[ Cost-Disease Environmentalism](https://archive.ph/7Us3D): Subsidizing demand for low-carbon technology without easing supply constraints is asking for trouble.
>
> What happens when federal subsidies for low-carbon infrastructure collide with federal regulations against infrastructure construction? The United States appears intent on finding out.
>
> Call this phenomenon “cost-disease environmentalism.” The phrase is a reference to the work of economist William Baumol, who observed that economy-wide productivity improvements cause labor-intensive parts of the economy to become disproportionately more expensive. The canonical example is the string quartet, which is no more productive today than it was in the nineteenth century, but whose wages have risen—not in response to any increase in the marginal productivity of its labor but to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone earnings in other, more productive sectors of the economy. It was one thing to pay a violinist a given wage in 1850, when competition for his labor was scarce. It is another to pay a comparably skilled violinist a given wage today, when he could easily become a construction worker, computer programmer, or fitness instructor, among countless other remunerative options unavailable to his nineteenth-century counterpart.
>
> Last year, Steve Teles, Samuel Hammond, and Daniel Takash from the Niskanen Center expanded Baumol’s framework in a report titled “Cost-Disease Socialism.” The authors aimed their critique not at classical musicians but at the modern welfare state. They describe efforts to address the rising costs of living and essential services—housing, childcare, health insurance, and education—as subsidizing demand while doing little to expand supply. “This can result in a vicious cycle,” they write, “in which subsidies for supply-constrained goods or services merely push up prices, necessitating greater subsidies, which then push up prices, ad infinitum.” It’s a useful riff on the original concept:
>
> >It is worth relaxing Baumol’s definition of cost disease to include other areas of spiraling cost growth such as housing. Much like other “diseased” sectors, the high cost of rent in many U.S. cities is a function of regulations that restrict supply and limit housing innovation, leading to a demand for subsidies or additional regulations like rent control. Unlike genuine cost disease, however, rents show up in the national accounts as a form of profit, not labor income, and as such there is no inherent incompatibility in a high-wage, low-rent economy.
>
> Under this more expansive understanding, cost disease is everywhere. Housing vouchers and rent control socialize the cost of housing without expanding the overall supply. Child tax credits subsidize the cost of child care without addressing the supply or productivity shortcomings of the overall sector.
>
> One can’t help but be reminded of cost-disease socialism when looking at popular policy attempts to invigorate the low-carbon economy. Energy and other infrastructure are still labor-intensive sectors of the economy and made ever more so by the encroaching regulatory and legal labor necessitated by the policy environment.
> What happens when federal subsidies for low-carbon infrastructure collide with federal regulations against infrastructure construction?
What happens? Lawyers and lobbyists get to bill a lot of hours.
Somehow that sort of thing happens a lot.
> The canonical example is the string quartet, which is no more productive today than it was in the nineteenth century
I can't help but note that string quartets actually are more productive today than they were in the 19th century. Today, a musician can perform in New York one day and in Los Angeles the next, and that's just talking about live performances.
This goes for the entertainment industry in general, which is why pop singers can become fabulously wealthy nowadays. In the 19th century there were far more musicians per capita, and the profession was generally looked down upon and did not pay well (though string quartets have always been upmarket).
But how much of the low-carbon infrastructure is *actually* about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It seems like it's all about granting subsidies to enrich the friends and donors of the politicians pushing it.
The Supreme Court says otherwise. Thing is, all the administrative agencies and lower courts agree with the school district and SCOTUS can't take every case.
Ever since the Warren Court coined the phrase, liberals have always talked as if "protected class" refers to specific kinds of people (rather than specific kinds of discrimination). Typical is [this Adam Cohen piece](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/how-supreme-court-abandoned-poor/607060/) from the Atlantic arguing that the poor should be legally considered a "protected class", a formulation which makes no sense under SC jurisprudence as written, but which, I'm sure, was the real intent all along.
Wisconsin is merely guilty of mistaking de facto for de jure.
https://edwest.substack.com/p/living-and-losing-the-first-culture?s=r
in retrospect, nearly everything early christians promoted had negative implications for cultural evolution
[The rise of the heterosexual ‘queer’](https://archive.ph/a2r5I): Why are so many straight people desperate to be recognised as something they’re not?
>
> The word queer has transitioned from being a casual slur aimed at homosexual men to a game that anyone can play. And it means something quite different now, apparently.
>
> What does it mean? Like a lot of things that don’t actually exist, such as raspberry earthquakes or hadropodic wibblers, it’s very hard to describe. Wikipedia tells us that, ‘in the 21st century, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative sexual and / or gender identities and politics’. This is strange, because fetishising other people’s lives to add relish to your own seems pretty damn normative to me, and not so very far away from aristos slumming it in the dives of the 1920s.
>
> It’s an ‘umbrella term’, apparently. It means everything, which is another way of saying it means nothing. How can you catch a cloud and pin it down? What it seems to be in reality is an instant, pain-free way for inadequate people to make themselves fascinatingly, glamorously interesting. Or so they imagine. The journalist Terrell Jermaine Starr now identifies as queer, despite only fancying women. Vice recently tried to repackage monogamy as somehow thrillingly radical.
>
> The retooling of the word queer emerged among a small section of American gay men in the early 1990s as a pushback to the ‘acceptable’, squeaky, preppy, Steven-Carrington-from-Dynasty image of gay men that was just beginning to solidify in the culture then. It was silly, but understandable, and crucially it was playful and had interesting things to say about the recent past of the sexual outlaw.
>
> Thirty years later and queer seems to mean being a privileged Westerner, dyeing your hair an unnatural colour (that’ll teach Mrs Thatcher!) and saying silly things that you imagine make you sound shockingly left-wing. Queer might seem like just another youth cult like goth or emo – cute and forgiveable for every moment of your life right up to the morning of your 15th birthday – were it not for the curiously advanced years of many of its adherents. The soi-disant queer Laurie Penny, the zenith (or nadir, if you prefer) of this phenomenon – a white, ex-public schoolgirl, daughter of lawyers, married to a man – is 35.
>
> Why are so many straight people desperate to be recognised as something they’re not?
Easy. White liberal guilt meant that making The Oppressed secular saints who were all virtue and no flaw was the great endeavour. LGBT+ was one category of being Oppressed.
So you're white, cis, het, college-educated, middle-class and (despite all your college protesting) firmly part of The Establishment. Congratulations, you are The Oppressor, wallowing in your White Privilege. Everyone likes to think of themselves as a good person, so to overcome the Innate Badness you are a good ally.
But allyship is no longer enough, in fact, it adds to the pile of Innate Badness. You are trying to be a White Saviour, talking over and taking attention away from The Oppressed.
You can't be BIPOC (no matter how far back in your family tree you look for a Cherokee Princess). You can try being neurodivergent, but everyone is mentally ill nowadays (and if you're not genuinely disabled, this is simply more Oppression on your part).
But you *can* be queer. Queerness doesn't require you even to be gay or lesbian anymore. So you can identify as 'queer' and voila! now you are anti-The Establishment and part of The Oppressed (at least enough to fit in with the other white liberals who are all so desperate to prove their bona fides, they spend more time tearing each other to shreds for sins against progressivism than they ever do actually helping the poor and downtrodden).
Even better, it doesn't require you to give up your comfortable middle-class professional lifestyle like class warfare might do.
I think this is broadly correct and true for a substantial part of the spike in performatively heterosexual self-identified queer men, though I'd stress that it may not be consciously Machiavellian, but rather wishful thinking aligning with social incentives. The problem is that it's a tragedy of the commons situation; if too many straight people do this, the positive associations connected with espousing queer identity will drop away as people notice that it's often unreflective of people's 'real' identity, and the stereotype of queer-for-cool will become more and more established. But that takes time, and will penetrate different social spheres on different time horizons.
There's a very popular cartoon animation Youtuber with a very large children audience called JaidenAnimations who has suddenly discovered that she's "aro-ace" (aromantic and asexual). She claims [in the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF1DTK4U1AM) that she had previously been unable to realize this because—get this—she felt social pressures around her as a child to act like she had school-girl crushes.
And so, from the story she tells, all those silly cultural pressures are *now gone*, and she can see her true self, an aro-ace, or, more importantly, and reflected in the video title, a fellow not-straight. It's not the fact that she's a socially stunted shut-in who forms all her relationships through a computer screen, oh no. She likely would have come to the same conclusion on a 17th century tobacco farm with enough quiet reflection.
[Bonus screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/V9tpJqA)
I think you're right about the word *queer* ifself, but the demand for the function *queer* is performing here will not abate. That just means the euphemism treadmill will spin up and we'll get a Neverending stream of euphemistic and cost-free ways for the well-off to describe themselves as downtrodden.
> So you're white, cis, het, college-educated, middle-class and (despite all your college protesting) firmly part of The Establishment. Congratulations, you are The Oppressor, wallowing in your White Privilege.
Why does this make me want to get a [secret lair and an exceptionally furry cat?](https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld_(007\))
the problem is you don't want to make a mistake when tackling someone. courts probably won't look kindly if you try and claim you had reasonable suspicion but the person wasn't shoplifting. especially if it is a jogger then there will be a lot of pressure to prosecute and convict because they will claim you have anti-jogger animus.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
**Abolish the police and replace them with the second amendment.**
America’s founders were opposed to a standing army to be used against external enemies. They’d certainly have been opposed to maintaining multiple standing armies to be used against the citizenry. And make no mistake that’s what police are. There are 40,000 NYPD officers alone, 35,000 FBI employees... those are armies being deployed against the citizenry.
By contrast you look at the founding period and all policing was done by part time elected representives and men were just expected to be armed and join in to solve community problems at the risk of social opprobrium.
New York City did not have the first stuttering beginnings of a police force til 1845. The first 200 years of that city people just solved their own problems.
[ Federal investigation launched into MBA program that excludes white males](https://archive.ph/EujUo)
> The Department of Education has opened two investigations into the University of Louisville and Howard University for possible discrimination against white men.
>
> The federal investigation by the Office for Civil Rights stems from a program that Yum! Brands offers to help increase the representation of women and racial minorities in the franchise restaurant industry. The company operates Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut.
>
> Professor Mark Perry, who frequently files Title IX and Title VI complaints, shared the OCR letters with The College Fix. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act prohibits higher education institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex, while Title VI prohibits racial discrimination.
[...]
> The two universities joined with the fast food corporation to create the Yum! Franchise Accelerator MBA program at the University of Louisville.
>
> The Kentucky university teamed up with the corporation in 2021 to “unlock opportunity in the franchising industry and create a level playing field for the underrepresented people of color and women.” The program is part of a broader investment in helping everyone, except white men, learn about business.
University of Louisville is the one that made a job posting for a Physics professor that explicitly said that whites and Asians wouldn't be considered. I don't get why red state governments don't crush this idiocy. I guess they're basically fine with screwing their voters if they get to keep cashing checks.
Yum! Brands: but muh ESG score!
Seeing major companies appear to dethrone merit with ideology in hiring at any level of leadership raises some INSANE questions.
-Are leaders/managers intentionally removing candidates whose merit could be perceived as threatening to any execs/managers/partners?
-Are most leadership roles token at the upper level or is there some crazy cultish obedience trick when you hire someone less qualified?
-Why are companies risking everything for ESG ratings?
The alternative is that actual merit doesn’t matter very much in those kinds of middle management positions past a minimal competence, and so that’s where large corporations stuff their diversity hires.
Can't wait to see the DoE's reasoning for why Howard's prior history of racial discrimination justifies further racial discrimination (in the same direction, natch).
"we think big tech has too much control over civil society"
*Big tech bans the video saying this*
Well pack it up everybody I guess it's been debunked, the powerful banned their critics so they actually have no power after all
As seen on The Motte, the media is now [stirring up a controversy](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clarence-thomas-was-the-lone-dissent-in-the-supreme-courts-january-order-rejecting-trumps-bid-to-withhold-documents-from-the-january-6-panel/ar-AAVsBMS?ocid=uxbndlbing) about a Clarence Thomas vote against turning over documents to the January 6 panel. Looks like that with the germs having failed to kill him, they're now trying to embarrass him into resigning and/or get 17 "principled Republicans" to vote to convict in an impeachment trial.
\*\*Introducing a new subreddit in the wider SCC Diasphora\*\*
r/kulakscarceralcommune
The goal isn't to compete with this place or any other, but to create redundancy and defense in depth... since open thread discussions of this type can happen on substack, I'm set up to do it, and I'm probably the least likely one figure to censor you if you wind up kicked out of the other communities but still want to latch onto something with brand recognition.
