I should have been more clear. I'm not calling James Fields anything. I'm saying that it doesn't really matter if the Nazis were good or bad, anything Nazi-related is absolute poison that does nothing for us. The damage is done, the propaganda was too effective, that is now scorched and irradiated earth. Hitler was the biggest, most evil and irredeemable villain in the history of earth and anyone who speaks his name with anything but disgust deserves a slow and painful death. That is how almost everybody on the planet feels about it, on a deeply visceral level that is immune to logic, and I don't see it ever changing.
Just by posting here, you are a nazi and a nazi supporter.
They use that label for anyone they mildly disagree with. Using the label for ourselves is a different matter entirely, that's when normies rev up their hate engines. It is in no way constructive to be heiling and saluting in the streets.
The narrative about Nazis and WWII might be deeply skewed, but I don't understand how people can think being a Nazi or Nazi supporter can be a winning move. The well is completely poisoned and when Neo Nazis show up and do their heil hitler shit it only destroys the credibility of whatever they're supporting. Which might be the intention.
The only thing this Nazi stuff has going for it is that if it does get people on side, they're likely to be people who don't give even the slightest shit about being called racist or whatever. They're not going to back down easily. But I don't think that's enough of a benefit to outweigh the overwhelming antipathy 99% of the population has toward the word 'Nazi'.
Or to change society to erase responsibility, and ensure what they're doing is 100% socially acceptable and illegal to criticize, because they can't stand being seen in any kind of negative light.
who has won several impressive awards
You could get those same awards by filming yourself taking a shit on the floor and saying it's about feminism.
whereby people who act like psychopaths towards people who are close to them maintain their self-image as "good people" by performing over-the-top empathy to strangers.
No, they maintain their self- and public-image as 'good people' BY being psychopaths towards people who are close to them. That IS the virtue, according to their demented religion.
I don't know. I don't even know how to begin fixing this.
That's because you refuse to recognize that you are the one causing the problem. The fact that you completely ignore reality to create a narrative that pushes your agenda is proof of this.
That's a huge drop in patriotism from 2019 to 2023, more than can be explained by the usual insidious subversion. Was the January 6 narrative really this effective at poisoning the well, or did something else happen? Was it Covid related?
And it's weird how community involvement rose significantly and then shot down again. My thought is that people are just not seeing anything worth fighting for anymore. Society has bared its diseased underbelly and people know it's only going to get worse.
This is disgusting. Not at face value, I don't give a shit if she's got self inflicted scars. But this is actively promoting self harm to impressionable youths. And they know it is, because they're the ones who always complain about how thin models set impossible beauty standards for youths to emulate.
This isn't representation. This is glorification. There is a 100% chance that this will lead to teenagers cutting themselves.
School walkouts are the laziest form of activism imaginable. None of those kids want to be in class anyways.
Especially when plummeting school standards means they'll all pass anyway. At least the ones with the correct politics.
Oh but they know better than people with life experience. They're educated don't you know.
They do have an interest in their delusional ideology, but at the same time it's always been about the worst people having socially acceptable targets to attack.
I don't blame parents for giving in, they've invested so much into their kids and by that point can't have more. That's part of why this treatment of them is so reprehensible.
But generally yes, people need to grow some balls and tell these lunatics to fuck off when they make their controlling, abusive ultimatums. Society at large has been thoroughly conditioned to instinctively react to appeals to emotion, and to recoil from any accusations of bigotry, but I think and I hope that the veil is starting to lift.
That literally defeats the entire purpose of the 15 minute city.
Not if the purpose is literally just to put everything in walking distance so most people can choose to meet their needs locally. 100% adherence isn't required, there is no chain reaction if there isn't a perfect success rate. I don't know why you insist on assuming top-down control that grips tighter and tighter if there's any deviation from the plan. I've told you I'm talking purely about infrastructure and incentive, a voluntary system that uses urban planning to encourage trends, not enforce adherence.
Yes, it's trickier doing it with urban planning rather than in separate small communities, and probably the biggest hurdle is making sure people are able to be employed locally. There's no perfect answer to that, but the ability to work from home helps.
I'm just saying if it's voluntary and not authoritarian, there are many potential benefits and few meaningful downsides. It would be an experiment worth trying if enough people were on board and enough resources were available. That's all hypothetical of course, but it's not an inherently awful concept.
