site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 234895 results for

domain:apollomindset.substack.com

Like I said, this is ancient history, but I was hanging out at some Dawkins-era Internet Atheist forum at the time, and remember there being some buzz around what Liz Cheney said about her sister. What that buzz was exactly, I can't tell you anymore.

Is critical race theory supposed to be a conspiracy?

It's an idea that's basically a variation of the old "it's just a few college kids on Twitter, dude" argument. They'll tell you that CRT is ackchyually just a really obscure left-wing legal theory from the '80s that like 50 academics in total are actually familiar with.

Even if the rumours Trump based the claim on had been true, they were about cats, not dogs.

Oh, come on!

- Did you hear about the Haitians eating people's dogs in Ohio?

- Don't say that! This is a completely false statement, spread by bigots!

- Oh shit! Sorry, I didn't know.

- Yeah... everybody knows they're eating cats, not dogs.

In this case it's "'they're eating the dogs' is a statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners" that is a false statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners.

It seems to me that a question we ought asking is "is Trump really lying?". Not in the sense of whether a given statement is false? so much as in the sense of is he really deceiving any one or otherwise behaving dishonestly?

"They're eating the dogs" is a statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners that immigrants are stealing and eating pet dogs. Even if the rumours Trump based the claim on had been true, they were about cats, not dogs.

The fact that Trump doesn't care about the factual truth or falsity of the words that come out of his mouth to the point where he says "dogs" when he could easily have said "cats" and been making a defensible claim about facts that were in dispute at the time is a perfect piece of smoking gun evidence as to what is actually going on. In the Harry Frankfurt sense, Trump is rarely lying but he is constantly bullshitting.

I'm at work at the moment but effortpost to follow.

Not trying to be an ass here. But I have been on the desired side of many interactions with women--meaning I was the one who was pursued, or, more accurately, I was the one who was wanted, who was desired. In states both drunk and sober. And I have never ever been "dragged to eat out" a woman. Even in the the most sweaty, unclothed chaleur du moment, I have never had a woman make such a suggestion--maybe they are just more aggressive in Pai, but I somehow can't even imagine it. I cannot imagine the words, the body language, or the context for how such a request might be communicated, in particular outside a really intimate encounter with someone known well. "Just kiss me already," sure.

I say this not to suggest that this girl wasn't attracted to you for maybe she was (though even if she was, that doesn't mean she still would be, or ever will be again). But maybe there's something in ketamine and whatever else that skews your perceptions? Something to think on.

Cultural Marxism, on the other hand, seeks supporters by appealing to the cultural grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly right-wing hierarchical social environments.

One of the random factoids I heard somewhere, and have no idea what it relates to or if it's true, is that some ancient people had this idea of hell, where it's just like our world, but it's full of terrifying demons, but if you point them out everyone will think you're insane. This is sort of how this whole conversation felt like to me (though thankfully the spell seems to be breaking in recent years), there's a movement-that-shall-not-be-named:

  • "Woke? I have no idea what you're talking about"
  • "SJW? Never heard of it. Some right-wing slur against liberals, I guess"
  • "Political Correctness? What even is that?"
  • "Cultural Marxism? Must be some Nazi conspiracy theory"

The last one was chronologically first, and it getting memory-holed is particularly annoying, because it's a damn good label. First of all it was originally self-applied, and secondly if you take any mildly intelligent person who has even the faintest clue about Marxism, they'll be able to deduce what Cultural Marxism is supposed to be about, and list a few recent examples of Cultural Marxist ideas floating around in the public sphere. Contrast that with something like "neoliberalism" that is actually a poorly defined slur, that for some mysterious reason was taken seriously by academia for a decade or two, and in my opinion Cultural-Marxism-as-conspiracy-theory has no leg to stand on.

Now, I can understand OG economic Marxists being aghast at what came out of the cultural- variant. As someone watching several institutions, subcultures, and media being hollowed out and worn for a skin-suit, I have some sympathy for someone with a take like "Cultural Marxism is to Marxism, what The Last Jedi / The Acolyte is to Star Wars", there's even an argument to be made that the whole thing is a CIA op to castrate Marxism, but sympathy is not a "get out of jail for free" card. I think they should at least admit it's their skin that is being worn for a suit.

