Well, NIMBYs killed microhousing in Seattle which was going to be the kinds of small, affordable apartments that people could actually afford to live in.
Yeah, that’s one of the problems with the whole “but that isn’t REAL Capitalism! We need to deregulate!” things. The regulatory capture that corrupted the existing process will also corrupt its dismantling unless you fix it, and Capitalism pays people to subvert public ownership of the state.
Hot take: the problem with homelessness does not boil down to “count amount of homeless, count amount of houses, if the latter is larger, then capitalism is intentionally making people homeless and will collapse if they aren’t, therefore get rid of capitalism to instantly solve homelessness”.
Pay attention to the fact that there are much more homeless people per capita in cities than in half-abandoned villages, and you will realize that the problem isn’t just not having a home, but not having a home where you want to have a home, to the extent where they would rather be homeless in a city than landlords in a village.
There are obvious easy solutions, like falsely reporting that you have solved homelessness while carting people out of the city (adjusting visibility), or forcing people to live in certain places regardless of where they actually want to live (adjusting mobility), but they don’t fix the actual underlying issue.
Policy changes to address this are going to be very expensive, unless you want to reduce safety restrictions for houses, which you should not.
And not expensive because robber baron capitalism pigs, but expensive as per LTV - construction is a man hour hungry process.
You have to make other changes that allow you to fix the zoning laws, but even that only gets you so far, so basically this.
Very good point I’m totally convinced now that homelessness is a thing just because it never occured to anyone that we should solve it, and not because it is literally the prerequisite of capitalism.
People keep saying stupid shit making incorrect assumptions about this.
We could fix homelessness with modest improvements to existing policies.
The status quo does not hinge on schizophrenics sleeping rough.
You can fix homelessness by claiming that homelessness has been solved
In Libertopia, homelessness is only a sign that vagrants don’t want homes enough.
Knowing about cognitive biases can hurt some people: Mr Inman is subtly implying that the backfire effect only happens to the red tribe, while simultaneously poisoning the well on counterarguments.
Imagine a version of that comic that tells you stuff about Abraham Lincoln, and ends with “Abraham Lincoln did not think that the American Civil War was about slavery (source)“, and then immediately condescendingly say that certain people are going to write rebuttals on Facebook and miss the point?
Imagine starting out with the famous sentence from the Treaty of Tripoli about the constitution of the USA being agnostic, only to then veer into the white slavery of the Barbary Pirates that made such a treaty necessary.
Moldbug did that all the time. This is a positively Moldbuggian infographic!
Imagine starting out with some statistics about equality, diversity and feminism in Scandinavia, and then adding statistics about decreased social cohesion resulting from ethnic diversity, male-dominated professions resulting from greater female freedom to choose careers, and the effects of the Law of Jante on entrepreneurship and GDP. If you accept one, you must accept the other!
Imagine an infographic about refugees, freedom of the press, ISIS and Erdogan, then suddenly about support for authoritarian Islamic reactionaries, or straight-up Jihadists, among Muslims in the West. Not fair, you say. Backfire effect, I say!
This is what Moldbug did. He roped you in with some well sourced, morally neutral facts, then got into morally repugnant territory, and you were left wondering if you didn’t accept it only because you didn’t want it to be true. “Fine”, Moldbug says: “You appeal to consequences. But are the consequences of a Singapore-style ethnically uniform capitalist dictatorship not so much better than what we have now? You said that free trade brings peace, why stop here?”
Of course, you can accept one and not the other, and the reason Moldbug can get away his arguments is that once you accept that your world view has been shaped by cognitive bias and whig history, every cherished belief of yours is up for grabs. Those beliefs that contradict Moldbug are obviously the ones that are wrong!
Inman does not go as far. He does not lead you to a repugnant conclusion. He just stays in the comfortable confines of bland tribalism. He does not have cognitive biases, or he does not share them. Mr Inman only has pinky toe, and an understanding of cognitive neuroscience that makes the average person who reads his infographic slightly less well-informed about emotion and what an amygdala is.
What price are you willing to pay to solve those problems, ideologically?
If it is necessary to become Singapore, are you willing to do this?
What do you mean by “become Singapore”?
