I said black “history,” not “historians.” Although you shouldn’t entirely ignore the culpability of the race grifter academia blacks as well. They do exist.

As for “turning their language around,” I’m not disagreeing with your tactic, I’m disagreeing with your verbiage. When you say “appropriating black history,” you are saying that pieces of black history are being taken. “Appropriating black history” would be if Ubisoft made an Assassin’s Creed game in Africa but replaced the role the Zulu played with Europeans or something. But there’s no black history involved in this. It’s the blackwashing of someone else’s history. Thus, you should say “appropriating [Japanese] history for blacks.” That’s just grammar. My complaint is that you’re expressing the opposite of what I think you intend to express… unless you really are writing this from a perspective of “those poor dumb blacks, being taken advantage of by the liberals,” in which case, lol.

Writing it as “appropriating black culture” makes it sound like black history is the victim, instead of black “history” being the vandal. When they make black vikings or black samurai or whatever, they are not appropriating blacks into the culture. They are appropriating the culture onto blacks.

I’m not sure that resigning to drop off the radar and enjoy my looted millions for the rest of my life would be anything someone had to “force” me to do, but I don’t have the kind of egotistical ambition that would put me in a position like his in the first place.

I'm not that guy, but I don't usually watch long videos because it's often 20+ minutes of some guy rambling to say things that would have taken me a minute to read in a more focused piece of writing. Usually posted with the title "thoughts on this entire podcast?" and no time stamp.

I'm not watching this video because it's got every sign of being vapid engagement bait.

Well they'll need to learn or they'll get wiped out.

So far, they’re mostly picking option two.

But is there any OS to abandon it to? Windows has probably always been spyware, but it’s getting increasingly blatant—and also incompetent and DEI—about it. Apple is, of course, a brand entirely built on the hipster/socjus image, so that’s no alternative. Being fed up with one or both of those two big players is usually the impetus to jump to Linux. Where does one jump from Linux?

The big barrier for Linux is already that it’s infamously filled with the need to troubleshoot to make things work with it, and it’s the third-place player. I can’t imagine that an even more obscure OS would be better in that respect.

You should still be concerned when you see signs that the industry is being subverted.

Okay, but all Dom has is “I read this comment one way, it turns out it could reasonably be read a different way that doesn’t imply what I thought it did.” At best that’s a “maybe this guy could be an alt, I’ll watch both of them more.”

But Dom jumped right to “he IS an alt.” Plus, once you look at the user history and realize that Siegfried has a year of consistent history her, the “he’s an alt” theory starts looking sillier.

I mean, what’s the reasonable “persuasion” for convincing a guy that’s clearly determined to believe only one thing?

More importantly, that was a response to you commenting on your opinion, not Dom’s, and either way it’s quite correct for Kienan to point out that there is no good evidence for the alt theory, so, again, if the importance is in persuasion, how come you aren’t going “gee, the lack of evidence makes the argument that he’s an alt look unpersuasive”? Instead you’re reversing burden of proof.

Yeah, but will the black woman be competent? Because the WEF under Klaus has objectively been fairly successful at its aims—would his metoo replacement continue that success? I’m hoping she’d fuck it up… although at this point, even a fuckup could be catastrophic on its own way, depending on exactly how it plays out.

I don’t think he actually watched it. I think he listened to the song and then got curious about if the thing it was attached to had been viewed by anyone.

If he actually did watch the show just for the closing credits song, that’s very strange indeed.

it also happens when you attack in the wrong way.

Right, but that's encoded in the rule. What do you think a "bad target" is? The rule could be rephrased as "the morality and methods of a tactic must be proper and proportional to the target," and it basically means the same thing. Unless you're intentionally setting your ceiling for morality much lower than most people (for example, if the line you draw for "unforgivable" is "I'm not allowed to kill anyone, ever, for any reason," or "there is no case where spying/doxxing/getting someone fired is ever okay"), then you have to admit that there is a certain amount of moral standing that affects what you can do to someone and why.

Now, if you're dreaming up exceptions like "well, I can't see any case where you should be allowed to imprison someone for a decade, repeatedly torturing them and nursing them back to health to start over again..." fine, I agree, that's a tactic that doesn't really have a good target and you have found an exception to the rule. But extreme hypothetical edge cases can break every moral or tactical truism. That doesn't make all of them bad for general use.

