JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I remember I used to guzzle coca cola like crazy, I just liked the taste so much. Especially when working, I had a cola glass or can next to me all the time and took a sip every minute or so. Then my doctor said to me my blood tests show high sugar, and I have diabetics in the family, so I got a bit scared. So I stopped it completely. There were some cravings for a while, but fortunately I am very caffeine resistant, so it was mostly about the sugar thing. In a couple of month is subsided, and now the taste feels completely disgusting for me, I'd much rather drink pure water than that. I still have a bit of a habit of sipping while working, but it's mostly either water or unsugared tea. I tried carbonated sugarless drinks but their fizziness annoys me for some reason.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
American blacks go their own way,
Go their own way where? Liberia? I don't see them doing that voluntarily, why would they go to some shithole, they are as American as everybody else (and more than myself, a relatively fresh immigrant, for example). Or just ethnically purge Atlanta and ban whites from every coming in there? Why Atlanta then and not New York or Santa Monica? How that's supposed to work without destroying every principle of American society? I mean sure, if you imagined you are building a simulation from scratch, you could add a rule "black and whites live separately" and see if it works. But this simulation has already been running for a while, and I can't even begin to think that "their own way" would mean in this context. What if they think their own way is keep living in America, just as they did - does it mean whites have to get out?
Black-white conflict will never cease in this country so long as blacks continue to lag so far behind other races
I don't think it's true. A lot of countries have ethnically heterogeneous population, and a lot of countries have a lot of issues and concerns connected to that. But nowhere (at least not among developed countries) it's as central to literally everything as in America. And it is getting worse. Which also, paradoxically, means it is possible for it to be better - because it has been. And it has been deliberately made worse, for very practical partisan political reasons. If Americans, as a culture, find in themselves to sacrifice their partisan interests to their common culture interests, if they still want to make it better and not just to win over the other team, no matter the cost - it is possible for it to be better. Will it be all ok and nice? No. Shit's probably will be going on for decades, and there would be low-key racism and low-key hatred for a long time. But it can be much better than it is now, and the only thing that is really necessary if for people to want to make it better.
unilateral disarmament by blacks, despite no structural changes that could plausibly lead to a future favorable outcome for them
The only way there could be "future favorable outcome for them" is a racist regime actively (and by our current standards, absolutely outrageously) discriminating against people who are not them. Nothing less would make a dent. Even if that were possible, it may persist for one generation, while people who saw the reverse regime are still alive and still feel guilty for it. The next generation would not feel this guilt. They will inevitably demand justice. And then what? How do you give them justice? The only way you know?
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
If people fail to empathize with themselves, projected into the past, how can they possibly empathise with other people?
The left's "empathy" project has never been unlimited and all-encompassing. Only the good people (read the correct newspapers to learn who those are today) deserve empathy, and the bad people deserve nothing but hate. The left can be - and often is - horrendously vicious to those that are considered bad people. And that matters absolutely nothing that they may have held the same ideas or were members of the same movement in the past. Once they are declared the bad people, they are outside the empathy circle, and it is very, very dark on the left outside that circle. Is not the "excess" of empathy, it is very carefully directed allocation of it, deployed along very ideological guidelines.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
In their minds, white people spent 400 years playing the racial identity politics game and cheating egregiously at it, and then the second blacks had a window where they could have attained parity (let alone the upper hand) whites decided that it was no longer okay to see race, that game is over with, we should just let bygones be bygones.
OK, I could have a number of objections to this description, but let's say it's mostly accurate. What's the alternative? Have 400 years of anti-white racism? Including against whites which had zero part in playing that game - either because they didn't have access to the benefits of the game, which weren't ever spread equally, as they aren't even in racially homogeneous societies, or because - which is very frequent case in America - their ancestors weren't even in America when the game has been played. Yet, somehow they need not to suffer for the sins of some dead people that share the skin hue with them? If not 400, how many years of racism is enough? How many years of racism would not create a completely broken culture integrating this racism and depending on it? How and who would decide that this is the moment we're even and now we can stop being racist to either side?
Let's look at human history. How the wars end? Sometimes they never do, but sometimes it happens. Do the warring sides carefully calculate who hurt whom, how many times, and hurt the other side back until the account is at precisely zero? Or do the decide, one day, that we should stop hurting each other, and whatever grievances we had in store, we are not going to hurt each other over them anymore? I think that's the only way to end a war. It may not please everyone, but I see no other way.
Let's say you say - that's not enough. For the fact that black businesses were refused loans at the racist times, nobody now can ever refuse a loan to a black-owned business. Would it make black businessmen more successful? I don't think so. First of all, any shrewd business would just hire a black person to do nothing but serve as a token - and that's not going to benefit genuine black-owned businesses and also would put a giant asterisk next to the name of every prominent black businessman. Second, banks either find a way to refuse loans they don't want to give, or will be forced to spread the risk - raising interest rates to everyone, and the weakest businesses would be those who will be hurt. Third, criminals sure will be attracted by the prospect of guaranteed loans, and honest businessmen will have trouble competing with crooks, since the banks would be forbidden from distinguishing between them, leaving to eventual washing out of honest business. So, did we improve the situation or did we make it worse?
