When you publish it or are done with the writing, send me a PM. I'd love to read it!

Dude, convenience literally is the mechanism of the frog boiling the water.

Netflix is the way it is now because of the siren song of convenience.

Piracy levels dropped when Netflix was good.

And look where we're at now. People don't give a crap about video quality, physical media is dying despite it looking and sounding 5 times better than streaming media,

digital media gets to erase history, put disclaimers in front of films about them being "problematic", etc.

And why? Because they offered something attractive up front that people didn't forsee the consequences of. Netflix didn't seem like it was going to destroy blu ray collecting at the time, early 2010s...but now 4K UHD's launch at 30+ dollars, and you can't even buy blu rays for less than 20 bucks hardly anymore.

It used to be, just 5 years ago or so, you could pick of like 70% of older blu rays for less than 10 bucks.

Want a blu ray of an 80s movie you remember fondly? 5.99 on amazon.

Now that same movie will be like 22 dollars on Amazon, because physical movies are becoming a niche area for collectors and whenever something is "for collectors" they know they can charge an arm and a leg for it and morons will still buy it because collectors are either rich or they're just foolish in terms of saving their money and making wise purchasing decisions.

Yeah, it's a bit of a tangent to the point of conveince, but it was the convenience of netflix that made all the services want the same thing, so every film studio has their own streaming service and now streaming is 10 times more expensive than cable because there's like 40 streaming services. Hence why piracy is going up again.

Convience is the mechanism for boiling water in a huge amount of areas.

You're the second person I've seen reference that. What does that mean?

He is

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MaupkJPw8wE&pp=ygURS3VyciBydXNzZWxsIGd1bnM%3D

And yeah the article explores that as part of it, but there's more to it. Even subtle things that are the opposite of how leftist Hollywood does things

Yeah, after I posted it, I saw that Karate one was uploaded 2 years ago. So I realized it's older than I thought.

It makes sense. You'd have to be around being funny for 20 years in order to be funny today in my opinion.

This guy is ridiculously funny. Stuff this funny hasn't been around since like Step Brothers with John C Reily.

He also has one where he's at Maynard James Keenan from Tool's dojo. (I presume it's the Dojo he goes to....I skipped most of the beginning of the video).

Hilarious stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGIis2OGB_A

Basically he's got this ridiculously retarded (in a funny way, not a bad way) martial arts style and he goes around to different dojos and tries to "school" them on how effective his martial arts style is.

It's very rare anything that pops up in the algorithim is funny, but this guy is hilarious.

I think he had the sunken cost fallacy.

When cognitive dissonance shows up because certain ideas, when steel manned to an extreme, which happens the further you take them, you have a few options.

1. Try to ignore that feeling, quickly shut that line of conversation down and suppress whatever feeling of discomfort you have; this is what happens early on in cognitive dissonance, but once someone goes too far, this is rarely merely what they do, instead moving on to option

2. Doubling, tirpling, quadrupuling down. If you build too much of your identity and your entire worldview upon an idea, and that idea is threatened, you're at risk of having a total identity crisis. You then have to think about ways you've been wrong and your wrongness has wronged others. You don't want to face that. Like an SJW, if they actually reflected on all the hatred they've spewed towards innocent family members because they were so bought into an idea, some wouldn't be able to take it, thus the doubling, tripling, quadrupuling down, because you need something powerful to sustain the cognitive dissonance rather than merely ignoring it.

3. Reassess your values and thoughts. This is the least chosen option regardless of political, ideological standings. It's the last thing people will prefer to do.

And the further into a sunken cost belief system, the less likely this option becomes.

I believe when people told Impossible1 that some of his ideas were too all encompassing and lacked nuance, even though he's 90% right on feminism, but just needs to dial it back and bring about nuance, his pavlovian reaction of needing to be right drove him to steelman himself into sunken cost further and further until his already exaggerated ideas were twisted beyond recogonition.

I'm not his judge, I'm simply playing at armchair psychiatrist, based on a guess. The truth could be any number of things including a troll. I just wish he wouldn't have felt that he needed to view things like "either me or them".

I don't know why people want to troll this place. This place is nicer to it's trolls than Reddit is to it's beloved people.