Sometimes it's nice having an asshole on your side, but only as long as they're on your side and aren't making you look bad.

Is that not just rephrasing what he said? “As long as they’re on your side and don’t make you look bad” is just another way of saying “as long as they’ve an asshole to the right people.” Even “looking bad” is just a function of attacking the wrong people.

To be fair, just as how “kike” means “circle,” “nigger” really just means “black,” “gook,” “chink,” and “ching chong” are essentially the racial slur equivalent of doing a bad imitation of someone’s accent, and “jap” is literally just a shortening of “Japanese,” but if I say any of those, you can assume I’m expressing a bit more contempt than the literal translation implies. Ironically, the (false, I think?) etymology of “cracker” as “person cracking a whip” would actually make it the worst racial slur under this standard, because it’s the only one I know that is based on misplaced blame.

Reacting to insults towards one’s identity and in-group with anger is probably a healthy self-defense thing, frankly. If whites did that sort of thing more, they’d probably be better off.

Edit: important to note, though, that the institutional power of that anger should probably be limited to personal choice—“he called me a nigger, so I’m not going to be friends with him.” If your righteous anger about being called a mean name results in a person being debanked and fired, or in you beating him to death and getting a relatively light sentence because you were “provoked,” maybe the guy using the racial slur had a point.

I may not agree with his specific morality, or aims, or the groups he might sympathize with (he’s a Muslim), but strictly speaking, I don’t think that that quote is untrue. Terrorism is effective, guerrilla warfare is effective, and tactics like suicide bombing are hard to counter.

I mean, a large part of what lets the cartels control states like Mexico is because it’s understood that if you go after them, they’ll torture not just you, but your family, to death. What is that if not rational, effective use of terrorism? Abhorrent, detestable, sure, but rational and effective nonetheless.

at least I'm self-aware

You attribute every downvote you get to “conpro bot networks.”

Is “Awesome Jew” an anti-Jew or anti-Israel parody account? I just can’t imagine being this tone deaf. This is almost worse than gopower, and I’m sure that guy’s a troll.

My immediate thought is that almost no one would have attached it to her in any way if she did not go attaching her face to it. Honestly, I do think it's kind of weird to focus the camera on random people in the crowd (unless they're obviously holding a sign/in a costume/etc.) but I don't think it's an issue worth making a stink about.

And, again, if you're embarrassed by it, don't make a Tik Tok attaching your fucking name to it. You can't convince me anyone was approaching her going "hey, I know you! You're that ice cream eating girl!" At most she probably got teased by a friend or two.

No, I agree with you. Her eyes are offputting somehow.

Well, it is stunning. Just not in a good way.

nor is there any sex, or even the hint of sex.

There are a lot of topless women and jokes about either intentionally or accidentally peeping on topless women, though. As well as at least one pervert joke character. I’m not sure I’d call it a sex comedy, and certainly not a transgender sex comedy, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s “[not] even a hint of sex.”

Which isn’t a bad thing, it’s all well-written and funny, I’m just saying that it is definitely a little racy.

Well said. Of course, both the pedo spammers on this board and modern society writ large also provide an eloquent, if unintentional, argument for setting an age of consent and sticking to it like hell, even if it’s a little arbitrary, so I don’t mind it being at 18… but pretending you’re a creep if you acknowledge that the 16 or 17 year old is obviously, visibly post-pubescent and would likely have been married or looking to marry as little as a century ago is strange.

(For that matter, I believe the legal age of consent is 16 in more individual states than not, although I could be wrong and I don’t know how that interacts with the federal law).

I think Age of Mythology's remaster (Extended Edition in 2014, not the OTHER remake they announced recently) was well-received, although I didn't play a ton so it's possible there was an issue I'm forgetting with it. They did make an expansion for it two years later that everyone hated, so I don't know how that impacts the scoring.

"The hen can't possibly need all of that bread. The other animals need more food than she does."

It's the same thing you see with blacks and women—point out ways in which the system is clearly biased in their favor and you get told "actually, that's just [ism] because they're infantilizing them." Then, of course, they do nothing to actually end the preferential treatment that they say is offensive.

The weird thing to me about it is that they always do it when they're... actually talking about God. It's not "oh my g-d, I can't believe that happened," it's "G-d blessed me with wealth and kids" or whatever. But shouldn't the second one be fine? They are literally referring to God.