Just stopping racism may be not satisfactory to many, but I don't see any way of stopping racism outside of stopping it. All other ways will just be hurting a lot of people and not improving anything.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
It's way beyond "the abuses". It's a complete paradigmatic collapse. The paradigm that there exist some institutions that are ultimately designed to work for our benefit, and while specific people are fallible and corruptible, in general this system is built for the benefit of the people, is controllable by the people and has people's best interests at heart - is dead. The new paradigm is that this system is a self-interested parasite, which will consume any resource the people allow it to, but will act in ways that do not have much to do with the benefit of the people and is absolutely not controllable and absolutely opaque and violently resistant to any attempt to control it. That's how "people" would - and should - view it now. So if you want to deliver some message that people "need" to do this and that, then this message can not be delivered within the framework of the new paradigm and not be received with as much trust as a message from Nigerian prince telling you that you "need" to send him some money to come into your inheritance rights.
Maybe the wolf is there, maybe it's not. I am certainly not qualified to judge that question. What I know though that this boy - and his family, who conveniently made billions on mandatory wolf awareness trainings - is not going to be the input for my decisions on these question. If anything, I'd probably lean towards doing the opposite of what he's crying about.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Maybe it is "big deal", maybe not. That can be debated. But certainly the guys who lied to us for years lost the right to be a source in the decision how exactly big. Their informational quality is negative now.
And sure, "public health officials" bear the majority of the blame. But I don't remember a mass movement of rank-and-file to protest the abuses either. I do remember a lot of "racism is a national health issue" but not a lot of "lying, fraud and tyranny is a national health issue". I'm not saying there weren't dissidents - there were - but most of the lower levels enthusiastically enforced whatever they were told to enforce and pushed whatever they were told to push. So, it's not just some lone officials on top that need to account for that.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I think the problem is exactly the officials that lied, cheated, stole, oppressed and brutalized the public for several years, with zero consequences, zero accountability and not even as much as mealy-mouthed apology. They keep claiming they did everything right, and the public was the ones too stupid to understand why it's all for their own good. I completely and totally understand people not believing a word that comes out of the mouths of anybody who is in any way connected to this establishment ever again. They didn't just use up their credibility, they piled it up, made a huge bonfire, and when that burned, they borrowed some, and set it on fire too. Their credibility is essentially in the same position as US Treasury now - trillions in debt and keeping digging down without any possible hope of ever reversing not even the value, not even the first, but all the higher level derivatives - they are all trending down. It's the exponential credibility collapse and still, you claim some rural dude that is now hesitant to get the 13th booster is the main problem that should be addressed. Nope, he is not. The fuckers who led us to this point are, and they are still largely in charge.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Biden personally barely remembers who Netanyahu is, and cares even less. But his team mostly hates Israel anyway, much more than they can afford to show in public. They were committing minor betrayals of Israel constantly, leaking any valuable info that gets into their hands, knowing that Israel can not afford to cut off the US and act fully independently. The reverse side of it is that when you know the other side hates your guts whatever you do, but can't show it, it also provides a certain measure of freedom.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Looks like Israel decided finally the current situation is intolerable, and since there was no chance Nasrallah would do anything to change it (after spending so many years leading to exactly this outcome) there was no value anymore in keeping him alive. There's no hope for somehow achieving 1701 peacefully, so there's nothing to wait for.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
The second part are solitary cases, which do exist, but if we're talking about wide communities, these are probably not typical. Nutcases like that can be found around pretty much every anti-civilization cause, from ecoterrorism to jihad. But I don't think they are the core of Hezbollah's support.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I'd assume the ones in Britain are predominantly relatively recent arrivals, so they still communicate in their native tongues.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
And it was all to try to save mom-and-pop businesses
Or, you know, to steal half a trillion dollars. At least. Probably more.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
"It also was looking more like a wolf than you think it was" is not very useful when you cried wolf for 2 years. That account is overdrawn so deeply that it doesn't matter anymore how much was in it initially.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
You are forgetting the lockdown sex parties. That was the worst of it. People were so scared top health officials had to secretly rent the hotel rooms “just be naked with friends”. Can you imagine?
