1
iwantotalknow 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wait, wait. I mean, Liberal Sherpa, I get your point here. But let's not hold anything against her for fawning over Jesse Lee Peterson, that man is pretty AMAZIN' as far as things go. :)

And, I'm torn between believing she's just doing it for self-serving reasons or self-serving reasons + she really believes it no matter how removed from reality her belief is.

6
iwantotalknow 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think the issue can be fixed in some ways. I think Yuri Bezmenov was pretty spot on with his predictions - but he underestimated capitalism's effect on delaying thing, essentially getting the time frame wrong. The other thing he couldn't predict was the Internet and the iPhone - propaganda can spread at crazy speeds. That makes things go faster, but at the same time the Internet and the iPhone also allow for red pilling, and there's been a lot of red pilling over the past four years, lot of people only seeing the conservative message for the first time without insane disdain. Election will tell.

7
iwantotalknow 7 points ago +7 / -0

Tl;dr: James Lindsay of the grievance studies hoax wrote this, to help explain what he called the origin myth of intersectionality/SJWism/whatever you want to call it. Written in a more professional style, it essentially points out that the emperor has no clothes by accurately describing what "Decolonizing the Curriculum" means.

16
iwantotalknow 16 points ago +16 / -0

Par for the course. The person you know is in the grips of something, you can't really change it, forgiveness when times comes. I've known too many mid to late twenty somethings who have virtually no experience at life outside "I have my phone and a computer / console and I watched a lot of good stuff." who are ready to take over the world and tell us it should be just how they want. "UBI is good, it'll let people stop working bad jobs and go to university to really educate themselves." They see only the shiny, "Oooh! Stop working a frustrating job, go to University and get a degree that'll pay out a lot more and doesn't cost a dime and just makes society better." Talk to them about campus life, the uselessness of a great many degrees and the levels of indoctrination, full on with proof, stats, etc... Nope, they disagree, it's the best way they say, as they play on the 1200$ iPhone their parents bought them. Not 17 or 21, but like 29 or 30 years old. It's frightening.

3
iwantotalknow 3 points ago +3 / -0

Same place as you, maybe an interesting story.

I went to the store to pick up a physical copy of Murray's The Madness of Crowds, and while looking for it I see a guy flagging down an employee to ask where a specific book is - all I overheard was "Shapiro" haha. I see where they walked, and sure enough the guy was buying Shapiro's last book - Murray's was in the same area and the only copy.

There was a couple of spare copies of The Right Side of History in softcover, so I bought one for a friend I knew would likely read it. When I got in line, I ended up in front of the guy who had asked for help. No conversation, but definitely noticed we both had his book lol. And this was in Canadia. Small little bright side to my day :)

8
iwantotalknow 8 points ago +8 / -0

Sargon didn't have to go back - he's been there for years, monumentally ahead of the curve. It's the rest of the people that are catching up. Can't wait for his own site, moving ahead nicely last he talked about it.

13
iwantotalknow 13 points ago +13 / -0

I like Bari Weiss in general. Not at the top of my list of political commentators or some such, but an OK person. Unfortunately, she's been clearly aware of this for years and it took until now for her to make a stand. Like, three months into her NYT job she should've done this - long enough to give it a fair shot, like she's done. But she waited years on this because... who the hell knows, the left's been crazier than ever since Trump and she's more then just "in the know" - why did it take until now?

I'll still read some of her stuff, or watch when she's interviewed probably just like before, but it's one of those "Glad you did it. Why did it take so fucking long, since you saw it from moment one? They literally used you to give themselves credibility. Thanks for leaving though and slamming the door on the way out, maybe more people will notice." type of things.

-1
iwantotalknow -1 points ago +2 / -3

Everyone here who is incompatible with this country and wants to destroy it. I don't really care for skin color if you are smart, good, caring people who love this country and all the good things for which it stands.

I get what you're saying but I don't think that's the correct goal to aim at for America - it's a simplified vision, "get rid of the bad guys" type argument. Who disagrees with getting rid of the bad guys - especially when I know exactly what you're trying to say without reading any racism in a place there is none. I also think too much goes wrong historically with the "get rid of the bad guys" narrative - it's way too fickle depending on which way the wind is blowing. I definitely can see the left, right now, going "But! We're getting rid of the bad guys! They're bad, let's get rid of them!" (speaking politically and culturally almost entirely). Because everything you said you really don't care about - the left thinks they're the only ones who don't care about, it's YOU who are full of racism while they obsess on it incessantly.