It's like, sure you can troll us, but you really don't know how valuable a place like this is on the internet is anymore.

It's like dragging a muddy boot across a nice rug....you're really just harming yourself and it's shame to see something nice get screwed up for yourself because you failed to see the value in it.

The worst people do here is call you a retarded faggot. That's just normal conversation and speak among friend groups where I grew up.

If you never had a friend group where you could call each other retarded faggots, I shed a tiny tear for you, like some sort of faggy retard.

Dude, Venesuala's living conditions could not get worse. They were eating dogs when they could find them.

This is the country where the infinitely farmable currency in World of Warcraft is worth more than their dollar...that's not an exaggeration or a joke, that's a fact.

If US "regime change" here made Venesuala's living conditions worse, I'd actually be impressed

If it makes you feel any better, I found it hilarious

Your use of that phrase is problematic. Fags like me have a rich, cherished history and I will not have you use it as a slur against me.

I'll have you know I've been losing some weight

Could be, have no idea what loss meme is

Yeah, my sister is always talking about the names. She never mentions the ethnicity because she's left leaning but I know without her saying....you know that meme about liberal female teachers trying to describe why they hate their job without mentioning black people and it shows a woman straining and nervous.

Yeah, basically that. I love my sister, but she has cognitive dissonance in this area, like many women in education.

But the names are absolutely crazy.

I think it should be crimiinal to treat naming your child like it's a novelty.

I'm 33, that's not the age where there's a giant gap in how people talk, not this type of gap, where there's a nearly foreign difference.

A 33 year old in the 80s would not be confused by the teens using rad and tubular and whatnot. Just like "Fa shizzle my nizzle" wasn't particularly confusing, even though it was retarded.

An 80 year old in the 80s would be confused by rad and tubular.

That sort of language degredation between people just over 10 years apart is not expected.

The reason is because the ebonics crap has been utterly confusing for decades. If you ever encountered even in mid to early 2000s, black people hanging out, it was so difficult to understand half of what they were talking about. Ebonics has been a seperately sort of developed thing all along. I was a teenager in camp and when the black guys were speaking the Ebonics, I couldn't understand anything. Was I "too old" as a teenager?

The reason Gen Z is non-understandable is because their slang is rooted in an entirely different culture than young people in the 80s were rooted in.

80s young people, were still iterating on the same white culture slang since like the 40s and 50s. Cool Cat, hip, square...things like that in the 50s became the rad, tubular, and bogus...thus the common throughline.

The more that slang among white culture has adopted ebonics, starting with the late 90s/early 2000s today, the harder it is to make an inference about what it means.

Someone who was young in the 50s and used "hip" would instinctively understand the term rad when they were 50 in the 80s even if they didn't personally use the word.

Ebonics is a totally different starting point, and Gen Z has embraced ebonics slang wholesale.

That's why it sounds foreign to a 33 year old, because it sounded foreign to teenage me as well.

"The slang term "based" is used to describe someone who is confident in their beliefs and unbothered by others' opinions, especially when expressing controversial or unconventional views."

That's essentially the definition I get, but it's such a meaningless word.

I see transgender stuff being called based by leftists, and it's not like snowflake where they're trying to unsuccessfully co-opt it.

Based is literally a normie term that means "I like this".

When it can be used for any context anywhere by anybody to mean anything, it's not a word.

I mean, someone could say "well radical and tubular were catch all terms"

here's the difference. If anybody in the 80s saw two dudes kissing and said "that's rad" everyone would look at them and go "faggot".

If you called your grandmothers painting of a cat "radical", people would roll their eyes at that and think it was a bit embarrassing.

There were contexts where rad made way more sense than others.

If a guy landed a gnarly trick on a skateboard and you say "that was radical dude", that is 100% an expected use of the word.

If a guy has a girlfriend that is fun to talk to and someone says "You've got a rad chick", again, that would be an expected use of the word.

Rad was the 80s version of the word groovy. There's certain things you would call groovy, and certain things where if you called it groovy, you'd get some weird looks, because it's typically reserved for certain contexts. Like if you were listening to Pink Floyd and you said, "this is groovy, this is far out" people would think "that's the correct use of the word groovy.

