KIA2 never really was, that's just where it originated and is (theoretically) a common interest of most users. The .win site certainly wasn't ever that.
I was going to say that her statement isn't correct, because Israel (and probably other countries in the middle east) also has a high rate of circumcision due to Judaism (or to be more general, as you put it, Abrahamic tradition.)
I'd like to point out that Project Gutenberg has a copy if anyone that's interested doesn't know where to find one. I'll try to find a link a bit later when I post my discussion of these chapters.
Women was literally the sole point of TI1's statement. I merely pointed out that while he was correct, he was once again being a bit monomaniacal about his pet issue.
I don't think that's really necessary, because as I understand it bills are passed based on the total number of 'Yes' votes, not the ratio of 'Yes' to 'No' votes. If you want to make what is functionally only a a political statement against a bill as a representative, I think you should be required to be aware of the content of that bill.
Forcing the sponsor to read any bills they propose (probably three times, maybe four; once to introduce to committee, once as amended in committee, once before the whole body as amended out of committee, and once before the whole body as amended from the floor) would be great, but I'd add the stipulation (as suggested in my other post) that if a congress critter isn't present for at least the entire final reading, they can't vote on the bill.
"Colorblindness" is a laudable ideal, but it is easily subverted by groups (or possibly even individuals) who refuse to go along. It's also contrary to human nature, but to build a successful society there are certain elements of human nature you have to overcome (though acting as if they don't exist after you "overcome" them is just asking for failure.) I don't think that the US can survive continued racial tribalism, but the solution to this problem is not a simple one
I don't see anything wrong with a society wanting to be ethnically homogenous, or even enforcing that, but this hasn't been the case in the US in a very long time, and it probably isn't practical to eject around half the citizenry purely on the basis of race, nor would I consider that to be a moral solution. The US (and every country) does need to be enforcing some degree of homogeneity or it will simply cease to exist due to irreconcilable factionalism within the populace.
I would propose that the US needs to revert back to a system where the states, cities, and--most importantly--individuals hold the power. In order to preserve this, you would undoubtedly need to have a populace that believes in and upholds those ideals, which given the current ideological makeup of the populace, would likely require some "unpalatable" actions (anywhere from restriction of voting privileges, to splitting the country, or perhaps beyond.)
Obviously I've glossed over and simplified a lot of this, and it certainly strayed pretty heavily from the original discussion of racial tribalism and colorblindness, but suffice it to say I don't believe the US can survive under continued racial tribalism, and I don't believe (re)creating an ethnostate is a practical or moral solution. Ultimately, i believe that colorblindness must be something adhered to by the overwhelming majority of the US populace, or we will cease to exist as a coherent country.
People talk about term limits for politicians, but what I'd like to see is term limits for laws.
Requiring (most) laws to sunset if not passed again sounds like a brilliant idea, and I'm not sure there are any arguments against it beyond "it would just cause more gridlock in congress" (which I would generally consider to be a good thing) or "people would work around it so it'd be moot", but if there are I would love to see them.
there would be giant omnibus bills that reupped everything
The workaround to this (and other issues) is to ban bills greater than a certain length, and/or actually require the contents to be read by/in the presence of every congress critter before a vote (rather than allowing congress to waive those requirements.)
If the roles were reversed, Impossible1 would be speaking at the UN
I don't think it's entirely fair to directly compare TI1 to LW1 and LW2 (or any of the other misandrists that have spoken in front of the UN, if I've misidentified this reference), especially when you added the disclaimer for the other example, if only because TI1 doesn't appear to have misrepresented his beliefs at any time (he gains no social, political, or monetary benefits from doing so.), and his stated beliefs are probably closer to reality than those of ZQ and AS.
You can apply this to any identity group that functions as a political bloc (blacks, jews, muslims, etc.)
Unfortunately, I don't think it is enough. If we still had a government operating on the principals of individual freedom and self determination that would be true, but with the massive number of laws on the books that infringe on these principles, and the massive disparity in the amount of force the government can bring to bear compared to an individual, we need the Republicans (or some group in government) to actively be nullifying these infringements and restoring the balance of power to where it should be.
I mean having a value doesn't do anything if it doesn't make a palpable effect on reality.