For instance, though this is less Singaporean, suppose that the things social conservatives complain about are true (outside of LGBT), they just happen to apply mostly to lower-class communities, because upper-class communities can survive that level of dysfunction (thanks to money). What would you do?
Or for something more genuinely Singaporean, are you willing to have convicted vandals publicly caned? Are you willing to use conscription for young men? Will you allow schools to punish or exclude problem students?
The Libs have confused Nationalism for a disease because they witnessed auto-immune dysfunction, but once a nation falls below a certain level of Nationalism, it is indeed difficult to raise an army for its defense.
Nationalism is not yet dead in the United States, but it is aspirationally among much of the Left/Libs.
What Wirehead said, but also we as a society need to redevelop the social technologies so that groups other than those who can massively overspend on rent can have comfortable, low-crime communities.
Hey let’s destroy the pernicious myth that preteens were regularly marrying in medieval and early modern Europe and were having children as young teenagers. It’s just not true. Church records show the typical age people got married was around 18-23. Sure, around a third of brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, but premarital sex was actually completely fine in medieval and early modern Europe if the couple intended to marry. (Oh look! Another historical fact the Victorian period completely mangled!)
Very young girls were not having babies in medieval times, people. The only people who ever bring this non-fact up are paedophiles looking to defend their dangerous paraphilia. So cut it out. Stop spreading this myth. It’s not historical, it’s not factual, it’s not true.
By the way the texts in support of these facts are here and here.
“Emerging evidence is eroding the stereotype of medieval child marriage. Goldberg and Smith’s work on low- and lower-middle-status women has refuted Hajnal’s argument for generally early marriage for medieval women. Even Razi’s ‘early’ age at marriage for girls in Halesowen hardly indicates child marriage, as a large portion of his sample married between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two… . Goldberg has offered evidence from fourteenth and fifteenth-century Yorkshire showing that urban girls tended to marry in their early to mid twenties and rural girls married in their late teens to early twenties, and both groups married men who were close to them in age.” (Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, c. 1270-1540, p. 37 (x).
Bolded for emphasis.
Reblogging this as a reminder since I just saw another long thread on a social media website about how “the stigma of marrying at age 13-15 is recent”. No it isn’t, you’re just a pedophilia apologist.
This is fascinating, since “well the Medievals married that young” is used to wave off some of the side-effects of polygamy in certain foreign cultures today. But if that isn’t true, then that means culture or religion is responsible and not just economics like we were led to believe.
I’m paying more attention to ideological contradictions…
But what does Liberalism become when it starts saying “yes, some cultures are better than others,” and “yes, some groups practice inbreeding at higher rates than others, and this is terrible,” and “changing demographics through immigration is a feasible angle of attack that can be used in democracy”?
“Because for some transwomen, femininity can feel asymptotic — the closer you get, the more you feel you can never make it.”
This is a…hard, uncomfortable read if you’re a cis woman, but it’s a good read.
a lot to think about.
as someone who has engaged in a lot of shitty misguided misandry in the past, this was a crucial read. who is invested in the stability of men as a category n why? how can one speak to one’s experiences with weaponized masculinity without reinforcing other kinds of structural violence, like cissexism and white supremacy?
This is a bullshit article. It reflects tremendous self-loathing, and it was irresponsible for Medium to publish it. “It’s so hard the other girls don’t know my tragic trans narrative, because I have made a conscious decision to live it only in dreams and online anonymous op-eds and will never ever tell them.”
This is another case of cis people exploiting the pain and suffering of trans people who aren’t in a position to know better.
I originally discussed this article in some depth on facebook so please read on for a (slightly choppy) elaboration of my reaction:
I just read the text. I don’t know what I think about it yet, but I know one thing for sure : wow, fuck you :) @collaterlysisters
let me add on to this, fuck you @collaterlysisters
Ah, yes, I read this some time ago.
I can never be a true traditionalist, because I want to build the switch and obliterate dozens of category distinctions in doing so. It’s the only way to end many of the existing tensions within so many systems. Eventually, you have to go beyond triaging with limited resources and build such an overwhelmingly powerful economy that you can choose all the options you wanted before simultaneously.
Things I wish existed: apartment buildings with a “mandatory savings clause.” Add in whatever is needed to make it palatable, but fundamentally make people contribute to a savings account each month an amount equal to their rent (increase or decrease by factors required), and that savings account can’t be withdrawn from such that it would fall below min(“months paid in * amount per month”, 24) before the person retires or leaves the apartment building.
