shooting - yeah it's not nice but it doesn't mean a third of the country is going to try to assassinate Trump.
Nah. Honestly, even that would be better tailoring. Plenty of chunks of those research dollars go to corporate research. There are sooooo many better things you could do if you're just pissed at the stupidity in academia.
That's how low the trust is. It's not like this is the first time the right has tried to do something about this, but when they tried to compromise they kept getting shafted. Imperfect action is preferable to indefinite wheel spinning, and we have been spinning our wheels for decades.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5d ago
It reminds me of when I was helping my brother with his budget. He was all 'if I could quit drinking I could save a lot of money' and I was flummoxed - most of his money he was spending on rent! If he'd just live out of his car the drinking wouldn't matter! He started on about how he'd maybe look for a cheaper place to live later but he felt the drinking was his most serious problem (it was the weepiest budget meeting I've ever had, let me tell you) and he should take care of that first. I just rolled my eyes.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5d ago
Again, look, I'm on board with taking away stupid throwaway sentences; I'm on board with way way way more than that! I'd be perfectly happy with what I mentioned in my previously-linked comment; you could conditional all federal funding on them not discriminating on the basis of race/gender... at the institutional level. This would be a huge huge thing, and it would hit everything that universities do, not even just what they put as a throwaway sentence in a grant application. This would actually be focused on the problem. Not just stopping everything, slashing all the funding agencies indiscriminately, and giving the chemo treatment. The prevailing opinion here is that it should all just be shut down, because "universities bad". And, frankly, I am super sympathetic, because there is so much of the universities that I hate. Not even just the wokeness; I complain about their gov't-enforced perfect price discrimination and their stranglehold on accreditation/certification and more. I would love to have so many things change in the intersection between gov't/academia. But, "We can't tell what's good encrypted communication research and bad encrypted communication research, so maybe we just shouldn't have any encrypted communication research," is not the way, in my opinion.
How are you not getting that the chemo argument is a rhetorical shortcut for 'we aren't litigating this because we don't trust you' then? If you can recognise the feeling of relief combined with righteous anger inside yourself, how can you not see that talk of shutting it all down is hyperbolic and some spite? I mean how often do the arguments here go truly outfield as opposed to a slightly modified version of the status quo? I haven't read the whole thread yet, but is there anyone saying "we need to straight up ban tertiary education!"? I strongly doubt it. Trump and co certainly aren't.
You can be randomly crushed by a bed, a murder is targeted. Maybe not directly targeted, but targeted nonetheless. And what kind of person gets targeted by a loser and loses the altercation? A bigger loser by definition.
Beyond that I object because by painting the second guy as a simple loser you seem to be implying the other guy was either justified or not a loser.
No what I call mental illness is whatever compelled him to kill random people. Losers, as I have known them, are generally far too passive and cowardly to kill anyone. If simply being a loser was enough to cause people to go on murder sprees they'd happen constantly.
More options
Context Copy link