It comes down to two things for me: Flag burning. I hate the idea of people burning the flag - people who do that don't usually like America very much. On the other hand, it's that same gut feeling as waiting to do the opposite of what the CCP does. You get arrested in other countries for burning the flag, the rest of your life can entirely go to shit or you can be killed for it. It's a literal example of what we can do here that some other countries can't do there.

Secondly, we have systems in place to watch out just for this kind of thing. We underestimated things like the long march through the institutions at our own peril. But today many of those institutions are literally not doing their job. Journalism overall is in the gutter (despite some good journalism still being out there), the moral and ethical lines have been scrubbed away so much as to be unrecognizable as lines anymore for the left. The answer, quite literally is to make America great again, though here I'm using it as a euphemism for fixing our broken institutions so they function like they're supposed and have in much of our past.

But in general, Somalians and Muslims hate this country and benefit extensively from it. Jihadist nations will attempt to subvert our country and destroy its people. Once they take over, they don't care if you are first generation American with Asian or Hispanic parents or are 17th generation "white" American. They'll kill you all the same.

I think that's an oversimplification and will come off as more racist. I see it as the same argument Sam Harris had with Ben Affleck a few years back that really stirred shit up. Affleck couldn't see Harris' point which was (making up the numbers to make the point clear): 5% of Muslims might be real radicals, which is already high. Then there's another 8% that would cover or help them. I want nothing to do with that combined 13%. They tend to be the ones we hear about the most as well, because, well they're blowing up shit all around the world and being all around terrorists. I flip it around too, imagine if Americans were migrating elsewhere in the 1880s, and Britain was like "My chap, we do like you yanks, truly, we do, but 20% of you put on white robes and kill black people. Can't say I'm not growing very concerned, very concerned indeed!" It's still 80% that's not, and probably hates the ever living shit out of the other 20%.

I do think in general you're not correct but you're pointing in the right directions and many of the signs are there. I think it's worse off in the UK as well. I know you said in general, Somalians and Muslims, etc. In general. I also think the majority are more "Fuck yeah, I'm in America, this place is great." I just think we don't see that as patriots - they're just doing regular people shit, working wherever they work, etc. But the ones that don't culturally adapt over time to, that don't really get it's history and why it's different and why America is the way it is - they'll just keep on doing things the way they like as much as they can and keep pushing for that, because that's what they like. I'm fine with that to a degree but at the end of the day, we should all be on America's side, not trying to break it or fucking overthrow it.

Basically, fix our damn systems, make teaching US and contextual world history more important in education and that's going to fix the problem rather than going to a pure "get rid of the bad guys, they're bad." thing. Then we just need to work on Hollywood ;)

-4
iwantotalknow -4 points ago +1 / -5

Just out of curiosity - since I'm probably less to the right than a fair amount of you - my presumption when you say send them back, you're talking about Omar and her daughter? What I hate about the left is the rabid generalization to "'them' means all people like her! Racist!" That seems a fairly crazy thing to believe, but I'd like to hear your sincere opinion.

I presume it's either "Get rid of Omar and anyone who got into the country because of her, by any means, because our country let her in and she's done nothing but benefit from it and attack it as a socialist or communist would. Why should someone like that benefit from the country that welcomed them?" or extending that logic to anyone who's full on socialist or communist - those things are incompatible with becoming an American.

I can't imagine China welcoming a radical free market capitalist who advocates for a multi-system political party and does nothing but condemn the government publicly. And that's one of the few reasons I can find to justify their staying. I'm so radically in opposition to a government like China's that I just want to pull in the opposite direction out of pure gut reaction. None of this stuff has to do with race - it's purely an ideological stance. Unfortunately for us, one of the side effects of not being China is that we get stuck with individuals like Omar.

9
iwantotalknow 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's not a win if she gets replaced by Kshama Sawant, who's an out and out socialist nutjob of a high level. It'd be like replacing a corrupt and shitty establishment Democrat mayor with an out and out socialist mayor.

