I know. I'm making an effort to engage in good faith, though, as I don't know much about him. I have a poor opinion so far, and am inviting a surprise valuation.
The other person I've spoken with previously, so I think I understand their worldview.
The occasional slapfight between local characters is okay with me. Personally I prefer the ones between impossible and antonio.
play our game of the month
Don't know what you're talking about, tell me more.
We should honestly have the COINTELPRO guide in the sidebar. I don't think it's gotten out of hand, at least. Other wins are getting hit harder than us, we're kind of a minor target in comparison.
I think you are being baited into a meme. At least you're not asking in french.
Normally I'd just show you the knowyourmeme page, but I guess they suck now, they seem to be doing a bad job keeping up with memes. It's poor taste to me to directly link the associated video. Yes, it is a /pol/ meme.
I'm telling you this since I don't think you want to make them laugh. Maybe it's just me, though, as it's been hours and they didn't follow up with the next part of the script: "Well, you know who".
It sounds a little extreme, and I know you're just illustrating how fucked these people are, but I sincerely agree that exposure to environmental danger can be an outstanding teacher for children.
Had a great forest to explore as a kid, which provided isolation and exposure to wild animals. But the forest was also the local dump for inconvenient trash, such as refrigerators and other things that become very hazardous to climb on (local dump wanted money to take heavy trash, so obviously you save money by dumping it in the forest). No big deal, you get gouged on rusty metal, you drag your ass home for first aid - next time you don't rush around scrap metal. Kids are tough.
Best times of my life were spent exploring that during winter, as the ice would open up new paths and reduce animal encounters. Would rig up rope at various points to make climbing easier. Probably should not have drank that creek water that pipes were emptying into lol.
Just rural childhood things. You can't get the same kind of respect for nature without being exposed to nature.
A little jealous, it looks like it's written in an interesting way. Written for precision rather than ease of understanding.
I'll share my source to grant a comparison.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th edition), year 2000. (I thought it was older, shame on me for not buying ancient dictionaries when I had the chance).
Racism. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Which is basically what I remember being expressed in the 80s and 90s, so I'm not sure when the common definition really changed. What year was your dictionary from?
I've always considered racism a sign of mental weakness because you're failing to take responsibility for your own problems.
Assuming you're using the version of racism that means a racial/ethnic hierarchy exists, isn't that only true when it's an endgoal belief? For example, I could use it as a stepping stone to say that everyone is genetically predisposed towards some proficiency or behavior, but them making a choice whether to embrace it just increases the weight of responsibility on an individual. Whereas a person that stops at the racism has less use for responsibility because genes are the final determiner.
An archive contains a link to the original url. By using an archive, you can satisfy both sides, because people that care about click measurement can visit the original.
Edit: after reading some of your other comments, I think you should leave this place because you aren't ready for it. Lurk for 2 more years, as they say.
If you must engage with strawman master, please keep it in the comments. Bait-biting is embarassing enough without making a new thread for it.
Just wait til whoever this guy is realizes that money can come from motivated private entities. Or even just a little step up to realize that another nation's government could fund it.
I've been really reluctant to watch that, even though it was one of my favorite spinoff books in DC comics. Does it stay true to the original? I have a very low opinion of their productions in recent years.
demographic
I don't think this term necessarily means a group with ethnic or otherwise immutable ties. Like, gamers can be a demographic, or catholics.
The mod hat invites a degree of pedantry. Though I think it's a dangerous slope to be banning attacks on groups that chose their group, such as christians. If you think faith is an immutable characteristic, then that's another matter entirely.
Some meta comments while I'm here:
The inability to block terrible posters acts as a disincentive to participate. I've had to memorize more names because of this. Can we at least get the user tag system going here like we have on reddit?
I would prefer if bans and other moderator punishments weren't so discreet, as well. It's a different message for you to remove a post than it is for you to remove a post while enacting a punishment. In good faith support of the rules, punishment should be a public display. To hide the punishment is like an implication that the enforcement is not just.
I think it'd also help cool some heels if users had a better opportunity to rag on mods for the inevitable re-banning of local characters like theimpossible1 (he livens things up even if he's breaking the rules).
Implication in the quote that he thinks you didn't read past the headline. But I'm going to suggest he may be pitiable - it could be that he's subconsciously afraid to start re-evaluating his priors. Probably a common problem over there nowadays.