Why on earth would this be a good idea? Wealthy people may be assholes in many ways, but they aren’t going to be obviously dealing drugs in the corridors, they will be more considerate about loud music and parties, and they generally prefer being around other wealthy people for this and other reasons. Traditionally, we’ve kept poor people out of places by actually charging them money, but this results in low savings, insecurity, and much more being spent on wasteful housing than needs to be spent. This method allows for individuals to live cheaply without having to suffer the injury of dealing with low-income people
This is a good idea, but it won’t happen because it isn’t market-competitive. Only a Rationalist apartment building owner actively trying to help the country would do this.
It’s not obvious to me why it isn’t competitive. If A makes 10 per month and spends 4 on housing, 2 on saving money, 3 on taxes, and 1 on other (clothing, food, etc), they could move into this place instead, spend 3 on housing, and put 3 on savings. My implicit proposal is that a lot of what the fourth dollar spent on housing actually buys you is “the benefit of living with people who can afford to spend the fourth dollar on housing”, and this ensures that you’re only around people with at least six spare each month after taxes and necessities, a better deal than your original, while costing you less. For the landlord, meanwhile, this is probably competitive with just charging 3 a month, with benefits flowing from things like “middle and upper class norms involve less wanton destruction of property”
This is all partly inspired by @sinesalvatorem’s struggles on BART, which suffers from the problem that poor black people can use it. The benefit of tripling the price mostly wouldn’t be in getting more frequent service or better seats or whatever, but in not getting blatant transphobes, who are shunned in the bay area upper and middle classes. In my home of Boston, I ride both the commuter rail (expensive) and the T (cheap). People are quieter and behaviour is generally more in keeping with my preferences in the former.
The market of people that are openly aware of this and will admit to it and express preference for this as a solution probably isn’t that big, and people would instead either spend less on rent and more on other financial instruments (with a higher RoI), or spend more on the housing and gain more comfortable housing and more status.
I know it’s tagged as “#mostly a joke” but it really does get into a whole bunch of issues related to why housing is so expensive and things we normally aren’t supposed to talk about that are undermining modern Liberalism.
Also now that I think about it, despite this whole thing sounding positively Singaporean, eventually you’d get sued by self-identified civil rights lawyers for being exclusionary.
Huh, this dovetails really nicely with my comments on how this actually happens in practice.
Because doing this openly would be a flaming disaster: lawsuits, public shaming, no tenants, everything. But at the same time, doing it stealthily is actually really common!
Security deposits often don’t need to be super high. First/last rent isn’t necessary for people with great jobs and credit scores in easy-eviction states. Assorted ‘signing fees’ and ‘key fees’ and the like are often pretty much unnecessary when they could be bundled into rent. But they’re all plausibly (and genuinely) self-defense for landlords against bad tenants.
And so no one has to talk about the de facto outcome of driving out people who can pay rent, but lack the cashflow or support network to pay up front. After all, most Americans can’t front an unexpected $500 bill - charging three months rent up front is an easy way to price out people on the edge of affording a property.
Things I wish existed: apartment buildings with a “mandatory savings clause.” Add in whatever is needed to make it palatable, but fundamentally make people contribute to a savings account each month an amount equal to their rent (increase or decrease by factors required), and that savings account can’t be withdrawn from such that it would fall below min(“months paid in * amount per month”, 24) before the person retires or leaves the apartment building.
Why on earth would this be a good idea? Wealthy people may be assholes in many ways, but they aren’t going to be obviously dealing drugs in the corridors, they will be more considerate about loud music and parties, and they generally prefer being around other wealthy people for this and other reasons. Traditionally, we’ve kept poor people out of places by actually charging them money, but this results in low savings, insecurity, and much more being spent on wasteful housing than needs to be spent. This method allows for individuals to live cheaply without having to suffer the injury of dealing with low-income people
This is a good idea, but it won’t happen because it isn’t market-competitive. Only a Rationalist apartment building owner actively trying to help the country would do this.