Ideally, you could back the petition to get the recall election then pray the right-wing outvotes the left-wing in Seattle but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

6
iwantotalknow 6 points ago +6 / -0

Makes me think during junior high, that civics becomes a mandatory class with a higher percentage required to pass it - people really expect things to just work how they feel, rather than the actual law.

9
iwantotalknow 9 points ago +9 / -0

Abby is not a realistic female lead. She at best represents an extremely miniscule minority of women - the author is deeply confused within reason - to whatever amount of cult doctrine they have accepted as reality.

For realistic, female, lead please see: Sigourney Weaver in Aliens.

8
iwantotalknow 8 points ago +8 / -0

I think that this situation we find ourselves in is hopefully saved by the past - specifically, the secret ballot. In light of Cancel Culture this gives people a sense of safety - because without it, you can be 100% certain many voting stations would have leftists trying to attach names to votes and creating lists. As Yuri Bezmenov points out: the CIA had difficulty understanding how the Viet Cong could locate and kill so many people in such a short and quick time - how did they know they were getting the right people? Because there was previous intelligence, people who's name had been put on lists, so when the killing started they knew exactly who to go for.

I don't think this would happen in the United States to any large degree - maybe a handful of crazy people would go all in for that. But I think a shockingly large minority would be happy to cancel anyone who they could prove voted for Trump, and that is very much part of what they do online.

I think one way of looking at this election would be simply that they are trying to cancel Trump as best they can - but instead of being able to start campaigns to harass employers or corporations or platforms, they have to cancel him through at the ballot box - and it's a secret ballot, so people can vote exactly how they want. A vote for Trump is essentially also a vote to cancel Cancel Culture.

Granted, a Trump loss would be terrible for the country, but they wouldn't stop there if they were successful, they'd try to stop any single thing he does outside of office as well. I do not think this will happen though, I think at the very least he will have a larger electoral victory than his first win. The tactics of the left to smear and obscure and muddy all waters is the only thing that has me concerned about Trump's re-election chances.

5
iwantotalknow 5 points ago +5 / -0

This has been my contention for a while. I think there's going to be a large enough win that there's a popular mandate for Trump. I don't know how big a win has to be to enter popular culture as giving the President a mandate, but I think Trump will get it. But at this point, I wouldn't be shocked if he won everything but California and New York - or he won the Electoral College by the smallest margin possible. I tend to lean towards landslide because my belief is the left lies so much, cheats and tries to cheat so much that when it looks close or against Trump, I feel it must be just the effect of the left muddying things up. But seeing Tucker Carlson breaks TV news record in numbers of people watching, when I see Timcast IRL go from 11k viewers-ish on start to a 50k viewership average, etc... Hard to imagine it isn't at the very least slightly in Trumps favor.

1
iwantotalknow 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have odd views on this. Because I generally could care less about sports at all, I guess that makes me approach the subject more neutrally, I hope. Mostly though, I don't have any issue with women who want to play sports professionally, be athletes, etc. Of course in almost every case they're not going to be able to compete with men in the same fields, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their own leagues, even if less people are interested than in male sports.

Even without the ideological bullshittery going on, women's sports seems to generate enough interest and money to make it a viable career path - you're just not going to be mega rich, or mega famous but they still get to train and play at the highest levels for the sports they love. I think parents in particular would be responsive to this: if they've got a daughter who's just gaga over a sport, you want to support that.

6
iwantotalknow 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm pretty sure I'll get a bit of shit for this, but I'm gonna go with not letting women's sports die. I just don't think they should wildly promote it, shame people if they don't like it, etc. Plenty of women would kill for the chance to be professionally paid for sports they love and are good at. I just don't think it'll ever become really mainstream - something appreciated mostly during the Olyimpics, or if you're a real fan of a specific sport and always want more. I just don't like the fucking gender wars illogical bullshit and that's all we get from it these days.

6
iwantotalknow 6 points ago +6 / -0

Didn't see this posted around and it's a subject people here like. I think Sargon did quality job here and handily won the debate - not the hardest thing to do against an SJW-type. I honestly felt that Sargon was overall very clearly in control of the debate as well to the point he was able to get away with gently mocking his opponent while Brenton didn't seem to realize it.

