The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Hiring a cleaning lady once or twice a week is hiring a contractor, either under the table (cheap, illegal, but negligible chance of punishment) or through some agency which handles the formalities (expensive and legal). That's different than having a servant or servants who only work for you.
Heritage Foundation, not Trump. Any Republican would have done this.
No, not a chance.
Ruled unconstitutional (by 2 of his own 3 justices lol).
He just did them another way.
And Dexter Taylor is now in a maximum security prison where he will likely die, unable to appeal. Because that's how much the Second Amendment is worth in the US.
Ask USAID. Ask the Ayatollah Khameni (either one). Immigration changes actually did happen. So did tariffs. So did a rooting out of DEI in government; it wasn't complete but it happened.
The UHC CEO is a role, but Donald Trump is not. Most presidents probably aren't, and Donald Trump definitely isn't.
Making life socially tougher only removes the bottom quintile if you define it tautologically. You'll remove those who are least socially adept within every stratum, not the least adept overall.
This is because of measures designed by real egalitarians ostensibly to help the poor, such as minimum wage and nanny taxes. Of course, if you can't hire poors to work for you (unless you're Elon Musk rich and not just two-doctor household rich), you're best off avoiding them entirely.
It mattered when business leaders felt they had to at least pretend they owed something back to the society that made them rich.
This isn't a social norm, it's a political norm based on leftist assumptions. And not a common one in the past; it's most associated with Andrew Carnegie, though he based it on different assumptions. Further, Carnegie's beliefs did not cash out to "I should pay shitloads of taxes" (though he supported a high estate tax), but to "I, and other wealthy people, should use our wealth to directly help society".
I can't tell if this is an exceptionally well crafted troll effort
It's dated April 2, 2025, but it's possible that's a time zone issue and it is indeed a year-old April Fools post.
There's also the red wolf, C. rufus/C. lupus rufus... which is still the subject of a debate as to whether or not they are a real species at all, or just a coyote/grey wolf hybrid. If the latter, than latrans and lupus hybridize plenty. And even if it is a real species, it commonly interbreeds with the coyote in the wild.
And also the rather silly C. lycaon (timber wolf), which is obviously just a grey wolf with a fan club.
The research-type jobs are certainly a problem. The blue collar jobs are a bigger problem. Even Houston, Houston, Do You Read had them done by women given exogenous testosterone, which is going to bring back the violence. The creation of a superintelligence as with Banks's Culture solves this, but only by making humanity pets.
And of course if we're taking something as silly as gender eugenics seriously, we have to take race eugenics (which is a lot more practical) more seriously. You know who is about as violent as white men? Black women. Though if men were to disappear I would also suspect they would be the best replacements for those blue-collar jobs.
You also need to consider the female disadvantages, some of which are simply the flip side of male disadvantages (such as a higher risk tolerance).
If two individuals are capable of interbreeding and the offspring produced are themselves reproductively viable then those two individuals are of the same species
Yet we consider canis lupus, canis familiaris (sometimes), and canis latrans all different species.
(and forget about plants, those things are total degenerates)
Are you saying that the people who stormed the Capitol were insane, given that they did interpret Trump's speech that way, or are you making the true but irrelevant point that one particular sentence of the speech, taken out of context, is a rejection of violence?
I am saying that there is nothing in the speech that can be sanely interpreted as "Storm the capital". There is no dilemma here; there are other options besides the two you have presented.
Trump was calling for a protest, a "demonstration", not a riot.
The January 6 protest was organized by mainstream right-wing groups. The rioting was not, and no, "Storm the Capitol" is not a non-insane intepretation of "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
The US has the state capacity for actual confiscation.
That's not how the Michigan Militia was treated, though.
And this is why the Brandenburg test is so important. It's very easy to recast fiery political speech as a call for violence.
Hard to say he wasn't a "great fit for the workforce" after one job. Defense work is its own kind of suck.
Interesting to compare him to the standard psycho political shooter profile of the last few years: smart, weird in an autistic-coded way (whether or not diagnosed), goes to a university of a tier well below his IQ level and doesn't do well there, fails to launch into a PMC career, no female girlfriend.
He didn't do most of that. He went to Caltech (top tier, perhaps even sui generis for IQ level), graduated, and had a job as a mechanical engineer in what seems to be a defense contractor (IJK Controls, now owned by General Atomics) associated with Caltech. After that, he went and got a second degree from a low-tier university, possibly in furtherance of his desire to make video games. These are significant differences. He only had the job for a year; I'd guess he didn't like it much.
Not for long after the next (D) trifecta, as Virginia and Rhode Island are demonstrating.
There are a lot of people who hate journalists. But I can't see traveling across the country to kill one; most likely there's one local any given killer hates more.
What if it turns out that all the CCC members who did attacks had been kicked out of the club prior, and some had been reported to law enforcement by the club?
It's very hard to tell skin tone from photos, but he looks lighter than Sicilian to me (and I'm 1/4 Sicilian). I'd guess maybe 25% African-American, the rest some sort of white, maybe including a little Hispanic too (from the spelling "Tomas")
Plenty of people (or journalists, anyway) are often happy to point the finger of blame at people like the commentariat of the Motte; I see no need to help them.
- Prev
- Next

It's still true that the Kennedy kid will get off scot free. It's just that there are three relevant classes, not two -- the underclass, which is typically lightly policed and lightly punished, unless they commit a crime against the top class. The massive middle, who are controlled largely by the fact that even a minor conviction can severely limit them (e.g. by denying them professional licenses or certain careers; if you've ever been busted for shoplifting you can never work for a financial institution, for instance, and if you've ever had a DUI conviction most jobs involving driving are off limits) and a major one tosses them into prison and permanently into the underclass, for which they are not prepared and will probably suicide or die of misadventure shortly after. And the top, who can escape consequences with a word to a prosecutor or a judge, except if they lose some power game with others on top quite badly -- though they may even survive that, like Martha Stewart.
More options
Context Copy link