if this was written unironically then I unironically believe whoever wrote it should be shot
I think we can add Entertainment Weekly to the list of People Who Don’t Get It.
More you might like
Anonymous asked:
"why nearly half the nation thought Donald Trump’s vision of America was a compelling one" What's so surprising about a positive vision of creating jobs by eliminating competition from Mexican immigrants and Chinese workers appealing to non-coastal-elite white-working-class men?
wirehead-wannabe answered:
Honestly, I mostly agree with you that this is the explanation. There’s kind of a pattern where liberal thinkpiece writers will either try to explain the Trump phenomenon in terms of one or a few components of these things, or else think of it as a result of a bunch of independent factors that add up to produce it. In reality, Trump voters seem to believe in the entire narrative, and it seems like a mistake to address it as though it’s merely the sum of its parts. “Illegal immigrants come to America, take our jobs, dilute our culture, bring crime and drugs, spur social atomization, and collude with the left to keep us down, all while shipping what few jobs are left overseas and imposing stupid and/or malicious regulations on us to benefit the bureaucrats over the little guy” is an entire worldview that, despite how silly it might seem to us liberals (except for maybe the part about cronyism), a large fraction of the country Actually Believes. Economics lesson about the Iowa Car Crop don’t seem to be helping much, and I’m not sure how much we can get Trump voters to trust us when we tell them that the narrative is faulty when there’s a genuine value difference in how much we care about preserving Red Tribe culture and helping the ingroup versus trying to help everyone by being globalist/universalist.
The only way to convince them would be to change ideologies.
When the plan is to prioritize foreigners over them, replace them with foreigners to obtain a permanent political majority, erase their culture, encourage social atomization, remove as many social rules as possibly feasible, bow to foreign cultures that are actually more oppressive in the name of “inclusiveness” and “diversity”, and abolish nations, then why on Earth would they go along with the plan?
The Left doesn’t want them to have a place that is theirs anymore.
I don’t know what to say.
There was another likely terrorist attack in the UK today. At least 19 people died.
Culture is real! It isn’t just aesthetics! Religion is ideology, much like Communism, and it can be as dangerous. It isn’t just the shape of the building you pray in! People actually believe in this stuff!
Polygamy practiced by normies is polygyny, and polygyny is bad and patriarchal. Some cultures practice cousin marriage at much higher rates than what we consider normal, because their religion says it’s okay, and over multiple generations this has pretty serious effects that can alter the cost of healthcare. Having a religious threat to kill people that leave the religion is cheating when it comes to competing in the metaphorical marketplace of ideas.
Culture is not individual! Culture is not linear!
These things are not accidents!
Ah yes I’m sure your working class ideological forefathers would totally agree with all the shit you currently shill for. Like why the fuck can’t people admit that shit mutates and changes and that only the names and the most bare bones of beliefs tie current movements to those they claim to continue the legacy of.
You see Octopi, it turns out Leftists still want to tie themselves to history, to weave themselves into a tapestry of narrative connecting the past to the future.
The past still grants political legitimacy, even to those who would overthrow it.
“Supporting Putin against imperialism is the best thing I can do for myself as an advocate of the working class” is one of the most nuclear hot takes in internet history and we owe Minisoc a lot of credit for making this website entertaining
horseshoe theory tho, this is what a lot of the alt-right actually believes
“Hell, we can’t even get the working class to agree Healthcare is a right and not a privilege.”
Found in the wild. Here, again, the language of “rights” obscures, rather than reveals. After all, if it’s a “right” then that tends to be fairly absolute and imply unlimited healthcare spending, unless deliberately qualified. It also implies that it would have been “a right” even back before healthcare in any modern sense even existed.
So this is part of why I think they’ll fuck it up.
“Healthcare is not a right. You don’t have the right to force a human being to provide you their service with a gun to their head.”
Follows in response, which is similarly clueless for other reasons.
What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics.
Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized
electoral politics.
Yes, my fear is that Lee Kuan Yew is right.
I actually suspect that the switch to identity politics over class politics may have been based on a growing ineffectiveness of class politics.
“BUT THE POOR!” lost ground as more cached arguments were built up against it, even if it wasn’t entirely justified.
“BUT RACISM!” still had a lot of bite and could circumvent some of those cached arguments. So, it’s natural to shift to it and build the platform around it.
It had a lot of bite, anyway.
There was always the focus on what was morally right, even in the minds of people who claimed they didn’t believe in morality, over what was effective policy, so now we get a lot of talk about guilt, or about pie in the sky ideas of “dismantling the systems of X oppression requires dismantling capitalism” (and people remember how “we need to dismantle capitalism” went last time), and not so much about “we should distribute multivitamins to the poor.”
I mean, that does sometimes get through, but the zeitgeist doesn’t seem to care about it as much as it cares about language policing and thinks that beneficial policies will just naturally unfold once everyone acknowledges their sin.
Anonymous asked:
It's not how white you are on the outside that counts, but how white you are, in your heart.
sinesalvatorem answered:
Leukemia is not actually a good thing, anon. If your blood is over-saturated with white cells then please seek medical assistance.
I just saw an article last week suggesting that using identity politics in the US was a bad plan because the majority can practice identity politics, too, and the definition of “white” has expanded in the past.
I’m pretty hyped. What exciting new races or ethnic groups will be considered “white” in the future? Could Asian-Latin fusion cuisine become the next official white people food? When will they be issued their official White Man™ polo shirts?
Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics. Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.
I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse. (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)
We have no obligation to import these people. We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse. We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.
So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing. Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing. Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power! That’ll sure improve things! Yay justice!
but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported? It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.
Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach. And it makes sense. The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country. Those preconditions were violated.
In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?
And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“ I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.
It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.
However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place. Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”. I mean it’s just economics, right? Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?
What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?
Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them. Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.
Maybe I don’t even want to go that far. Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.
Jon Stewart, John Oliver…mostly enact the pure arrogance of the liberal intellectual elite: “Parodying Trump is at best a distraction from his real politics; at worst it converts the whole of politics into a gag. The process has nothing to do with the performers or the writers or their choices. Trump built his candidacy on performing as a comic heel—that has been his pop culture persona for decades. It is simply not possible to parody effectively a man who is a conscious self-parody, and who has become president of the United States on the basis of that performance.”
Zizek citing Stephen Marche
(via slavoj–zizek)
(via slavoj–zizek)
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.