You could personally like polka music, but if you called it "groovy" people would probably laugh at you. You could say "It's weird, but I kind of like it" and people would accept it even if they ragged you for liking Polka, but calling Polka "groovy" would get people mocking you full stop.

See, the slang even as catch all as they were, had pretty specific contexts in which you would expect to hear them.

Based gets used by everyone for everything and is thus completely meaningless. It's a slang that means "I like this thing according to my sesnibilities".

And here's the thing, based is one of the EASIER inferred words despite every normie using it for whatever purpose. I was on Twitter and someone made a vague post and the black people kept saying "This is loss"

That's not a typo, they kept going "Is this loss"

"This loss"

"This is loss"

and other variations of it. I could look up the slang, but I have no desire to. I'm tired of knowing things like "cap" and "keep it 100" and other bullcrap. I kept scrolling until I could figure out what "This is loss" means, and I never could figure out despite seeing dozens of examples.

I assume since these comments were posted on a vague post that "This is loss" means something like "I don't know what this means"

Which again, is like retarded code.

Wouldn't typing "???" three question marks express the same thing and not seem retarded. The question mark is the universal sign of "I'm confused by this. But "this is loss", like all the ghetto slang, sounds like someone half retarded and barely understands English had a stroke while trying to communicate an idea.

So you're one of those who deny that women will say "yes that's what I want" when they really mean "if you do that, I will hate you forever...and me saying yes is a test to see if you know me well enough to know what I actually want from you"

Aka the "s*** testing"

Odd that you deny that in this particular scenario. Even people who aren't particularly ideological one way or another recogonize this ia a common trait for women. It was typical joke fodder for sitcoms it's such a well known thing.

And yet you deny it in this particular instance because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING IN ALL SCENARIOS!!!

If a scenario was different and my post was talking about how women and men can communicate easily with each other, you'd say "women only say what's convenient to say for them to achieve their means at any given moment" or "are highly manipulative and will say A when they mean B in order to trap men in something", things I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on, though we'd differ on the extreme.

The only reason you responded the way you did in this scenario is because you recogonized it would trap you and make you look bad.

So the question is, why do you feel you need to be right about everything on every topic? What's going on there?

I'm not being mean or insincere, there's something where you're not happy, or troubled beyond what is typical in this modern hellscape. I want you to be happier.

This place aint like Reddit where if you annoy someone, you're a "cast off" forever.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say I'd actually want you to do better and be happier and if you changed to be a little more agreeable, people would accept you.

I make comments supporting Jews and when I do that, people call me a retard. I don't care, I believe what I believe.

Then I make posts where people agree and they say "good point".

That's what's nice about the community here is it's not a popularity contest...they judge you based on exactly what you're saying at the moment.

You feel like you've dug a hole for yourself, but you haven't. In most other places on the internet, that would be true.

Most of us here wouldn't have any hostility to you if you dropped the hostility to every post every person makes...we're not grudge keeping scorned women who hang what someone used to be like over their head forever.

Yeah, and furthermore, the way Mike Lindell is behaving is a typical sign of innocence. Righteous indignation is not usualy the behavior you see out of guilty people. When people are unjustly character assassinated and get horrible things happen with life impacting consequences, the natural reaction is righteous indignation.

You'll see in a lot of police interrogation videos, the guys the police got who are innocent, become heated, whereas the guilty try to shift away and don't become so bold, the guilty usually are much quieter and less free with their speaking, being very cautious with lots of qualifiying statements and not being too "emphatic" on any one thing because they want to be able to backtrack out of certain things.

Everything about Mike Lindell's behavior screams "I'm innocent...this is a scumbag thing to do to someone, it's a waste of my time and I'm ticked off and I don't care who knows it because I know this is a stacked court where I'm guilty as default and will always be declared as such".

I actually wasn't aware of Auron Macintrye, so thank you, I'll look into him!

As fars as getting the article out, I'm happy for the encouragement and the push, but it's just been crazy lately. I was halfway through a 80% done with a different article and things have just been too chaotic right now. In about 1-2 weeks things will be at a point where I can write again.

Also I've realized I need to make a document of just every idea I have to write because I come up with ideas faster than I can write the articles.

I have a few I need to publish first, one of which, a response to a guy who wrote against "Christian Nationalism" will touch on some of these ideas.