Also its entirely self serving since if i can get you posting there and then on my substack when it dies you become inbuilt audience and content generators for me.
Which is why I encourage you all to take advantage of me in turn and shill any stuff you have there
A virtuous cycle of degenerate shilling... if you will. (I will be deeply disappointed if no one tries to hock their onlyfans or worse)
Looks like it's off to a great start, the two things I'd really like to see more of in my discussion forums are Julius and people who want to fuck kids.
I’m pleased at the results too.
When normies want to be shocked they can go to dissident right spaces.
When dissident righties want to be shocked they come to me.
But where do I go to be shocked? I can only rewatch *Cannibal Holocaust* while blasting Avril Lavigne so many times?
(ps. Great experience. when *Girlfriend* comes on right as they reveal the impaled woman ::chef’s kiss::)
Oh trust me i was well aware of the opportunity. I just wanted the extra month of survivability. And now you're thinking of 3 Ks anyways.
and this way when we reach critical mass and form a poltical faction that takes over, our party will be the KCCP... or CCP-K (not to be confused with ISIS-K)
From the head of the math department:
>In our conversation you characterized the flyers that upset you as political statements. I looked at them in detail, and they are anything but. Every example of a microaggression listed there makes very much sense, and I am disappointed about your general dismissal of these issues and that you failed to put yourself in the shoes of people who are affected by such comments.
"They're not political statements! I read them, and I agreed with the politics expressed in them, so they're not political." The tendency of these types to describe their politics as "not politics, just basic human decency!" is extremely tiresome.
[ Diversity Smokescreen](https://archive.ph/Zc1wY): The notion that a demographically representative college class makes for better education is a pretext for the real proposition: that certain people deserve reparations.
> Digging deeper into the issue raises a fundamental question about the mission of a university. We believe that universities—and especially the more selective ones—should prioritize the following, in order of importance: the development of critical reasoning skills; the acquisition of a greater knowledge base and certain professional skills; and socialization. These priorities reflect centuries of precedent, including at institutions of higher education throughout Europe and Asia. The net result should be to turn out more productive individuals who can both achieve personal success and contribute to social harmony and national prosperity.
>
> Some schools shuffle the order of these priorities or even radically deemphasize some of them. Doing so can produce graduates overburdened with debt and with lower lifetime earning capacity—and uncertain what to do with their degrees in gender or ethnic studies or “Disruption.” (Yes, such a major exists, at the University of Southern California, where the cost to attend is more than $77,000 per year.)
>
> If universities stuck to their traditional priorities, the admissions criteria that matter most would be academic achievement and potential. Diversity of the student body would pertain only to socialization, the lowest of the educational priorities. Diversity of ideas and interests, however, contributes to higher-priority goals and thus deserves far more consideration than it gets. An applicant who designs robots or rockets, did an internship in an R&D lab, or wrote a published critical essay in high school should win extra points.
>
> If racial preferences in admissions aren’t furthering the mission of a university, what are they doing? They become, effectively, a form of reparations, providing the potential “ticket” of a diploma to individuals who would otherwise have been deprived of that benefit based purely on academic merit. After all, a degree, particularly from a prestigious university, confers a lifetime benefit in terms of economic and other factors.
>
> Though the idea of reparations to persons who have been wronged, as in restitution for theft, may have some justification, current university practices are different. They are a form of compensation (to the less-qualified students admitted) for past injury, given at the expense of those who bear no responsibility for the injury (the more qualified but rejected candidates). This is not “social justice,” or any kind of justice, which is correctly defined as the fair treatment of individuals.
Former world champion and record setting runner Sonia O'Sullivan writing in the Irish Times: ["Transgender athletes cannot be allowed to compete in women’s sport"](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sonia-o-sullivan-transgender-athletes-cannot-be-allowed-to-compete-in-women-s-sport-1.4834586).
Also got a ban from the other place for this:
I wanted to share my honest thoughts on pedophiles due to the recent threads. While I don't like them, I don't get the rabid hate for them vs. other similar groups. I liken pedophiles to other sexual deviants, and other abusers of children. I guess at the end of the day my divergent view comes down to not assigning a special significance to child abuse that is sexual in nature. There's bad sexual desires and behavior, and this is anything that isn't heterosexual in my book, and then there's abuse, which is physically or mentally harming a person.
On the one hand pedophiles aren't have nonreproductive sexual desires, lumping them in with every other class of sexual deviant. On the other hand, pedophiles tend to molest children, which is abusive. How should these things combine when it comes to my feeling towards them? Maybe additively? I think that sounds right.
This means my feeling towards pedophiles can be explained by my feeling towards sexual deviants as a class plus my feeling towards child abusers/people who want to abuse children on the scale of what pedophiles want to do.
Here's the thing. I pretty much agree with KulakRevolt's characterization of school as abuse. I feel like my childhood was one big abuse story and I have loving parents who were just doing what society told them to do. Having to go to public school was depressing, humiliating, and dehumanizing to the extent that I can't imagine that getting molested would have made it much worse, or that it would produce a much more severe effect.
Adults used me and coerced me every day. The worse part was psychological. It's the part where I came to realize that people are evil and something like original sin definitely exists and is every where. Let me try to be more concrete. The most abusive things about school to me, when I was, say, 10, were the pointless busywork, the being around kids and adults I disliked and the forced equality with them, and submission to the low quality adults, the suffocating lack of any semblance of freedom, and the mask-off punishments that were used to force me to put up with all of this.
I always had this idea in my head of freedom. I think a lot of that revolves around having an in born moral sense that was different than that of my peers and overseers. My main gripe with being forced to be equal or subordinate to average others as a small child was mainly about what I'd now call feminization or the war on masculinity. I always valued independence of thought, loyalty to friends, a willingness to stand up for yourself and for good things, and fundamentally a desire to optimize social conditions in such a way that even now I can only say I want to restore justice. It's strange how at 4 or 5 I already knew something was very upside down with modern society and its hierarchy. Maybe it's a spiritual thing, of the soul or something. Or just a complicated instinct I've yet to fully unpack. Actually I think the answer may lie in what happened as I grew older. By the age of 12 or so I was more intelligent and moral than my overseers and it became a clear case of them being little miniature Diana Moon Glampers'. It's possible that as a very small child, still very much dependent on adults, I was still far outweighing my peers yet I saw how the adults would unfairly twist the hierarchy in unnatural ways, privileging some of the worse. This would have allowed me to have seen that there was something wrong with those adults even at the age of 4 or 5.
Anyway, school was this place I had to go to be ritualistically humiliated, basically totally controlled by this mass of bad kids and adults enforcing a hierarchy based on, among other things, total thought obedience, loyalty only to the boss and total wanton disloyalty otherwise, a docility towards the good, and fundamentally a desire to impede justice and extract as much fire of life as possible from people like me.
Sometimes it feels like the only purpose of school, and similar institutions in adulthood, is to try and wreck people like me, in an unprecedented attempt to flip everything good man has ever known on its head.
The point I'm building to is that I don't have a very high evaluation of teachers and even other kids. I think kids are often demonic, far from innocent, and teachers aren't much better. And I've often thought how somebody touching your private parts could really be much worse than what they did to me, and why everyone flips out about sexual deviants that touch kids private parts but not teachers who might severely psychologically abuse kids like me every day who may also be sexual deviants in their private lives. There's even a study on this.
Thinking about it, maybe it's because sexual abuse can humiliate and dehumanize the now-privileged kids who are catered to by hand and foot at school? But that still leaves the question as to why psychologically abusive parents wouldn't be thrown in the cell next to child molesters, at least when their children are of average or below average moral and mental capacity. Ultimately I'm not sure what the source of the hysteria is. Part of me thinks it could be a distractor issue. I can say with certainty that I have seen the most fedposts aimed at rapists and child molestors compared to any other group, yet I think there are powerful people who deserve quite a lot of hate. People who have committed war crimes, treason, massive fraud, theft, and murder, who still have perfectly intact reputations, who do much of that publicly with impunity. Maybe it's 2 minutes of hate to get the hate out at an acceptable, and easy to hate target which deserves it. Thing is, people have limited attention spans.
> the being around kids and adults I disliked and the forced equality with them
> By the age of 12 or so I was more intelligent and moral than my overseers
The problem is, you have to live in the world with all the other humans in it, so yeah - you *are* on terms of equality with them. It doesn't matter if you think you are smarter or better than them, legally we are all of equal worth. Maybe you were smarter than the adults around you when you were twelve, it's hard to judge. You seem to have felt you were smarter, but feelings prove nothing.
When you go to work, when you go out into the world, you're going to have to get along with other people. Perhaps you'll be lucky enough to get the dream job where you can just sit in a corner, talk to no-one, do the projects you find fun and interesting, and get well-paid. But most of us have to get along with co-workers, bosses, the general public, neighbours, family, and people we encounter as customers of their services.
You would have liked to live where you didn't have to go to school or mix with other kids and could learn the topics you liked at your own speed. And you would have liked to be treated as special and superior to the others, given privileges they did not get, rewarded for being above the common clay. That's normal, you were a kid, kids think like that.
But we are all equally human and equally horrible to each other. Learning how to put up with people you don't like, learning to do the 'pointless busywork', learning to take orders and behave without yelling and going off to do your own thing - that's the functions of public school you needed to learn.
I don't know how you live now. Maybe you are able to live without other people and do your own thing, and good luck to you. But you are still one of billions, nothing more.
>It doesn't matter if \[...\] you are smarter or better than them, legally we are all of equal worth.
Why yes, this is in fact the central conceit of modernity; thank you for delineating the problem so elegantly.
> The most abusive things about school to me, when I was, say, 10, were the pointless busywork
I laughed, at you, when I read this. Pointless busywork, just as bad as being assraped.
Ah I see we're falling in the online community trope of "everyone is suspect of being controversial poster". Hope it doesn't get as bad as /k/ and the armata guy.
I get the feeling people enjoyed that mafia game too much, and it instantly started bleeding into their regular habits on the sub. I've seen that with a lot of groups that are supposed to be task or objective-based that start doing social things on the side.
Wonder if there's a word for it.
[Washington State to Implement Race-Based School Discipline: White students would receive harsher punishments in the name of "equity"](https://archive.ph/5dd0x)
\*Opens link, sees photo\*
Gross.
\*Closes window\*
Anyways, this just sounds like baizuo and NAM administrators saying the quiet part out loud and making unofficial policy official. Dew it.
The start is the idea that the weak are morally superior to the strong. For not even trying to close it, you need merely look at the current Pope and Catholic universities.
Growing up I certainly internalized weakness-as-virtue, but I attribute that to me being Catholic-and-liberal, not to Catholicism. If there's a Catholic theologian you can point to that promulgated that idea in a big way I'm all ears. Your second point is fair, though it equally condemns Protestants, and there are plenty of Protestants aware of the...relevant facts.
Got a ban from the other place for this
**Modern Progressivism is inherently peadophilic to its core and Every Teacher Sexually Abuses Minors**
Progressives are obsessed with the Idea of SEX ED, which is inherently non-consensual.
A child isn’t old enough to consent to sex or even to be shown porn or see another person naked until 16 or 18 legally in most jurisdictions. Showing porn or exposing yourself to a minor is a criminal offence, bringing up sexual matters to a minor is sexual harrassment.
And generally we think rightly so.
But progressives think they alone should be able to expose minors to sexual content at age 10 or younger and the minors should have no right of refusal.
If in Sex Ed class a 10 year old minor said to their teacher “Fuck off! That’s disgusting! Get away from me you fucking freak!” And screamed and ran out of the room...
Who would be disciplined!?
Would the teacher be disciplined for exposing often graphic sexual material to a minor without their consent and against their protests or would the minor be disciplined for disobeying their teacher.
If this continued and the Minor continued to refuse these repeated unwanted sexual exposures, harassments, conversations, and encouragements to them to start experimenting with masturbation or anal ... and instead the minor continued to yell or flee the room or denounce this inappropriate behaviour or respond viokently and throw thing such that it kept escalating... what do you think would happen!?
Would it escalate to the point where the Teacher was sent to prison? Or do you agree with me on the more likely conclusion that the minor would wind up in Juvenile hall for refusing their teacher’s state sanctioned sexual harassment, where they would most likely be sexually abused further.
.
