PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
feels like Ive just seen the manchurian punditate activate accidentally.
Maybe this is a specific reference I didn't get. I understood you as saying: "This author prides himself with being center-left and not a woke psycho, but he still demands a formal cancellation by an institution for personal moral shortcomings." Was I misinterpreting? All I was saying was this author could think Kramnik's offences rise to Cancellable but (say) the Young Republicans don't.
So it's really hard for me to find examples of FIDE revoking titles for moral failings! Andrejs Strebkovs appears to be the only example I could find, and that is recent.
Still, in a post about how things used to work
This might be the issue! Johnson is barely talking about the past, and indeed he says returning wouldn't fix everything; he also explicitly says some norms are bad and should be changed. He is just venting about things, and all this 'social contract' stuff is just to give his opinions some sense of legitimacy.
I do appreciate you bringing this up. I do not like people's willingness to Mean Girl their way into what ought to just be objective accomplishment-tracking. I wonder if it is more generally related to the Great Feminization.
This sounds like the debate over if wokeness is just a list of object-level political opinions, or if wokeness is also a set of social conformism techniques.
Maybe the author agrees with Cancelling People, but just haggles over the price. Woke rebuttals to "wokeness is a set of social conformism techniques" include that Hollywood blacklisting communists was also cancel culture, and that we have always lived in a cancel culture. From here, we should see wokeness as just a list of object-level political opinions, including novel high speeds of vibe shifts.
Is this post just boo outgroup? Does the comparison to last week's happening (Young Republicans) make this something higher effort than that, and my interpretation of "boo outgroup" is just my bias? Who can tell!
Just because there is a gap doesn't mean its a meaningful market opportunity. How many users demand this?
Did you emphasize "contextualizing" and "neutral historical summary" because these sound like neutral-sounding terms but are in fact not neutral? Similarly, "translate this video" is in fact neutral, but AI doesn't like it?
In case you couldn't tell: "neutral vs political" is not a real, only the overton window is. Like it or not, the neutral is virtue-signaling any time Hitler is mentioned. Similarly, treating Hitler nonchalantly is [descriptive, not normative] political.
Of course but with logic like that, you also shouldn't abolish race slavery because next they'll give them the right to vote and then after that they'll be given Noble privileges without responsibilities and then...
I would say the quoted text is a bad reason to be against gay marriage. You can just let gays get married and then not trans the kids. He is saying it's bad to allow [fine thing] because its in the same direction as [worse thing]. What am I missing?
Now that we've established that this is not about celebration of evils like the Holocaust, we can talk about what is really going on here.
There is nothing wrong with pushing the overton window. You make the implication that Holocaust jokes are made so that one day we can genocide Jews again, but that's silly. With logic like that, I should have voted against gay marriage so that they wouldn't try to trans the kids next!
Yes, telling jokes are a way to wage the culture war. Since it is quite literally who/whom the entire topic is rather boring to talk about.
The kind of guy who mentions the Holocaust every day, in a "joking" manner is not joking. He celebrates the Holocaust. I suspect this groupchat does not have a Holocaust reference every day. I wrote this sentence before I read the Politico article in full.
The writer says 2900 pages of chats, and Giunta says 28,000 chats. The article says 251 epithets. These guys were not slinging epithets left and right. It is highly unlikely they are making Holocaust jokes every day, or else the Journalists would have said how many holocaust jokes.
Damned right I am minimizing this. They are joking. Nobody is trying to Holocaust the Jews. I bet these guys don't even support Hamas lol.
Kirk is not a saint and it's fine to joke about his death. I'm not sure I've seen many jokes though. I've seen a lot of "he had it coming" and a lot of glee. Those are not jokes because they are being serious.
That posters in this thread are comparing to Jay Jones is ironic and illustrative: he outright said he was being serious! I suppose his irony has more layers than even 4channers, eh? The only joke Jones told was the "2 bullets" joke, but everything else he said was serious.