To make a classical reference, the allegory of the cave as written by Plato, describes a possibility. You've left the cave and seen the true world, returned to the cave to bring freedom and enlightenment, but the others in the cave lash out at you in response. Such things get compacted in various memes, like the red pill stuff.
Put another way, your father's probably happy or content with his worldview and he sees an unhappy person advocating for a different view (and part of his worldview is probably that all alternatives are lies), so he'll think that taking this view will remove his comforts. I add the parenthetical so you aren't misled into thinking your happiness would lure him out of the cave.
I am not happy about conceding linguistic ground, but I find myself abiding by such changes in favor of easily communicating with normies. Fully reverting all definitions is too big for me, but I try to hold my own line in the sand.
A lot of times, I'll just ask the other person to define a term they're using because it's shocking how often people use words with a weird definition attached. And then I'll use their definition instead of the term, (like an autist) because it's ridiculous to agree to new definitions on a whim.
Sounds good. Basically making a new suffix out of an old word, right? I'm unsure about how it ought to conjugate or whether it would work better with the common english spelling (dropping the "a").
I think you're right that that's a common feeling, even outside of a response to homo stuff. Could apply it to other tiresome things, like diversity or globalism, etc. Provided you find latin root words for those as well. I think it could take off in the future, though - this feeling is set to only compound in response to the unrelenting campaign.
I've already seen the groundwork get laid for the response there. They'll bring up how "hydrophobic" just means that something is repelled by and unable to mix with water. Applying that to things like homophobic sounds agreeable enough - then anyone convinced by that argument will help peddle it elsewhere.
Fortunately I have not seen this really take off yet. Maybe once normies are less afraid of naughty feelings like hate and revulsion.
I'm reminded of Sam Hyde saying that bullying should occur "early and often". Presented satirically, it still has some truth to it. Some people need to be kept in line, to put it bluntly.
Put more nicely, our present scenario permits tyranny from passive/feminine/victim-like angles, but no masculine ones (let's ignore the multiculturalism non-integrating immigrant problem like the media does for now). The power balance is messed up. The how of it is difficult, but really should be acknowledged more often so preparations can be made for future safeguards.
A small amount of social violence in response to proper social taboos actually works very well to reduce the extreme over-confidence of most modern day bullies.
I think most of the people in this place would agree with your general point. The speeding ticket fine is a good example; that monetary fine can hurt a lot for some people, but some tazing would hurt for every person - and enforcement doesn't work well if it's not received equally.
The people in charge of handling these laws and enforcement systems seem highly out of touch with reality. It's hard to not assume that things are compromised by clever predators like sociopaths who are making adjustments that make it easier for the next sociopath.
I think a large chunk of the problem comes from some assumption that got made in the past about the government having a monopoly on violence. You and I know that's not the intention behind the founding of the US. But here I am, in a society where I get in trouble if I tackle a thief (and there's no penalty for frivolous lawsuits). The appeal of comic book heroes can come from a desire to enact needed justice, not simply the desire for a superman to act as your savior - I find myself often advocating in favor of vigilantiism, even if it causes extra problems it might be worth it to solve other problems.
If enforcement of social boundaries, rules and expectations were enforced by random citizens rather than specially elected enforcers, that would mean that only laws that people care about get enforced. This is great for society, but terrible for current power wielders. Laws don't protect men, men protect the law; or, if no one wants to enforce a law, then it stops being a law. Somewhere along the line people took up legalism as a replacement for ethics, and decided "I should obey the law because it is the law" instead of "This is the law because we all value it enough to hurt our neighbors if they violate it." It also would mean that immigrants that fail to integrate will find trouble, and that's pretty naughty too.
You're wrong. Some people have no place. There is no place in society for infant rapists and puppy fuckers. Similarly, there is no place for a power-monger that hunts people for power.
Been thinking about this some. My first inclination is to suggest blood sports, but the first step of that is basically to enslave or imprison them, which is basically rounding them up. All my other solutions revoke their rights as citizens, so I guess you're right - though maybe a society with a built in slave class...no, I think I've heard that story.
I'm realizing that there needs to be better tools for discerning whether a person is irredeemable, but that'd kind of solve itself if we could go back to having community in real life or some trait of high trust. This would let a "bottom-up" solution occur, whereas a "top-down" solution would be making all systems of power resistant to people that lust after power.
