lgbtqwtfbbq 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree that those are instincts buried deep inside us, which is why the propaganda is so dangerous. And I don't think the instincts are bad, though to the extent they aren't cultivated in our society (which is a problem, and something many of these Hollywood types encouraged), encouraging the young to engage in such behaviors without them having the opportunity to develop and hone those skills is dangerous.

Societies that wanted its men to have that skill trained and tested it into them. And then (presumably, because to not do this would be a bad idea) provided useful outlets for its men to use those skills. Not every man can be Leonidas, but every man can be Patriarch of his family. And have mastery in a trade or profession. And use that "will to power" to create something unique, be that a thriving family or something physical.

Or we could, except anyone who tried being Patriarch would find themselves in jail or divorce court, or both. Mastery of a trade is becoming less important than conforming to the various policies and procedures required to perform the trade, which often stand in the way of someone unleashing their mastery.

lgbtqwtfbbq 10 points ago +10 / -0

As much as I like that genre of movie/show you're talking about, it's hard to not watch them with a modern eye.

When they came out conservative Christianity was the dominant paradigm, and the idea that some masculine character could save the world and get the girl without wanting to settle down and marry her was outside the respectable norm. Your parents might say something like "OK James Bond gets to do that but you aren't James Bond so it's a bad idea for you to do that." So the appeal of that media was obviously to tear down something that at the time was dominant and make the younger generation want something that was harmful for all but perhaps an extremely small percentage of them.

Now that that paradigm is dead, in many cases those very same people involved in those movies/shows speak of how "inappropriate" they are to modern audiences. Well perhaps, but if that's true, it was also true at the time they were made. The letter-writing campaigns to yank the shows from the air ended up being part of their marketing strategy. Why did they not care then? Because at the time the purpose was to be "inappropriate". Only now that it's "inappropriate" in a way that doesn't serve the dominant paradigm which they also serve is that a problem.

And I say this as someone who still regularly watches TNG, near 30 years after it ended. It was propaganda for a different age, which has long since ended. The shows served their purpose at the time, but since our enemies have no honor they don't receive their due respect for a job well done.

lgbtqwtfbbq 13 points ago +14 / -1

Good test for how "based" DeSantis is: is he willing to send Florida State Police to interfere with political witch-hunts against his citizens? Or will he pull the standard ConInc "the Regime can harass its political enemies, but it has to do so legally.

lgbtqwtfbbq 6 points ago +6 / -0

Also probably would have gotten much less hate if it wasn't itself a trilogy.

There's a fanedit that someone did that condensed the trilogy down to one 5 hour movie that a lot of people (myself included) like more than the movies.

lgbtqwtfbbq 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is true of most so-called "nice" places.

If you have a lot of money, they are nice.

If you have some money, they can be nice as long as you spend most of your money living in the nice areas (this is where that first group want you to be).

If you don't have some money (or don't wish to spend most of it on where you live) they are not nice.

lgbtqwtfbbq 39 points ago +39 / -0

Even if the gays 100% believed this it wouldn't stop them.

Catching HIV meant certain death in the 80s and didn't stop them.

lgbtqwtfbbq 8 points ago +8 / -0

Much of modernity is about refusing to tell people that engaging in harmful behaviors is harmful or even acknowledging that they are harmful despite obviously being so. Putting aside anonymous buttsex, even simple things like "stop drinking that 1000 calorie 'coffee' drink every morning".

lgbtqwtfbbq 20 points ago +20 / -0

Norm MacDonald on AIDS applies here:

AIDS is cured. Let's say they said "we found out what cures lung cancer: don't get fucked in the ass and don't do needles"

lgbtqwtfbbq 23 points ago +23 / -0

It's true that when the left complains about things like "white society generally exists to benefit whites" my core disagreement with them isn't that I think that's wrong but rather they think that's bad and I think it's good.

lgbtqwtfbbq 6 points ago +6 / -0

People like Styx disagree with people further to their right all the time. He used to do a show with Paul Ramsey, spoke with Richard Spencer back in the day.

Except he did it all without acting as though they were somehow his enemies.

lgbtqwtfbbq 5 points ago +5 / -0

When someone

  • Declares people who hold an idea "evil"
  • Later adopts the idea
  • Instead of apologizing to those he called "evil" doubles down on his hatred of them

That is not the behavior of someone acting in good faith.

lgbtqwtfbbq 5 points ago +5 / -0

If someone declares themselves to be my enemy, as he did, I'm going to take them at their word.

lgbtqwtfbbq 9 points ago +9 / -0

I'm gracious to those who are gracious to others. James Lindsay wasn't. He quite frequently got into little spats with the further right, calling them "dangerous" and "morons". He seemed to think it was his duty to keep the far right from ever having political power.

lgbtqwtfbbq 11 points ago +11 / -0

Don't punch right. Disagree certainly, but do so politely and cordially instead of calling them "dangerous".

