@magic9mushroom's banner p

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1103


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
magic9mushroom


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1103


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Another case I was peripherally involved with during my time in oil and gas involved a contractual dispute between Warren Steel and a coal company whose name I can't remember. (This is a grossly oversimplified version) Warren had an ongoing contract with the company that required them to deliver coal to the mill a few times a week. They were way behind on payments and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. The coal company said they weren't getting any more shipments until they paid what was overdue. Warren sued the coal company for breach of contract arguing that future deliveries weren't conditioned on payment for prior deliveries. From here it gets a bit complicated. The typical remedy here would be for Warren to buy coal on the spot market and collect the price difference from the breaching coal company. Warren argued that their financial position was precarious (there was no denying this based on their payment history) and that they would be unable to secure credit to buy at sharply inflated spot market prices. If the coal company didn't make their next scheduled shipment, they wouldn't be able to make any steel, would have to shut down the mill, and any hope of them remaining operational would be gone. the court issued the TRO and told the coal company to make the delivery. In any event, Warren Steel filed for bankruptcy a few days later.




Am I alone in thinking this was pretty unfair to the coal company? I mean, there was clearly a serious risk that Warren wouldn't ever be able to pay, even upon bankruptcy liquidation, meaning the coal company was essentially being ordered to give them coal for free.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a difference between an enemy-for-the-moment who might have been and might in the future be a friend and a straight-up defectbot who is permanently hostile regardless of context.


To take the debate to safer pastures, 40K Orks are bad. They are all bad. They are genetically programmed to be bloodthirsty killers and are inherently incapable of peaceful coexistence or advanced civilisation. They are not and can never be in a moral community with humanity, will always be dangerous regardless of social context, and as such they are djur in the Ender Quartet typology, the "dire beast that comes in the night with slavering jaws" and they should be exterminated down to the last gretchin because that is the only way to end the conflict with them while preserving humanity.


I don't know all that much about Hitlerian ideology, but if he considered Jews to be in a similar category to Orks and Frenchmen to not be so, well, there you go.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you check the full context...








Of course, neither is full polyamory (which involves knowing your girl is banging other men), but most men would love a relationship where their woman is exclusive to them while they can sleep with other women on the side. I was met with unanimous shock and disagreement. That "I just didn't respect women if I felt this" or accusations that I'm typical minding. But I suspect most men actually do agree with me, and the ones who claim otherwise fall into a two categories 1) Men who are sour graping. That is, they know they couldn't pull off an arrangement like this (which tbf is most men, including me) so pretend they wouldn't want it anyway. 2) Ones who "want" it instinctively but are opposed for religious reasons 3) The few who actually just disagree.








...he's talking about the specific polygyny/harem setup. SJ hates that as a manifestation of patriarchy, hence the reactions he got. Yes, it is also hated by MRAs and secular conservatives, but they hate it for a different reason (specifically, that widespread polygyny leaves a large chunk of men Forever Alone, which MRAs hate in and of itself and secular conservativves notice is a recipe for civil strife).


I will also note that while SJ is not in theory opposed to polyamory-proper, it does tend to attract suspicion that it's a cover for harems or harem-like situations.


Edit: Really, pretty much the only modern ideology that finds it laudable is the more Nietzschean parts of the alt-right (including BAPism). Even most forms of liberalism only tolerate it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the ones who claim otherwise fall into a two categories 1) Men who are sour graping. That is, they know they couldn't pull off an arrangement like this (which tbf is most men, including me) so pretend they wouldn't want it anyway. 2) Ones who "want" it instinctively but are opposed for religious reasons 3) The few who actually just disagree.




I think if you're counting SJ as a religion, you should mention it, and if you're not, you're omitting it (both subscription to it and lying from the fear of it).


Also, I'm pretty sure 3 =/= 2.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Well yes infidelity is not "typical", but the subset of men who cheat is a subset of the ones who can which is a subset of the ones who are tempted but don't attempt for convenience/morality reason.




The set of men who cheat is a subset of the set of men who don't attempt to cheat? I think this one got away from you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know of anyone here who's committed murder. I do know of multiple people here who've shown interest in committing murder in the future. I chose my words carefully; I said "murderous lunatics", not "lunatic murderers" or "murdering lunatics".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not going to discuss murder methods in depth on an open forum that has a bunch of murderous lunatics on it. I think that that would come in at #1 or #2 on the list of "most -EV things m9m has ever done", and I'm ashamed that it even has competition.


But suffice it to say, I'm pretty sure you don't know enough toxicology to get away with a poisoning murder either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Poison's hard to get away with. I know enough toxicology to know I don't know nearly enough toxicology to poison someone and get away with it.


