@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

I would certainly be more inclined to believe that the leaders are actually religious if even one blew himself up.

Of all the web serials I've read, I don't think even one approached War and Peace in terms of production value per chapter, for what it's worth. Then again, I didn't like War and Peace and liked most of the web serials. Maybe I'm giving Tolstoy too much credit, the joke goes he was paid by the word.

I didn't finish PGtE either, felt too sloggy. Mother of Learning I liked, even though the prose is obviously second-language English (thankfully not as bad as Reverend Insanity).

Web serials are, I suppose, for the same people who like TV shows over movies. They like the setting, might as well watch the events unfold for 60 hours (12 books) instead of 2 hours (1 book) where all the scenes and character interplay would be necessarily compressed.

(Funny enough I dislike TV shows, primarily because they consume my time at a fixed rate. A web serial I can just readingspeedmaxx.)

So no actual argument in favor?

If you're now claiming that the statement you made was false for the purpose of hyperbole, I think that's inaccurate, but justified.

I was claiming, admittedly hyperbolically, that if no one invented underdog morality, all stories would be about the overdog winning.

At 11 years, being ahead of my peers in academic terms was definitely most of my personality, so I'd probably be a shoe-in for Ravenclaw. I suppose I'm fine with that. It would likely stop me from getting complacent on that front.

Alternative answer for number 2:

You all have both eyes, don't you?

You're attempting to imply agency would be displayed by switching to your side, the unpopular and demonized side. How much more of a free thinker I would be if I only shed the Jewish lies!

Leaving aside the fact that it wouldn't, your side is just plainly worse for me, which you've so far said nothing to disclaim.

I'm not a Brit.

There are a lot more people than you seem to think, agentic people with thoughts and words to say, who at best don't care, at worst (for you) spiritually benefit from the country club blonde Aryan being dragged through the mud. It will not be enough for you to win by showing that Jews convinced me their way is better; you have to actually prove that yours is better.

He doesn't have to be the greatest evil ever for me to dislike his ideology. He just has to have been an enemy of my country and my demographic, which is trivially true for both and not explained away by Jewish cultural coding.

You can blame the guy who has singlehandedly lost so much aura for the Aryans that no one a shade of hair of skin darker than them wants them to have control of the culture again. Or your good friend AvocadoPanic who'd have us watch "AvocadoPanic is better than you: the movie".

And the Aryan Mensch's propaganda would be better for me how?

The explicit topic of the discussion is whether or not there is a trend of underdog media dominating and whether or not Jews are behind it.

The implicit topic of the discussion is whether or not it's a good thing, in particular for whites.

I'm arguing it's better than the implicit proposed alternative of "I want a movie where the tall good-looking kid kicks in the short whiny kid's teeth". I don't think I'd really enjoy seeing even one token overdog movie. I can just look at real life if I want a big-kid's-values-reinforced story.

The story of the underdog defeating the big dog is at least as old as David and the Goliath

Well it is a Jewish story as well, isn't it? At least it is Jewish enough that I am inclined to allow SecureSignals to give the International Jewry credit for it, because I actually prefer underdog stories.

Currently I find that the story of the big kid beating up small kids finds plenty of traction as long as the big kid has the moral* high ground. I am not interested in watching stories where the big kid beats small kids up simply because he can and that is the entire message. If that means that the small kid in movies will always be coded non-Aryan, I'll take that trade. My hair is not particularly blonde, anyway.

*there is no master morality and slave morality, there is just morality. A definition of morality which is indistinguishable from rule by the strong is simply rule by the strong. There cannot be two distinct concepts that are the same concept. From then on, you can have various degrees of explaining why the loser is sometimes more worthy than the winner and in what ways.

Thankfully I have you to enlighten me on how humiliated and indoctrinated I was by watching an "esoterical symbol" win.

Of the recent examples, the tutorial combat track from Expedition 33 never fails to be a banger.

