Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Based.
Laughing about the pussification of the Blue Tribe seems strange at a time when they run the world, are winning so much that they are tired of winning
One angle of this is that the "winning" is the successful weaponization of said pussification. Crybullying. In other words, being a contemptible, pathetic pussy, and leaning hard into modern civilizational norms that reward being a pathetic pussy and deny any normal consequences. Attacking their social status is at least an actionable plan, until you can coordinate sufficient meanness to atomic wedgie the woke into oblivion.
Obviously there's a huge incentive to overgeneralize here, clearly there is more to Blue success than just sobbing about their sandy bussy until bureaucrats give in to their demands. But it's also not an imaginary phenomenon, it's an archetypal deployment of Slave Morality, which has a solid track record in the West. "Laughing at the pussification" seems useful to the extent that it's a search for an effective immune response to slave morality concern troll crybullying.
I'm exactly that sort of pizza eater. On keto, a 14oz steak with some veggies on a mostly empty stomach is plenty. It genuinely feels like a totally different experience with hunger. Like the conversion from hunger to mere appetite just doesn’t happen.
since the up/down ratio still shapes the community by influencing the ordering in which replies are presented.
The default is "sort by new". I guess if you changed it back to the reddit "sort by top" that would be a concern.
Why? We don't even see numbers until moat conversations are already over?
No need to morally shame them for disagreeing and thinking we're Voat.
I think I disagree there. If that thread deserved any response, it was a thorough sneering of its own. The tactic of crybullying is at least somewhat dependent on everyone else politely pretending that crybullies aren't pathetic and contemptible. The emperor is wearing clothes, and it's a frumpy smock with the words "INFERIORITY COMPLEX" scrawled in flashing neon LEDs.
IMO, you probably ought to have just purged. Arguing for censorship of others should be an instaban, justified on the irony alone.
In the spirit of good grace I have to add here that the second response is vastly more retarded than the first one.
The irony here is just delightful.
I don't really enter the culture war roundup thread here, just check what the self posts have to say,
This is the part that removes all validity of your criticism. You ignore 95% of the content of the site, but one cherry-picked example is damning?
If I can annnoy everyone by tying this into another recent bugbear. When Maddoff happened, there was a lot ot harsh condemnation on my Jewish ex-wife's social media expressing outrage that he had done this "to his own people". I was subject to numerous outraged tirades with the theme "Oh, you're mad because he stole from other Jews, but robbing everyone else is apparently fine?!"
Seems like a plausible hypothesis for why NYC media types would be more upset about one than the other.
Nah, same thing. Their deaths are particularly sad, so we make extra efforts to cheer them (and ourselves) up.
Can you give a specific example of how intelligence might trade off negatively?
It's more energy expensive to run that mostly unnecessary 4070. The ability to focus on concrete issues is another obvious problem. Dumb+dilligent has advantages over the common mix of smart+absent-minded. When dealing with necessary, repetitive, simple tasks, I've often observed that "dumber" people seem to have a better capacity to just shut up and flowstate.
Most people have the intuition that the welfare of children should be prioritized over that of adults, even though children are often less intelligent than adults, have less experience, few life specifics, and take few actions.
Pretty sure it's the other way around. We prioritize children because they have more life left to life. They have a full lifetime of adult intelligence awaiting them, plus their remaining childhood.
What’s “Early Life?” Kind of hard to google.
When you see some paleface writer, journalist, researcher, etc, condemning western civilization and white people, check the "Early Life" section of their wikipedia article. Purportedly, it will let slip their otherwise unremarked Jewish heritage. Obviously subject to massive selection effects and convenient memory loss when it doesn't hold, but it does seem to bear out more often than I would have expected.
I meant that your argument seemed like it could generalize out much further, into the land of spicy takes like "Getting to live in the West is such a benefit that you should consider slavery a net gain." Or "Having a large, functional economy to be a financial professional in is so beneficial that Jews should just eat some predatory clawbacks and random hate crimes." "English speaking empires ended slavery and crushed the Nazis, so quit your bitching."
The reliable car changes that dynamic, and all of a sudden you can basically live on any parcel of land within 30 or so miles of where you work.
Really good point. I want to extend this one out a bit further. Many of the desirable amenities of cities can be had in small chunks. How many people living in Staten Island are really partaking of the rich cultural opportunities afforded by a world class city on the average Tuesday?
Cars and trains means there is also a second ring of people who can easily take a day or weekend trip into those big cities, condense a lot of the benefit into 6 or 36 hours, and then leave back for somewhere cheaper and less congested.
Broadly speaking, African Americans in entertainment and in general have benefited from Jewish involvement in Civil Rights groups, media organisations and business much more than they’ve suffered from it. My heart bleeds for the leading sports player who thinks they should be worth $400m instead of $300m while ignoring their Jewish lawyer who negotiated a much better deal with Adidas or Nike, the Jewish PR guys at their agency or the team’s agency who promoted them and built up their public reputation, the Jews who run the league that provides the other half of their income, the Jewish activists who were instrumental in them even being allowed to play in said league, and so on and so on.
Now extend that argument on behalf of the rest of Western civilization.
jewish charitable fund money goes overwhelmingly to non-sectarian causes.
That article seems to dispute this, describing Jewish philanthropy as heavily weighted towards "non-religious but ethnic Jewish" causes and organizations. A rich doctor donating to the ADL is not quite a counterpoint.
Yes, because you're elevating that person to a special importance. Literally, the complimentary nature of the line is entirely dependent on the unique care level of family. If I told someone "I care about you as much as a random North Korean peasant", they would think of that as an insult.
But that does not mean the outer circles are empty. You could have someone who cares strictly less about those outside his immediate family, yet still be able to treat with them, even respect them. I say "could," but as you observe, this is the normal state of affairs.
Not sure about the original thesis, but this counterpoint ignores the ingroup/outgroup/fargroup dynamic. It is common for some of those concentric circles to include functional complete apathy and even outright hostility. The "Early Life" trope does exist, and politics is the mindkiller.
People are making the choice rationally
Some people are. Many people are. Most people are. Sure. I'm just noting that it ought to have another qualifier there. "Living in a big city is a net positive" is not an absolute state. Depending on how you class suburbs, it could well be below 50%.
while the reason you want to live in a big city is because of the net benefits (net positive externalities) of living near the other people.
This is overly strong phrasing, imo. I personally find cities hideously uncomfortable and claustrophobic.
Probably also a selection effect in play. I haven't seen any Holocaust revisionism that rose to the level of being actually interesting, so I just ignore the topic. People inclined to the position are presumably more willing to read a 50 comment chain arguing about it.
But we've already settled on this (certain red states notwithstanding). Women do face all the physical risk, but they also get sole right to decide if they're willing to undertake that risk. The issue is if they should have the right to force someone else to participate in that decision for two decades.
There doesn't seem to be much actual information about the course, but some of the stuff put out about it by the College Board explicitly lists "get more black kids to pass AP classes" as a motivating goal for designing the course. Given general precedent, I would expect that "black kids will try harder because this is more engaging and relevant to them" is the PR rationale, and "standards will be particularly low" will be the reality. On a less CW angle, it would probably be less rigorous just because it's new. 20 years ago, I was taking AP tests for fun without having had a class, and getting top scores just because I was a generally well-read, nerdy kid. I am told that is much more difficult these days, as standards and expectations keep rising to match how much extra effort and specialization kids/parents/tutors/schools are putting in AP test prep.
More options
Context Copy link