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Playing along with "don't go to crowded pubs" and playing along with "you are going to be arrested if you go alone to an empty beach, but please please go to a massive protest where people around you scream in your face for hours" is playing two entirely different games.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
It's nice to meet an optimist. Unfortunately, I can not concur. I am still seeing a lot of people wearing masks in public, and I am sure the establishment and the press are capable of creating a panic that would easily provide democratic supermajority for virtually any measure short of mass executions, if they want to. My only solace is that the elections are in 2 months and they don't have enough time already to use it (and also probably don't need it really as they already have passed all the laws they needed the last time) so there's no real incentive to do it again right now.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
You may not have the choice. I mean, would you be willing to go to jail (where they would forcefully strap underwear to your face, and beat you up if you resist - probably likely beat you up anyway just in case) just to be able to briefly walk in a park? Would you be willing to lose your job and cease all in-person contact with 99.999% of human population, give up all your hobbies, your social life, your cultural life, everything? What if you need to use actual medical services or help your loved one to use them, and wearing underwear on your face is the only way to do it? It's really hard to stay sane when everybody around you is crazy.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Or a money mule who is exploiting somebody else's card for a small fee.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I'd expect most of the organic ones being in Arabic, and if there's something in English it's probably run by some Iranian IRGC officer.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I'd call bullshit on that "targeting Mossad base" thing. I seriously double they have a capability to do anything this precise with their rockets. They just fired it in the general direction of Tel-Aviv. Surely, after it exploded, they can tell any tall tales about its target, making it sound as they are punching back as hard as they are getting. But I think they are just bullshitting as usual.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
Yeah I think 50% is about right. On one side, the only way for Israel to make the north safe again is to kick Hezbollah out over the Litani river. Where they should have been since 1980s if UN decisions weren't worth shit, but since they are, here we are. For Israel, the moment would never be as good as this again - they have the best casus belli ever, Hezbollah unquestionably started the fight, and with the Operation Grim Beeper being resounding success, the time is to strike the iron while it's hot.
On the other hand, Israel government is kinda shaky, and a lot of politicians there are itching for the opportunity to blame Bibi for "getting us into another war". And if it will be the full-scale war, there would be serious casualties - Hezbollah has a lot of rockets, and at least some of them will get to Tel-Aviv and other very densely populated areas, no defense works 100%. And Bibi's enemies will blame him for that (yes, they are definitely this cynical and more, politics is a very dirty sport). And, of course, the casualties on the IDF side will be way more than in Gaza too. Don't get me wrong - IDF is more than capable to kick Hezbollah's ass, but it won't be free, both in lives and in economic harm, and Israel is not eager to pay it. So if there's any glimmer of hope that there might be some other, cheaper, solution found, even if temporary, they will delay and hesitate for as long as possible.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
For me, using brave + privacy badger I haven't seed utube ad for ages.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
It could be worse. Couple of days ago I sat down to watch my daily dose of old comedies on Hulu (T-mobile gives it to me for free, so why not make use of it?), and what do I get instead without any warning if not a visage of a certain presidential candidate spilling the bullshit right in my face. I decided to avoid Hulu at least until mid-November.
JarJarJedi
1mo ago
I read the books (some of them) and I don't see anything bad in Cavill. Of course it's different - TV and book are different media. But I think for the series he is fine.
True, and that's why the only solution is to abandon the framework where the measure of equality is the equality of statistical outcomes between races (or any other large population-wide categories, for that matter). This framework is not something that is inevitable and it's not something that is necessary. I don't care how many people who have the same eye color as me and the same nose length as me are rich and how many are poor. I care if I'm rich or poor, I care about whether my family and my friends are rich or poor. I care about whether I could be prevented from being richer or made poorer by unjust means. But wide-area statistical frameworks are meaningless to me - unless they are made meaningful by adopting them as political and cultural framework that is dominant in the society. There's no inherent reason why US should have adopted the racial framework. To be an "underclass" you should first be a "class", and "classes" are entirely arbitrary. Stop obsessing about them and the problem will be gone.
Who are "they"? Any man that can prove a drop of African blood? That's much more people than you think. What happens to other people living there, if they don't want to live in the racist paradise? What does it mean "control completely" - does it secede from the US? What happens to people that want to keep living in the US and keep being US citizens and keep having US laws? I don't see why for example a black professor at local university would suddenly want to subject himself to a regime that may not be able to sustain any universities at all. Doesn't he have any rights?
Areas can't write laws. People write laws. Who will be choosing these people? Will it be mass combat or lottery or how are you planning to choose those people? What if there would be 10 groups of people writing ten competing sets of laws - which group is the real one that gets the full control? How this control would be enforced - will US army and police participate if armed conflict happens? Will it blockade the area if there would be threat of violence spreading out? What about if they decide to build a giant meth factory and ship it to the US? Or even much worse, a giant generic drugs factory, without respecting any US drug patents? Will there be a complete trade embargo?
They already have this status, why we need the racist paradise to achieve what we already have?
Again, we can do it right now - why we need the racist paradise? What if the blacks don't want to live in the racist paradise, but want to keep living in New York and California, only better than they live now? I'm not sure what exactly having the racist paradise zone achieves. If you have a mechanism that can stop the racial grievances, I don't see why you can't use it without that, and if you don't have that mechanism, what did you achieve then?
The past is never coming back, but we're coming into the future, and it can be made better than the present, if there's a will.
More options
Context Copy link