@professorgerm's banner p

professorgerm

clutching my imitation pearls

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

				

User ID: 1157

professorgerm

clutching my imitation pearls

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1157

"modern-day Hitler LARPers whose Hitler LARP will not stop short of actually killing people"

The Proud Boys were/are, quite (in)famously, way more diverse than most antifa/progressive groups. Stephen Miller is Jewish.

For some reason, I think you're really loading a lot of implication into a LARP that really isn't deserved.

But supposing they did, describing that as a "Nazi problem" would be perfectly sensible whether or not they had a genuine, material line of descent from members of the original Nazi party.

And liberals throw a shitfit when a conservative points out that a lot of progressives refer to themselves as Marxists.

And at the time, they were right. The Bolsheviks were worse and hobbled the entire region for decades.

Rather unfortunate about what happened in between, but eastern Germany is still far behind the west in terms of economics and development, 70 years later, isn't it?

If your point is comparing progressives to the Bolsheviks... then I'm gonna take my chances that the current right isn't genocidal, because I'm pretty sure the current progressives are just as destructive as the old given a chance.

I guess you're more of a "subtle acceptance" than a "full throated supporter"

It's the Chen Sheng Rebellion of support. Damned either way.

whether there is a popular perception that they are

People called Mitt Romney fascist. When Mitt Romney attempted the beloved progressive policy of affirmative action, he was called sexist instead. The game is rigged and the principles don't matter.

A lot of people on here seem to think that the Democratic Party is hostile to men, or white men, or whatever. It's a reasonable conclusion to come to if you listen to certain voices that are amplified by people looking to influence your opinion, but if you take an objective look at the party itself, it's absurd. The party chairman is a white guy. The most recent president was a white guy.

Broad hostility is not actually contradictory to the affected group continuing to have high-level positions, especially when those positions go to people that have been, ha ha, grandfathered in. I think the hostility was actually quite useful to Biden's win, since he became the only candidate with name recognition that wasn't an Official Group, and as such he becomes the default since he is entirely forbidden from campaigning for and on his identity.

There's also the slim and fractured line between malice and indifference. The Democratic Party, and liberal-progressives writ generally, are not necessarily hostile to white men, though they have a lot of constituents who are, and they do not disabuse those constituents like they do for hostility towards other groups- remember that Biden was forced to apologize to a murderer. It is, in my opinion, utterly undeniable that the Democratic Party and liberal-progressives have a deep unconscious indifference to white men, that can often be taken for hostility in comparison to the endless praise and generosity to every other demographic.

This laundry list from the Green New Deal has long stuck with me for its thoroughness of such callouts:

Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

Some of those groups do, indeed, include white men. But 'white men' is virtually the only group not outright named!

the UK, or China also have decent universities, and at least the first two are much less likely to cancel my visa over political views expressed online

LOL no the UK seems much more likely to do that; they throw people in jail for tweets longer than they do for rape.

Did you happen to notice the first one? Cat is not operating in good faith and does not wish to answer any questions.

Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel.

Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities are still fighting court cases about their abject failures to make that distinction, aren't they? Not to mention the Trumpian attacks on them, that used that as one of the motivations.

Now, the richest, most prestigious universities in the country aren't themselves a "broad swathe," but I feel fairly comfortable saying it's not nutpicking to put them up as examples.

The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.

And the people most likely to preach that white people are the scum of the earth are progressive white women and pick-me progressive white men. Projected self-hatred is not exactly an uncommon psychological ailment.

I guess we might as well all be gay trannies who cancel you for wrongthink, amirite?

No principles to stand on? You must become what the enemy believes? I get you're trying a parallel thing but you're so bitter when you comment here now.

what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?

Still waiting to an answer on this one first.

how do you justify this morally?

Clearly

I'll be voting for my own team

is a moral position.

It may not be one you agree with, but it's no less a (n a) moral position than the "post-liberal racial spoils hellscape."

You seem to be begging the question that there is an objectively correct morality and deviating from the progressive racism violates that, without actually filling in the gaps of why that is objectively correct and the losers should enjoy being in the hands of an angry god sacrificing their children for the wellbeing of the ungrateful.

Even lots of fantastic conservative guys who are actively condemning this behavior like Governor Scott, or some of the guys at the Babylon bee or some of the National Review reporters.

AKA "guys who know and accept the work rules."

Don't you have a concept of politics as rooted in moral values unrelated to your own personal fate?

The other side sure doesn't care about my fate. Why is it on me to be their infinite moral superior, to sacrifice myself and everyone I care about?

Is there any amount of evil that people to your right could wreak on strangers that would outweigh making the trains run on time in your specific neck of the woods?

Any, yes. When the amount of evil is somewhere near the "actual death camps or radio broadcasts telling people to hack apart their neighbors" level, I would care.

Does that amount include my people being the only acceptable target of racism and sexism, to the point the other side tried changing the dictionary so their bigotry doesn't count? No.

Yeah, true. They just say it out in the open, rarely any consequences! Well, except for losing to Trump twice.

Is "I've rewritten the dictionary so I can't be racist" really an acceptable reason to call them not racist, though?

That whole "whiteness doesn't mean white people" thing was loathsome racist gaslighting and that 'deflection' does not change the state of reality.

Tim Walz style "black pepper is too spicy" is a racist joke, shibboleth, and tribal signal.

"That fascist deserved to get shot in front of his kids, let's do it again" may be a tribal signal, but it's not a joke. Wearing a symbol of terrorism is a tribal signal, but also not a joke.

I, for one, am not such a free speech advocate that I would be opposed to banning all of it. The only stumbling block is that, as we already see, enforcement would be wildly biased in favor of the left's shitbirds having no consequences.