It’s not obvious to me why it isn’t competitive. If A makes 10 per month and spends 4 on housing, 2 on saving money, 3 on taxes, and 1 on other (clothing, food, etc), they could move into this place instead, spend 3 on housing, and put 3 on savings. My implicit proposal is that a lot of what the fourth dollar spent on housing actually buys you is “the benefit of living with people who can afford to spend the fourth dollar on housing”, and this ensures that you’re only around people with at least six spare each month after taxes and necessities, a better deal than your original, while costing you less. For the landlord, meanwhile, this is probably competitive with just charging 3 a month, with benefits flowing from things like “middle and upper class norms involve less wanton destruction of property”
This is all partly inspired by @sinesalvatorem’s struggles on BART, which suffers from the problem that poor black people can use it. The benefit of tripling the price mostly wouldn’t be in getting more frequent service or better seats or whatever, but in not getting blatant transphobes, who are shunned in the bay area upper and middle classes. In my home of Boston, I ride both the commuter rail (expensive) and the T (cheap). People are quieter and behaviour is generally more in keeping with my preferences in the former.
The market of people that are openly aware of this and will admit to it and express preference for this as a solution probably isn’t that big, and people would instead either spend less on rent and more on other financial instruments (with a higher RoI), or spend more on the housing and gain more comfortable housing and more status.
I know it’s tagged as “#mostly a joke” but it really does get into a whole bunch of issues related to why housing is so expensive and things we normally aren’t supposed to talk about that are undermining modern Liberalism.
Also now that I think about it, despite this whole thing sounding positively Singaporean, eventually you’d get sued by self-identified civil rights lawyers for being exclusionary.
Looking to 2020, there’s only one way Trump can surely win from here and that’s a Zuckerberg/Chelsea Clinton runoff for the Democratic nomination.
The good news is I’m 60% sure something close to this will happen because there’s only one party as bad at playing its hand as the GOP and that’s the Democrats.
I mean, give it some time and we’ll see. I’m still forecasting a 50% chance of reelection.
Things I wish existed: apartment buildings with a “mandatory savings clause.” Add in whatever is needed to make it palatable, but fundamentally make people contribute to a savings account each month an amount equal to their rent (increase or decrease by factors required), and that savings account can’t be withdrawn from such that it would fall below min(“months paid in * amount per month”, 24) before the person retires or leaves the apartment building.
Why on earth would this be a good idea? Wealthy people may be assholes in many ways, but they aren’t going to be obviously dealing drugs in the corridors, they will be more considerate about loud music and parties, and they generally prefer being around other wealthy people for this and other reasons. Traditionally, we’ve kept poor people out of places by actually charging them money, but this results in low savings, insecurity, and much more being spent on wasteful housing than needs to be spent. This method allows for individuals to live cheaply without having to suffer the injury of dealing with low-income people
This is a good idea, but it won’t happen because it isn’t market-competitive. Only a Rationalist apartment building owner actively trying to help the country would do this.
It really seems like a lot of the resistance to sex positivity comes from a desire to be able to appeal to a set of socially agreed-upon standards rather than do the work of asserting boundaries. Or, less charitably, out of a desire to artificially increase your dating pool by making people feel like they’re morally obligated to adhere to your standards for a desirable partner.
Higher partner count correlates with lower marriage success rate. Men have also had to deal with paternal uncertainty for millenia. Both are going to have a warping effect. And women are still so protected that men cannot unilaterally order a paternity test in France, so that isn’t going away.
is it too much to ask for someone with ideas opposing mine who isn’t horrifically self-righteous or functionally retarded
like I want to expand my horizons but the pool of “cool people with ideas that challenge my worldview” at this point amounts to Michael Tracey and god bless the guy but he’s certainly no intellectual
I’m guessing I don’t count as sufficiently opposed.
We should outlaw firefighting. We’re exploiting people who need money, coercing them to put themselves at risk so that others may live. What kind of society allows people to sell their own bodies like that?
On an unrelated note, it’s still illegal to purchase kidney transplants everywhere but Iran. 12 people in the United States alone die every day waiting for one. There are few if any long-term negative health impacts of kidney donation, though it does require taking some time off which anyone but the rich would need to be compensated for.
There are probably ways to mitigate the incentive risks in paid organ donation, or opt-out organ donation, but given how conditions are it won’t happen. Even something as simple as “yes Dr. Richmann you may purchase a higher place in the organ recipient list, but you must pay for the procedure for four other people”.