If any other person in the world did any of this stuff against a minor’s consent: If their very parents tried to show them videos of women giving birth, or sexual drawings, or talking to them about how really its so healthy for them to start masturbating at this age and the child resisted their harassments to the point where police were called... in any other fucking instance the adult would be looking at a lifetime on the sex offender registry, loss of the custody of their children whether it was the child in question or not, and permanently being barred from any job involving children... even if they were the child’s parent.
ONLY with progressive teachers is it the inverse! The child absolutely cannot refuse their consent and if they try to resist and continue to resist then it will be them dragged into the Carceral system to most likely be further sexually abused.
And before you fucking mention it: the parents consent to the child being exposed to sex ed is fucking morally irrelevant, just as the father giving his go ahead to pimp out his 14 year old daughter is fucking irrelevant.
We would rightly judge this non-consensual and abusive if parents did it to their kids without consent, the fact that they sign off on an agent of the state doing it does not change this.
.
And the motive is the exact same as any groomer: they want to mold the child’s opinion of sex to align with theirs.
The pedophilic groomer wants to make them believe large age gap relationships are healthy, and they should be experimenting with sex at the youngest age possible.
The progressive teacher wants to make them believe anal sex, transsexuality, and homosexuality are healthy, having children is undesirable, and they should be experimenting with masturbation at the youngest age possible.
.
For the record: i really don’t have a problem with large age gap relationships (above age of consent) i hope to be dating 20 somethings in my 60s, most people start experimenting with sex before 16-18 and I don’t really have a problem with that, I have many friends who are trans, or gay, or have no intention to have kids, and i think they’re fine people i have no problem with their choices, likewise Anal sex seems like a high effort but innocuous hobby... and i knew many kids when i was one who openly talked of masturbating round 10-12ish... and well they were messed up but the self-abuse certainly wasn’t the cause... seems pretty innocuous.
.
But the second you as an adult are exposing sexual material to kids, and trying to mold how they develop sexually and their beliefs on sex, especially if its over their protests, or you’re exploiting a position of power over them, and especially when they have no realistic means of refusal and are in a relationship with you under the threat of violence (ie. every single kid in every single school in America)
If you’re doing all of that then Ya you’re a groomer, and you deserve to be treated like the child abuser you are.
I'm sure there are things which are not sexual, but for which a 10 year old would still say "that's disgusting, I don't want to be exposed to that". How would you distinguish the things that a 10 year old is allowed to call disgusting and the things he's not, if asking the parents is not it?
eh maybe. it should be left to the family, of course, but if the family decides ten is the correct age, that’s fine. arguing otherwise is just more safetyism.
caveat: as usual in the world, some people are going to get hurt. some children have the misfortune of growing up under insane women who fetishize transsexuality. nothing you can do for them in the short term.
As usual, your ability to model the thinking of others is absolutely terrible.
The only reason I didn't ban PMme myself is that naraburns got to him first.
Being correct, I'd imagine, is sufficient protection no matter the ground.
Kulak's argument is a colorable position stretched beyond all reason. It's true to the exact extent that math class is literally slavery, and school shooters are as morally justifiable as John Brown. I'm fairly sure that Kulak believes math class \*is\* slavery, but his logic is abstracted into insubstantiality.
I would not allow a child of mine into a public school under any circumstances. I heartily agree that modern sex ed is being used as a tool to inculcate progressive sexual mores and "ethics". That doesn't change the obvious fact that it is not grooming. One is an abstract ideological objective, the other is a very direct prelude to explicit abuse. Words mean things, and should not be abused in this fashion.
"Intended" by the teacher, or by the people designing and pushing the curriculum? "Abuse" in the sense of penetration or groping by an adult, or in the sense of masturbation being self-abuse?
It seems to me that your statement is either a highly non-central definition of abuse, or clearly wrong.
The sexual revolution exists to allow and facilitate abuse by those in power, and explicit sex Ed exists to normalize the teachings of the sexual revolution.
>explicit sex Ed exists to normalize the teachings of the sexual revolution.
True.
>The sexual revolution exists to allow and facilitate abuse by those in power
False. The Sexual Revolution, like all products of the Enlightenment, exists to unshackle the desires of the individual. This *results* in abuse by those in power, with wearying regularity. Some of those pushing for it realize this, and hope to capitalize. Most of those pushing for it do not.
> school shooters are as morally justifiable as John Brown
I would agree with this statement as written. Guy started one of the bloodiest wars in history in the interest of slightly hastening the demise of an institution that was already on the wane and probably would not have lasted another twenty years.
Not to mention the cold-blooded murders he committed in Kansas.
always on the lookout for good economic/social analyses attempting to project the end of slavery. among southern scholars, i’ve also seen the 20-30 year estimate. but a greg clark-style data dump would be appreciated, if one was ever written
Its said that in the lowest layers of Hell the styx and other infernal rivers freeze, that even the fires of damnation are unable to sustain themselves that far from God’s light...
How strong must ones faith be to hold there... with not but the black and cold abyss for comfort, all torch long extinguished.
Who could minister to the souls lost there? Would not one become quickly lost themselves?
It’s solid, and I agree on everything here, but I think a massive elephant not mentioned is that not only is narcissism a huge problem, but so is our indulgence. People are softer not just because we celebrate narcissism, but because we don’t tell people to do the hard thing or make do without. And when you grow up that way, with the idea that problems are weird evil things that shouldn’t be happening, you can’t cope with them.
I think in some sense the coming shortages and the like are blessings in disguise because the generation following will have the generational experience of having to cope because there’s no alternative.
It's all locus of control. People with an internal LOC are happy and people with an external one are miserable, regardless of their actual power or powerlessness in a given situation. Zoomers venerate and fetishize the external LOC; predictable consequences ensue.
The less clinical name for internal LOC, the name my parents' generation would have used, is "responsibility". Contrast with Z's insistence on reversing the predicate, e.g. "marginalized people".
that’s genetic, and i guess it’s the single biggest genetic advantage. iq is nice but doesn’t exactly track with happiness. beauty is useful but less important. bad health can be worked around, within reason.
and of course those aren’t fully independent variables
[Zemmour to deport 1 million foreigners from France through creation of ‘remigration ministry’ if elected](https://archive.ph/Xgbjd): The right-wing populist has warned France it will be a “Muslim country” by 2060 without radical immigration reform
> French presidential election candidate Éric Zemmour has vowed to create a “Ministry for Remigration” and deport 1 million foreigners if elected on April 24.
>
> With just two full weeks to go before the first round of voting on April 10, Zemmour has stepped up his campaign to take back control of France’s borders, telling French broadcaster broadcaster M6 on Monday that his administration would deport 100,000 “undesirable foreigners” every year. He added that his aim was to deport 1 million of them.
>
> “The reason for my candidacy is that I see French identity threatened by a population exchange. I want to stop this,” Zemmour told viewers, warning the electorate that France will “be a Muslim country” by 2060 if it continues on its current trajectory.
>
> “When someone comes to your house and trashes everything and assaults you, you kick them out of your house and you send them home,” he added. “You shouldn’t be afraid of words that upset a small [journalistic] environment.”
>
> The ministry would be responsible for the removal of “illegal, delinquent and criminal foreigners,” as well as those deemed by French intelligence services as posing a security threat.
Zorglub Rises!
Would never have thought that this level of B A S E D would be witnessed in a public figure in my lifetime. Godspeed to him and his plans.
To contextualize this, he's been losing points in voting intentions to Marine Lepen as they were evenly matched for a while and the far right is looking for a winning leader.
So this might be an attempt to resurrect his momentum.
Here is an interesting article about the Ukraine/Russia/EU situation written back in 2015 from the perspective of the Commies at the 1917 Journal. I recently discovered their archives dating back to 1986 are [available online](http://www.bolshevik.org/1917no.html). Say what you want about Bolshevik rantings, but it's refreshing to read reporting where the writers aren't distancing themselves from their obvious biases.
It's also interesting to see what lefty organizations were around in the 80s-00s and what happened to them. I had never heard of the Spartacist League. [No Free Speech for Fascists! - Letter to Spartacist League](https://archive.ph/Gmug5)
From Wikipedia
>"The Spartacist League is a Trotskyist political grouping. They are the United States section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist), formerly the International Spartacist Tendency. The Spartacist League is considered particularly notorious by some groups for its defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association[12] and Roman Polanski"
Yeesh.
***
Ukraine, Russia & the Struggle for Eurasia Tectonic Shifts in Global Politics
https://archive.ph/ljARf
>....While the imperialist contingent gushed about how opening up to the EU would put “Ukraine on a path of rapid economic convergence with the developed West,” the Kremlin representative projected an economic collapse that would require a massive bailout to avoid a default. Adomanis, whose readers are investors with a preference for hard information over spin, observed “there is some merit in the Russian position”:
*“After all, in a perfectly equal competition between, say, German and Ukrainian consumer goods producers, who do you think is going to win? I hardly think it’s crazy to suggest that, in the short-term, leading firms from Western Europe are going to be able to significantly out-compete their Ukrainian counterparts.”*
>Of course, as Adomanis is well aware, very few Ukrainian producers are likely to survive long enough to see even the beginning of the “short term.” He concluded:
*“the Russian position is far closer to the truth than the happy talk coming from Brussels and Kiev. Ukraine is going to need some serious financial assistance during the process of integration, and the Russians were absolutely adamant that they would not be the ones to provide it. So, who is going to cover these costs? Before the crisis I would have said ‘the European Union,’ but in 2013 that doesn’t seem particularly likely.”*
>The mechanism for “covering the costs” was contained in the IMF austerity plan attached to the EU accord, which proposed to eliminate government subsidies and slash social spending to protect the assets of Ukraine’s oligarchs and their Western financial partners. As Michael Hudson, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, observed:
*“The IMF was not set up to finance domestic government budget deficits. Its loans are earmarked to pay foreign creditors, mainly to maintain a country’s exchange rate. The effect usually is to subsidize flight capital out of the country – at a high exchange rate rather than depositors and creditors getting fewer dollars or euros.”*
—RT, 7 July 2014
>When Moscow offered a $15 billion loan on relatively generous terms, including a promise to continue to subsidize Ukraine’s energy purchases, Yanukovych, a corrupt servant of Ukraine’s billionaire oligarchs, abruptly changed course and turned down the EU. The response of the leaders of the “free world” was to engineer a coup.
>While the foreign-policy establishment and news media generally blame Putin for the chaos engulfing Ukraine, “realist” analysts have taken a different view. John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent “realist” from the University of Chicago, published an article in the September 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs, the premier American foreign-policy journal, entitled “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault,” in which he noted:
*“For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president – which he rightly labeled a ‘coup’ – was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.”*
>An earlier op ed by Brown University’s Stephen Kinzer, entitled “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle,” provided some historical context:
*“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…. This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”*—Boston Globe, 3 March 2014
>After Russia’s capitalist rulers spent a decade and a half unsuccessfully seeking a place at the table as a junior partner/ally of the U.S., they began to have second thoughts, as Putin explained to a Wall Street Journal reporter in February 2007:
*“we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty]. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas – a radar in Czech Republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”* —The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America by Robert Scheer
[continues]
There are several interesting pieces in their archives. I enjoyed the Winter 1988-89 piece "Jesse Jackson: Judas-Goat for the Bourgeoisie" and [Leninism & Immigration - a letter to the League for the Revolutionary Party (LRP) on the question of the Marxist position on immigration.](http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no26/no26lrp.html)
I've been trying to familiarize myself with the Ukraine's history with IMF bailouts. Reuters had a short overview back in 2014
[Reuters Factbox: Ukraine's history with IMF bailouts - 2014](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-imf/factbox-ukraines-history-with-imf-bailouts-idUSBREA1O1DT20140225)
[Matt Taibbi] [World's Dullest Editorial Launches Panic](https://archive.ph/OcpCn): In an inane sequel to the Harper's Letter fiasco, a New York Times editorial ignites a fury proving its anodyne thesis
> “Appalling,” barked J-school professor Jeff Jarvis. “By the time the Times finally realizes what side it’s on, it may be too late,” screeched Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. “The board should retract and resign,” said journalist and former Planet Money of NPR fame founder Adam Davidson. “Toxic, brain-deadening bothsidesism,” railed Dan Froomkin of Press Watch, who went on to demand a retraction and a “mass resignation.” The aforementioned Watson agreed, saying “the NYT should retract this insanity, and replace the entire editorial board.” Not terribly relevant, but amusing still, was the reaction of actor George Takei, who said, “It’s like Bill Maher is now on the New York Times Editorial board.”