If a leftwing group chat made jokes about the Holodomor, Mao or Pol Pot, this would make me very much disinclined to trust them with any power, as they have clearly not learned from the past.

Jokes on you, nobody else cares! I mean, I agree that they absolutely shouldn't be trusted with so much as town dogcatcher. But that hasn't stopped anyone to the left of Mitt Romney in my lifetime. Praising communist psychopaths gets you elite university professions and has no negative consequences.

For example, if a guy tends to joke about having taken 20 cocks in the ass during the weekend, that will do little to cement his reputation as straight.

Hey, have a little respect for the MSM crowd that don't like the gaudy flags.

It's somewhat older but had a resurgence when AOC was doing her Green New Deal schtick, which was called green but was mostly about wealth redistribution and spoils for the preferred groups.

Where does endless escalation lead and tit for tat reprisals?

Cooperate-bot is a good way to lose forever.

Are we expecting some kind of come-to-Jesus mutual disarmament moment or just escalation until Civil War?

There needs to be a sufficiently-influential and popular figure that can actually, credibly lead the first move. Unfortunately, no one like that exists on either side, and neither side believes they need to be the one to produce that figure. There's no longer a messianic organizer, an MLK or Billy Graham, that can credibly speak to and for enough people.

I have to recognize it is always possible to conjure self-serving reasons why “this time it’s different.”

I started reading Nussbaum's From Disgust to Humanity yesterday, and was immediately struck by how self-serving and blinkered liberal usage of the disgust concept is. Indeed, it is always possible, and this circles back to the lack of the messianic figure.

I think peace requires you to put aside the different river instinct and recognize it is similar enough

Is public versus private similar enough for these purposes? Or is this, as an anti-parallel to recognize one can always conjure self-serving reasons as to why it's different, a desire to conjure a self-serving reason why it's not? Jay Jones is much more similar than the Kirk commentary, and I think lumping them together weakens your broader point for that reason.

We don't have to go fully braindead and think that Lawrence v Texas means public indecency laws are moot.

the ones who were already jumping at the bit.

It is interesting to see it potentially developing as the last straw for a lot of people, where a passive lack of charity crosses into something more active.

Once, I did care, but I burned out before this. I don't really consider the right "my side" in an affirmative sense, but my anti-leftness solidified sometime during the whole "whiteness is the source of all evil but technically doesn't mean white people wink wink nudge nudge" era of egregious bigotry.

This is not good for society, and it's definitely not good for my intellectual charity when talking to whatever infinitesimal fraction of the left refused to tolerate that shit, but I don't really feel like the ball is in my court for solving it, either. For all my many flaws and failures, I've never declared an ethnicity a contract with the devil, or tried to create high-minded academic fig leaves for virulent racism.

Paxton is kind of a standout but yeah, my understanding would be the AG is the second-most important politician in most states, or at least not lower than third.

No, saw that name in this thread but didn't check the context. How disgusting!

Democrats are doing their soft racism thing of belittling minority groups?

Doesn't count as racist for these purposes, but really should be more damning for Dems.

Democrats in private are just as racist as Republicans are in private

Democrats in public have spent several years being way more racist than Republicans in private or public, they just don't call stuff like "white people are goblins" and "whiteness is a contract with the devil" racism, because they gerrymandered racism to primarily be about black people. Belittling white men is a favored pastime. Et cetera and so forth.

So I would imagine whatever they say in private is even worse than what they've been publishing in public for my entire adult life.

This post seems aimed at a constituency that I’m not sure exists, those that believe fascists are everywhere but are opposed to any political violence.

This probably isn't that uncommon a view among his immediate friend group, which I assume to be wildly progressive but relatively pacifist compared to most progs. Niceness and Civilization progressives, as it were and however misguided they may otherwise be.

What is the difference between a person who says they love Hitler and a person like me who doesn't say it?

What is the difference between a person who says they love terrorism and a person like me who doesn't say it?

A degree from Cambridge? A job at Harvard? The presidency? Man, loving terrorists must be good for your career... as long as they're left-wing terrorists, of course.

More like "being against bad jokes in groupchats."

Anyone been fired recently for calling white people goblins? No? Yawn.

hardly worth clutching pearls over... maybe imitation pearls?

New flair day, thank you.

Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler.

Is there really not a single right-wing hacker competent enough to find whatever horrifying racist nonsense Democrat-associated activists say in their group chats? I get the feeling it's a lot less irony-infected than this kind of thing.

is neonazism, support of slavery, and unabashed bigotry such as this actually common among young conservatives as Hanania and the group chat themselves seem to believe?

Is Hanania a person to trust, here?

Two, for a long time nobody gave a shit about unabashed bigotry from the left perpetrated by every major institution and every university in this country, and most people still don't care. While I think these jokes are very trashy and a kind of male socialization I've never really understood, I'm gonna need a little more than trashy jokes to get up in arms about.

When we get "blackness is evil and must but abolished, but don't worry that technically doesn't mean black people, wink wink nudge nudge" unironically preached by a major university or newspaper, I'll be concerned.

Is this tribalist loyalty helping to empower extremism and violence?

Do you want to revisit a 2020 discussion?

why do so many of these self identifying Nazis seem to feel at home in the GOP

Nazis have replaced the Devil. If you wanted to spit in the eye of Christians, you identify as Satanist and make dead baby jokes. If you want to spit in the eye of hypocritical liberal-progressives, you identify as a Nazi and make those jokes.

For Mark Robinson it was a weird fetish thing, not quite the same example as the rest, btw.