Though personally, I'm eager to be able to identify them more efficiently. If I could accurately identify all the ones I come across, perhaps I could find one that I can stomach researching. I personally can't stand not understanding how other people think, and the whole thing with how they don't hold principles like normal people makes it hard for me to imagine.
Oh, neat, I didn't think anyone was actually running a blockchain-tech site yet. Very interesting, I hope it can grow.
We're sorry but this site doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Can you tell me about this site? Denying view without java makes me unwilling to turn on java. Is it another reddit clone?
I was hoping for a Protomen reference, and I wasn't disappointed.
I was unaware. Most of the mtg players I hear from seem to despise the proxy thing. I assume it's a result of them taking the speculative market too seriously.
I can't say much about the failures of that reddit group, it's an old tale for most of us here for sabotage to be permitted where it shouldn't be. Communities that hold outcasts misunderstand the nature of inclusivity. Hopefully you don't need to participate in their crap to get your proxies.
For a little while, I just made my own proxies - bad quality ones, usually sharpie on spare basic lands. I stopped bothering to play after a while because I became bored with the game. Even wotc seems bored with the game now, with how hard they push this highlander whatever format.
As such, you won't be able to hold out for long, because they will throw absolutely fucking everything at you to take your shit. They don't even know how to do anything else, so it never occurs to them that they could build something.
Hmm. I can't really argue against what you say, but I feel backed into a corner here. Tell me, what place can these leftists hold in society? They want positions of power, but I don't think they can be trusted with power unless you can somehow keep them focused on foreign enemies. Leftists would do great in the CIA, probably, but I'd rather disband them (and stop harassing foreign powers altogether). I don't know if I could trust them to even work as executioners, because they might botch the process for a thrill.
I prefer to believe that every type of person can be put to use in some way. And I don't think you would advocate for them all to be rounded up and "dealt with". Ideally, society would somehow discourage leftist mentality, but we have a long road there (if it's even possible) - so until then, how to manage this volatile "resource"?
The larger the centralized system is, the less efficient it becomes, the less responsive it is to shocks, and the more likely it is to collapse.
I do agree, but I thought even your liberal libertarianism was somewhat decentralized? Wasn't that one of the foundations for libertarianism, getting away from our current excessively centralized government? Or was the point that it's a middle ground between the extremes?
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep them isolated in their reservation? Set a border and regulate who can cross that border. Have someone go check on them once in a while, take a report for data. Increase status checks when they make it to certain technological benchmarks, like iron forging or blackpowder. Maybe even confiscate phones and computers when they go in. Basically make Australia 2.0, but for unhappy people instead of criminals.
It might sound a little cruel, but I think it's legit. Keep entry voluntary and allow everyone inside to fail. Possibly don't allow them to come back, but make that stipulation known beforehand.
I doubt the hardcore leftists would really sign up, because that shouldn't sound like any kind of power to them.
And if no one signs up, the space can be used for sociological experiments that can't be done in a university (or on US soil). Though I guess it'd be a "black site" then, because experimenting on humans is seen as cruel.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain.
I don't understand. Isn't stability about the ability to maintain present balances? What makes it stable to you?
I would say genes plus environment. If I were raised in a South American jungle, no way would I utilize the same behaviors I do today. I'm willing to allow for genes being a higher scale factor than environment, but let's not bring environment down to 0%.
Well, yes, that would be outlandish. Culture causing genetic differences? The only way would be to say it's mate selection and (often accidental) eugenic/dysgenic practices.
I'm surprised those wiki articles still exist, as this topic is kind of forbidden in the normiesphere. I'd be more interested in seeing research about the potential association between willpower and genetics, as I consider that the key to overcoming bad genes. Because you sure as shit can't teach willpower.
To rephrase crudely: a nigger is a nigger because they don't choose to stop being a nigger. Thus nigger is not an immutable characteristic. If you're born and raised to be a nigger, hell yeah it's hard to not be one, but accomplishing that should be celebrated (with social acceptance). Of course, the standard assumption is that a nigger can't choose to stop - much like a dog can't choose to tell you what it wants for breakfast. Like "whoa are you a human now?" - it's evidence of a radical event (or a mistaken observer).
This basically amounts to expecting large amounts of the populace to become self-actualized, though, and I understand how unlikely that is.
And then the whole globalism monoculture thing. If that ever finalizes, you'll be right, because all actual culture will be dead. I guess the consolation there is that we might get gene editing technology, but I doubt that'll be as nice as imagined.