For his part, I don't think Brenton was a terribly bad person, but arguing from weak positions against strong positions and being a weaker debater overall. I got a sense of that all too familiar leftist morality that's so pervasive however, as well as any mention of Trump from him had to come with a pejorative, as if it was mandatory - the type of person who would hear Trump's name and spit on reaction.

9
iwantotalknow 9 points ago +9 / -0

This is often the case, but I wonder how much it's blown out of proportion and how much it isn't. I'm Canadian, so we have our own similar system to Europe's - and it's not so bad if you just need to go to a clinic because you've got a flu, or you've got some ache or pain - especially if you have the time to show up early in the morning, you'll be seen almost instantly (and some clinics will let you schedule your visit online before hand too).

But, it's also as you say that sometimes you need a surgery, or to see an expert and it's like "Welp, 8 month wait for the expert, then 5 months for the surgery - here's some medication that'll help with the pain and try not to become addicted to it." Our hospital emergency room wait times are occasionally in the realm of decent? I had stones last year, had to go to the hospital a few times for it. Often I had a 4 hour wait in rather excruciating pain (even once they had diagnosed me previously, had it on record, knew what the situation was). And that 4 hour wait was "high priority" as well - I think the only higher level is if you're having heart attack level stuff go on. Probably should've thrown up in the hallway as opposed to outside, would've gotten faster treatment :)

4
iwantotalknow 4 points ago +4 / -0

Anyone know of a way to access the actual paper itself? I can search the DOI, but then you get to the "Pay 14.95$ for access to this paper!" I'd like to see the actual work done and methodologies - not that I disagree, I just want to see how they went about it.

10
iwantotalknow 10 points ago +10 / -0

Agreed, I was thinking we needed more Reagan than Trump. Just makes me think how much better off America would be if the left hadn't gone full out war on him.

13
iwantotalknow 13 points ago +14 / -1

I think that's a tad too much enthusiasm. I would say however that he was middling at best early on but he's really stepped up his game as time has gone on and last night's speech was very, very good. To the point that while I was watching, I was thinking "Hmm, I want to know who the lead speech writer on this was - that's some damn fine work."

I particularly like how little pop culture there is in it - those speeches tend to be forgotten quickly. It was exactly what it needed to be: presidential. He said what needed to be said and did so in a manner that any retrospective on his presidency will be able to look back at that speech and define it as a key moment in his presidency and that all future Americans can look at and understand because it's written and spoken in the language that every American instinctively understands at their core.

2
iwantotalknow 2 points ago +2 / -0

Call me crazy all you want - but I do think we need gender studies, both male and female. I also think we need to keep it from going off into lunacy crazy SJW land. Or, barring that, something that slaps parents in the head and tells them they have a role to play in their children's lives so when they're driving off a cliff, mom and dad don't help them by telling them it's the right thing to do. Transgender people do exist - and they're exceedingly rare. If you find nine of them together in a high school in one grade, you either need to go buy a lottery ticket or go get some good psychologists involved.

2
iwantotalknow 2 points ago +3 / -1

The debates I can't tell if they'll happen. I don't care what else is going on, if people have to watch both of these men debate on stage that's the ball game right there. Which is why it probably won't happen - unless they're so confident or stupid (or both) that they go through with it, which I hope they do.

12
iwantotalknow 12 points ago +13 / -1

He's doing it on purpose, but I don't think it's because he wants to maintain his "independent former liberal fence sitter" title. Some days I feel as if Trump can't possibly lose, let alone not be a landslide. Other days, I feel like the amount of sheer apathy and stupidity out there is so overwhelming that it's doubtful he wins. Rather than attempting to hold onto a title, or doing it for monetary gain, I feel more that he's almost cursed with being a fence sitter - he couldn't change if he wanted to.

Rather, I see him as someone who can see multiple sides of an issue, and can see potential different outcomes and likes to discuss them. A sort of "In this situation, Biden could win, because of X, Y and Z." or "We're ignoring A and B, and if those occur, Trump could landslide." Mostly, I think if Tim we're doing writing and not video, this would become way more apparent and it would be super simple to compare all his articles and go "What the hell is up with this guy, he's all over the place." He does opinion much more than basic news, but he tends to build his opinion of things that are obvious to the right, the center, and the dissaffected lefties.