And even in cases where maybe the odds were stacked against them due to a powerful authoritarian government, they still resort to this kind of bullshit when they're presented with an easy opportunity to thrive via refugee handouts.

I'm the first to opine that the problem with Dumbfuckistan is that it is full of Dumbfuckistanis, but as a counter point: in the era of globalism how often are a people actually allowed to rework their country without prior approval? For example, in El Salvador, Bukele rounded up ALL of the gangbangers and chucked them into a 21st century dungeon. How did Western NGOs respond? By calling him a dictator/strongman/threat to democracy. If he does something that bothers our betters at the State Department/CIA he will be Kennedy'ed.

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

Yes? Like most people for most of history. I think the US is about to take a turn that makes the fall of the USSR look like a market downturn. I'm not going anywhere. I'm certainly not going anywhere if I'm right.

Back in 2015 during Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, Sanders complained about Pharma executives taking the lead at the FDA. Sanders was wrong. Research scientists know nothing about testing and manufacturing drugs. It actually makes sense the regulators would be drawn from industry.

This is the opposite problem. Government officials should not be allowed cycle back to industry. That problem is far more dangerous than the industry to regulator track. For once the euphemism is right: it's the "revolving door."

Birth control is a whole can of worms. If you asked people if we should alter the biological processes of half the species in the name of social and economic advancement, they would be pretty cautious in their response. For some reason (sexual revolution, ie Marxist bullshit), we completely skipped the conversation: to question it now would be the highest form of heresy.

Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer. -- Paul Feyerabend

I think /pol/ thinks their posting on /pol/ is shilling. The amount of christcuck, jew on a stick, and Christianity is a Jewish psyop have exploded in recent years. I tend to agree: only guys like JIDF or ADL could seriously push the idea that Christianity is a 2000 yearlong Jewish psyop.

They know these guys do exist irl.

Amusingly Peter Singer (who should be feed into a woodchipper) argues in favor of legal infanticide while also disagreeing with Hamilton because certain "utilitarian calculus" indicates if you're just some shlep with nothing better to do, you should be obligated to save the violinist. Utilitarians gonna utilitarian.

I don't care for the faux VHS, but I understand it. Guy has talent, but I'm afraid that doesn't carry people as far as it used to. As to the "AI" voices, it's a fan project nobody should have cared; it's a tool just like Blender. I think this was released at a time where actors and writers are desperately screaming that they're irreplaceable. No one gave a shit about factory workers and miners over the past 40 years; why should we care about voice actors?

If I had a dollar for every woman who confused empathy with sympathy, I'd have 3.9 billion dollars.

Their evil, barbarous, can't wipe ass societies

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. If you take South America as an example, they're founded on the same Humanist cum Marxist ideologies as the US currently sits on. We have had the benefit of economic prosperity and an unexpectedly resilient anti-Statist constitution. I'm not certain that these will last much longer.

aren’t willing to roll up their sleeves and help with real solutions

Catholic charities in the US and Europe are epitome of this attitude. Once upon a time if you wanted to help those poor souls in a far-off land then you joined a religious order, rolled up your sleeves, and prepared to spend the next forty years of your life working your ass off on the other end of the world, probably ultimately dying of some tropical disease. Now you go to law school and join a "charity" that help migrants claim asylum. I say all this as a Catholic.

I understand Lutherans are similar, thus the Somali population of Minesota.

they are not as hard as doing the things that most young men are scared of, such as expressing your hopes and fears honestly

The men who are going "monk mode" have probably all tried this and found out the world and most the people in it don't give a shit.

If you think that neo-conservatives and actual Libertarians can be compared in any capacity

I literally just identified a similarity that has far reaching legal and social implications. As to you 80s/90s moral panic complaints: how successful were the conservatives and who is Tipper Gore?

They always wear the Roman collar, hell the Romans almost stopped wearing them in the 20th century, but these guys wouldn't be caught dead without one. They also always were a Stole which is meant to be worn during a liturgy, not about town. This tells you enough.