Wearing an SS-armband would be a celebration of the Holocaust, which is not a joke.
- The question is wrong -- I don't think these texts indicate any of those things. For example: "support of slavery." What is going on here is the left treats race and slavery as sacred topics, which means no joking. Rejecting this taboo does not mean someone supports slavery. It could just mean they think HR ladies are cringe. Also it could mean they are a young boy.
- Personally, I like Vance's response. I think these texts are a nothingburger. I would prefer if all our powerful politicians made racist jokes behind closed doors, which indicates loyalty to my tribe (Reminder to those who cannot read: the tribe in question does not support slavery). Although I didn't answer yes to (1), I'll talk about concerned Republicans: certain portions of the Republican party may still be concerned. Upon contact with young male voters, these politicians might consider switching the letter next to their name. These things happen from time to time.
- No. The "hiding ones power level" phenomenon is not related to extremism. As I explained earlier, telling racist jokes is a shibboleth and tribal signal. Another example of ingroup-jargon is "trans women are women." Whether that slogan is "extremism" probably depends on if it's post-2020, or closer to 2015. Hiding ones power level is just code-switching so you don't scare the
hoesnormies. Since what is normal changes over time, you find that some signals and slogans will enter the mainstream and it is no longer necessary to code-switch. What we are witnessing is Vance's attempt to shift the Overton window (or perhaps evidence that it has already shifted). Violence has nothing to do with this, at all. - The answers to this could vary because everyone is a little different. But i would say it's safe to assume it goes like this: the Democratic party is hostile to white men and the GOP is not. A particular white man who is not married to the Democratic party (on account of: economic resentment, sexual deviancy, class anxiety etc.) inevitably can only feel at home in the GOP. A self-identified Nazi could believe he has support just because of typical-minding.
This post is definitely a nu-Scott post: It's unclear, short, and boring. His bottom line is that violence (so far it seems) would not help make anything better. It is so short he didn't exactly argue why (not that I disagree with him). Whatever part of his audience he is trying to persuade, I am not sure how this is supposed to do it.
If I squint, I can kinda extract a Scott-like interpretation, but it's not particularly insightful: he argues that Fascist is just a boo-word, and so premise #1 isn't even factual in the first place (this also explains why he doesn't even attempt to argue that its true). Having defused the word that provides moral cover, the one is left to "show their work" that things are so bad that violent revolution is necessary. Unfortunately, Scott didn't stoop into the object-level of ICE taking people off the streets or whatever so it won't be changing any minds. Probably, he doesn't know how to construct a verbal argument to pacify the militant anti-fascists that the wants to reach.
that both sides say extreme things and that both sides get indignant at the other does not prove the situation is symmetrical. How do you prove that someone is joking or if they are being serious?
Rendering counterfactuals is how I make decisions. How else am I supposed to know if it is a good idea to marry a girl, if I do not imagine our future? Unless, by "render" you literally mean visually generate an image? I admit perhaps seeing AI-generated counterfactuals could move me in a way reading your post didn't.
I think I am so thoroughly desensitized to my counterfactuals -- or I've never been in love -- that this kind of thing can't possibly make me more sad.
I did realize years ago though that this kind of reasoning is why -- I think -- I listen to edgy divorced dad rock. People project their own personality onto me and ask "doesn't that make you sad? You should listen to [pop-slop about lust, love, and status]." No, on the contrary, listening to Taylor Swift would just depress me.
What similar problems do drugs have? If videogames cause similar brain signals, aren't those basically drugs? Maybe it's my wrong-headed reductionism speaking, but the reasons why societies treat drugs differently seem like boring practical reasons, not high-minded spiritual ones.
