YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
1hr ago
Put money where ones mouth is. Sponsor a refugee. Let him into your house. Fucking do it.
Reminds me of this oldie but a goodie: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JYtbLCa65eA
YoungAchamian
1hr ago
Several of the faces have very clear distinct features that were hard to miss for me. The pudgy face was easy to remember, but slightly double chin face? Much harder depending on the angle. The 1st face looks like a co-worker's side profile. Cheekbones guy was very distinct by how sharp his face was. It was the guy with the fat(?)Fuzz(?) right besides his nose that I kept fucking up.
YoungAchamian
1hr ago
I thought he got hacked, and his hacker was trolling us. Though publicist is a good theory too but boring. However I think that people forget that Biden senior was a pretty charismatic person, definitely high on the list of politicians I'd get an Ice Cream cone with.
YoungAchamian
2hr ago
Based on... literally nothing? That's not what "apparently" means.
Considering both people in this thread were given mod warnings, I was right. They both deserved and did get modded. You thinking that was wrong is provably incorrect.
I know that it's poor behaviour to call an innocent murdered man a "retard"
It's not poor behavior here. This place has different rules. I can civility express an opinion to matter how distasteful you feel it is, and that constitutes normal behavior here. Go back to reddit where shaming of opinions based on content is the norm or grow up.
But imagining that I'm following you around
"Following around" on a forum means dragging the content of one thread into another. This thread has nothing to do with my opinion on the Digwa vs Nowak Murder. This thread is about the interpersonal drama between FttG and MKC, and the slap fight they are having. You bringing up my opinion from another thread constitutes "following around". Not really sure why I need to explain internet forum etiquette to you, it should be known and understood by this point.
Am I following you around now
No... because I am responding to you on this topic... Honestly you even saying it makes me think you don't understand forum norms.
I'm in that class of people?
You are definitely acting like it. You've directly stated that you think I am deliberately shit-stirring. That is definitional troll behavior.
using the exact words their opponent was using
Something something commonly used and colloquial language for a response on why someone spend too much time online. It's almost like colloquial phrases in language get applied to the same situation by different people because they are colloquial phrases. It's not nefarious or malevolent, its just common language.
Yeah, no. You're in the wrong here.
Apparently not. Maybe you should update your priors about what constitutes good behavior in this place and what is not. They were clearly both rage posting at each other personally, which is frowned upon.
I think its far clear you are pissed that I have a disagreeable opinion, that dares to disagree with you in another thread. As such you feel the need to follow me around and make low effort snipes.
I don't feel the need to shit-stir online, I can do it in person to a far more enjoyable degree. I express my honest 100% opinion. It is always weird to me that there exists a class of people who essentially assume any opinion not agreeing with their own is a troll. And then comes to a debate forum filled with heterodox thinkers.
YoungAchamian
3hr ago
I got 83%, but yeah the spike in difficulty for that last part was unreal. I swear some of those where just pixelated 3D shapes on some gradient where it was all the same face in increasing levels of gaussian noise. Reminds me of looking at diffusion model outputs.
My father has been claiming he's face blind for a year now, time to put this in the family chat and find out how much.
Well I do, being from the UK. And taking what we know about Nowak's outgoing and friendly character, what he was snapchatting before, and the fact that at no point during the trial did anyone suggest that what Nowak had said was aggressive, I can conclude that he was being friendly, not aggressive.
He was in a leafy, middle class surburb talking to an individual.
Touche, I can admit my cultural radar is less attuned than a local. If that is the case it, it would be extremely jarring.
This is more like seeing a Japanese guy on the streets of San Francisco dressed like a Samurai, making a jokey comment about his katana, and then the Japanese guy actually drawing his sword and attacking.
That said if I am walking down the dark streets of SF and some Japanese guy with a katana is scowling, and I am just barely tipsy, I'm not going to stop and try to banter with him. Banter IS NOT always well received. Banter requires an existing relationship or existing knowledge of how the other person will take it. Some people just take it as insulting. It's horrible that this is how that lesson needed to be learned.
To me it looks like you trying to assign as much of the blame as you can on the murder victim, with the necessary commensurate reduction of blame on the murderer.
This is what I am doing, trying to determine how much Nowak participated in a situation that escalated to an disastrous outcome. If you wish to think of that as blaming the murder victim, you can, but I do not. I'm not really shame-able along those lines because the feminists beat that out of me with "blaming the rape victim" when I asked questions. It feels like this line implies you are trying the same tactic.
do what you are doing now.
I'm not sure I would put myself in this category. I think I disagree with the overall idea about how we should organize society around quokka-like behavior. My ideas on this topic are still a bit protean. But they are influenced by FromSCC's stance on rule-based systems being very vulnerable to exploitation. But I'll give it a go.