Every time I think you can't make the Jews look even cooler. Now you're telling me they were the ones who spared me from being subjected to endless cultural veneration of the big kid's boot on the small kid's face, forever?

I think it's very simple and understandable. America is openly being a boorish bully and it is obviously a repulsive idea to submit to it. Canada's government is an incompetent boss and while it might well destroy everything good about the country, it requires a lot more epicycles to even start being angry about it, not to mention things like thinking of migrants as invaders and other stuff like that.

Many Canadians will be actually dead of natural causes (or have a doctor take them out before those natural causes do them in) before any postnational doom scenario actually sets in. It is just not as viscerally upsetting as Trump getting his way.

This strikes me as when a reddit atheist meme smugly says "if you believe you're going to heaven and heaven is so much more important than anything on earth, why don't you let me kill you".

It is obviously bad to be killed (even as the more articulate Christian replies with "that would be aiding you in committing the sin of murder", which I believe is post-hoc reasoning and not something that is the first line of mental defense against the idea of being killed), and it is obviously bad to be dominated by a contemptible enemy.

A drag queen singer had been the mainstay of Eastern European pop music in early 2000s. I wouldn't call drag shows so obviously bad if millions of normie buckwheat-eating Slavs somehow missed it.

Bulverism is a logical fallacy where you assume an opponent's argument is false and explain why they hold that view instead of actually proving why the argument is wrong.

Particularly useful for shutting down criticism of "successful" people because there are countless avenues one can measure success by and find the critic wanting.

A lot of your argument's weight hinges on obscuring "what Trump has accomplished" behind vague superlatives like "getting to the top of the top".

For the record, I don't agree that POTUS is such a height of power as you imply, either. As I said, its power is mostly the power of the US, which Trump can't take credit for. Any random tinpot dictator in a shithole country, who rules for life and at whose word countless detractors go to prison or disappear, is more "the top of the top" than Trump. I grant that you don't get there by being an idiot. You also don't get to any of the numerous unelected posts between which the power of the US government is diffused by being an idiot.

Getting to the post of POTUS while LLMs are smarter than you (this is Dase, "LLMs are smarter than X" is not the same as calling X retarded as far as I can tell of him) is not something that requires outstanding intellect. It requires mostly other things, and if you're literally a clinical idiot then it's unlikely you have those things, and most of the time a president is not going to be stupid. But it's not a requirement.

It does seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth could basically be the most important person in the world for over a decade.

Most important in the world is credit to US, not to any particular president. Most important in the country? Many kings had accomplished that without any effort simply by being heirs to a stable hereditary monarchy.

You seem to ascribe some additional moral protection to intelligence that you don't afford other virtues. So when someone is successful, it must have been intelligence? No, there are plenty of other factors, including, yes, sheer dumb being the right-shaped person at the right place in the right time.

I'll continue to call a king naked when he is naked instead of cringing from it in some performative show of humility, "well he's king, so he must have some good reason behind this, or he wouldn't be king!". Your way is just not being able to point out things about anyone famous for any reason because no one here is that famous.

If the people 100 years ago heard of a million women cheering for an infanticidal mother and miming strangling their own toddlers in support, they probably wouldn't believe it either.

I doubt those rich enough to afford raising and nurturing harems-worth of children are numerous enough to make a dent.

Would it be more charitable to grant that he has "animal cunning"?

I do jest, but so far you seem to not know what intellectual virtue, exactly, has led Trump to success, only assuming that there must be something.

In particular one can point out that Dase didn't say Trump has always been a moron, only that his 80+ old self is more stupid than LLMs. Most of Trump's self-achieved success has been before that. A rock with the correct words on it can be elected president in a system where power is sufficiently diffused.

Less charitably, there are many factors that can cause one person to be in a better position to achieve things, compounding to a 1000x advantage (measured how?), and intelligence is just one. It doesn't seem laughable that a 100 IQ boor with generational wealth and business connections in USA had achieved 1000x more than a hypothetical provincial well-read 120 IQ Russian twice his younger.