But with the blog I just have to go at my own pace, getting articles out as I get them out, rather than forcing it.

I'll put it here though when I publish the one on this topic though. But like I said too much going on right now + a few articles already started I need to finish before then.

I mean, yes, of course.

The 99% isn't meant to be an accurate number.

No one has the accurate number nor could have any way of obtaining the accurate number.

The 99% is just a way of saying it's friggin ubiquitous. It's essentially 99% as I've observed it in my life, observing those around me, and observing public figures, including conservative public figures.

The 99% is because we know it's not 100%....Many on this forum are evidence of that

But darned if in the real world (offline) it doesn't feel like it.

White atheists behave like white atheists because of Christianity. Atheists behaved civilized because America had a moral boundary established by God's word that benefitted atheists in ways they didn't even realize. The hypothetical alternate America of white atheists where Christianity never came there, it would look heinous.

Want to know what white atheists will look like when fully removed from any Christian influence?

Look at Pagan white places like Greek with pedophilia being common, Vikings where they burned, looted, and murdered, druids who would commit human sacrifices, etc.

Look at what white people are doing today as they become more and more godless. Increased pedophilia (drag queen story hour, gender nonsense taught to children), futile thinking (men can get pregnant), just look at the average white person on a college campus today. I'd rather live the rest of my life in the middle east, than have to spend my whole life surrounded by college wokies

The answer is a legitimate answer that is neither naive nor dishonest. I'd rather be around African Christians.

An African Christian, indweldt with the Holy Spirit has FAR more in common with me than an atheist white person.

To be clear, I think it's a heinous thing that the world celebrates white people who are already a mere 8% of the world, shrinking and becoming minorities in their own nations.

I don't think it's the least bit wrong to try to not have a people utterly get invaded and replaced. I don't think it would be right for Japan to get invaded and the Japanese to be the minority.

I can hold two views. Holy Spirit > skin color and culture

and

America shouldn't be invaded by people who don't share the culture, and applauding the slow genocide of a people is heinous.

Also you think African Christians are bad because you haven't been around them. You look at general African behavior, and associate that with Christian, but that's not correct. Christian culture is it's own culture. When you see African culture, you're not seeing Christian culture. Christian culture is something where cultural differences that would be deal breakers become completely insignificant when stacked up to the power of God. You don't understand what the Holy Spirit does in unifying people. It is a trait demolisher in terms of dis-unity. As the Bible says, there is neither Jew, nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ. We are all heirs of the promise.

Essentially every Christian is a brother, with more in common with a Christian they've never met than they're own family if their family doesn't believe in Christ.

This is where we differ I believe. If I'm reading you correctly, I assume you ascribe to white nationalism, and a superiority caste of races and other groups based on some to be defined criteria, and only then are you not a liberal.

The goal of the 3 things I laid out is not to have a purity spiral. Not a liberal can be a big umbrella, it's not meant to only weed out everyone except the "most based of the most based"

As a Christian I fundamentally reject many of the beliefs I assume you hold, based on my understanding that we all come from Noah and his 3 sons, I do not believe meritocracy is liberal or bad. The Bible in Proverbs talks about what happens to the diligent wise worker vs the lazy foolish worker....that is meritocracy.

I don't believe in dividing by classes. In fact, the Bible says if a rich man enters your church, don't give him preferential treatment, treat him exactly the same as anyone else in the church. God is not a discriminator of persons. Someone's class is utterly meaningless.

You with your beliefs would fall into the not a liberal category, however, you'd turn just about everyone else into a liberal who doesn't ascribe to the specific beliefs you've laid out.

If you look at my 3 beliefs, they're very wide and encompassing.

That women voting was retarded should be obvious to anyone who studies the issue and thinks critically.

That the civil rights act was an unjust law should be evident to anyone who thinks about what humans should be allowed to do, studies history, and looks at the fruits of the civil rights act.

That there is a problem with the black community, most specifically for the purposes of this list, in America, is so obvious a blind man could see it.

These are all three things that are fairly evident truths that many many people could rationally fall under even though they may differ in many other ways. They're picked because the refusal to let these beliefs go is purely pavlovian, but keeping the beliefs still ties people to a liberal overton window for as long as they keep hold of them.