Even people like Styx (who is probably further to the left than Lindsey) understand this and will openly discuss things in good faith with people far to their right without insulting them or telling others that they ought to be disregarded or ignored.

lgbtqwtfbbq 3 points ago +3 / -0

Arguably the modern West holds that belief today. How often will you see an individual deny something happened unless the claimant can provide evidence that it did?

lgbtqwtfbbq 9 points ago +10 / -1

And then stealing their ideas 6 months later. Because right-wing ideas are apparently "dangerous" until he decides they're correct, then they're "obvious".

lgbtqwtfbbq 15 points ago +15 / -0

LMAO "Christian nationalist" the guy was calling actual Christian nationalists "dangerous" back in February and claimed he needed to spend more time attacking them.

lgbtqwtfbbq 13 points ago +13 / -0

In regulated industry something called a "risk analysis" is performed where hazards are identified, and each is assigned a "probability of occurrence" and a "severity of harm". If the combined value of those two things is unacceptably high, one tries to reduce the probability or severity (or both), with the understanding that it isn't possible to eliminate either entirely and there will be what is called a "residual risk" that is considered acceptable.

This is a situation where I think everyone worried about such things needs to sit down and think about all the things that can go wrong (eg. Carrington Event, where every electromagnetic system not specifically radiation hardened will fail), try to assess how likely they think that is to occur, what will happen to them personally if it does, and make the decision as to what constitutes an acceptable risk. And if some hazard presents an unacceptable risk, attempt to decrease the probability or severity. This I think is the general mindset people need to adopt.

Even though the Amish and Mennonites are well situated to handle a severe breakdown in civilization, they probably aren't well situated if it (eg.) declines to the point where Mexican-style cartels start to appear and militarized cartel violence starts to occur. Or (eg.) State-sanctioned land seizures using militarized enforcement agents. So even for them there are limits to what hazards they would be able to handle.

Re: food and grocery stores, I drive past a good half-dozen farms just on my way to the nearest highway that will sell meat, eggs, milk, etc... Some local farms sell "shares" (usually quarters, halves, and wholes) of beef and pork which is something I need to seriously look into. I generally buy things at the store because it's more convenient, but it's not the only option. Of course then the question becomes "do these farms produce enough food to be the sole source for the surrounding population?" and they might not but also might be enough to bootstrap the population while they attempt to increase the food supply.

Power is an issue, but I think the more likely outcome there is our grid reliability degrades to that of the third-world: functional but with frequent (and maybe periodic such as at night) outages. Perhaps it's something like on Pitcairn Island, where they simply shut the generator off from the hours of 10pm to 6am.

lgbtqwtfbbq 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah Idaho is basically following the same path that Oregon and Washington went down.

lgbtqwtfbbq 16 points ago +16 / -0

I use Kodi running on an old doorstop of a PC. Its UI mimics that of Netflix in terms of how it groups movies and TV shows and is much simpler/easier to set up than plex.

I think it has some queueing capabilities, but I've never used them.

lgbtqwtfbbq 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is true. Up here in Washington, even when it's 90+ I rarely burn. Whereas in the Southwest I burn pretty easily.

Also notice that with sunglasses: I never need them up here even on sunny days, but down there I do.

lgbtqwtfbbq 14 points ago +14 / -0

I've plugged the Strategic Relocation book before, but it's sitting on my shelf and is a good resource as to what sorts of things to think about when making this sort of decision. I've also found PDFs of the older Third Edition floating around the internet if you don't want to drop the coin. The major difference between the Third and Fourth edition is the Fourth was published after the 2020 WuFlu shit and has been updated to reflect the various states' reactions to it.

Though one of the things that book (and pretty much everyone who thinks about such things) ignores is the long-term demographic changes of what sort of people are moving to certain places. For example Northern Idaho is probably in the top 5 of my personal list (Randy Weaver lived there for a reason), but the massive influx of people moving to Idaho from more left-wing places (eg. California) makes it a bit of a wildcard in the long term if you expect to spend the rest of your days living in a "Red state"

Another thing to consider is that, if we continue to see a breakdown of centralized authority and order, things like "gun laws" matter a lot less than whether you can come to an understanding with your neighbors and/or your local sheriff. It might be instructive to look at how such things work in Central and South America. And in that case things like "Blue state" or "Red state" matter a lot less than living someplace where there's a lot of open land, a largely self-sufficient population, and aren't a lot of prying eyes (or if there are prying eyes it's to find out if they can help you do whatever it is you're doing.

Anyways that's my two cents, speaking as someone who had similar thoughts last year but started coming around to my current way of thinking (partially motivated by thoughts of "I'm tired of running" and "got to make a stand somewhere").

lgbtqwtfbbq 3 points ago +3 / -0

But he's also not symptomatic, so how much of this is simply "measuring something we've never measured before" (evidence of viral infection of someone who isn't symptomatic)?

If it was a cold or flu he'd be told "stay in bed until you don't feel like crap anymore, then once you feel better give it a day or two for good measure", and no one would care anything about whether or not the virus is technically still detectable in his system at the end. But since it's WuFlu we do for some reason.

view more: Next ›