nomenym
2d ago
I kind of feel about this like I do about Ashley Babbit. It was a bad shoot, but she willfully created a situation that made a bad shoot highly likely. A tragedy, but not unlikely when you try to interfere with law enforcement activity. She was doing what she thought was right, and the officer was attempting to do his duty. Will she become a martyr? Frankly, if Minnesota thinks illegal immigrants should not be deported, then we need border controls around Minnesota.
Frankly, this is the kind of thing that would have resulted in pogroms at any other time in history. Same with the Pakistani rape gangs in the UK; the parallels are striking. Something very drastic needs to happen here, though Minnesotans are not capable of anything like an actual pogrom. Can there be some kind of polite and peaceful alternative that basically achieves the same goals without lots of violence? I can't really see a viable road back from here; the whole system is complicit, locked in, and ideologically committed to its own naivety because the alternative is too terrible to even contemplate.
nomenym
21d ago
Or it could also just be to reduce suspicion that they were prostitutes, to not be so obvious about it. Seems likely that not everybody knew what was happening. A fig leaf of plausible deniability.
nomenym
1mo ago
The European elite has always despised you, and they barely even tolerate the Democrats. Trump is anathema to them. Musk, Trump, and the American right are clearly aligned with Europe's burgeoning counter-elite, so they're moving to punish that alliance.
Human beings start seriously malfunctioning if all their wants are satisfied immediately and with little effort. There are many things we need that we have no evolved drive to seek out, because those things simply were inevitable consequences of living in a world of danger and scarcity. We evolved drives to get the things that were scarce in the ancestral environment, not the things that just happened anyway. Modernity is more or less blind to those things we need but don't want, and so those things are sacrificed and destroyed to get more and more of what we want. This is not healthy. It's resulting in perhaps the most significant die off of bloodlines since the great plagues. Future humans will not be like past humans by the time it shakes out. The only way out is through.
nomenym
1mo ago
Russia's big mistake was attacking one of the few countries in Europe with a will to fight back.
nomenym
1mo ago
After the last few high profile violent crimes committed in the UK, there has been a curious rush to publicize that the offender was a second or third generation immigrant, usually a British citizen. This is apparently motivated from a desire to push back against anti-migrant sentiment: "See! He grew up in the UK. He wasn't an immigrant! You can't hold this terrible event against immigrants". It's one of those cases when the mainstream left demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend what their opposition actually believes and why.
It would be kind of like someone trying to publicize an instance of police brutality as proof of how bad black communities are: "Look! This is how brutal you have to deal with these people! This proves how irredeemably uncivilized they are". Of course, there are no doubt some people who actually do think like this, but even they would never try to use this argument against a left-winger because they understand how it would be interpreted in practically the opposite way.
nomenym
2mo ago
They would learn about it before the end of the day, they would not want to drown, and France is really not that terrible (despite all the French people).
nomenym
2mo ago
It's trivially true, even obvious. Sink a couple of boats and far fewer people die in the long run, nevermind the preventing other problems.
it's hypocrisy if you say "the important professions, including journalism, have been taken over by women and this is bad for society" while holding senior positions in journalism as a woman.
Not really, since "taking over" requires more than one person. The explanation given for why women taking over journalism is bad for society does not imply that having any women in journalism is bad for society. Having some women may be good, and not all women are like other women. Presumably, given the explanation, having highly effeminate men "take over" journalism might be expected to have similar bad consequences for society.
I would expect that having childcare taken over by men would be bad for society, but that doesn't mean that no men should be involved in childcare, nor that some men are not psychologically well-suited to it. If such a man were to complain about there being too many men in childcare (or, rather, childcare becoming too masculanized, because there are too many manly men taking over), that would not be hypocritical.
The difference is the concept of "fair play". Men naturally set up games with rules to structure conflict as an alternative to lethal violence. We even see this in males of other distantly related species where fights have a particular formal pattern. There are rules about how to challenge another male, how that challenge is accepted or conceded, and then they may even take turns attempting to intimidate or hurt their opponent. Usually this is all done in public, possibly with an audience. This all occurs in animals following mere instinct, and human males share these instincts. The institutions that allow us to scale up societies beyond their Dunbar number are basically dependent on this undercurrent of "fair play", and women don't really have those same instincts, or at least not as strongly or as often. Female competition is focused on protecting infants, subterfuge, and persuading others to do violence on their behalf. They don't abide by any rules of fair play, and it doesn't come naturally to them. Any institution that depends on fair play norms will not survive being staffed by mostly women unless those women are a highly selected group, but there aren't enough of those women to staff many institutions.
This is not to say that most men are necessarily good or consistent about this either. Most people aren't up to doing most important things, but we just need enough people, not most.