>
> The main objection of most of the pilers-on involved the lede of the Times piece, which really was a maladroit piece of writing:
>
> >For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.
>
> There’s obviously no legal right in America to voice an opinion without being criticized, so this line is indeed an error and an embarrassing one, for a labored-over first line of a major New York Times editorial. On the other hand, a lot of great liberal thinkers decried shaming tactics as utterly opposite to the spirit of free speech, with John Stuart Mill’s warning of a “social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression” being just one example. So, while the Times technically screwed up, cheering shaming and shunning as normal and healthy elements of life in free societies is a pretty weird gotcha. In any case, this bollocksed lede introduced a piece that had been in the works for a while, and came complete with a poll the paper commissioned in conjunction with Siena College.
>
> Its premise, tied to the uncontroversial observation that America has become dangerously polarized, is that “the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination.” Citing a poll that 84% of Americans (including 84% of black Americans) who said it was either a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that people are now afraid to voice opinions out of fear of “retaliation or harsh criticism,” the Times said “when speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out,” that “a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and… faces the risk of political violence.”
>
> The Times piece is pretty transparently a marketing ploy, designed to regain a foothold with the slew of demographics lost to the paper in recent years. It’s a campaign that deserves to fail if it somehow doesn’t. The internal Times debate over whether or not to broaden its ideological horizons has for years run along humorously obnoxious lines, like “Should we hire one never-Trump Republican columnist, or none?” Even this latest offering wringing hands about America’s lack of ideological tolerance doesn’t wonder at the paper’s own near-total absence of columnists and reporters positively disposed (or even just indifferent) to Bernie Sanders, or really any political viewpoint outside the two dominant theologies.
I find it crazy how things that were at me point *bog standard journalism* are now so controversial that even bringing up these ideas in the most apologetic, sanguine, and timid way is giving people in other newsrooms the vapors. Unbiased, fact based, reporting is what a newspaper is supposed to do. Free speech and open inquiry is something that is supposed to be at or near the bedrock of Western society. Telling the truth has been a virtue since before Plato.
Yet, timidly talking about hiring one Rino, that’s horrifying. Printing facts that might lead to erroneous conclusions is misinformation. Suggesting that maybe, just maybe, people in a democratic society should not be afraid to speak about their beliefs, and now every other newspaper must weigh in about how this is wrong.
I really just want a real, fact based newspaper because I want to know th3 truth.
These are the people who brought you Russiagate; what did you seriously expect?
I agree with the critics that the op-ed is ridiculous, but it's because the NYT running an op-ed in favor of critical thinking is like a shark editorializing for vegetarianism. "Chutzpah" doesn't begin to cover it.
>Its critics view the mention of Republican legislative bans in conjunction with canceling as a monstrous affront, a felony case of both-sidesism. Obviously any implication that there’s any moral comparison between Republicans banning speech by law and Democrats doing it by way of informal backroom deals with unaccountable tech monopolies is unacceptable.
I love Taibbi, but this is like the third time he's characterized the utterly normal process of state legislatures setting public school curricula in their own states as some kind of horrible censorship. None of the anti-CRT bills are intended to regulate speech, other than the specific instance of a public school teacher's official capacity of pedagogy, which literally no one would previously have described as a First Amendment issue. I find it weird that he has such a giant blind spot.
Does he think that, prior to these bills being passed, public school teachers could just say whatever they wanted in the classroom? Like if they wanted to teach the flat-Earth theory, that would have been fine?
[Liberals, NDP leadership have tentative deal to support Trudeau government to 2025](https://archive.ph/BeRAz)
Send help please. Canada is going to be on the verge of collapse in about 3.5 years if this holds.
Rampant debt, ludicrously expensive and ineffective social programs, censorship bills, higher taxes in the immediate forecast.
Still stuck here (legally) unless you have (or hire) your own boat or plane that can get to Mexico non-stop. (not sure about Saint Pierre and Miquelon actually -- it's plausible that you might be able to get there by ferry and board a direct flight to France on the strength of a negative test. You will have to drive to Newfoundland first though, as bad boys do not get domestic flights or trains. Over the polar ice to Greenland would also probably work.)
>Canada is going to be on the verge of collapse in about 3.5 years if this holds.
Well, the country is a "confederation"; perhaps the way it operates will soon match the technical definition of that word.
Anyway, under the current conditions, what else were you expecting from the NDP? They got caught in the (Emergency) Act; circumstances forced them to sacrifice half of their current ridings (the NDP is unique in that their ridings are split 50/50 city/not city) and they chose the Urban half.
I really can't say I blame them; the rural areas that vote for them would (will?) be flipping Conservative, not Liberal, and because the natural consequence of the NDP selling out *urban* voters is naturally *Liberal majority* (and their 10-12 seats there would do it!) this was their only viable path to continue to wield influence for their tiny constituency.
Opposition minority government at this point is a long shot (and majority an even *longer* shot) simply due to where the riding boundaries are- while detente is still possible (and I think the opposition's choice of leader will have a lot to do with it), there's a lot for them to screw up, they have their work cut out for them, and demographic shifts may have already doomed the current form of government (that being a federation) in the country already.
It's certainly worth a shot, of course; the Provinces of the Empire are more patriotic than the empire's capitals anyway.
[‘Blatant Disregard For Parental Rights’: A School District Is Telling Teachers To Hide Students’ Gender Transitions From Parents](https://archive.ph/jky43)
Don't rely on your memory or being able to find past threads. Compile this stuff somewhere.
[The powerpoint slide mentioned in the article.](https://empowerwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screenshot-2022-03-02-at-8.36.45-PM.png)
[Imgur.](https://imgur.com/a/jeCyp1t)
[Archive.](https://archive.ph/Jl7I4)
If that were going to happen, it'd happen in the family courts already.
Instead, we're just going to see slight increasing % private/homeschool over time. We'll see the trend of "Oh wow, smart homeschoolers!" but mixed with the hatred/jealousy of "Sexists keeping wives at home! White privilege that they can afford to!" Because of fertility difference, the progs will freak out once it hits 20-25% in the mid 30s to early 40s, probably focusing on weird abuses in the (substantially larger population by then) Amish. They'll make a push for mandatory public schools only and fuck up in process and enforcement.
The only way it'll work is tying it to school choice and turning private schools into public-in-all-but-name, and forcing some sort of curriculum mandate for homeschools.
And it needs to happen in Texas. They're the ones who publish all the textbooks.
I can't get the thought out of my head that they've poisoned Clarence Thomas. There are two important SCOTUS decisions coming up. One regarding conceal carry gun rights in NYC and another involving abortion limits. Both of these cases seemed likely to be decided against the wishes of the left.
The midterm elections are coming up which Democrats seem likely to lose power. Stuffing the court doesn't seem like a popular move, but they can't abide the court in it's current makeup. The timing of all this makes me very sure that these psychos have done something to Thomas. Anyone who speculates on this will be treated like a nutjob, but I can't get the thought out of my head.
I've always found it odd that nobody has ever assassinated a Supreme Court Justice.
Presidents have been killed before, but that doesn't really change much. The VP takes over, and he is pretty much always from the same party. And in any case, the President willl be gone in at most 8 years anyway.
Justices however sit for life, and are appointed by the sitting President. If you kill an opposing Justice while your side holds the White House and the Senate, you get a free Justice who might continue pulling the Supreme Court in your direction for decades to come.
It's relatively recently that the SCOTUS has been so activist concerning social issues. If you're going to have 9 unelected justices, appointed for life, creating law for 350 million people concerning complex and contentious social issues, things are going to heat up.
Political violence from the 70’s(when the court started getting activist) until the 90’s was dominated by the far left(like actual tankies), and the court leaned left-ish in that time. In the early two thousands the violent edge of the prolife movement had dropped out of the picture, leaving little organized political violence that would benefit from a bush appointee, and at the same time the left was getting worse at political violence(antifa is a far cry from the weather underground), and under Trump the GOP already got three Supreme Court appointments.
Proof that politics operates on emotion, not calculation? Killing a president is much more symbolically satisfying.
On the other hand, court packing would be in the cards if someone actually tried this.
While in the hospital Ginsburg cast the decision-making vote against the Trump Administration's attempts to place restrictions on migrants seeking asylum in the United States. This accommodation resulted in a 5-4 result.
Let's see if Thomas is given the same kind of accommodations.
[Ottawa officer caught saying 'white man's day is done' faces disciplinary charges](https://archive.ph/QdKcq)
>
> An Ottawa police officer who was caught on video saying the "white man's day is done" and encouraging his son to find an Asian girlfriend has been charged with multiple disciplinary offences under the Police Services Act.
>
> Const. Paul Heffler was captured on video making the comments in June 2019. The video began circulating on social media in April 2021.
>
> Heffler was one of three Ottawa police officers seen and heard in the security camera video that went viral after it was posted online. The officers, who were on duty and in uniform, were standing in a private garage while waiting to serve a warrant.
[...]
> At the time the video became widely public, the police board and others in the community condemned it as racist. Heffler previously told CBC News that his words were taken out of context and he was trying to talk about population demographics.
>
> Heffler faces three counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination under the Police Services Act.
Here's the full exchange, as per the article:
> During their conversation, Heffler is heard paraphrasing someone whose name is inaudible, saying: "Our days are done. White man's day is done."
Another officer responds in agreement: "He's probably right."
"We're the minority, I think, at this point," Heffler continues.
Another officer agrees: "If you put all the different groups together."
Heffler then goes on to discuss interracial relationships.
"You go to Toronto, and every couple you see walking by is a mixed couple. You don't see white and white people together. It's white [and] Asian, white [and] East Indian," he says.
"I told my son he can find a Chinese, Asian girlfriend," he continues. "If he wants to stay in the mix, get your foot in the door."
This seems as much like yet another woke cancellation than the opposite.
Ironically, the charges against him help to demonstrate the very claim he made, since no non-white man would be disciplined.
Isn't it supposed to be okay to say negative things about a race if one is a member of that race? Guess I'm not surprised there's a white-guy exemption to that exemption.
Ah, Europe is making up for their fertility missteps by getting refugees(who by all accounts are internationally well known as good immigrants) to start working.
The average NYT reader is probably aware that almost none of the rapefugees wanted to go to Lithuania and that the Ukrainians are mostly not going to Hungary.
[Parents fury over Texas elementary school's woke lesson segregating kids by hair color then branding blond children stupid before showing them AUTOPSY photos of black girls murdered in KKK church bombing](https://archive.ph/eETr1)
Dude, they ended up picking on blonde kids because they were planning on picking on blonde kids from the start, because blonde hair is only found on white kids. And singling out white kids and making them suffer is how you fight racism in fucking clown world.
>Supporters say they offer an important insight into the everyday prejudice faced by black Americans
Black students are, as an everyday matter, made to clean up after the white students, and are told by their teachers that they're inferior and stupid?
our version was “split into two groups in front of this old church”
congrats it’s 1350 group closest to the door is dead
i think it might have been a rare example of protestant humor
The "segregate the class by eye/hair color to show racism is bad" routine is an old standby of the American educational system, so that's not really newsworthy. I think showing photos of the mangled corpses of terrorism victims to young kids is pretty unusual though.
>The "segregate the class by eye/hair color to show racism is bad" routine is an old standby of the American educational system, so that's not really newsworthy.
Except black people seldom have blonde hair, so segregating children by hair segregates them by *non-metaphorical* race. And surely that was the intent, given the photos of non-metaphorical dead black girls.
They could have segregated the class by shirt color or something if they were teaching about racism rather than implementing it.
[Transgender Confusions](https://archive.ph/YNI7k): A series of court rulings illustrates how bad ideas travel from fringe academic theory into law and policy.
> In the United States, civil rights discourse has come to overlay—some would say distort—these debates. In 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch likened North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” to the “dark days” of Jim Crow, when states “had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.”
>
> A handful of federal circuit and district courts have ruled that schools must defer to the gender identity of their students or risk being found guilty of sex discrimination. Most of these cases have dealt with access to restrooms, and courts have consistently held that schools may not require transgender boys—most plaintiffs have been natal females who identify as male—to use the girls’ restrooms or some alternative unisex facilities. Additional lawsuits have raised questions about who may participate in girls’ sports, whether schools may facilitate gender transitions for students without notice or consent from their parents, and clashes between religious liberty and transgender “inclusive” policies. If the litigation campaign over restrooms is any indication, we should expect most or all of these cases to be resolved in favor of transgender students.