I find it bewildering that they call it a conspiracy. Is Antonio Gramscii a conspiracy?

Is critical race theory supposed to be a conspiracy?

The believers in the conspiracy have even made a long wiki page about cultural marxism in the soviet union.

The left is deeply involved in cultural issues so calling it a conspiracy is just the least sensible way of waving it off. They can't actually debate the issue so they have to use slander. Left wing movements use gossip, shaming and rallying to much higher degrees than right wing movements.

It was a term of art in political philosophy for years, I had legit university courses on "Cultural Marxism". So of course it makes sense, it's even the term the Frankfurt school uses for itself.

There was a deliberate effort by Marxists to switch tactics after the Soviet failure, and they did seek to undermine Western culture specifically. This is undeniable and directly stated in primary sources.

Then the people who use the tactics that the Frankfurt school delineates figured out their enemies found them out and shifted the frame to conceal it and use it as a bludgeon against anybody who noticed the tactics. And then in 2016, it became a conspiracy theory that only antisemites believe in.

They went so such lengths to redact the wikipedia article that it no longer even exists in the history of the page, but it was there.

There is no point in arguing that Cultural Marxism is real, because it is, and the people who use it are extremely invested in making sure people who know it is are ruined. And not just under that particular name. You can call it "Woke" or "DEI" or "CRT" or any number of other names, they will always shift the frame to prevent you freezing a good label. And so long as they control the places that have the writ of legitimacy, there is nothing that can be done.

Labels don't really matter anymore anyways, we now live in a present where everybody knows that the left has abandoned native working classes for a minority coalition. It's a given. The educated urbanites don't even pretend to view the working class as anything else but objective enemies.

"With enough layers" would be the key. Not merely wrapping with a bit of overlap, which I think the typical person would mistakenly do. Multiple layers offset or wrapped in different directions.

Yes, there's a reason I bought 60 metres of the stuff. Still under 10 bucks.

Yes, this is a good way to put it. It's in some ways even worse than that; If a person C turns up, who states that the tall guy looks REALLY tall & wants to measure him, person B has the tendency to first try to stop him, and if successful, to complain that person C makes claims "without evidence".

Cultural Marxism seems to be a subject that starts discussions here from time to time (this is the latest example, I guess), and one conclusion I came away with from these is that apparently many Blue Tribers are convinced that the concept is nothing but a neofascist myth, similar to how the same group dismisses "political correctness" as something not real and instead existing in nowhere else but the imagination of GOP propagandists.

Anyway, it's not like I want to reinvent the wheel here, but I propose a simple concept to differentiate cultural Marxism from economic Marxism. For the sake of argument, let's assume that both Marxist tendencies actually exist, although I understand that this is a very big jump for the leftists mentioned above. Instead of observing what these tendencies argue, let's look at how they find purchase in society, to the extent that they do.

Economic Marxism seeks supporters by appealing to the economic grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly right-wing hierarchical social environments.

"How is it possible that I'm working my ass off yet still remain nothing but a poor shmuck while assholes who never worked a day in their life drive around in fancy cars and fancy clothes?!"

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men." (John Ball)

It's not difficult to see why economic Marxism lost most of the allure it ever had: the people who keep appealing to such grievances are no longer the Marxists. This has multiple causes of its own, but I won't try going into this here.

Cultural Marxism, on the other hand, seeks supporters by appealing to the cultural grievances of marginalized groups in predominantly right-wing hierarchical social environments.

"Why is everyone in this town such a homophobic garbage Nazi shithead? I bet they'd start pelting me with rocks if I tried walking down Main Street holding hands with my BF."

"I'm from Alabama and my pal got thrown out of the house by his shitty Fundamentalist parents just for being gay and trans. Why is it such a cesspool, man?!"

"Everytime I visit family I get cold stares and they keep pestering me when am I finally getting married. I'm done with these fuckers."