But yes, there is obvious evidence of a lack of imagination there. I will note that it's possible there might be sanity-eating effects from some of the cult indoctrination Ziz does.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You're conflating the incidents.


The first time, they attempted to kill him because he was trying to evict them for not paying rent.


The second time, they murdered him because he was about to testify in court about the first time (which was a murder charge, because he killed one of them in self-defence, and then the felony murder rule kicks in and makes all of them guilty of "murdering" their accomplice).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Point of order: SJ intersectional feminism is generally considered to be fourth-wave feminism, not third-wave (fourth-wave feminism being basically defined as "social justice orthodox feminism", and the dividing line being social media mostly welding feminism/gay-rights/trans-rights/anti-racism into a single movement with consensus on a wide range of issues). I think you'll find a lot less opposition around here to (actual) third-wave feminism than to fourth-wave (though not by any means zero).


The most notable current third-wave feminist movement would be the gender-critical feminists/TERFs (who rejected being welded into the SJ coalition, and are thus not fourth-wave).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First two pages of the mod log have 40 approvals and 10 other actions (first four pages 81 approvals and 19 other actions), although I suppose a few of those approvals were of actual noobs and that might be above average. (Note that I'm counting a modpost and the ban (if any) accompanying it as separate actions here, because that's what the mod log does.)


A solution would be neat, both to help retention and to save you guys some time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


"They/them for everybody", or "he/him for male-presenting/identified, she/her for female-presenting/identified, they/them for androgynous/non-binary" ought to be considered an acceptable compromise. [...] you do not refer to Alice as he/him, or as they/them while referring to Barbara as she/her




This is a demand that people who do not hold to gender-self-identification lie - say something that they believe false* - and it imposes no significant hardship on the transsexuals. I'm not sure it counts as a compromise.


The historic compromise is called "free speech", and it goes basically like "it's not oppression for other people to disagree with you". If you insist on a politer compromise, the one I use is "don't use pronouns people asked you to not use". Coworkers have a right to not be harassed; they don't have a right to be explicitly agreed with about political questions.


*To be clear, I have kept a policy of "lies only if someone might get murdered otherwise" for the last 15 years (at least; that's when I started keeping track). I would comply with this at the cost of my honesty if you put a gun to my head (or someone else's head), but a literal gun to the head is what it would take. My honesty is above-average for aspies, but not by that much. Hopefully you can see why I consider your statement that this isn't oppression to be risible.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'd point out two things that might be responsible for some of the "bad shoot" feedback.


    

  1. WhiningCoil did note that feminism has a point with regard to at least some men.
    2. 

  2. "Serial abuse victims" are, in fact, a thing. There is a statistically-significant class of people (mostly women AIUI) who are attracted to Bad Guys. As you might imagine, this doesn't turn out very well for them, because Bad Guys are in fact bad, and they get abused a lot (either by going back to the same bad eggs or by continually picking new bad eggs). It is actually a fair assumption that Bad Guys' pools of available women contain a lot of this class (due to self-selection). I do think calling people of this class "p-zombies" is not very nice, but it doesn't sound to me like it's meant to apply to feminist women overall (@WhiningCoil, correct me if I'm wrong).
    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I suspect she'll drop back into it (if you even manage to get her out of it) due to all the downvotes she gets; AIUI it's (upvotes - downvotes) that determines whether you're filtered. There's a reason 80-90% of mod actions are approvals of SJer posts.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I doubt anything's 99% corrupt, at least with regard to its stated mission (obviously there are departments whose stated mission many think is evil). 1% puppy, sure, but there's usually quite a lot of stuff that's fulfilling the stated mission (so not corrupt) but also not puppy. I'd expect corruption levels to usually top out somewhere between 20% and 70%, depending largely on scrutiny levels (I developed this rule from experience in Australia; our local governments are typically shockingly corrupt but state and federal ones far less so, and the obvious reason why is that media and electorate attention focuses on state and federal politics).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
(I think I tried to post something like this a few days ago, but something messed up somewhere. I was prepping for a colonoscopy at the time, so I was rather distracted by the whole "shitting acid regularly" issue and then afterward by the whole "recovering from sedation" issue.)


I'm not sure we actually have a substantive disagreement here. I said that strong polarisation (causing loyalty to tribe to exceed loyalty to the job and to society) and particularly educational polarisation (causing the civil service to not reflect the electorate and thus be incapable of self-policing) are the factors that cause a "neutral" civil service to become just a permanent weapon for one side. I noted that these factors are not always present. You seem to be agreeing with me by talking about relative homogeneity (i.e. a lack of strong polarisation and strong educational polarisation).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How the fuck does he have so much ammo?