The "right" is currently a big tent alliance against the woke-globalist-progressive-socialism thing, so it includes a lot of strange bedfellows. This alliance will not last indefinitely, but for the moment there is a common enemy.
The factions of the "right" are fighting for control of the goose that lays the golden eggs, but they all agree the left is trying to kill the goose and so they have common cause for now.
Edit: The Great Journey is a lie.
nomenym
2mo ago
This is friends engaging in taboo banter. Saying taboo things is part of the friendship bonding process, because it's a demonstration of trust.
nomenym
2mo ago
The Nazis weren't wrong about everything, but the things they were right about were not uniquely or especially Nazi. That said, an alarmingly large number of people seem to have confused being an inverted Nazi* with being a good person, because Hitler is the secular devil.
*May not correspond to actual historical Nazis.
The difference between this and the Jay Jones situation is that the Jones conversation was seemingly more serious in tone. It wasn't otherwise soaked in irony and hyperbole, but rather a one-on-one conversation with someone who felt uncomfortable with what Jones was saying and even pushed for clarification. Maybe Jones felt like it was just private joking between friends, but it was less obviously that. It came across as relatively more sincere venting. I did not take it as a statement of intent by Jones, and it was certainly not a realistic threat. Mostly it just reflects the rising hostility between the political tribes. It's certainly more concerning for a prospective AG to be saying those kind of things, though not unexpected in my opinion. Both sides think terrible and horrific things in private, because in private you frequently give voice to thoughts and feelings that you don't even agree with yourself. However, it's important that you can have those thoughts, otherwise you'll be blindsided by people who have those thoughts and actually intend to act on them.
nomenym
2mo ago
The historical antecedent does not cause it to be wrong, but the explanation for why it is wrong may be analogous to the explanation for why its historical antecedent is wrong.
Essentially, yes. There are layers.
The violent fringe of the left has always enjoyed more support. More often than not, the media doesn't so much cover left wing violence as cover for it. Left-wing agitators get a lot more institutional leniency and are often treated with kid gloves. They're good kids, with their heart in the right place, but they're just a little too zealous. Moderate left-wingers have a difficult time opposing the radical fringe intellectually, because they don't really oppose the endgoals. It becomes a debate about strategy and how to achieve those goals, and the radicals can rightly accuse the moderates of hypocrisy.
EDIT: Jordan Peterson oft-repeats his observation that even moderate leftists have a very difficult time articulating what it would look like for the left to go too far, but moderate conservatives have little trouble identifying when the either right or the left goes too far.
The radical left is a snake, and the moderate left is the grass that the snake hides in.
Of course, there are layers. There are radical leftists who actively support and commit violence, then there are others who don't act but support and cover for the violence, and then there are a whole bunch of people who are either ambivalent or intimidated by the radicals. They will mumble disapproval but they rarely make full-throated condemnations nor argue back on points of doctrine, mostly because they would lose. The radicals have been able to increase their influence further by controlling institutions.
Of course all large groups and movements have something like this dynamic going on to some degree, but it's becoming more and more a prominent on the left, and it's similar to the problem with moderate Muslims.
She was an agitator trying to cause trouble and he was a stressed out ICE agent dealing with a hostile crowd. When threatened with the possibility of arrest for obstructing law enforcement, she hit the gas. Why? Don't know, though someone (her wife?) yelled at her to drive, so maybe it was just that. She was not attempting to kill or assault the ICE agent and may not have even realized that she would hit him. The ICE agent, meanwhile, was not just idly standing in front of her vehicle, but rather walking around it when she started to move. He was likely especially concerned about being hit and dragged by the vehicle, since it had happened to him once already. She did strike him, but not in a manner which was seriously life threatening, but in that split second the ICE agent had the possibly unreasonable belief that his life was in danger and his reflexes did the rest.
Had the vehicle been moving a little faster or had made a more direct impact, then his life might really have been in danger. Had he been two more steps to the side then she would have missed him entirely and would not have been shot. These interactions presumably happen frequently for ICE, but the vast majority of the time people get lucky and nobody gets seriously hurt. Although she was violating the law and creating a dangerous situation, she obviously did not deserve to die and it's a genuine tragedy that she did. She should not have been there and the people who organize these "protests" need to be stopped. If the ICE agent could reload a previous save game and try again, then I'm pretty sure he would not to pull the trigger.
He was not a sadistic murderer and she was not a dangerous terrorist attempting to murder ICE agents. Both of them probably privately fantasized about lethal violence against the other side.
The broader issue is that many parts of the country appear to not want to be subject to immigration law and are in open defiance against it.
More options
Context Copy link