aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
There's a lot here, thank you for the reply. Your analysis of the various 'peoples' is interesting. I find a lot of it compelling but, as a true believer in my people's experiment - and how lost I'd be if I weren't, I suppose this is how a practicing and believing christian must feel when they are baffled by how atheists can function without god - I do find things to disagree on. I'll have to digest it before that pushback can come up in some future engagement.
White people like (presumably) you, people who buy into this «human capital» doctrine, are simply people. Chinese and Jewish people are a people, and in their own cultural frame even the People – a distinction which is a bit better articulated than in many other cultures, but in no way an abnormal way of thinking. They are ethnocentric. Goys and barbarians are not part of the people, and the people will coordinate to achieve collective gain in zero-sum games with barbarians and goys. That's table stakes for a self-aware successful culture.
Maybe it's downstream of deep Christian roots but this is not how we, the liberals, want things to be. There is no contradiction between liking chinese people and disliking one institution that they are currently forming(of course as you note the CCP isn't even the only largely Han Chinese ethnic government), any more than there would be with liking German people and opposing the Nazis. The Chinese people have had previous governments, and so have us westerns. Not only are there obviously previous American presidencies that I oppose, in many ways I oppose the current one. And yet I love my people, I love America and Americans. I love our optimism, the puritan work ethic, the celebration of success. Many of these same great qualities I recognize in the Chinese people I have met.
To the degree that Fuentes strikes a cord against Israeli/Jewish influence it's because it's deep in our marrow that ethnocentrism is evil. And that's why he will ultimately fail. He makes Americans feel uncomfortable dissonance about their gut deep opposition to ethnic centrism and the obvious ethnocentrism of israel, Israel itself being made up of the world's most famous victims of ethnocentrism, But that same energy he's using to drum up resentment of israeli influence is what he opposes. It's why he has to ride the line of praising the jews for serving their ethnic interests as he opposes them. In his preferred world view there is absolutely nothing wrong with scheming in your ethnic interest. I don't think he will be able to turn the Americans in this way, I don't think that's in our souls.
All of this is very mush-headed. There's no need to antagonize any ethnic group or reject cooperation, but there is a necessity to acknowledge that major nations represent essentially ethnic interests that are partially shared by their diasporas, and there is not a single non-Western nation that is straight up invested in propping up the West for «values» or whatever. Including Israel. All alliances will be alliances of convenience.
Your post is passive just descriptive. Do you endorse ethno nationalism or just observe it? In my favorite post of yours you once said
I wear my sympathies on my sleeve. I have little sympathy for the Chinese regime and understand its faults, but I side with it (to the extent that this matters) as part of a gamble unlikely to pay off, but the only one left to me and my people to check the tumorous growth of the monster you happy lot sustain with the sweat of your brow.
What is that monster we sustain? What is it that you hope to see vanquish it and take its place? Could it truly be this cynical ethno nationalist? And if not what?
I'm also no enemy of the jews but I don't think you're really engaging with fuentes.
I think the Fuentes position is more that he thinks a strong nationalist country is the ideal and that "World Jewery" has had preventing the rise of a strong nationalist country at the very top of their priority list since the holocaust. He sees members of this class to have a strong influence on national politics. That in pursuing the prevention of a strong nationalist country forming they supported immigration on the grounds that it would water down any singular racial element taking control could cause problems if certain immigrant groups had their own antisemitic problems is just the classic golem attacking its master trope. He, probably correctly, thinks that if he worked with the Jews to get rid of the muslims then the jews would return to undermining his project at every turn.
Being broke wouldn't be such a big setback tbh, I'd need to like develop some beyond the pale predilections and then have them exposed or something to get ostracized from my friends and family. In which case I think I'd move far away and start over, maybe the west coast.
It's just rare to be able to slay someone in their motte and Piers had exposed the soft underbelly of his motte.
