This is one of the goofiest ideas I’ve ever read.
To be fair, there are some factors that go against your narrative as well. Timothée Chalamet’s mother is Russian Jewish and Austrian Jewish, and his father is non-Jewish French. House Atreides from Caladan (Caledonia, i.e. Scotland), the obvious good-guy faction, is also white. And if anything, making the poor desert people look like the stereotypical Middle Easterners and having the faction of white saviors empower and recruit them should be more offensive to the opposing side than not.
Only three of these women are capable of using the Force, one of them is a slaver, and one of them is a evil Sith wannabe. The messaging isn’t well thought-out.
When was that?
I believe the reason why is that many people who relegate women to being mothers also believe that men have many roles more important than being fathers. Not you, but many people do think that.
Unfortunately, you’ve again made numerous bold claims with no evidence to support them, and you’ve failed to describe how your factoids are relevant to the subject at hand.
This doesn’t follow from my comment. Who wouldn’t be bragging about what? What slave trafficking and institution hijacking is supported by taqiya? What is IMBLA?
Anyone can make up supposed facts that are purported to favor their arguments. For the purpose of actually informing people, it’s worthless to just say a bunch of things about a bunch of buzzwords and expect them to land.
But you were not one who “deliberately burn[ed] his home to the ground”. You were unfortunate enough to be innocently misguided by certain people in your society, and you had more important priorities besides devoting your life to nebulous political affairs, and once your situation gets bad enough, you’ll hope for help and charity to ease your challenges, whether it be from kindhearted people or from God.
Much of that is plainly incorrect, and I would urge readers to beware of someone making unfounded claims about historical fact that are difficult to verify as if those were sound support of their arguments. The most useful arguments are ones that demonstrate self-evident logic and don’t assume tenuous claims like “That's exactly how the Umayyad caliphate took over chunk after chunk of Spain” and “It's called taqqiya” as fact.
The Umayyad Caliphate conquered Spain mostly through conventional warfare, like in almost every conquest in history. Military force is what gives a conquest the impetus and the conditions to succeed, and it is something that these migrant waves are categorically unconnected with. Cultural subversion is typical of a conquest, but it is not the defining feature.
Taqiya is about avoiding persecution, not subverting and replacing an indigenous culture. It is not a military doctrine that Muslims are trained to follow; it is a philosophy and practice for surviving a hostile environment.
It’s common among the jingoist or statist minorities. Most people simply trying to live their lives don’t subscribe to values like that unless they’re sheltered enough from the consequences of conflict.
That’s a fairly reasonable perspective. The problem is that a lot of the people here are self-contradicting hypocrites who disguise their egoism and cruelty behind conservative morals that they wouldn’t apply to themselves.
That’s an incredibly ignorant statement. You’d expect despoilers and invaders to look like actual, militant, organized despoilers and invaders. Even in the worst of these videos, they’re clearly not soldiers or spies trained in subversion. Most migrants are people looking to better their own lives. Some of them do so at the expense of others. It’s immature and downright unrealistic to assume that most of them see themselves as conquerors.
No reason for you and u/Stumpy to make assumptions. I was just interested in your experiences. Not many Westerners go to the Middle East, so it’s interesting to hear from the ones who do.
I could still reasonably consider you an “evil bigot” even with your experiences, FYI. Experience doesn’t equate to wisdom.
Perhaps it is. The question is, does anyone here think that they themselves and their families personally deserve blame and deserve to stay and suffer?
Most people for most of history only stayed in unfavorable situations only if they were unable to leave. Why would you willingly stay?
What did you do? How long were you there?
You’ve been to the Middle East?
I assume that you live in a Western country and think that the West at large is undergoing a collapse. Do you think that you personally made your country this way? And if there were another country with better conditions that you could make a new life in, would you stay and suffer in your own country and force your family to do the same? I don’t think your analysis is an accurate representation of the situation that most refugees are in.
Is there a reason why you keep posting unpopular content here?
If you’re a fan of Scooby-Doo, FNAF, ’70s stop-motion puppet films, and/or analog media, you should really check out this film. Aside from pushing the boundaries of cinema, it’s genuinely a well-made, well-written tribute to the more innocent and thoughtful children’s entertainment of old. I hope Tilghman doesn’t get discouraged from making stuff like this because of the frankly malicious response to his usage of AI.
That kind of music might make rioting feel more exciting.
I’m surprised how many fans of Ahsoka, The Clone Wars and Rebels there are on c/KotakuInAction2 of all places.
I thought the “learn to code” people were mostly rightists making fun of laid-off journalists and academics.
It’s been a while since I’d last heard about the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.”
Here’s some information about it for those unfamiliar:
The term came from Michael Crichton’s speech “Why Speculate?” regarding misinformative, opinionated speculation in news media, delivered in 2002. This is the passage that originated the term:
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann [the quantum physicist who won the 1969 Nobel Prize], and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Kathryn Shortsleeve, a travel vlogger.
She doesn’t necessarily seem like a leftist based on this video, and she seems reasonable in general. Too bad about her loss.