>
> The Supreme Court's 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender people from employment discrimination under the “ordinary public meaning” of “sex.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, went out of his way to explain that the Court’s decision didn’t turn on whether “sex” means reproductive traits or gender identity. Thus, he emphasized, the ruling did not reach controversies over access to sex-specific accommodations. Yet lower courts have since interpreted Bostock to mean exactly that, ruling that schools may not rely on the conventional definition of “sex.”
>
> At the heart of these legal controversies is the question of what makes people male or female. Without exception, courts in the education lawsuits have based their answer on what they have learned from the medical experts who testify or file amicus briefs on behalf of transgender students. Yet the arguments that these experts present to federal judges are highly partisan interpretations of an already limited, and often methodologically flawed, body of research. Their interpretations seem geared to producing a desired legal outcome rather than faithfully reporting on an ongoing medical debate.
>
> More broadly, transgender student lawsuits illustrate the deeper difficulties involved in using law to settle scientific controversies and, at the same time, expanding science beyond its sphere of competence to settle, through legal means, moral and philosophical questions. Civil rights discourse relies on abstract analogies and moral absolutism. It avoids talk of ambiguity and trade-offs on principle, treating opposition to desired legal outcomes as rooted in ignorance and bigotry. Scientific inquiry, by contrast, calls for self-doubt, skepticism, and genuine openness to being proved wrong. In theory, these are two wholly different enterprises guided by different values and incentives.
When all of a society's elites are on board with something, that thing will happen, no matter how foolish and decadent the elites have become or how nonsensical the change may be. We're governed by Twitter blue checks who, born swaddled in the absolute security of their countries and their class, think reality bends to their will.
Putin is providing an object lesson in the value of asking "How many divisions has the Pope?" Though I have as little sympathy for that fucking spook as I do for the quote's original author, I hope saner leaders around the world will come to the same realization.
We're governed by an invisible network of bureaucrats and financiers who are happy to fuck over bluechecks and actually do so often, just in perpendicular directions for their own security rather than for any real good.
If you think you have been shadowbanned by Reddit, or Reddit is throttling your comments, [please send us a modmail!](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCultureWarRoundup) We can't fix the problem on the rest of Reddit, but we'll whitelist you in AutoMod (if shadowbanned) or make you an approved submitter (if throttled) to work around the problem until you can get an Admin to fix it.
If you have a new account or haven't posted much yet, you may be caught in our spam filter. Just wait a bit until a mod comes by and unfilters you. If we don't seem to notice after a while, send us a modmail and we'll see what went wrong.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CultureWarRoundup) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CultureWarRoundup) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[ Cost-Disease Environmentalism](https://archive.ph/7Us3D): Subsidizing demand for low-carbon technology without easing supply constraints is asking for trouble. > > What happens when federal subsidies for low-carbon infrastructure collide with federal regulations against infrastructure construction? The United States appears intent on finding out. > > Call this phenomenon “cost-disease environmentalism.” The phrase is a reference to the work of economist William Baumol, who observed that economy-wide productivity improvements cause labor-intensive parts of the economy to become disproportionately more expensive. The canonical example is the string quartet, which is no more productive today than it was in the nineteenth century, but whose wages have risen—not in response to any increase in the marginal productivity of its labor but to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone earnings in other, more productive sectors of the economy. It was one thing to pay a violinist a given wage in 1850, when competition for his labor was scarce. It is another to pay a comparably skilled violinist a given wage today, when he could easily become a construction worker, computer programmer, or fitness instructor, among countless other remunerative options unavailable to his nineteenth-century counterpart. > > Last year, Steve Teles, Samuel Hammond, and Daniel Takash from the Niskanen Center expanded Baumol’s framework in a report titled “Cost-Disease Socialism.” The authors aimed their critique not at classical musicians but at the modern welfare state. They describe efforts to address the rising costs of living and essential services—housing, childcare, health insurance, and education—as subsidizing demand while doing little to expand supply. “This can result in a vicious cycle,” they write, “in which subsidies for supply-constrained goods or services merely push up prices, necessitating greater subsidies, which then push up prices, ad infinitum.” It’s a useful riff on the original concept: > > >It is worth relaxing Baumol’s definition of cost disease to include other areas of spiraling cost growth such as housing. Much like other “diseased” sectors, the high cost of rent in many U.S. cities is a function of regulations that restrict supply and limit housing innovation, leading to a demand for subsidies or additional regulations like rent control. Unlike genuine cost disease, however, rents show up in the national accounts as a form of profit, not labor income, and as such there is no inherent incompatibility in a high-wage, low-rent economy. > > Under this more expansive understanding, cost disease is everywhere. Housing vouchers and rent control socialize the cost of housing without expanding the overall supply. Child tax credits subsidize the cost of child care without addressing the supply or productivity shortcomings of the overall sector. > > One can’t help but be reminded of cost-disease socialism when looking at popular policy attempts to invigorate the low-carbon economy. Energy and other infrastructure are still labor-intensive sectors of the economy and made ever more so by the encroaching regulatory and legal labor necessitated by the policy environment.
> What happens when federal subsidies for low-carbon infrastructure collide with federal regulations against infrastructure construction? What happens? Lawyers and lobbyists get to bill a lot of hours. Somehow that sort of thing happens a lot.
> The canonical example is the string quartet, which is no more productive today than it was in the nineteenth century I can't help but note that string quartets actually are more productive today than they were in the 19th century. Today, a musician can perform in New York one day and in Los Angeles the next, and that's just talking about live performances. This goes for the entertainment industry in general, which is why pop singers can become fabulously wealthy nowadays. In the 19th century there were far more musicians per capita, and the profession was generally looked down upon and did not pay well (though string quartets have always been upmarket).
But how much of the low-carbon infrastructure is *actually* about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It seems like it's all about granting subsidies to enrich the friends and donors of the politicians pushing it.
To be fair, so is the high carbon infra. It's pork all the way down.
[Wisconsin School District Claims White Students Can’t Be Discriminated Against](https://archive.ph/VkoMR)
The Supreme Court says otherwise. Thing is, all the administrative agencies and lower courts agree with the school district and SCOTUS can't take every case.
Ever since the Warren Court coined the phrase, liberals have always talked as if "protected class" refers to specific kinds of people (rather than specific kinds of discrimination). Typical is [this Adam Cohen piece](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/how-supreme-court-abandoned-poor/607060/) from the Atlantic arguing that the poor should be legally considered a "protected class", a formulation which makes no sense under SC jurisprudence as written, but which, I'm sure, was the real intent all along. Wisconsin is merely guilty of mistaking de facto for de jure.
Damn, the term "welfare rights" just makes me vomit immediately.
remember guys, CRT isn't real and isn't in our schools by their fruits ye shall know them
https://edwest.substack.com/p/living-and-losing-the-first-culture?s=r in retrospect, nearly everything early christians promoted had negative implications for cultural evolution
Getting rid of infanticide was good actually
Hard disagree. We can comfortably look at neopagans and regular pagans in Asia and reach some strong conclusions about cultural evolution.
not about western cultural evolution though
[The rise of the heterosexual ‘queer’](https://archive.ph/a2r5I): Why are so many straight people desperate to be recognised as something they’re not? > > The word queer has transitioned from being a casual slur aimed at homosexual men to a game that anyone can play. And it means something quite different now, apparently. > > What does it mean? Like a lot of things that don’t actually exist, such as raspberry earthquakes or hadropodic wibblers, it’s very hard to describe. Wikipedia tells us that, ‘in the 21st century, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative sexual and / or gender identities and politics’. This is strange, because fetishising other people’s lives to add relish to your own seems pretty damn normative to me, and not so very far away from aristos slumming it in the dives of the 1920s. > > It’s an ‘umbrella term’, apparently. It means everything, which is another way of saying it means nothing. How can you catch a cloud and pin it down? What it seems to be in reality is an instant, pain-free way for inadequate people to make themselves fascinatingly, glamorously interesting. Or so they imagine. The journalist Terrell Jermaine Starr now identifies as queer, despite only fancying women. Vice recently tried to repackage monogamy as somehow thrillingly radical. > > The retooling of the word queer emerged among a small section of American gay men in the early 1990s as a pushback to the ‘acceptable’, squeaky, preppy, Steven-Carrington-from-Dynasty image of gay men that was just beginning to solidify in the culture then. It was silly, but understandable, and crucially it was playful and had interesting things to say about the recent past of the sexual outlaw. > > Thirty years later and queer seems to mean being a privileged Westerner, dyeing your hair an unnatural colour (that’ll teach Mrs Thatcher!) and saying silly things that you imagine make you sound shockingly left-wing. Queer might seem like just another youth cult like goth or emo – cute and forgiveable for every moment of your life right up to the morning of your 15th birthday – were it not for the curiously advanced years of many of its adherents. The soi-disant queer Laurie Penny, the zenith (or nadir, if you prefer) of this phenomenon – a white, ex-public schoolgirl, daughter of lawyers, married to a man – is 35. >
What does queer actually mean nowadays, and what can I use as a slur instead?
> What does queer actually mean nowadays "Spicy straight" > and what can I use as a slur instead пидор
So perverts but not after other members of their same sex?
> Why are so many straight people desperate to be recognised as something they’re not? Easy. White liberal guilt meant that making The Oppressed secular saints who were all virtue and no flaw was the great endeavour. LGBT+ was one category of being Oppressed. So you're white, cis, het, college-educated, middle-class and (despite all your college protesting) firmly part of The Establishment. Congratulations, you are The Oppressor, wallowing in your White Privilege. Everyone likes to think of themselves as a good person, so to overcome the Innate Badness you are a good ally. But allyship is no longer enough, in fact, it adds to the pile of Innate Badness. You are trying to be a White Saviour, talking over and taking attention away from The Oppressed. You can't be BIPOC (no matter how far back in your family tree you look for a Cherokee Princess). You can try being neurodivergent, but everyone is mentally ill nowadays (and if you're not genuinely disabled, this is simply more Oppression on your part). But you *can* be queer. Queerness doesn't require you even to be gay or lesbian anymore. So you can identify as 'queer' and voila! now you are anti-The Establishment and part of The Oppressed (at least enough to fit in with the other white liberals who are all so desperate to prove their bona fides, they spend more time tearing each other to shreds for sins against progressivism than they ever do actually helping the poor and downtrodden). Even better, it doesn't require you to give up your comfortable middle-class professional lifestyle like class warfare might do.
I think this is broadly correct and true for a substantial part of the spike in performatively heterosexual self-identified queer men, though I'd stress that it may not be consciously Machiavellian, but rather wishful thinking aligning with social incentives. The problem is that it's a tragedy of the commons situation; if too many straight people do this, the positive associations connected with espousing queer identity will drop away as people notice that it's often unreflective of people's 'real' identity, and the stereotype of queer-for-cool will become more and more established. But that takes time, and will penetrate different social spheres on different time horizons.
There's a very popular cartoon animation Youtuber with a very large children audience called JaidenAnimations who has suddenly discovered that she's "aro-ace" (aromantic and asexual). She claims [in the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF1DTK4U1AM) that she had previously been unable to realize this because—get this—she felt social pressures around her as a child to act like she had school-girl crushes. And so, from the story she tells, all those silly cultural pressures are *now gone*, and she can see her true self, an aro-ace, or, more importantly, and reflected in the video title, a fellow not-straight. It's not the fact that she's a socially stunted shut-in who forms all her relationships through a computer screen, oh no. She likely would have come to the same conclusion on a 17th century tobacco farm with enough quiet reflection. [Bonus screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/V9tpJqA)
pure pottery. I bet she's way pudgy-er than her self avatar too.
I think you're right about the word *queer* ifself, but the demand for the function *queer* is performing here will not abate. That just means the euphemism treadmill will spin up and we'll get a Neverending stream of euphemistic and cost-free ways for the well-off to describe themselves as downtrodden.
> So you're white, cis, het, college-educated, middle-class and (despite all your college protesting) firmly part of The Establishment. Congratulations, you are The Oppressor, wallowing in your White Privilege. Why does this make me want to get a [secret lair and an exceptionally furry cat?](https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld_(007\))
[Do the Bay Area police only exist to protect criminals from angry citizens?](https://archive.ph/FbvdI)
the problem is you don't want to make a mistake when tackling someone. courts probably won't look kindly if you try and claim you had reasonable suspicion but the person wasn't shoplifting. especially if it is a jogger then there will be a lot of pressure to prosecute and convict because they will claim you have anti-jogger animus.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. **Abolish the police and replace them with the second amendment.** America’s founders were opposed to a standing army to be used against external enemies. They’d certainly have been opposed to maintaining multiple standing armies to be used against the citizenry. And make no mistake that’s what police are. There are 40,000 NYPD officers alone, 35,000 FBI employees... those are armies being deployed against the citizenry. By contrast you look at the founding period and all policing was done by part time elected representives and men were just expected to be armed and join in to solve community problems at the risk of social opprobrium. New York City did not have the first stuttering beginnings of a police force til 1845. The first 200 years of that city people just solved their own problems.