It seems to me that this rule: "Personal Violence is verboten" is very vulnerable to exploitation by smug assholes who's verbal intelligence allows them to insult, provoke, coordinate violence and other behaviors. They seem to take for granted that this rule exists, and it allows them to succeed at the expense of everyone else. That smacks as unfairness to me. The problem is that rule, is not natural. It only exists due to a strong centralized authority that will "Swing it's dick around". Now the motte/Chesterton's fence for this rule, is that in tries to prevent the interpersonal violence. The anti-violence norm is one of the pillars of mass society. But it is not a natural equilibrium because it's missing the other side of interpersonal violence.
A society needs more than a “no hitting” rule. It also needs a serious norm against provocation without accountability. Otherwise, the society privileges people whose aggression is deniable, verbal, procedural, or reputational. The thug says, “I’ll beat you.” The civilized predator says, “I’ll make everyone hate you, destroy your reputation, get you fired, humiliate you in public, bait you into a reaction, then appeal to the rules when you snap."
This is the cancel culture people claim to hate. It comes across as masculine vs feminine norms in society. We seemed to be in a phase of punishing the masculine and supporting the feminine. I don't think a society can survive without balancing these norms.
And while a lot of this idea is prescriptive, I think a large thrust is actually also descriptive. I think many lay people just intuitively grasp this idea. They grasp that if you verbally start shit out at a bar in the sticks, it is expected that you are going to get beat unless you can back it up with physical might. It's only in more urban, high-class, environments that people seem to not grasp this natural reality.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I'm not defending Digwa, and he and his family should absolutely be convicted. My position/question as it always is in these situations is to determine how much the victim contributed to the situation going sidewise.
The trick a lot of victim supporters always want is that they want to frame the victim as this complete innocent bystander who was just set upon by the perp, no culpability. When the reality is that a lot of these victims put themselves in risky positions and then don't want to deal with the logical consequences of their set of actions. The former terrifies people in the way that random acts of violence, rape, fraud, etc. always do. The latter is more realistic, in the sense that if you have some common sense and a bit of risk avoidance you can genuinely avoid being put in these sort of situations. But activists/culture warriors always want it to appear to be the former because that helps the cause more. Which I think obscures the truth.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Looking through some court documents it looks like there is a lot of confusion if the McMichaels actually every told Arbery they were detaining him until the police arrived. But it looks like under cross they admitted they had not, they just chased and cornered him.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
But Canada's MAiD agents are too busy targeting soldiers with bodies ruined by war, not exactly prime blood boy donor targets. Maybe they are building Frankensteinian super soldiers from the bodies?
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Lmao if you keep agreeing with me and I with you, someone might call me your sockpuppet. Brb gotta go touch grass with my real life obligations.
But yes, very intuitive to what behavior is happening here.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Great now all George Soros needs to do is frame a healthy white guy, or jew depending on the current Schrodinger's minority status, in order to get his heart transplant. Way to invent the rich harvesting the organs of the poor.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I did read the Millennial Woes summary, that's the thread we are in...
Nowak didn't 'start shit'. He was bantering in a friendly way. Nowak didn't touch Digwa or say anything rude or threatening to him. He was extremely unlucky that the guy he was trying to banter with happened to have violent fantasies.
We are going to disagree pretty egregiously on this one. I don't speak British slang well, but it seems to me, it looks like he said "Wow what a bad ass you are, such a tough guy, I bet you think you are so cool you fucking coward" That's not "friendly" banter. Nowak was definitely provocative and taunting him. We can agree he didn't touch him or threaten him. But that sort of taunting, at the right person carries a very large risk that they will inflict violence on you. Come to Chicago and say that to a bunch of hood rats, I'd bet money that they would A) Beat you badly, B) Stab you, C) Shoot you, or D) All of the above. It is putting yourself in risky position no matter how you slice it.
Nowak had no reason to know that Digwa was spoiling for a fight based on his behaviour. Read the Millennial Woes summary of what happened. By the time Nowak realised that Digwa was looking for violence, Digwa had already decided to stab him.
So dude just called him out as a "bad man" for no reason? Novak stopped walking for what reason?
Nowak had no reason to think Digwa was violent based on the fact he was carrying a ceremonial blade. Sikhs are known to be particularly well-behaved, with low crime rates, high education rates and high salaries. Scotsmen wearing kilts wear daggers and sometimes larger dirks (a similar size to the knife used in the murder) and nobody assumes danger because it doesn't mean danger.
I'm sorry, but normies, which Nowak was, do not look at crime states, education rates, and salaries. They are not judging people on their socio-economic group status like some autistic HBD person.
Honestly this whole discussion, is an example on how people don't want any personal responsibility for their own actions. Nowak was not some bystander who got stabbed, he engaged with a dangerous person, which was a dumb fucking move, and then taunted that dangerous person, which lead to him getting stabbed, to death. Everyone defending him wants to ignore his personal responsibility in the matter. I need to go through my past responses and see how many of you were making pro-personal responsibilities and risk-based arguments on the topic of abortion, because any who were are blatantly hypocritical.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
You are essentially pissed at MKC for that other thread around finding a white perpetrator and a minority victim. You are following them around to start shit with them. You both need to cool jets. You are accusing them of being an alt because they used the same sentence as someone else...