"Why is it still considered normal here for shitbag rednecks to drive around flying the Confederate flag? I can't even."

Those were the days.

I'm the same as you and on dealing with bullshitting estate agents simply have to leave their presence and essentially dismiss them completely from my life.

I notice that I am also allergic to lying club-promoter type politicians and much prefer to be around lawyerly narrative constructors, which makes sense of my political preferences I guess.

If those distinct subpopulations were already murdering and massacring each other, it isn't like being targeted by Israel is going to change that all that much.

You’re applying contradicting logic to the same group. Once, Shia can somehow hate Israel more because the daughter if a Hizballah operative died, then secondly non-Shia cannot hate Shia more since they’re already hostile to one another. Please pick one lane so we can further discuss.

By the way, you could just go to /r/lebanon and see what they think of Hizballah there.

your limiting factor is weight (often the case) aluminium is the best

I didn't think about that. That's actually a good point.

"With enough layers" would be the key. Not merely wrapping with a bit of overlap, which I think the typical person would mistakenly do. Multiple layers offset or wrapped in different directions. And having a DC path to ground would defeat charge buildup.

I my work I seal things correctly by putting copper tape over the cracks and joints. 3M sells it. The conductive adhesive is only good for one or maybe two sticks though. EMI shielding goes to shit if the tape is even slightly lifted or the adhesive not quite sticking on well.

And also bare metal boxes with EMI gaskets. Which if you really wanted to shield your stuff you should use.

I am a bit amazed by Italians and French, there, with crime rates 4.75 and 5.91 times the German citizens ones.

From a US perspective, we are all close neighbors, it would be like if people from Utah committed crimes in California at five times the rate of the natives.

If you tracked interstate migration the same way each country in the EU tracks their migration, patterns like these might very well show up, though personally I'd be more suspicious of Californians rather than the Utahns.

As for the French, they have their own high-crime minorities, fully equipped with French passports, thanks to their colonial past. I can't tell you what is the deal with Italians, though.

Heck, they are more over-represented than Russians.

Russians have a long way to travel, and are not part of the Schengen Zone, so that's hardly surprising.

A general caveat with police statistics is that they generally tell you about the activities of the police, not the criminals.

I'd be more than happy to limit the data to crimes with incentive to report, like murder, assault, rape, etc. I even remember some internet autist going over the German crime by nationality stats. I don't know if that's something they used to publish but stopped, or he had to FOIA them to get it, but if you click on the pdf from my other comment you can see they present the numbers on each type of crime, as well as on suspects by nationality, so they very clearly do have the data on the activities of criminals, they just choose not to aggregate them in a way that would be useful to this conversation. This has nothing to do with them being "IT-shy", European governments can hardly be described this way to begin with, and you can rest assured all this data is already stored in a digital database, and it's only a question of writing the right GROUP BY statement. Most likely this information is not published deliberately, for the exact same reason Germany hasn't published the full crime report since 2020.

Another caveat is that while offenses against the foreigners' law (which Germans can mostly not commit) are excluded, that law might still be the initial reason for investigation of non-EU nationals.

  1. And this is why I came out against "uh, source?" and "data would be what we use to see if that intuition is correct or not" in my other conversation with Jesweez, and why I think Rationalist movement is either a complete failure, or a deliberate effort to sabotage sense-making. You can play these sorts of games forever, and no one who insisted that the data showing immigrants are less criminal than American citizens should be taken as-is, will ever show up here to criticize you for looking for an out in the unpublished parts of the data.
  2. Yes, it could be that the police is finding other crime while investigating illegal immigration, but what you've left out is that it could also be the opposite - the police doing their best to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, but inevitably running into it in the process of investigating violent crime. Which leads me to:
  3. I'm not saying things are quite as bad as the opposite side of the spectrum I outline above, but if you think Germany, or any other country in the EU, is in crack-down mode against illegal immigration qua illegal immigration, you're posting from a parallel universe.

Oh, and the correct metric to measure criminality would be average conviction length per person.