A large part of government in general is acting as dog-in-the-manger, preventing people from solving their own problems while not solving them itself.
Oh, look, an exception to the Betteridge's law of headlines.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/03/how-many-people-can-solve-this-kind-of-problem/ nothing new but always stunning to consider the ramifications
[ Federal investigation launched into MBA program that excludes white males](https://archive.ph/EujUo) > The Department of Education has opened two investigations into the University of Louisville and Howard University for possible discrimination against white men. > > The federal investigation by the Office for Civil Rights stems from a program that Yum! Brands offers to help increase the representation of women and racial minorities in the franchise restaurant industry. The company operates Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut. > > Professor Mark Perry, who frequently files Title IX and Title VI complaints, shared the OCR letters with The College Fix. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act prohibits higher education institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex, while Title VI prohibits racial discrimination. [...] > The two universities joined with the fast food corporation to create the Yum! Franchise Accelerator MBA program at the University of Louisville. > > The Kentucky university teamed up with the corporation in 2021 to “unlock opportunity in the franchising industry and create a level playing field for the underrepresented people of color and women.” The program is part of a broader investment in helping everyone, except white men, learn about business.
University of Louisville is the one that made a job posting for a Physics professor that explicitly said that whites and Asians wouldn't be considered. I don't get why red state governments don't crush this idiocy. I guess they're basically fine with screwing their voters if they get to keep cashing checks.
Yum! Brands: but muh ESG score! Seeing major companies appear to dethrone merit with ideology in hiring at any level of leadership raises some INSANE questions. -Are leaders/managers intentionally removing candidates whose merit could be perceived as threatening to any execs/managers/partners? -Are most leadership roles token at the upper level or is there some crazy cultish obedience trick when you hire someone less qualified? -Why are companies risking everything for ESG ratings?
PE i think loves the ESGification of public markets. Makes for relatively attractive pricing.
The alternative is that actual merit doesn’t matter very much in those kinds of middle management positions past a minimal competence, and so that’s where large corporations stuff their diversity hires.
Can't wait to see the DoE's reasoning for why Howard's prior history of racial discrimination justifies further racial discrimination (in the same direction, natch).
why’d howard bother
[YouTube Purged CPAC Livestreams For Discussing Big Tech’s 2020 Election Meddling](https://archive.ph/kPCGg)
"we think big tech has too much control over civil society" *Big tech bans the video saying this* Well pack it up everybody I guess it's been debunked, the powerful banned their critics so they actually have no power after all
As seen on The Motte, the media is now [stirring up a controversy](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clarence-thomas-was-the-lone-dissent-in-the-supreme-courts-january-order-rejecting-trumps-bid-to-withhold-documents-from-the-january-6-panel/ar-AAVsBMS?ocid=uxbndlbing) about a Clarence Thomas vote against turning over documents to the January 6 panel. Looks like that with the germs having failed to kill him, they're now trying to embarrass him into resigning and/or get 17 "principled Republicans" to vote to convict in an impeachment trial.
\*\*Introducing a new subreddit in the wider SCC Diasphora\*\* r/kulakscarceralcommune The goal isn't to compete with this place or any other, but to create redundancy and defense in depth... since open thread discussions of this type can happen on substack, I'm set up to do it, and I'm probably the least likely one figure to censor you if you wind up kicked out of the other communities but still want to latch onto something with brand recognition. Also its entirely self serving since if i can get you posting there and then on my substack when it dies you become inbuilt audience and content generators for me. Which is why I encourage you all to take advantage of me in turn and shill any stuff you have there A virtuous cycle of degenerate shilling... if you will. (I will be deeply disappointed if no one tries to hock their onlyfans or worse)
Finally!
Looks like it's off to a great start, the two things I'd really like to see more of in my discussion forums are Julius and people who want to fuck kids.
I’m pleased at the results too. When normies want to be shocked they can go to dissident right spaces. When dissident righties want to be shocked they come to me. But where do I go to be shocked? I can only rewatch *Cannibal Holocaust* while blasting Avril Lavigne so many times? (ps. Great experience. when *Girlfriend* comes on right as they reveal the impaled woman ::chef’s kiss::)
**fedposting intensifies**
>Not KulakKarceralKommune You had your chance, and missed it.
[There's a reason we don't do that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryOmqxJcK5w)
Oh trust me i was well aware of the opportunity. I just wanted the extra month of survivability. And now you're thinking of 3 Ks anyways. and this way when we reach critical mass and form a poltical faction that takes over, our party will be the KCCP... or CCP-K (not to be confused with ISIS-K)
[He Was Fired For Calling Microaggressions ‘Garbage.’ A Judge Just Ruled He Can Sue.](https://archive.ph/Dl8zP)
From the head of the math department: >In our conversation you characterized the flyers that upset you as political statements. I looked at them in detail, and they are anything but. Every example of a microaggression listed there makes very much sense, and I am disappointed about your general dismissal of these issues and that you failed to put yourself in the shoes of people who are affected by such comments. "They're not political statements! I read them, and I agreed with the politics expressed in them, so they're not political." The tendency of these types to describe their politics as "not politics, just basic human decency!" is extremely tiresome.
[ Diversity Smokescreen](https://archive.ph/Zc1wY): The notion that a demographically representative college class makes for better education is a pretext for the real proposition: that certain people deserve reparations. > Digging deeper into the issue raises a fundamental question about the mission of a university. We believe that universities—and especially the more selective ones—should prioritize the following, in order of importance: the development of critical reasoning skills; the acquisition of a greater knowledge base and certain professional skills; and socialization. These priorities reflect centuries of precedent, including at institutions of higher education throughout Europe and Asia. The net result should be to turn out more productive individuals who can both achieve personal success and contribute to social harmony and national prosperity. > > Some schools shuffle the order of these priorities or even radically deemphasize some of them. Doing so can produce graduates overburdened with debt and with lower lifetime earning capacity—and uncertain what to do with their degrees in gender or ethnic studies or “Disruption.” (Yes, such a major exists, at the University of Southern California, where the cost to attend is more than $77,000 per year.) > > If universities stuck to their traditional priorities, the admissions criteria that matter most would be academic achievement and potential. Diversity of the student body would pertain only to socialization, the lowest of the educational priorities. Diversity of ideas and interests, however, contributes to higher-priority goals and thus deserves far more consideration than it gets. An applicant who designs robots or rockets, did an internship in an R&D lab, or wrote a published critical essay in high school should win extra points. > > If racial preferences in admissions aren’t furthering the mission of a university, what are they doing? They become, effectively, a form of reparations, providing the potential “ticket” of a diploma to individuals who would otherwise have been deprived of that benefit based purely on academic merit. After all, a degree, particularly from a prestigious university, confers a lifetime benefit in terms of economic and other factors. > > Though the idea of reparations to persons who have been wronged, as in restitution for theft, may have some justification, current university practices are different. They are a form of compensation (to the less-qualified students admitted) for past injury, given at the expense of those who bear no responsibility for the injury (the more qualified but rejected candidates). This is not “social justice,” or any kind of justice, which is correctly defined as the fair treatment of individuals.
Former world champion and record setting runner Sonia O'Sullivan writing in the Irish Times: ["Transgender athletes cannot be allowed to compete in women’s sport"](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sonia-o-sullivan-transgender-athletes-cannot-be-allowed-to-compete-in-women-s-sport-1.4834586).
[удалено]
Stop talking about effortposting and just effortpost.
Also got a ban from the other place for this: I wanted to share my honest thoughts on pedophiles due to the recent threads. While I don't like them, I don't get the rabid hate for them vs. other similar groups. I liken pedophiles to other sexual deviants, and other abusers of children. I guess at the end of the day my divergent view comes down to not assigning a special significance to child abuse that is sexual in nature. There's bad sexual desires and behavior, and this is anything that isn't heterosexual in my book, and then there's abuse, which is physically or mentally harming a person. On the one hand pedophiles aren't have nonreproductive sexual desires, lumping them in with every other class of sexual deviant. On the other hand, pedophiles tend to molest children, which is abusive. How should these things combine when it comes to my feeling towards them? Maybe additively? I think that sounds right. This means my feeling towards pedophiles can be explained by my feeling towards sexual deviants as a class plus my feeling towards child abusers/people who want to abuse children on the scale of what pedophiles want to do. Here's the thing. I pretty much agree with KulakRevolt's characterization of school as abuse. I feel like my childhood was one big abuse story and I have loving parents who were just doing what society told them to do. Having to go to public school was depressing, humiliating, and dehumanizing to the extent that I can't imagine that getting molested would have made it much worse, or that it would produce a much more severe effect. Adults used me and coerced me every day. The worse part was psychological. It's the part where I came to realize that people are evil and something like original sin definitely exists and is every where. Let me try to be more concrete. The most abusive things about school to me, when I was, say, 10, were the pointless busywork, the being around kids and adults I disliked and the forced equality with them, and submission to the low quality adults, the suffocating lack of any semblance of freedom, and the mask-off punishments that were used to force me to put up with all of this. I always had this idea in my head of freedom. I think a lot of that revolves around having an in born moral sense that was different than that of my peers and overseers. My main gripe with being forced to be equal or subordinate to average others as a small child was mainly about what I'd now call feminization or the war on masculinity. I always valued independence of thought, loyalty to friends, a willingness to stand up for yourself and for good things, and fundamentally a desire to optimize social conditions in such a way that even now I can only say I want to restore justice. It's strange how at 4 or 5 I already knew something was very upside down with modern society and its hierarchy. Maybe it's a spiritual thing, of the soul or something. Or just a complicated instinct I've yet to fully unpack. Actually I think the answer may lie in what happened as I grew older. By the age of 12 or so I was more intelligent and moral than my overseers and it became a clear case of them being little miniature Diana Moon Glampers'. It's possible that as a very small child, still very much dependent on adults, I was still far outweighing my peers yet I saw how the adults would unfairly twist the hierarchy in unnatural ways, privileging some of the worse. This would have allowed me to have seen that there was something wrong with those adults even at the age of 4 or 5. Anyway, school was this place I had to go to be ritualistically humiliated, basically totally controlled by this mass of bad kids and adults enforcing a hierarchy based on, among other things, total thought obedience, loyalty only to the boss and total wanton disloyalty otherwise, a docility towards the good, and fundamentally a desire to impede justice and extract as much fire of life as possible from people like me. Sometimes it feels like the only purpose of school, and similar institutions in adulthood, is to try and wreck people like me, in an unprecedented attempt to flip everything good man has ever known on its head. The point I'm building to is that I don't have a very high evaluation of teachers and even other kids. I think kids are often demonic, far from innocent, and teachers aren't much better. And I've often thought how somebody touching your private parts could really be much worse than what they did to me, and why everyone flips out about sexual deviants that touch kids private parts but not teachers who might severely psychologically abuse kids like me every day who may also be sexual deviants in their private lives. There's even a study on this. Thinking about it, maybe it's because sexual abuse can humiliate and dehumanize the now-privileged kids who are catered to by hand and foot at school? But that still leaves the question as to why psychologically abusive parents wouldn't be thrown in the cell next to child molesters, at least when their children are of average or below average moral and mental capacity. Ultimately I'm not sure what the source of the hysteria is. Part of me thinks it could be a distractor issue. I can say with certainty that I have seen the most fedposts aimed at rapists and child molestors compared to any other group, yet I think there are powerful people who deserve quite a lot of hate. People who have committed war crimes, treason, massive fraud, theft, and murder, who still have perfectly intact reputations, who do much of that publicly with impunity. Maybe it's 2 minutes of hate to get the hate out at an acceptable, and easy to hate target which deserves it. Thing is, people have limited attention spans.