I as a Christian, and an atheist would differ on many other things, but we could agree on these core issues. In that case, neither of us would be liberals.

Liberal values are the values, generally speaken that were accepted practically as gospel starting in the 1960s or so.

The goal isn't to make a very narrow category of who is and isn't "not a liberal", it's to recogonize that this generally speaking, 1960s starting worldview is incorrect, and those who still ascribe to it, need to not ascribe to it or at the very least, search for themselves to at least justify why these accepted beliefs are correct beyond "society says it's this way and it feels bad to think differently" because if you are to move society continually in a disasterous direction, you better have a darn good reason for doing so.

If you want to posit a specific worldview you want people to ascribe to, that's your perogative, but I think your definition is far too narrow for the baseline of "not a liberal".

Your criteria is more like the foundation for a specific ideology or political party, rather than what I'm doing which is just establishihing what base level ideology that has seeped into most modern thought is incorrect.

Dude, I'm 33 and never going to get married. I decided no way. Marriage as it is today, men have zero rights. It's not the Biblical marriage.

Even back in the day when I once entertained the idea that one day I might get married if the right woman came along, I was highly, highly uneasy about the idea because of all the MRA stuff I knew. How can you say that me as a Christian is trying to get you to subjegate yourself to the modern idea of marriage. Again, I've realized that my role in life is to stay single, something Jesus said, to the one who can handle it, they should be like a Eunech.

Paul also said "In my opinion it would be better to not be married, because the end is near and a husband is partially devoted to his wife, while an unmarried man can be fully devoted to God".

I've never encouraged anyone to get married. I've only ever said that marriage in the modern day is essentially slavery (when you have no rights regarding your offspring, your finances, what happens in divorce, no way to correct your wifes behavior without the government labelling you an abuser and threatening you with prison, then it's essentially being held at ransom) and that I wouldn't risk it unless you really felt God calling you to do it, and you're sure it's God and not just endorphins and emotions. And even then, though this would give you zero protection and actually be depriving you of financial government benefits, I personally would not be married by the state, but would be married by the church as a symbol that if the marriage works it's because God has blessed the union, not the state out of my utter contempt for the modern day twisted version of marriage.

Marriage in 1700s, not a problem. Today's bastardization of marriage is not at all marriage. I personally don't believe the state should have ever been involved in marriage in the first place.

When I see people like Matt Walsh, a Catholic, say "You're not a real man unless you're married" I go huh....I guess he thinks Paul isn't a real man, or Jesus.

Btw, what I did just now, because I promised not to proselytyze, was not proselytyzing. I was just pointing out how I have zero agenda to get anyone to marry and have consciously decided to not get married because of many factors; the state of modern women, the laws of today bastardizing the concept of marriage, my own personal disposition and inflexibiltty, financial reasons, and personal convictions, etc etc etc.

The point is, why do you think that everyone who is traditional minded is primarily about getting men into marriage when people like myself are never going to get married?

I've put it this way. I'd be inclined to marry a woman....if women existed.

They used to exist, back before modern inventions and feminism utterly poisoned them and turned them into something utterly unappealing to spend a life with.

I agree that a good chunk of Conservatives are doing that "You're Peter Pan, grow up" in order to get men to marry and many are unkowingingly doing this on behalf of women and feminist interests because women realize men see how terrible they've become in the modern age so they use guilt and shaming tactics to try to bully men into marriage despite the utter lack of reason to do so nowadays in the West in particular.

And I acknowledge that there's a lot of crossover here with the Church....well most of the Church is Conservative and they're not above parroting bad talking points from the general Conservative side/right.

But name one single time in my proselytation that I encouraged you to get married or to put women on a pedestal? I encouraged you to place your faith and trust in Jesus. Not one place in the Bible does it say getting married is necessary for salvation, and in fact in several places it says that if you can handle being single, there are real benefits to being that way.

I'm essentially the Biblical equivalent of MGTOW.

Oh yeah, no, I'm race conscious, and I think there are biological aspects to race, including intelligence.

But I also know all people come from Noah and his 3 sons, so I reject any evolutionary bullcrap.

But it's undeniable that race plays a role in this world.

