ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
That would imply the Russians care more than what he's portraying not less - even though most people would not care, they're not doing a fraction of what the US did in Iraq, or what Israel did is doing in Gaza.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Russia cares about worldwide public opinion to some small degree, it's just at a much lower level than you seem to think.
He seems to be portraying the Russians as caring about it to the extent it could cause an increase in support for Ukraine, why would their actual level of caring be lower than that? It's completely cynical basic strategic thinking.
If you asked the median Ukrainian if they thought Russia was fighting with "several hands tied behind its back", they'd almost certainly laugh at you.
That has no bearing on whether or not they are actually going all out on them. The US collapsed most of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure when they invaded back in the day, this is what not caring about international opinion looks like.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
But ‘assisted in the death of, via second order effects on murder rates’ is a rather different phenomenon.
I don't know if I agree with that. If law and order collapses as a result of civil war, it's not going to be much comfort to me that technically the mob burning down my house is a second order effect.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
And even the spicier FC post cited by others doesn't seem to be calling for violence
AvocadoPanic was asking "is there a way to express that some issues may not have satisfactory political solutions?", not "is there a way to directly call for violence?". The answer to the latter is obviously "no".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
That's mostly a rationalization for their lack of resistance. What do you think they will actually resist peso rights, instead of coming up with a similar rationalization?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Just how independent is that "independent" rediscovery? If progressives make an about face on trans issues and decide it's all abruse by evil capitalists to make money off of vurnelable gender non-conforming children, is that the leftist normies spearheading the pushback, or a copy-paste of an argument they were condemning as fascist five seconds ago?
If I look up that time when the US threatened to withdraw UN's funding, over it's associations with NAMBLA, am I going to see mostly conservative, or mostly progressive names attached to that? Is that a valid way to test your theory? If not, what would be?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Yes, I've seen it done, and I've seen prominent posters (who used to be mods) clutching their pearls over it, and leaving in a huff about it, and no disciplinary action being taken.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
This seems like it's deflecting from the argument we were debating all this time. You were saying that anyone against trans rights is using the same type of argument as people arguing against Civil Rights. By analogy, this would mean you have to focus on the people arguing against pedo acceptance, and say that they are using the exact same arguments, that homophobes used to. If you believe there is a flaw in this reasoning, then you now see the flaw in your original argument.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
That's an interesting take, but for me to accept it would require the kind of outgroup-mindreading that is discouraged here. In any case I don't think this can be derived from the progressive movement's own statements about themselves. Even in private they seem to be more about abolishing boundaries than perverting (unless there are even more super-secret forums, than the ones I'm aware of).
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
That's not very helpful, because it's true of nearly every single perspective, possibly including those of clinical schizophrenics. What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
You've completely misunderstood me. I don't set myself apart from the rest, and if I did, I'd be putting myself below the religious, not above. My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one. It's perfectly possible to have rational conversation with a believer, it's even possible to have one about the core tenets of their religion, but religious conversations often devolve into simply reciting doctrine and expecting the other person to instantly bow down, or something. I think this is what happened here. If a religious person wants a rational conversation about the core tenets of their beliefs, they need to come to the conversation with the awareness of the inferential gap between the participants.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's, but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't think so? It wasn't until several years after the enstunnening and enbravening of Caitlyn Jenner, and the general topic of bathroom drama, that I even heard of drag queen story hour. Maybe in some deep-blue strongholds?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Rdrama mocks us for words, words, words, but it do be like that though, and it's a good thing.
Explain why a political solution won't work, explain what might work instead, try to keep a relatively morally neutral tone. It's not that hard, you can literally boogaloopost if you put enough effort.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Am I the only one that wants to go back in time with a tablet, and show the American founders a few videos?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
So how do you explain the normie core happily going along with the mastectomies? They involve teenage girls as well. Was the pushback against pedo acceptance even driven by leftist normies, or was it a result of conservatives being stronger and better organized?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Russia has been more than happy to bomb historic buildings and civilian targets like shopping malls, apartment complexes, and hospitals. It hasn't moved the needle.
Israel doing it many more times over might have helped their PR. Wouldn't surprise me if they even pulled some strings to trigger 10/7.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I shouldn't need to go to church to defer my kid's sexual awakening until they have a meaningful boner.
Or, perhaps, we were the ones missing the point, and no matter how much we believe we shouldn't, we do need to?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
wherein false positives simply do not exist under any circumstances.
Not quite. False positives exist when you start regretting cutting off your breasts or dick-n-balls, at which point it turns out you were never trans, and it's your fault for asking for those surgeries in the first place.
In no spaces is any hint of any indulgent relationship between an adult and a child seen as more abhorrent than those normal people (leftist) spaces.
In how many normal people (leftist) spaces was it not abhorrent to schedule a 14 year old girl for a double mastectomy, because she wants to be a boy, 20 years ago? I was still hearing "no one is doing gender surgeries on minors" as an argument until 2-3 years ago, and it was only dropped when you could start linking people to peer reviewed studies, where clinics were bragging about how many minors they performed mastectomies on.
I don't doubt that they're currently not in favor of it, but give me a reason to believe that when their vanguard decides it's time to push that particular door open, they'll refuse.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The problem, I suppose, is that that doesn't get you attention
I don't know how long you've been in hibernation, but no, the problem is that it doesn't work, and gets you called a Nazi regardless of whether or not you use the F-word, or are even anywhere near the ideas you're discussing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
With Trump's brilliant geopolitical and economic movements
Wait, an ironic interpretation of this statement makes no sense in light of the argument you're making here, so are you saying it was 5D chess all along? I'm getting whiplash here.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
So I wonder if the school board just doesn't realize that, of if they do realize that and just don't care
Your brain does weird things to you once you're in the realm of true belief, I saw the same kind of thing around trans stuff. My conclusion is that they know and care, but consider the actions that got them into trouble axiomatically good. Getting pushback is no argument for backing down. Getting pushback so huge it could set back the whole movement might be an argument for a tactical retreat, but not for conceding that any wrongdoing took place. Then there are more trivial matters like overestimating their own competence, or how much support they have from either the public or the elites.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Makes sense. I remember hearing that back in the Soviet days some artists working on children's animation happily traded in any prestige that might have come from on working on something more serious, precisely because the field's lack of political importance meant you didn't have to justify yourself to a political commissar all the time, and could enjoy the art for what it is.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I don't want either of them to be Republican. Hanania actually is ridiculously overrated and, in contrast to Scott, always has been. Having him on my side would be a liability.
As for Scott, I just want his arguments to be as high quality as they used to be. He was never on my side, but he used to be able to show that he understands it. Maybe it's the Republican party platform that caused the severe drop in his competence, even though he was always a Democrat, but I think we should look for causes elsewhere.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
He did elide quite a bit.
I mean, in my defense this is, so far, a review of the first 3 episodes. I wouldn't call it eliding, if the relevant information simply hasn't been revealed yet.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad.
Never said anything is bad on the ground that I don't understand it.
Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends.
Two problems. First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
The other problem is that you were just telling me a moment ago, that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
Well, I'm not interested in talking to your interpretation of institutional power, I'm interested in talking to you. If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement. Secondly, I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Men who have lives and families to care about don't want to burn down the world.
Your general point is valid, but you're going off track with this. I don't recall Scott ever wanting to burn the world down. It's more that if he couldn't even stand the heat when he was single, there's no way he'll risk exposing his family to the psychos that came after him.
I don't think they crippled the civilian infrastructure to the same extent as the Americans did.
More options
Context Copy link