A little offtopic, but has there been much discussion about why Marx's theory is called Materialist-Dialectic or whatever? The word "Dialectic" is almost exclusively used by (my) outgroup so I don't care much about what it means specifically -- much of its use is probably shibboleth. Why the word "Materialist?" That Marxists do not believe in God seems unimportant to me. You might as well call wokeness Materialist, or the Nurture Hypothesis also Materialist. Is it too uncharitable if my first instinct is that it is the same phenomenon as postmodern writing appropriating physics terms? That is, using the term "Materialist" makes Marxism sound descriptive and scientific? This wouldn't surprise me, especially since my read of the discussion here is that LTV seems obviously like a moral prescription.
Slightly more on-topic, I think Zagrebbi is more correct than Cofnas. We actually went over this a few weeks ago. The deleted comment in this thread originally linked to here. Perhaps the equality thesis has not been falsified already. But if it ever were, I fully expect those facts to be memory-holed.
I guess that means we should expect the actual undoing (if it should ever happen) of woke will be mocking it and making it low status (somehow? This is left as an exercise to the reader).
People got mad at WC for 1 sentence. His sin was failing to flatter our sacred sensibilities about race. That sentence was NOT saying "outsiders [to White society] are bad" it was saying "outsiders [to the family] are bad." The traditional deference to race is to triple-proofread your post to ensure it can't be misinterpreted in a bad way.
AT and (to a lesser extent) BC write paragraphs of emotion-slop that shouts the vibe on a neon sign. As far as I know, nobody is misinterpreting what they say though. Indeed, with AT and BC often time the vibe is the point.
We may take your "genocide" observation and ask: why discomfort with white solidarity manifests in calling its repugnant feuds "genocide."
I wonder if the focus on white solidarity truly is misguided. Indeed, as we have seen this year, accusations of genocide are not exclusive to white people. (Depending on if you think Jews are racial shapeshifters, I guess)
I still haven't a clue why specifically the discomfort some of the time. It probably is different for different people. For many, I imagine the colonialism and power imbalance really is a big deal. For someone like Toruk, obviously it isn't. Others still are surely just reciting tribal deepities.
Is he? Cofnas implies that facts will persuade EHC to flip sides, and Auron is saying facts and arguments have failed to do that. Is there an objective debate moderator who can determine if Cofnas is right because evidence wasn't presented; or if Auron is right because the evidence was presented, and ignored?
You're right that Auron does not give an alternative plan to co-opt EHC, but do you have one?
Yes, discomfort with white solidarity often manifests as labeling it "racism," but it's not clear this can said to be a cause.
An example cause: Historically, white solidarity has lead to genocide, so people are uncomfortable with it.
Very perceptive of you. Yes, Toruk is mixed I think, so any racial solidarity movement would exclude him.
Probably the reason he is obsessed with white identitarians is not that they are currently powerful, but that they are up-and-coming. Also, its probably the only actual racial identitarian movement in US politics that anyone talks about. I'm not even sure you can say woke is properly a racial identitarian movement, since it makes concessions to a long list of non-racial coalition groups.
The traditional meaning of "Trophy wife" (something like "someone married as a status symbol instead out of love") implies a false dichotomy. Or at least, it ignores the fact that a man gains status by having a wife. I would maintain that an alone Jeff Bezos is lower status than one with a suitable wife.
All wives are trophy wives
It's not even clear to me how that fantasy is supposed to work. If I'm a pro football player, who is the female equivalent? If I'm a programmer, who is the female equivalent? If I'm scrawny, who is the female equivalent?
The purpose of inventing the term "emotional labor" is to justify why nurses etc. deserve more wages or more status. It would be strange for them not to be complaining about it
- Prev
- Next

Kramnik has been making cheating allegations for well over a year now, and i doubt he has been giving evidence. He has already received some kinds of punishment, kinda: I think Chess.com muted his ability to use it as a blog, since he was being annoying or something.
If he gets punished further, it won't actually be because of cheating allegations, it will be because The People Demand Something Be Done because of Naroditsky. (I think its ironic that we take it for granted that he killed himself. You'd think with this topic in particular, we would wait until we have evidence before saying things!)
More options
Context Copy link