The thing I've argued is with the church being so race obsessed and not wanting to be seen as racist, is it's a stupid pursuit...we can't even figure race out....so just stop caring about it.

I give an example. If the Ninevites who were seriously jacked up....if they were more biologically disposed to being as jacked up as they were, or if it was purely "environmental factors", would it change the book of Jonah even 1%? No.

No biology precludes a people from repenting.

If the Ninevites were particularly messed up more than others partially because of biology, that doesn't change 1 single thing. They were formally one way, and then they repented.

So why doesn't the church stop pretending there is zero chance of biological factors and just say "let's preach to the black community the same message that Jonah preached, the message of repentance because the result of repentance is what we care about, not optics".

If black people have some biological reason for behaving so poorly, or if it's 100% environmental, neither case matters. The actions and attitude are sending them to hell either way, and repentance would transfer them to the kingdom of light.

The church wants to prove so hard they're not racist, that they're leaving segments of this country still in wrath because saying that behavior is bad would "be a bad look".

If biology impacted if someone could accept the gospel and repent, I could see why the church would be scared of the topic.

But one thing we know is that the gospel can be accepted by someone as simple as a child, or as brilliant as Einstein, that all people groups have among them believers of Jesus.

So why do they care if race has some stuff to do with biology? In heaven it won't matter, so likewise it doesn't matter to me, except for the fact that I'm not going to put myself or my nation in danger in order to not appear racist, because they think "not appearing racist" is synonymous with Christianity.

What makes someone superior and inferior is joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self control, love, vs the fruit of the flesh, so I have no pavlovian response to the idea that some races have higher IQ.

In a way, with the church being so obsessed to believe that race has no biological ties to IQ, sort of betrays them that they believe intelligence makes someone superior, which is an ungodly belief.

I'd rather take 1 million meek, loving, humble, but lower IQ people over any Eistein level genius full of malice and hatred any day of the week.

It seems odd that the church is so nervous about any implications about IQ or other behaviors regarding race, because when I read the Bible, the Bible is utterly unconcerned with someone's IQ, but whether they accept God's word or not, which every race and people can do.

I want to say to the church....you want a kumbaya race utopia....just wait, heaven will be exactly that...you don't need to screw up America to try and achieve it here. And even now at this moment when seperated, all Christians are united as the Capital C "Church".

I'm more united by the Holy Spirit with a man I've never met in Kenya who is indweldt with the holy spirit than a white next door neighbor who does not possess the Holy Spirit.

So churches need to not be so worried about what the skin color demographic make up of their individual church looks like.

There's one big church, and it's very muti-cultural and multi-racial.

Being comfortable in your position in life means you either don't care, or choose not to think if there's an eternity and the implications.

The worst place you can be in life while you're currently under God's judgement is content. Fellowship with the world is enmity with God.

This life is like a vapor, like a puff of smoke, you see it for a moment and then eternity.

Jesus spoke on hell over and over and over. He mentioned hell far more than He mentioned heaven....and why? Because He knows many people are content in their life and He's trying to sober them up.

The reality that there is an eternal hell, is meant to sober a person up. Repenting and turning to Christ out of fear of hell is completely legitimate. Many saved people turn to Christ out of the fear of hell. He wouldn't have spoken so often about it if it wasn't a legitimate reason. He said, do everything you can to avoid that place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I won't proselytize at you any more. But you need to dwell on this for your own sake.

When eternal stakes are involved "content agnostocism" is like a man sitting on the beach happy, ignoring that others are trying to warn him that a tsunami is coming, but he's happy on the beach right now so he intentionally closes his ears to the warnings.

Yeah, in heaven everyone will come from all nations, and it says we will all be one.

We will all be in unity, in Christ. I'm not sure there will even be race as we know it. When Paul talks about what we'll be like, he says to paraphrase, that what we'll be in this new state, he can't exactly say, but to think of it like a seed, where the tree is way more magnificent and different than the seed it came from.

We could all be golden in our bodies, or pure light, the glorified bodies. It might not even be "skin" as we know it, but could be like some sort of mixture of jewels composing a body.

No one knows, but the point is we know our eternal glorified body won't be like our eartlhy bodies. They'll be these perfect things that never age, have no flaws, etc.