By your accusation, Dean has also accused them of being a darwin alt and followed them around to start shit. Ergo your logic makes you a dean alt. (its shit logic) Pot meet Kettle.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
There it is, the Darwin tell:
By this definition you are a Dean Alt.
It might shock you but not everyone here is a no-lifer who's primary hobby is arguing on the internet. You are kinda telling on yourself, go touch grass. Furthermore when you take a stance that is opposite to the Motte's consensus you tend to get a lot of shit. Not everyone is worth responding to and not getting to someone is not indicative to being an alt.
Just cuz you and MKC got into it in another thread doesn't mean you need to follow them to hear to start shit again.
EDIT: after reading this new thread you both need to get modded, holy shit.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
they weren't even threatening him.
In what world is detaining someone with a drawn gun after you chased them down in trucks, not threatening them?? Such a weird position to take. Considering the McMichaels were convicted of this one, its also a wrong position to take. and I say this as someone who was originally on the McMichaels' side when it first all went down.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
FIRE is among the many, many, many organizations who lost their way and don't support what they say on the tin.
Wait since when? It sounds like you are just pissy that they have principles. Meaning they defend free speech even when its a conservative in the executive.
Their archive has a ton of recent cases that do not cleave to a left vs right dichotomy but instead a free speech principled stance. https://www.fire.org/cases
I have never heard high/low-trust used to describe "Why can't we just have fistfights? Why is everything a fight to the death?" that seems so misattributed that I think you are making it up. I have heard it used to describe things that have to do with... trust.
- Like leaving your car/house unlocked at night,
- expecting the police to treat your cordially,
- expecting your fellow citizens to not be exploiting the government aid,
- expecting a jury to rule along the facts instead of by the tribe,
- returning shopping carts,
- The state not assuming everyone is a fraud/doing your paper work correctly
- expecting hiring to be based on merit not kinship
- people cooperating instead of immediately defecting
Fundamentally high-trust societies make anonymous cooperation feel normal. Getting into fist fights instead of death fights literally has nothing to do with that. "Fist fights instead of death fights" can happen in both low-trust and high-trust environments. Making it independent of the high-trust/low-trust axis, and likely orthogonal. Realistically its describing the concept of bounded conflict vs existential conflict.
Honor Culture vs Legalistic Culture is also different. I'll amend legalistic -> dignity/rule-of-law culture, I think that's more precise. An honor culture treats reputation as something that must be individually/tribally defended. Public insults or slights demand a visible response, sometimes including violence otherwise it signals that you are weak. A dignity/rule-of-law culture treats personal worth as more inherent and less dependent on immediate public reputation, so private retaliation is discouraged and serious disputes are expected to move through courts, institutions, or formal procedures and let the state take action.
If you want to say we are arguing over meaningless words, that is your right, however by your standard we should just grunt at each other because anything more complex is just being made up.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Sure idk what your point is, you seem to be malding/ranting at some belief you are falsely attributing to me.
I think WIERD countries have won so hard that they don't realize how abnormal their cultures are to the rest of the world. Letting in and failing to assimilate non-WIERD tribal cultures is going to result in severe cultural clash problems. If the avg resident of a WIERD-culture doesn't want to have to deal with tribal honor cultures then maybe they should wake up and stop voting for universalist humanitarian belief systems that feed their white savior complex. Otherwise, some basic self awareness, common sense, and a pragmatic danger sense are a must because honor-systems respond aggressively to perceived slights, and unlike the cucked word-cells, violence is always on the table.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Who Novak or Digwa? (why do i keep wanting to type out Digby...) Novak is getting that post death glow up pictures, same shit the media does when some black kid gets shot. Digwa looks like he's dressed in all black carrying a sword at his hip.
Regardless, trying to start shit with someone who is spoiling for a fight and has a deadly weapon on them, no matter how "dweeby" they look, is darwin-award level stupid. Just. Keep. Walking.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I'm entirely speculating, but if you read between the lines a bit, Digwa (not overly trustworthy) says something about Novak shoulder checking him on the street. They likely both bumped into each other and both refused to give way. This increasing seems to be two wannabe tough guys except one of them has a shortsword.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
utterly innocuous
The quoted bit from the article/videos sounds like he essentially was telling Digwa, "What a right proper gangster you are, I bet you think you are such a naughty boy and all the bollocks". How innocuous you think that is up to you, but that would start shit across the pond in America if you said it to some inner-city wannabe gangster too.
Yes Agreed. I think that is as it should be. If you think my history and sequences of statements is that of a troll/shit-stirrer then I recommend for your own sanity and mine that you block or just ignore me. I'm here to express my opinion, develop ideas, and maybe one day make posts testing them.
I do think my posting these days is tilted towards topics that get my goat rather than topics I think deeply about. And that mistakenly gives people the wrong impression of my belief system. But that's my fault and the only remedy is to post more. But I doubt people care about the internal thought process/belief system of one more Autistic Classical Liberal.
More options
Context Copy link