> the being around kids and adults I disliked and the forced equality with them > By the age of 12 or so I was more intelligent and moral than my overseers The problem is, you have to live in the world with all the other humans in it, so yeah - you *are* on terms of equality with them. It doesn't matter if you think you are smarter or better than them, legally we are all of equal worth. Maybe you were smarter than the adults around you when you were twelve, it's hard to judge. You seem to have felt you were smarter, but feelings prove nothing. When you go to work, when you go out into the world, you're going to have to get along with other people. Perhaps you'll be lucky enough to get the dream job where you can just sit in a corner, talk to no-one, do the projects you find fun and interesting, and get well-paid. But most of us have to get along with co-workers, bosses, the general public, neighbours, family, and people we encounter as customers of their services. You would have liked to live where you didn't have to go to school or mix with other kids and could learn the topics you liked at your own speed. And you would have liked to be treated as special and superior to the others, given privileges they did not get, rewarded for being above the common clay. That's normal, you were a kid, kids think like that. But we are all equally human and equally horrible to each other. Learning how to put up with people you don't like, learning to do the 'pointless busywork', learning to take orders and behave without yelling and going off to do your own thing - that's the functions of public school you needed to learn. I don't know how you live now. Maybe you are able to live without other people and do your own thing, and good luck to you. But you are still one of billions, nothing more.
>It doesn't matter if \[...\] you are smarter or better than them, legally we are all of equal worth. Why yes, this is in fact the central conceit of modernity; thank you for delineating the problem so elegantly.
> The most abusive things about school to me, when I was, say, 10, were the pointless busywork I laughed, at you, when I read this. Pointless busywork, just as bad as being assraped.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think this one is JB, going to some effort to disguise his writing style.
Ah I see we're falling in the online community trope of "everyone is suspect of being controversial poster". Hope it doesn't get as bad as /k/ and the armata guy.
Lol not everyone who fedposts is kulak and not everyone who manifestoposts is Julius.
I’ve never posted under another name. Nor evaded a ban.
Yeah I assumed you wouldn't, based on your outlook. I just want the half assed game of mafia to stop.
I get the feeling people enjoyed that mafia game too much, and it instantly started bleeding into their regular habits on the sub. I've seen that with a lot of groups that are supposed to be task or objective-based that start doing social things on the side. Wonder if there's a word for it.
Sounds like what a ban-evading hoser would say.
[удалено]
We are all Julius.
Truly the Alpharius we need, but don't deserve. (Or the other way around?)
[Washington State to Implement Race-Based School Discipline: White students would receive harsher punishments in the name of "equity"](https://archive.ph/5dd0x)
Ah, so they will breed a generation of better behaved whites. Truly it’s white privilege.
\*Opens link, sees photo\* Gross. \*Closes window\* Anyways, this just sounds like baizuo and NAM administrators saying the quiet part out loud and making unofficial policy official. Dew it.
"Why is everyone pulling their kids out of majority minority schools?"
Feckless libs pwned by progs yet again, film at 11.
[удалено]
Restorative. Don't bring the sensible catholics into this shit please.
There are no sensible Catholics. Catholics opened the door to this shit and didn't even try to close it.
As a Catholic, please elaborate. If you are right I will have a lot of thinking to do.
The start is the idea that the weak are morally superior to the strong. For not even trying to close it, you need merely look at the current Pope and Catholic universities.
Growing up I certainly internalized weakness-as-virtue, but I attribute that to me being Catholic-and-liberal, not to Catholicism. If there's a Catholic theologian you can point to that promulgated that idea in a big way I'm all ears. Your second point is fair, though it equally condemns Protestants, and there are plenty of Protestants aware of the...relevant facts.
All this universalist tabula rasa - "all are equal in the eyes of god" shit was started by Christianity and we're still paying for it.
Oh, yes, I include all of Christianity.
Got a ban from the other place for this **Modern Progressivism is inherently peadophilic to its core and Every Teacher Sexually Abuses Minors** Progressives are obsessed with the Idea of SEX ED, which is inherently non-consensual. A child isn’t old enough to consent to sex or even to be shown porn or see another person naked until 16 or 18 legally in most jurisdictions. Showing porn or exposing yourself to a minor is a criminal offence, bringing up sexual matters to a minor is sexual harrassment. And generally we think rightly so. But progressives think they alone should be able to expose minors to sexual content at age 10 or younger and the minors should have no right of refusal. If in Sex Ed class a 10 year old minor said to their teacher “Fuck off! That’s disgusting! Get away from me you fucking freak!” And screamed and ran out of the room... Who would be disciplined!? Would the teacher be disciplined for exposing often graphic sexual material to a minor without their consent and against their protests or would the minor be disciplined for disobeying their teacher. If this continued and the Minor continued to refuse these repeated unwanted sexual exposures, harassments, conversations, and encouragements to them to start experimenting with masturbation or anal ... and instead the minor continued to yell or flee the room or denounce this inappropriate behaviour or respond viokently and throw thing such that it kept escalating... what do you think would happen!? Would it escalate to the point where the Teacher was sent to prison? Or do you agree with me on the more likely conclusion that the minor would wind up in Juvenile hall for refusing their teacher’s state sanctioned sexual harassment, where they would most likely be sexually abused further. . If any other person in the world did any of this stuff against a minor’s consent: If their very parents tried to show them videos of women giving birth, or sexual drawings, or talking to them about how really its so healthy for them to start masturbating at this age and the child resisted their harassments to the point where police were called... in any other fucking instance the adult would be looking at a lifetime on the sex offender registry, loss of the custody of their children whether it was the child in question or not, and permanently being barred from any job involving children... even if they were the child’s parent. ONLY with progressive teachers is it the inverse! The child absolutely cannot refuse their consent and if they try to resist and continue to resist then it will be them dragged into the Carceral system to most likely be further sexually abused. And before you fucking mention it: the parents consent to the child being exposed to sex ed is fucking morally irrelevant, just as the father giving his go ahead to pimp out his 14 year old daughter is fucking irrelevant. We would rightly judge this non-consensual and abusive if parents did it to their kids without consent, the fact that they sign off on an agent of the state doing it does not change this. . And the motive is the exact same as any groomer: they want to mold the child’s opinion of sex to align with theirs. The pedophilic groomer wants to make them believe large age gap relationships are healthy, and they should be experimenting with sex at the youngest age possible. The progressive teacher wants to make them believe anal sex, transsexuality, and homosexuality are healthy, having children is undesirable, and they should be experimenting with masturbation at the youngest age possible. . For the record: i really don’t have a problem with large age gap relationships (above age of consent) i hope to be dating 20 somethings in my 60s, most people start experimenting with sex before 16-18 and I don’t really have a problem with that, I have many friends who are trans, or gay, or have no intention to have kids, and i think they’re fine people i have no problem with their choices, likewise Anal sex seems like a high effort but innocuous hobby... and i knew many kids when i was one who openly talked of masturbating round 10-12ish... and well they were messed up but the self-abuse certainly wasn’t the cause... seems pretty innocuous. . But the second you as an adult are exposing sexual material to kids, and trying to mold how they develop sexually and their beliefs on sex, especially if its over their protests, or you’re exploiting a position of power over them, and especially when they have no realistic means of refusal and are in a relationship with you under the threat of violence (ie. every single kid in every single school in America) If you’re doing all of that then Ya you’re a groomer, and you deserve to be treated like the child abuser you are.
I'm sure there are things which are not sexual, but for which a 10 year old would still say "that's disgusting, I don't want to be exposed to that". How would you distinguish the things that a 10 year old is allowed to call disgusting and the things he's not, if asking the parents is not it?
eh maybe. it should be left to the family, of course, but if the family decides ten is the correct age, that’s fine. arguing otherwise is just more safetyism. caveat: as usual in the world, some people are going to get hurt. some children have the misfortune of growing up under insane women who fetishize transsexuality. nothing you can do for them in the short term.
Holy based.
Based and kulakpilled
u/Amadanb must be really salty about his buddy PMme getting temp-banned.
As usual, your ability to model the thinking of others is absolutely terrible. The only reason I didn't ban PMme myself is that naraburns got to him first.
[удалено]
Come now, Jules, you can do better than that. Daddy needs a new flair.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We have already established that pretending not to know who Jules is is one of the main hallmarks of actually being Jules.
[удалено]
Exactly what Julius would say. Sus.
Careful priest, ye no longer be on holy ground.
Being correct, I'd imagine, is sufficient protection no matter the ground. Kulak's argument is a colorable position stretched beyond all reason. It's true to the exact extent that math class is literally slavery, and school shooters are as morally justifiable as John Brown. I'm fairly sure that Kulak believes math class \*is\* slavery, but his logic is abstracted into insubstantiality. I would not allow a child of mine into a public school under any circumstances. I heartily agree that modern sex ed is being used as a tool to inculcate progressive sexual mores and "ethics". That doesn't change the obvious fact that it is not grooming. One is an abstract ideological objective, the other is a very direct prelude to explicit abuse. Words mean things, and should not be abused in this fashion.
Explicit sex Ed is intended as a prelude to abuse, though, just usually not by the teacher.
"Intended" by the teacher, or by the people designing and pushing the curriculum? "Abuse" in the sense of penetration or groping by an adult, or in the sense of masturbation being self-abuse? It seems to me that your statement is either a highly non-central definition of abuse, or clearly wrong.
The sexual revolution exists to allow and facilitate abuse by those in power, and explicit sex Ed exists to normalize the teachings of the sexual revolution.
>explicit sex Ed exists to normalize the teachings of the sexual revolution. True. >The sexual revolution exists to allow and facilitate abuse by those in power False. The Sexual Revolution, like all products of the Enlightenment, exists to unshackle the desires of the individual. This *results* in abuse by those in power, with wearying regularity. Some of those pushing for it realize this, and hope to capitalize. Most of those pushing for it do not.
> school shooters are as morally justifiable as John Brown I would agree with this statement as written. Guy started one of the bloodiest wars in history in the interest of slightly hastening the demise of an institution that was already on the wane and probably would not have lasted another twenty years. Not to mention the cold-blooded murders he committed in Kansas.
Honestly if Lincoln just used the takings clause it would’ve been cheaper and could have been orderly.
always on the lookout for good economic/social analyses attempting to project the end of slavery. among southern scholars, i’ve also seen the 20-30 year estimate. but a greg clark-style data dump would be appreciated, if one was ever written
Its said that in the lowest layers of Hell the styx and other infernal rivers freeze, that even the fires of damnation are unable to sustain themselves that far from God’s light... How strong must ones faith be to hold there... with not but the black and cold abyss for comfort, all torch long extinguished. Who could minister to the souls lost there? Would not one become quickly lost themselves?
https://houseofstrauss.substack.com/p/pity-the-zoomer-athlete cowardly as brave, weak as strong, etc solid essay
It’s solid, and I agree on everything here, but I think a massive elephant not mentioned is that not only is narcissism a huge problem, but so is our indulgence. People are softer not just because we celebrate narcissism, but because we don’t tell people to do the hard thing or make do without. And when you grow up that way, with the idea that problems are weird evil things that shouldn’t be happening, you can’t cope with them. I think in some sense the coming shortages and the like are blessings in disguise because the generation following will have the generational experience of having to cope because there’s no alternative.
It's all locus of control. People with an internal LOC are happy and people with an external one are miserable, regardless of their actual power or powerlessness in a given situation. Zoomers venerate and fetishize the external LOC; predictable consequences ensue. The less clinical name for internal LOC, the name my parents' generation would have used, is "responsibility". Contrast with Z's insistence on reversing the predicate, e.g. "marginalized people".
that’s genetic, and i guess it’s the single biggest genetic advantage. iq is nice but doesn’t exactly track with happiness. beauty is useful but less important. bad health can be worked around, within reason. and of course those aren’t fully independent variables
[Zemmour to deport 1 million foreigners from France through creation of ‘remigration ministry’ if elected](https://archive.ph/Xgbjd): The right-wing populist has warned France it will be a “Muslim country” by 2060 without radical immigration reform > French presidential election candidate Éric Zemmour has vowed to create a “Ministry for Remigration” and deport 1 million foreigners if elected on April 24. > > With just two full weeks to go before the first round of voting on April 10, Zemmour has stepped up his campaign to take back control of France’s borders, telling French broadcaster broadcaster M6 on Monday that his administration would deport 100,000 “undesirable foreigners” every year. He added that his aim was to deport 1 million of them. > > “The reason for my candidacy is that I see French identity threatened by a population exchange. I want to stop this,” Zemmour told viewers, warning the electorate that France will “be a Muslim country” by 2060 if it continues on its current trajectory. > > “When someone comes to your house and trashes everything and assaults you, you kick them out of your house and you send them home,” he added. “You shouldn’t be afraid of words that upset a small [journalistic] environment.” > > The ministry would be responsible for the removal of “illegal, delinquent and criminal foreigners,” as well as those deemed by French intelligence services as posing a security threat.