Nah. I'll take "convicts" over "suspects", but the length of conviction is a silly metric, if you know what they've been convicted of. Especially given certain European judges proclivity to let gang-rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

It seems to me that a question we ought asking is "is Trump really lying?". Not in the sense of whether a given statement is false? so much as in the sense of is he really deceiving any one or otherwise behaving dishonestly?

I'm hardly the first person to make this observation but it seems to me that Trump "lies" the way a used car salesman "lies". Sure, he'll tell you that Nissan Altima with bald tires at the back of the lot is a good deal, the best deal even, the sort of deal he wouldn't give his own mother, but if pressed he'll admit that its kind of a shitbox and knock 10 - 20% off the price. Normal people who interact with other normal people on a regular basis get this, they even expect it. After all the salesman's job is to sell things and few working class persons are going to begrudge another working class person for doing thier job.

In contrast a lot of what Trump's opponents seem to do is not "lying" directly in the sense of speaking falshoods so much as they are setting out with a specific intention to push a specific narrative and things like lying through omission, false pretenses, and spreading rumors/hearsay are just tools in the tool box.

There seems to be this belief that so long as you are never actually caught in an outright lie you are by definition a good and honest person. If someone is decieved by your intentional misrepresenting of a fact or lie of omission the culpability is not on you for trying to decieve them, its on them for not being being savvy enough to see through your deception.

I think that what we are seeing now is the downstream effects of this attitude. You see politics is by it's nature a multiple itteration game. Unless your plan is to litteraly exterminate everyone and anyone who might disagree with your policy decisions (and to be fair, a number of regimes have actually tried) you're gonna have to cut a second deal with someone at some point and when you do its only natural that they will factor how the first deal played out into thier calculus.

This is the bit that I think Todd and the wider media/managerial class have failed to recognize or othwerwise factor into thier thinking is that a lot of regular people have come to recognize that they got manipulated and are now on guard against it and rather than solving the (alleged) problem all the talk about how normal people are stupid, easy to manipulate, and need to be saved from themselves for democracy's sake is exacerbating it.

As Instapundit would say, they have chosen the form of thier destructor. For the Ghostbusters it was a marshmallow kaiju, for the beltway it was a reality tv star.

Let me ask you the question others have asked only implicitly: was there a woman in the past, whether your affection was required or unrequited, who you felt was truly interesting, truly desirable? It’s not about her, and you make that clear enough. But it might be about the idea of her.

Aluminum is the fourth most conducive metal

It depends on how you're counting it. Resistivity is usually measured by dimensions, and aluminium's #4 by that measure, but aluminium is far less dense than copper/silver/gold, so if your limiting factor is weight (often the case) aluminium is the best.

But merely wrapping something in aluminum foil would leave small gaps that I think would defeat the shield.

There's leakage, yes. But everything I've read suggests that you can achieve very high reduction with enough layers, and "very high" suffices (one only needs to bring the voltage inside below that needed to destroy the device, after all - it doesn't have to be brought to zero).

I got one from a guy who claims he was Special Forces. Said a bunch of the SEALs that tagged along to get Marcus Luttrell fucked up their hands because they had to fast rope double the distance they were used to and did it with the wrong gloves, and had to get evaked out.

I'm already a pretty infrequent visitor, but will certainly reduce that to near zero if/when they pull the plug -- I imagine they are aware of the number of such users, but may not care.

I agree. That's exactly the type of book that JTarrou should write.

Yeah, if anything the average wood quality was better back then because we hadn't run out of old-growth forests yet. It's really obvious when you compare antique furniture to most modern stuff.

“Might work” only in the limited scope that reply chain was talking about. There are innumerable reasons for private citizens to remain armed, as you’ve enumerated with excellence.

Yes, and in reality fifties houses were below the standard most working class Americans expect today, both in terms of being tiny square footage single floor houses and because they lacked air conditioning and were extremely flimsy even by the standards of modern US single family housing.

In another reality, there's a ton of them in my neighborhood being occupied by working-class to upper-upper-middle class Americans. Many now have had air conditioning added, but flimsy? They're made of wood, not ticky-tacky.