I'm with u/current_horror in regard to lolbert fatigue. Nothing personal, but your standard moral vs legal line is pretty ridiculous and has been the means by which neoconservatives (ie Trotskyites) have backed leftists for 70 years. "You can't legislate morality" has been a conservative line my whole life and its dead wrong.

All laws are written to promote a moral good. Homocide laws are written because preventing and punishing murder is a moral good. The Crean Air Act was written because preventing a polluted country is a moral good. Even fucking tax laws exist because supporting the operations of the government is (perceived) to be a moral good. Now some of these may be bad calls, but the principle remains.

Or, I should say the principle remains unless an actual conservative advocates for a law or moral position out of line with progressive ideology, then it's back to "you can't legislate morality" as our betters often tell us.

Thompson is wrong because she ignores the existence of positive moral obligations. She concedes personhood to the unborn because she has to for the rest of her argument to make sense, but then sets up a system where you could argue that parents have NO obligation to their children whatsoever.

We are used to discussing moral obligations in the negative, ie I am obligated NOT to bash your brains in. Positive moral obligations also exist. In fact, agreement is pretty universal in regard to a parent's positive obligation to care for their offspring. If you leave your child to die from exposure, the State will punish you. Given that Hamiliton has already conceded "fetal personhood" and that a fetus is located in its natural environment, it is reasonable to argue that the mother has a positive moral obligation to provide support. Consent, autonomy, and the rest of such dreck are dishonest distractions.

1. The unborn is a person in an early stage of development life like a child or infant; attempting to demarcate what separates one person in an early stage of development from another early stage of development is a fool's errand, even "Thompson's Violinist" concedes this.

2. Parents have a POSITIVE moral obligation to care for their children. Don't believe me? Stop feeding your kids and see what happens.

Ergo, the unborn have a right to the support of their mother's body, or more accurately, mothers have a POSITIVE moral obligation to provide support to their unborn.

This, by the way, is my standard response to "there is no non-religious reason to oppose abortion."

EDIT: This fellow really needs to square "It doesn't matter if it is a person" with "Nobody has the right to...". It seems he has unwittingly conceded something.

It was a rude awakening when I discovered premillennial dispensationalism was pretty much invented whole cloth in the late 19th century. That it is taken as undisputed truth by American Christians is really disconcerting.

Historically speaking, the term neoconservative refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.

When even your conservatives are commies (and Wikipedia is willing to copp to it) you know you're boned.

A "bishop" without an apostolic line of succession, ie a LARPer. Sorry Anglicans, your boy Henry 8 did this.

"The Taking of Pelham 123" is fantastic, especially if you're not used to Walter Matthau in non-comedic roles.

Here's a question in return. Will you consume AI product?

AI is the next big technological "leap forward." Problem is these advances have generally been bad for society. We didn't see the evils of social media coming, but the writing is on the wall for AI content. I'm not going to bat for the current generation of creatives, but what replaces them could be worse. The truth of the matter is that the Luddites were right, and it's time to consider if rejecting certain new things is a good idea.

Prager is a neocon, which is a clean-up word for Trotskyite, ie a Marxist. As such his views on good and evil are automatically suspect.

I’m surprised companies don’t just go back to aptitude tests.

Unsurprisingly, this goes back to government interference. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.) made it legally risky to utilize aptitude testing. This is also what turned Universities into diploma mills. You can't get in trouble if you just require a college degree for a job you used to train a high school graduate for.

Interesting observation. Handlers have always had the upper hand over artists using contracts and future employment. Seems their latest tool is making sure your talent is fugly and, well, talentless. This method of control can be extended far past the typical artist class into the professional and political classes.

Not in public

Not with your children

Not to influence society or culture

Don't ACTUALLY believe it

I know there's been some wrangling over religion here recently, but I'd like to posit the following simple idea: religion is not a lifestyle accessory.

I know that it is treated as such these days, perhaps by the religious most of all, but that does not make it the case. To be honest I've always been suspicious of a religion that promises you can do whatever you feel is right and demands no sacrifices on your part. Religion should influence one's life, and you should have an influence on the people around you. Otherwise, it's as pointless as the fedora tippers claim. Give me a devout religious person of most any faith and I will be able to find more common ground than I could with a Marxist who believes nothing.