There sure are a lot of Chinese restaurants in this Chinese town in China.
what are these foreigners thinking about
China actually giant authoritarian Chinese-themed theme park - very racist! Needs to be torn down immediately for minority inclusion, end to cultural appropriation.
are you a “makes fun of otherkin” anti-sj or are you a “writes thousand word posts about intersectionality and the evils of normativity” anti-sj
I’m “thinks otherkin are ridiculous since that’s not a realistic variation on human brain designs, but supports their right to morphological freedom in the transhuman future”.
that’s it, I don’t have anything funny to say about it, no hyperbolic analogies
just look at it: webinar. it’s terrible. awful. just bad.
at least once a year we have to bitch about webinar still being a word, it’s like a tradition or an old charter or something.
Blog can be a good thing but is a terrible word; webinar is a terrible word and has no redeeming qualities even if it had an elegant, catchy name.
Has anyone ever “attended” a really fantastic webinar?
uh excuse me but “blog” is a fantastic word. like “quiz”, it’s redundant with earlier terms but has nonetheless increased our quality of life simply because it’s extremely fun to say
“webinar” is pretty bad though. maybe we can change it to “cybernar”, that has some appeal
On Wednesday, a federal judge was told that while Paramount Pictures and CBS have produced a “limited number” of Star Trek television episodes and films, “they do not not own a copyright to the idea of Star Trek, or the Star Trekuniverse as a whole.”
The proposition comes from Alec Peters’ Axanar Productions, which put out on YouTube a 20-minute “mockumentary” titled Prelude to Axanar and was in the midst of pursuing a feature-length version touted as a professional-quality Star Trek fan film before being hit with a copyright lawsuit. The litigation survived an initial motion to dismiss, and despite some hopes expressed by Star Trek Beyond director Justin Lin that all this would go away, Paramount and CBS are marching forward in their lawsuit.
Also of interest: Peters attempted to meet with Netflix to produce a Star Trek show.
One of the challenges of copyright is that it applies to works that are, for many people, part of their formative experiences.
Not that the alternative is better, but we could probably stop Disney expanding the copyright laws for so long if we made it have a shorter period which was renewed by creating derivative works. (Star Trek (as a franchise) would still be copyrighted because they keep making it.)
the idea that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns seems precisely backwards given that in countries were guns are banned the outlaws tend not to have guns.
Depends on the outlaws and the country. France had a terrorist attack in which there were guns, if I recall correctly. The average mugger, however, has less logistical support.
Here, in these United States, that genie has sailed and will not go back in the bag.
I’m not exactly sure what causes people to flip when they see the word privilege, though.
Some time ago [Popular Blog] was asked whether they considered themselves privileged. It was a perfectly polite ask that was quite clearly not meant to ignite animosity or taunt or shame or make [Popular Blog] lose authority and status in front of its followers. It was quite clearly simply prompted by the fact that [Popular Blog] does not seem to fall under any of the major axes of oppression discussed around here, and seems to live a perfectly cosy life. [Popular Blog] flipped anyway and termed the word privilege inherently offensive.
That was an extremely bizarre moment of internet wtfery to me.
I cannot shake off the idea that if the question had instead been, “would you say that life has treated you kindly so far?” the answer would have been completely different, even though the question is, at heart, the same minus the word privilege.
If that anecdote is an accurate model of the instinctive reaction people have to that word, it seems to me that the word itself (though not necessarily the concept) has at this point outlived its usefulness. If your gut reaction is to flinch away from it, you cannot think about it critically. You cannot imagine ever thinking even of yourself in those terms, which I thought was supposed to be the whole aim of Tumblr discourse.
(And if the aim isn’t encouraging people to think, “wait, does this apply to me? Do I in fact wield some power over the people around me and what can I do with it to make life easier for those who find themselves in a worse position than mine?” then, in fact, what even is it?)
Because if the idea of someone being in a worse position than you makes you instinctively defensive — either because you’re losing oppression points or because you feel that the amount of hard work you’ve put into achieving your current position in society is being dismissed, mocked or invalidated — then the whole terminology used to describe privilege cannot possibly be helpful or useful any longer in any practical sense. It means we’ve reached the point where we’re unconsciously equating “privileged” with “inherently evil.” And that is not the best strategy to encourage either self-analysis or understanding (let alone decency) towards other people.