General rule of politics is that systems will be about as corrupt as they can get away with. One would presume that DOGE was not baked into the calculations of how much they could get away with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
IIRC the Republicans would have to abolish the filibuster for legislation to ratify it (I presume they'd otherwise have done it already), which means that this crisis greatly increases the chances of that actually happening.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is not responsive to @jake's suggestion. He was suggesting that the West respond to Indian misuse (e.g. feeding to animals, or rampant failure to finish courses) of in-reserve pharmaceuticals (i.e. those we're trying to keep microbes from becoming resistant to) by not only revoking their patent licences and embargoing India, but literally blowing up Indian generic factories producing these drugs with airstrikes.


I reiterate that this is Jake's suggestion, and not mine; while his suggestion avoids your objection, there are others it does not avoid, such as "acts of war against a nuclear triad power are a bad idea".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The point he's making is "if Indians misuse antibiotics then they shouldn't be allowed to have the ones we're trying to keep in reserve; since they'd respond to a refusal to licence by seizing the patents, blow up the physical factories".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Huh, I hadn't read about the Laogai death rate, and was under the impression that the Cultural Revolution was in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions. Thanks for spurring my education!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We're trillions of dollars in debt, facing major issues from cans that have been kicked down the road for decades, we've got China and Russia and maybe WWIII, and AI that may or may not be civilization-threatening issues on the horizon - all of these things, IMO, are more important than the "SJ" stuff we like to argue so much about here.




Not disagreeing (I'm on record as saying I'd vote for our SJ party if they had word one about civil defence), but SJ (and the reaction to it) seems to be what's driving the polarisation, which is AFAICT what you were discussing.




But when you say "make SJ a political non-starter" - as much as I personally think most SJ stuff is a distraction, it's a major plank for Democrats, so you're just saying they should unilaterally disarm (i.e. abandon all the things they stand for). Sure, it's nice to dream your opponents will abandon all the goals you don't like and focus on the things you care about.




I'm not making any demands. I'm pointing out that there are levers Trump/Vance 2028/the Republicans have access to that might alter political demographics* such that it's impossible (or at least vastly more difficult) to assemble a winning coalition while holding to SJ, and thus such that the Democratic Party will have to either jettison SJ or keep losing (and of course I defend their right to pick either), which is a third option omitted by your previously-proposed dilemma of "either set up a one-party state or get everything rolled back later". I agree with pulling some of those levers (the academia one is particularly justified, IMO, as this seems more like "undoing creepy enemy social engineering" than like "doing creepy social engineering in its own right", and the lever Elon Musk already pulled of "buy and uncensor Twitter" seems to have gone pretty well) and not with pulling others, but either way I have essentially no input into which ones the Republicans including Trump do and do not pull.


*To quote B5, "I'll tell you something, my friends, the world is changing every day. The only question is, who's doing it?"; people do change their minds, people do get born or immigrate and start voting, people do die or emigrate and stop voting, and the state of the public square and the education system and the immigration system affect all of those.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


(except perhaps fix it so there can never be another Democratic administration - is that what you are actually hoping for?)




I feel I should point out that there's a middle-ground here: specifically, "fix it so that SJ is a political non-starter" such that there might be another Democratic administration but it wouldn't get there without abandoning SJ (and then wouldn't want to roll all of it back).


The most obvious, rapid and permanent way to do that ("start WWIII, laugh as the Blue Tribe burns"), I'm decidedly against, at least assuming there's no proper reason for one. The subtler methods I'm less sure about; dismantling the SJ lock on academia-as-gatekeeper-of-the-middle-class I'm fervently in support of, while extreme measures like e.g. bringing back sodomy laws and stripping the vote from those that break them I'd oppose.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And this was a major error. Better that the civil service change political valence with elections than it become a power bloc of its own which remains aligned with one side regardless of who is in power now.




I don't think it was necessarily an error in and of itself. Neutral civil services are a thing. Even Bush had far less issues on that front than Trump, and TTBOMK it did great for the first 100 years or so. It's a problem when polarisation and especially educational polarisation are very strong, which they often aren't.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If one interprets it as the former, then it's nearly vacuous because you do actually need to strike the enemy flag at the end. Even the Taliban did mount a conventional campaign as the USA was pulling out.


Even then, I'm still not sure it's true, at least without a definition of "domestic" that splits hairs so finely that it fails to cover the US case (the IRA never went conventional and managed to force the British crown to make substantial concessions; I don't think there's a good definition of "colony" that covers Northern Ireland vs. Britain but not the various states of the USA).