It's very strange to try and portray one nation conquering and subsuming another as the pro-sovereignty position. Ukraine was the buffer zone, Russia is the one shrinking the size of the buffer here. Accusing the EU of wanting vassal states in opposition to russia which operates on the model of creating actual vassal states borders on absurd. BRICS does not exist, it's a joke, the two largest "members" of BRICS have a current live territorial dispute.
Is piers Morgan a nakedly progressive partisan? My understanding is that he's what passes for a respectable centrist type in bonger land.
In some parts he had clever prepared responses and seemed to navigate the conversation pretty well, but that's such a basic thing. It's like watching someone sink tons of three pointers but can't even dribble.
finally got around to watching the interview. On balance I think Fuentes out performed but made a lot of errors. On the school shooting thing I think he needed to explain the per capita thing, when the fact check came back from Morgan and he said they both do school shootings at about the same rate he should have said "so your example of whites misbehaving is the one area the behave as poorly as blacks" I was baffled by him not making the point.
This can't be earnest, right? Like, this is some sort of meta-trolling post-irony in-joke account. Pepe The Frog but for weirdo progressive women to chortle about while wearing Pussy hats, right?
Yes, it is obviously rage bait and not the first of it's type. It's a reliable way to earn thousands of dollars on X, the everything app.
Your claim was that these developments were a plot to turn red areas more blue. This is simply not true. They are primarily built in blue areas and in red areas even if allowed they are subject to all the restrictions and in fact more restrictions than market rate housing. The red areas resist both. They resist density whole sale. Which is the original topic, red areas are NIMBY, they refuse to allow housing that land owners, developers and perspective tenants all agree on building. That's it, that's the whole story. You defending blocking, you defend people in red areas nosing into other people's property rights and telling them what they can and cannot build on their own land.
In particular, the state government wants to build multi-family low-income housing in Republican-leaning areas of blue states in order to turn those areas Democratic-leaning. No need to gerrymander if you can move the population.
As someone in the business of financing the building of multi-family low income housing, when people try to build multi-family low income housing in places that happen to be red the goal is to make money, it is not to, in a 7 degree round about way, do gerrymandering. There are much much easier ways to go about gerrymandering than carefully leaning on the state HUD to favorably grant tax credits to developer proposals that might move a couple hundred residents into one district that may or may not vote blue. Keep in mind a lot of these low income housing units are earmarked preferentially for like veterans and LIHTC recipients are much less likely to vote than the average person. The hud doesn't really even control who gets housing directly even if it was behaving nakedly partisanly. Thinking these are vehicles for gerrymandering is like thinking stock traders spend a lot of their time and effort trading in such a way that left leaning companies fail irrespective of their earning's report.
In fact, far outpacing the gerrymandering interest is the Community Reinvestment Act requirements on banks, who are the largest funders of LIHTC. Banks are required to invest in the communities where they operate or face increased scrutiny. The Low income housing tax credit offers an attractive and stable way to satisfy this requirement. Plop down LIHTC projects in the red areas where you have branches and you've satisfied your obligations in a way that offers a generous and steady return.
And funnily enough I can imagine almost any of the antagonists in that story thinking they're the Peter Gibbons of the office story.
We recently had a guy come through that we had to terminate. It started off with him pushing back in a way that we actually mostly appreciated. We got flagged because one of our functional accounts that manages our ssrs data source used a non rotating password and we needed to vault it. Turns out there is no firm approved way to integrate ssrs directly with our password vaults. The solution that came down and he was asked to implement was to write a program that would run in the server, pilfer the key and cycle them manually. He rightly pointed out that this violated the whole purpose of a password vault, and we were on his side pushing for an exception. But when the powers that be declined to give us that exception he couldn't just shrug with us and do what needed to be done. He started getting into arguments with higher ups and in general bad mouthing our department. I don't know the exact thing that pushed it over the line but I heard actual threats might have been involved and eventually his credentials were apprupted deactivated.