This is kind of a tautology, but I see your point. "Values" which are are defined by ones external circumstances aren't of consequence. To expand on your example slightly, an incel that adopts/professes the traditional value of "No sex outside wedlock" without attempting anything that might move them toward marriage is merely dressing themselves in an irrelevant ideological robe.
[...] Most [trads] only focus on the small picture and have no real plan, or even philosophical understanding, of the big web that creates the world they are trying to reject. [...] Its not the ideology that fails, its the people who adopt it being unable to actually commit to it. [...] "trads" cannot let go of the trappings of society enough to actually revolutionize it.
I think these theses are generally correct. Without any attempt to work with others and either take over the existing, broken system, or to build a parallel system with which to replace it, traditionalism cannot succeed. And particularly if they intend to build a parallel system, they have to be willing to sacrifice (some of) the comforts of the existing society in order to achieve their goals.
The US military contains the biggest logistics organization in the world, I think. Now if we arm the truckers with military grade hardware then that probably tips the scale.
Having values doesn't just make you superior.
I would dispute this (unless you mean "Just having values"), but agree that it's pointless to have values that don't preserve themselves.
You need to actually be able to defend your way of life from disruptive forces. Which is where the self labelled "trad" movement fails.
What needs to be added to Traditionalism in order to make it a defensible ideology? Or if that's a bad question, what actions do Trads need to take to defend their ideology?
OK, but he didn't say Stormers were the solution either. I guess I'm mostly annoyed that people are bringing up irrelevant non-solutions instead of either A) defending the proposed solution of Traditionalism or B) suggesting an alternative solution. Maybe I should have made it explicit that I wanted to argue what the actual solution is, rather than just being a naysayer.
Trads [...] send their kids to public school due to needing 2 incomes to live these days and buy into or don't call out globalist nonsense at their PTA meetings (IF they even go to them) or churches.
That doesn't describe trads, it describes normies. The whole bit about White Nationalists still isn't relevant (even if it's true) because at no point in this comment chain have I or anyone else advocated for White Nationalism as an ideology that can defeat Marxism. I appreciate that you attempted to answer the original question, but I think it's a leap to expect because I suggest that Traditionalism is incapable of defeating Marxism, that I will then propose that White Nationalism can defeat Marxism.
You didn't address the question, you just pulled out a red herring that's disintegrated from overuse.
Can Trads actually defeat Marxists though? Everything I've seen has indicated that Trads restrict themselves to ineffective political action.
Apparently there are performance issues with that when you host accounts (specifically when those accounts access other... spaces(?) on the fediverse.) You could probably fix that and maintain user-friendliness by making a client designed to host its own account(s), but that's mostly speculation on my part and I have no idea if that would cause other issues.
I've seen some smaller ones on stand-up shows with family/friends (can't remember the names of the shows, and the only comedians from those whose names I can remember are going to be Christians, so if you're not looking for clean comedy with an occasional religious message I probably can't help you there.)
I think Gutfeld and Crowder are technically comedians, though both are probably more well known for their political commentary.
Chase is the brand for consumer banking, and JPMorgan is the brand for investment/big business banking, basically. They merged in the early '00s, if I recall correctly. I don't know why they'd ever split unless forced to under an antitrust ruling or something.
JP Morgan, Chase
These are the same company. Don't know why I feel compelled to point this out, but now you know™
Are you basing this being a 6-3 ruling on the fact that the dissent was only signed by the three "liberal" members of the court, and not (either) Roberts or Barret? I can see a case where either of those would simply not sign a dissent against the overall decision for political reasons.
You could argue (and indeed, at least one lawyer and one justice did) argue that there is only one mandate, which the White House is obfuscating by pushing it through different three-letter orgs with slightly different requirements in order to get around the fact that they don't actually have the authority to mandate that everyone in the country get the jab.
I think we need to hold a constitutional convention to form an entirely new ruleset. As I understand it, here are very few rules actually required by the communities.win team that would be required as a baseline, but downvotes explicitly exist as a means of the community moderation to some extent, so aside from what is required I'd prefer a pretty minimal restriction on what can be posted in a comment. I'm in favor of being somewhat more restrictive on posts (to reduce spam and maintain topicality), but I still lean toward "only what rules are necessary."