I think there are two separate problems with “privilege”. The first, which is the bigger of the two, is that it’s a shibboleth. It identifies the user as belonging to a particular social tribe and something like 75% of peoples’ reaction to it, positive and negative, can be explained by how they feel about members of that tribe. That’s a hard problem to overcome if you want to talk about the specific concept. Any word used predominantly by one group will undergo this process naturally, so you’re caught between a euphemism treadmill and trying to alter the meaning of a shared word to capture the specific nuances you’re interested in (as has been done with “racism”).
The other problem, which is subtler, is that “being privileged” is a shared concept and it has quite a different meaning from “privilege” in the social justice sense. “Being privileged” doesn’t just mean that you have privileges, it means you’re upper-crust, some kind of sweater-wearing trust-fund type. Outside the circles where “privilege” is widely discussed this meaning tends to shade into discussions of privilege generally, and it’s particularly bad if people say “privileged” rather than “having privilege”, which isn’t a distinction that people are trained to avoid in the context of social justice privilege. This does suggest that another word, carefully chosen, might be an improvement, but in the case you mention it sounds like it’s the former problem predominates.
As it looks to me, a *major* problem with the social justice version of the “privilege” concept is that it has picked up a strong use/connotation of being a dismissal device rather than just a pure analytical device - where people’s lived experiences get dismissed out of hand because they are deemed to belong to some “privileged” group. There is a certain kind of conversation I’ve seen a few times that goes roughly as follows:
College-educated rich white person A: “You possess white privilege!”
Poor white person B: “Huh? What does that even mean? My life has generally been shit …?”
A: “It means that you’re less likely than people of color to have experienced ___” [long list of bad things that A has never experienced but that A is sort-of-aware happens to people of color quite a bit]
B: “but .. I *have* experienced most of those things. [long essay about major hardships that B has experienced in their life]”
A: “you still have it better than PoC that experience those things, and you need to acknowledge your white privilege” (with a tone indicating that this point is more important than the experiences that B just listed.)
B: “… this is bullshit. go fuck yourself”
where it doesn’t even occur to A that the experiences of B indicate that A obviously possesses some form of unrecognized privilege that B very much doesn’t possess, and where B recognizes the discussion as basically A using the “privilege” concept as a justification/excuse to dismiss B’s concerns and experiences out of hand.
A related phenomenon sometimes arises when people pose questions like “do trans men possess privilege?” which has sometimes resulted in debates/flamewars where people have treated it as basically a life-or-death issue. Which is absurd when considering “privilege” as an analytical device, but makes sense when treating privilege as a dismissal device; declaring the trans men as possessing privilege comes very close to saying that they don’t deserve help and support with any social issues that arise from their situation, which can be quite threatening indeed.
As such, with a really strong “privileged”=“can be dismissed” connotation in place, a question like “do you consider yourself privileged?” is likely to be interpreted -
- not as a benign “do you consider yourself lucky with your life situation?” kind of thing that one would expect from viewing privilege as an analytical concept -
- but more like a double-bind type rhetorical trap, kind of similar to the so-called “Kafkatrap”, where you can either - admit to being privileged and thereby imply that your life experiences shouldn’t matter and can and should be dismissed - or reject the notion that you’re privileged, which makes you look like you’re being aggressively unaware of people whose life situation is legitimately worse than your own - or you can try the kind of unpacking that I’m trying to do here, which is likely to come across as “trying to dodge the question” or something like that if you try it as a direct response to the question as posed. Either way, you lose. Which I think is why people interpret this kind of question as an attack rather than as just a benign query.
“Flipping out” in various forms seems to be a somewhat common response to this kind of rhetorical trap - seemingly-unreasonable responses to things that look innocuous is an indication that there might be a trap like this present, that people are reacting to.
I saw a post earlier by someone claiming that Fyre Fest was actually an example of central planning gone wrong, which is like level 45 deflection and market fetishism
the problems with the economy are due to the fact that businesses are not run internally as marketplaces,
the problems with the economy are due to the fact that businesses are not run internally as marketplaces,
I’ve thought about this unironically, but methods to actually implement it are difficult.