No, I agree, your first example ('my body feels wrong and I know it's a delusion', etc) would be a requirement for potential based-ness. Personally, I'd extend that to cover those who lean into dressing/living as a woman if they're prepared to live with the social consequences of that (judgement, difficulty finding employment) and don't expect others to validate them. The honesty, self awareness and personal responsibility is the important part.
Exactly. I despise this emotional tyranny they try to force on everyone around them.
They come up with the most delusional strawman about the people they don't like and insist that anybody who shows the slightest support is complicit in directly hurting them.
Like maybe some people have more pressing concerns than showering your cult with praise and validation? Maybe they think the politicians that pay lip service to you are terrible for the country?
But none of that matters. You have to vote for the guy sucking the dick of LGBT+++ even if he's the worst possible candidate in every other aspect. Destroy your country, destroy your livelihood, destroy every principle you have, all to validate our endless temper tantrum.
It's abuse. They are abusing, manipulating and gaslighting the people in their lives, and everyone unfortunate enough to be exposed to them, constantly.
Yeah I don't blame you. Personally I think there are virtuous trans people out there who just want to do their own thing and not be a blight on society. If they're smart enough to break away from the herd and not believe the same garbage all their peers push, that shows strength of character. You can be mentally ill, acknowledge and take ownership of your mental illness and still be of net benefit to society. But it's a sadly rare phenomenon among trans people.
I get the slippery slope argument, progressivism is always a slippery slope. But 'live and let live' is quite workable in a strong society. It only enabled them because we don't live a strong society. We live in a society weakened by decades of insidious propaganda, and which is being subverted from all angles.
I can see the writing on the wall. I know there's going to be a tremendous, long overdue pushback against this degeneracy, and I know the pendulum is going to swing too far in the other direction. It's inevitable at this point because the degeneracy went too far in the first place.
But it still should be said: You can keep norms and traditions that discourage public degeneracy while turning a blind eye to consenting adults who do their own thing in private. Freedom is important to the fabric of society, and we need to defend it on an individual level even when it involves things we don't like. But the degeneracy we're faced with now, that absolutely needs to be driven underground.
I actually agree with this, freedom of association is as important as other freedoms and infringing on it is egregious. Especially when it's only enforced in one direction. It's commonplace for businesses to discriminate against white males, or for someone other than a white person (or maybe an Asian person) to hire only people of their race. It's commonplace to have clubs or groups that are only for women or for a certain race or sexual minority, you can't do it for white straight men though.
If they have the right ideas and ideology, they kind of are. But what you said below about not normalizing the gender identity stuff is a good point. I'd be happy if we settled on 'live and let live' but still held firmly to traditional norms.
Activists need to fight something This is why progressivism is always a slippery slope. It's a core feature. With each insidious movement of the overton window these people need to move to the next radical cause, because their entire identity is based around subverting norms and tradition.
They've been promoting violence through the thinnest of veils for a long time, and now we're actually starting to push back against them they're taking the mask off completely. They really believe all their own bullshit. They're itching for an excuse to kill over it.
To women like this, everything not explicitly approved by progressive dogma is a 'red flag'. They pathologize everything about men, our very existence, and justify it to themselves with outsourced irrationality they pretend is critical thought.
100% scripted. They were acting and reciting lines the whole time. Completely unnatural propaganda.
If you have freedom of movement, someone will attempt to fulfill a need somewhere else because they won't get what they want in the proscribed manner in accordance with their individual desires.
So what? Let's say you have 75% of people getting what they want within their 15 minute city and 25% are leaving to fulfill needs elsewhere. That's still largely a success.
You're making the assumption that these would be 'highly ordered systems' reliant on authoritarian control. Yes, the ones they want to implement would be like that, but that's not required for the idea itself. I'm talking purely about infrastructure and layout. There doesn't need to be restriction on movement, there doesn't need to be resource allocation or price control. It's just a matter of arranging the districts so all needs can be met locally. It's about logistics, incentive, efficiency and convenience. At most, you're being authoritarian about zoning, traffic and infrastructure.
If it doesn't have a 100% success rate and people are choosing to go outside their districts, so what? The point isn't to get zero extra-district movement, it's to lower it. On the other hand, if the majority of residents decide they don't like it and they move away, then it's a failure that wasted resources, but at least it was voluntary.
It should be illegal for banks to donate what is essentially other people's money. Maybe they can donate their profits if they retain enough money to cover every single cent of their customers' savings.
Could I please get some more context for what happened here? I don't know the background of this and the leftist narrative spin is probably the opposite of the actual truth.