He too probably identified with Peter Gibbons and thought those of us who just went along were hapless automatons because we were willing to degrade ourselves by implementing bad practices to get off a corporate naughty list.
In real life your office is full of real people living real lives. They're not one dimensional characters from a 90s movie about atomization. Some of them probably do suck to work with, some even in the ways lampooned in office space or the office. If you get too caught up in role playing Peter Gibbons you probably can succeed but it's not likely to make you any happier than he was in the movie.
Are there any alternatives that fit current events better?
For a few years now I've been predicting the populist conspiracy theorist realignment where maga and the DSA left join up and the technocratic democrats absorb the never trump republicans. These rifts seem to be where roughly all the actual energy is. Of course I might be biased because I'm putting most of the people I most disagree with in one party that I can efficiently oppose.
Uh, you can in my experience roll your eyes at the up the chain authorities when they're being unreasonable or making bad choices. I think some people take the office space metaphor too literally, in reality your boss himself can be in the same circle of people rolling their eyes at people up the chain. There is a balance of contempt you should have for the "When I wake up in the morning, I first think of how I can best generate shareholder value" mindset but there is also an understanding you have to have to have that, whatever dumb stuff they want you to do, they are paying you and you need to give like at least a 60% effort. People who get this balance wrong mostly make their coworkers miserable more than any "the man" that they rage against then their coworkers don't really want to share in their laughing at the higher ups circles. Also the 90s era boss hatred bred a generation of "cool bosses who are on your side" that were lame but then found synthesis in a "we're all in this together" attitude that is usually actually pretty decent. Of course this depends a lot on where exactly you end up.
More like Grindher.
according to a quick check Grindr does indeed have age verification, they ask you for your birthday when you join and check if it pegs you as at least the legal age of your region.
THIS IS WHY AGE VERIFICATION ON SEX/PORN SITES YOU MAROONS YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT BUT THIS IS THE HELL WHY.
Age verification on sex/porn sites doesn't do anything, that stuff is hilariously trivial to circumvent. Like you might as well try to ban drug by requiring people to say "I promise not to do drugs in here" every time they enter any building.
Did anyone actually believe this though? The Smollet case was notable for being so obviously wrong and there being many people who fell for it.
Why they thought this would be in their interest is anyone’s guess.
Depending on who "they" is. If it was your job to report on crime and there was a group of people who would hound you if you included the race when it was embarrassing to racial minorities and another group that would hound you if you excluded the race when it was embarrassing to racial minorities then removing your discretion is a strict improvement to your wellbeing.
I do want to object to the idea that athletes are necessarily jocks and not outcasts. As someone who did lots of sports growing up you get all sorts on the field and the asshole QB of 90s movies never really struck true in my experience.
If you know the rate of the complication and the cost change then a simple financial insurance product could normalize that cost.
I am the furthest thing from a socialist but I really do think medicine is one industry where our system just doesn't work. We don't have the stomach to let an actual insurance industry that can accurately price risk exist and exclude the sick poor and because we don't have that stomach we must have a universal insurance program and if we are to have a universal insurance program then that program will be a monopoly and the government is the least bad option to run that monopoly.
edit: as we're all airing our grievances with the medical system I had a new issue I haven't had before this year. Anticipating pregnancy related expenses this year I set up a healthcare spending account that got $150/pay period that I could spend tax free. No pregnancy and so minimal expenses and the money doesn't roll over. So I've got something like three grand that will just poof into nothing in a few months if I can't find something medical related to spend money on.
Yes, no one wanted them to keep those weapons, and yet giving them up seems an obvious mistake in hindsight.
- Prev
- Next

I don't find this an impossible to understand perspective, I do find it a rather odd perspective for someone hanging around this place to have. If you truly can't be bothered about systemic discrimination against your racial group then I'm tempted to say "don't worry about it kitten". Like what are you even doing here? Go have a slice and a brew and let the rest of us sort the big problems out.
More options
Context Copy link