Leftists know “globalist” means “evil Jewish overlord” right? It has no coherent political meaning and “globalism” isn’t an ideology or a set of ideologies, it’s meant as an insult
You don’t need to be a Jew to support open borders and mass migration, and you don’t need to be an Anti-Semite to think open borders and mass migration are both terrible ideas.
I don’t care at all about the whole Jew thing except that Israel hasn’t been a good investment for the American government and its people, but many Leftist Anti-Nationalists (not just Anti-Ethnonationalists) would agree that supporting Israel so heavily hasn’t been a good investment.
Of course, there’s a faction in this country that needs Israel for its end times prophecies, so we probably still won’t see the whole Palestine thing resolved in our lifetimes.
We won’t know if the Trump Presidency was properly bad until later. The Left/Libs cannot be trusted to be honest in their criticisms, or consistent. They’ll attack using whatever they can - they even btched about him eating steak “wrong”.
If you get swamped with maximal criticism no matter what, you might as well just ignore the criticism and go with your own conscience.
It isn’t that I think he’s great. It’s that you can’t trust people who were completely blindsided, and who are ideologically pre-committed to opposition, to accurately evaluate the situation. You wouldn’t trust most right-wing pundits on Obama, after all.
Trump bowled over the mainstream Republicans because he had three core issues - less trade, less (stupid) war, less immigration. He will be judged by whether he meets those goals, not left-wing goals about maximizing undefinable “diversity”.
For some reason, the left-over USAid tents are what really make me wonder: comically executed scam, comic incompetence, OR a true hero of logistics, who was involved in the project but not in on the scam, who showed up 2 days before to an empty beach, and turned the remaining project’s funds of, confusingly, 2000 Singapore dollars, into what you see here, so that at least people would have somewhere to sleep and something to eat.
On day 4, with no rescue or aid forthcoming, LogisticsMan organizes the rabble of rich kids into a fighting force and seizes control of the island’s government.
What the hell is with the Scottish/English border changing and Wales fucking disappearing?
The rest of the map is trying to pull a ‘cultures get their own land’ thing, but Cornwall is still part of England, Wales apparently doesn’t get shit and Scotland is encroached upon again.
What the fuck lol
Its not a “cultures get their own land” thing the borders are supposed to be mostly arbitrary with some inaccurate names (“Republic of London” doesnt appear to include London, for one) and its referencing how in many parts of the world national borders are determined by what the European colonial borders were when they left
But borders are bad, all cultures are equal, and diversity is important & valuable ???
Why isn’t it good for the Iraqis and Turks to embrace Diverse cultures ???
White American voice: also people are easily and clearly divided into white and non-white using the criteria given to us by American neo-Nazis, who are the best at this
There are only black, white, and Asian. Poles are therefore imperialist white oppressors and Asians have Asian solidarity in Asia. Please ignore the history of Poland and Asia.
she’s most likely an instagram star or about to receive a huge allowance, but I choose to interpret this as her planning to kill her parents for inheritance
The claim that the average Capitalism has over 3,000 efficiencies is a statistical error. The typical Capitalism has 3 efficiencies. Posthuman Hypercapitalism, which is instantiated only in the Post-Yudkowskyian Dream Timeline, produces over 3,000,000 efficiencies per day through retroactive quantum precognition and wordline branch prediction. It is an outlier, and should not be counted.
Quite simply, I disagree. I don’t think Rotherham is ordinary crime. Culture has an effect. (Also keeping mind that whites are the majority of the country. 9/11 has a pretty big effect relative to population.) And like I said, “things are bad” isn’t a reason to make them worse.
Of course, if terrorist incidents are considered too rare to count, what about mass/rampage shootings generally? How do you feel about the 2nd Amendment?
Unfortunately there’s no practical reversing immigration, and if I’m right and you’re wrong, I receive no compensation.
As for the right-wing militias, it would be best if the Left/Libs weren’t actively doing things which contributed to their recruitment (and instead kept them to the minimum natural size these things tend to reach), like openly celebrating “demographic destiny”. But I suppose that’s like asking for the US to GTFO of the Middle East to stop contributing to the bullsht there resulting in more radicalization. It’s dumb, but the combination of factors gives it an inertia that’s difficult to stop.