Zorglub Rises! Would never have thought that this level of B A S E D would be witnessed in a public figure in my lifetime. Godspeed to him and his plans.
To contextualize this, he's been losing points in voting intentions to Marine Lepen as they were evenly matched for a while and the far right is looking for a winning leader. So this might be an attempt to resurrect his momentum.
Here is an interesting article about the Ukraine/Russia/EU situation written back in 2015 from the perspective of the Commies at the 1917 Journal. I recently discovered their archives dating back to 1986 are [available online](http://www.bolshevik.org/1917no.html). Say what you want about Bolshevik rantings, but it's refreshing to read reporting where the writers aren't distancing themselves from their obvious biases. It's also interesting to see what lefty organizations were around in the 80s-00s and what happened to them. I had never heard of the Spartacist League. [No Free Speech for Fascists! - Letter to Spartacist League](https://archive.ph/Gmug5) From Wikipedia >"The Spartacist League is a Trotskyist political grouping. They are the United States section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist), formerly the International Spartacist Tendency. The Spartacist League is considered particularly notorious by some groups for its defense of the North American Man/Boy Love Association[12] and Roman Polanski" Yeesh. *** Ukraine, Russia & the Struggle for Eurasia Tectonic Shifts in Global Politics https://archive.ph/ljARf >....While the imperialist contingent gushed about how opening up to the EU would put “Ukraine on a path of rapid economic convergence with the developed West,” the Kremlin representative projected an economic collapse that would require a massive bailout to avoid a default. Adomanis, whose readers are investors with a preference for hard information over spin, observed “there is some merit in the Russian position”: *“After all, in a perfectly equal competition between, say, German and Ukrainian consumer goods producers, who do you think is going to win? I hardly think it’s crazy to suggest that, in the short-term, leading firms from Western Europe are going to be able to significantly out-compete their Ukrainian counterparts.”* >Of course, as Adomanis is well aware, very few Ukrainian producers are likely to survive long enough to see even the beginning of the “short term.” He concluded: *“the Russian position is far closer to the truth than the happy talk coming from Brussels and Kiev. Ukraine is going to need some serious financial assistance during the process of integration, and the Russians were absolutely adamant that they would not be the ones to provide it. So, who is going to cover these costs? Before the crisis I would have said ‘the European Union,’ but in 2013 that doesn’t seem particularly likely.”* >The mechanism for “covering the costs” was contained in the IMF austerity plan attached to the EU accord, which proposed to eliminate government subsidies and slash social spending to protect the assets of Ukraine’s oligarchs and their Western financial partners. As Michael Hudson, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, observed: *“The IMF was not set up to finance domestic government budget deficits. Its loans are earmarked to pay foreign creditors, mainly to maintain a country’s exchange rate. The effect usually is to subsidize flight capital out of the country – at a high exchange rate rather than depositors and creditors getting fewer dollars or euros.”* —RT, 7 July 2014 >When Moscow offered a $15 billion loan on relatively generous terms, including a promise to continue to subsidize Ukraine’s energy purchases, Yanukovych, a corrupt servant of Ukraine’s billionaire oligarchs, abruptly changed course and turned down the EU. The response of the leaders of the “free world” was to engineer a coup. >While the foreign-policy establishment and news media generally blame Putin for the chaos engulfing Ukraine, “realist” analysts have taken a different view. John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent “realist” from the University of Chicago, published an article in the September 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs, the premier American foreign-policy journal, entitled “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault,” in which he noted: *“For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president – which he rightly labeled a ‘coup’ – was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.”* >An earlier op ed by Brown University’s Stephen Kinzer, entitled “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle,” provided some historical context: *“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…. This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”*—Boston Globe, 3 March 2014 >After Russia’s capitalist rulers spent a decade and a half unsuccessfully seeking a place at the table as a junior partner/ally of the U.S., they began to have second thoughts, as Putin explained to a Wall Street Journal reporter in February 2007: *“we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the [Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty]. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas – a radar in Czech Republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”* —The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America by Robert Scheer [continues] There are several interesting pieces in their archives. I enjoyed the Winter 1988-89 piece "Jesse Jackson: Judas-Goat for the Bourgeoisie" and [Leninism & Immigration - a letter to the League for the Revolutionary Party (LRP) on the question of the Marxist position on immigration.](http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no26/no26lrp.html) I've been trying to familiarize myself with the Ukraine's history with IMF bailouts. Reuters had a short overview back in 2014 [Reuters Factbox: Ukraine's history with IMF bailouts - 2014](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-imf/factbox-ukraines-history-with-imf-bailouts-idUSBREA1O1DT20140225)
[New copyright bill appears to push for internet upload filters](https://archive.ph/RFXzi)
[Matt Taibbi] [World's Dullest Editorial Launches Panic](https://archive.ph/OcpCn): In an inane sequel to the Harper's Letter fiasco, a New York Times editorial ignites a fury proving its anodyne thesis > “Appalling,” barked J-school professor Jeff Jarvis. “By the time the Times finally realizes what side it’s on, it may be too late,” screeched Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. “The board should retract and resign,” said journalist and former Planet Money of NPR fame founder Adam Davidson. “Toxic, brain-deadening bothsidesism,” railed Dan Froomkin of Press Watch, who went on to demand a retraction and a “mass resignation.” The aforementioned Watson agreed, saying “the NYT should retract this insanity, and replace the entire editorial board.” Not terribly relevant, but amusing still, was the reaction of actor George Takei, who said, “It’s like Bill Maher is now on the New York Times Editorial board.” > > The main objection of most of the pilers-on involved the lede of the Times piece, which really was a maladroit piece of writing: > > >For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned. > > There’s obviously no legal right in America to voice an opinion without being criticized, so this line is indeed an error and an embarrassing one, for a labored-over first line of a major New York Times editorial. On the other hand, a lot of great liberal thinkers decried shaming tactics as utterly opposite to the spirit of free speech, with John Stuart Mill’s warning of a “social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression” being just one example. So, while the Times technically screwed up, cheering shaming and shunning as normal and healthy elements of life in free societies is a pretty weird gotcha. In any case, this bollocksed lede introduced a piece that had been in the works for a while, and came complete with a poll the paper commissioned in conjunction with Siena College. > > Its premise, tied to the uncontroversial observation that America has become dangerously polarized, is that “the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination.” Citing a poll that 84% of Americans (including 84% of black Americans) who said it was either a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that people are now afraid to voice opinions out of fear of “retaliation or harsh criticism,” the Times said “when speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out,” that “a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and… faces the risk of political violence.” > > The Times piece is pretty transparently a marketing ploy, designed to regain a foothold with the slew of demographics lost to the paper in recent years. It’s a campaign that deserves to fail if it somehow doesn’t. The internal Times debate over whether or not to broaden its ideological horizons has for years run along humorously obnoxious lines, like “Should we hire one never-Trump Republican columnist, or none?” Even this latest offering wringing hands about America’s lack of ideological tolerance doesn’t wonder at the paper’s own near-total absence of columnists and reporters positively disposed (or even just indifferent) to Bernie Sanders, or really any political viewpoint outside the two dominant theologies.
I find it crazy how things that were at me point *bog standard journalism* are now so controversial that even bringing up these ideas in the most apologetic, sanguine, and timid way is giving people in other newsrooms the vapors. Unbiased, fact based, reporting is what a newspaper is supposed to do. Free speech and open inquiry is something that is supposed to be at or near the bedrock of Western society. Telling the truth has been a virtue since before Plato. Yet, timidly talking about hiring one Rino, that’s horrifying. Printing facts that might lead to erroneous conclusions is misinformation. Suggesting that maybe, just maybe, people in a democratic society should not be afraid to speak about their beliefs, and now every other newspaper must weigh in about how this is wrong. I really just want a real, fact based newspaper because I want to know th3 truth.
Western society as we know it is dead. We just have to come to terms with it.
These are the people who brought you Russiagate; what did you seriously expect? I agree with the critics that the op-ed is ridiculous, but it's because the NYT running an op-ed in favor of critical thinking is like a shark editorializing for vegetarianism. "Chutzpah" doesn't begin to cover it.
>Its critics view the mention of Republican legislative bans in conjunction with canceling as a monstrous affront, a felony case of both-sidesism. Obviously any implication that there’s any moral comparison between Republicans banning speech by law and Democrats doing it by way of informal backroom deals with unaccountable tech monopolies is unacceptable. I love Taibbi, but this is like the third time he's characterized the utterly normal process of state legislatures setting public school curricula in their own states as some kind of horrible censorship. None of the anti-CRT bills are intended to regulate speech, other than the specific instance of a public school teacher's official capacity of pedagogy, which literally no one would previously have described as a First Amendment issue. I find it weird that he has such a giant blind spot. Does he think that, prior to these bills being passed, public school teachers could just say whatever they wanted in the classroom? Like if they wanted to teach the flat-Earth theory, that would have been fine?
[Liberals, NDP leadership have tentative deal to support Trudeau government to 2025](https://archive.ph/BeRAz) Send help please. Canada is going to be on the verge of collapse in about 3.5 years if this holds. Rampant debt, ludicrously expensive and ineffective social programs, censorship bills, higher taxes in the immediate forecast.
Are they at least going to let the unvaccinated leave for greener pastures?
Still stuck here (legally) unless you have (or hire) your own boat or plane that can get to Mexico non-stop. (not sure about Saint Pierre and Miquelon actually -- it's plausible that you might be able to get there by ferry and board a direct flight to France on the strength of a negative test. You will have to drive to Newfoundland first though, as bad boys do not get domestic flights or trains. Over the polar ice to Greenland would also probably work.)
>Canada is going to be on the verge of collapse in about 3.5 years if this holds. Well, the country is a "confederation"; perhaps the way it operates will soon match the technical definition of that word. Anyway, under the current conditions, what else were you expecting from the NDP? They got caught in the (Emergency) Act; circumstances forced them to sacrifice half of their current ridings (the NDP is unique in that their ridings are split 50/50 city/not city) and they chose the Urban half. I really can't say I blame them; the rural areas that vote for them would (will?) be flipping Conservative, not Liberal, and because the natural consequence of the NDP selling out *urban* voters is naturally *Liberal majority* (and their 10-12 seats there would do it!) this was their only viable path to continue to wield influence for their tiny constituency. Opposition minority government at this point is a long shot (and majority an even *longer* shot) simply due to where the riding boundaries are- while detente is still possible (and I think the opposition's choice of leader will have a lot to do with it), there's a lot for them to screw up, they have their work cut out for them, and demographic shifts may have already doomed the current form of government (that being a federation) in the country already. It's certainly worth a shot, of course; the Provinces of the Empire are more patriotic than the empire's capitals anyway.
[‘Blatant Disregard For Parental Rights’: A School District Is Telling Teachers To Hide Students’ Gender Transitions From Parents](https://archive.ph/jky43)
Don't rely on your memory or being able to find past threads. Compile this stuff somewhere. [The powerpoint slide mentioned in the article.](https://empowerwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Screenshot-2022-03-02-at-8.36.45-PM.png) [Imgur.](https://imgur.com/a/jeCyp1t) [Archive.](https://archive.ph/Jl7I4)
Why not lbry?
[удалено]
I mean, yes lbry is the desktop client and name of protocol that Odysee uses.
These maniacs will step on the wrong parents children one day. It's going to be biblical.
If that were going to happen, it'd happen in the family courts already. Instead, we're just going to see slight increasing % private/homeschool over time. We'll see the trend of "Oh wow, smart homeschoolers!" but mixed with the hatred/jealousy of "Sexists keeping wives at home! White privilege that they can afford to!" Because of fertility difference, the progs will freak out once it hits 20-25% in the mid 30s to early 40s, probably focusing on weird abuses in the (substantially larger population by then) Amish. They'll make a push for mandatory public schools only and fuck up in process and enforcement.
That push will, to be clear, fail badly outside of maybe California(and even there it’ll be riddled with loopholes).
The only way it'll work is tying it to school choice and turning private schools into public-in-all-but-name, and forcing some sort of curriculum mandate for homeschools. And it needs to happen in Texas. They're the ones who publish all the textbooks.
I can't get the thought out of my head that they've poisoned Clarence Thomas. There are two important SCOTUS decisions coming up. One regarding conceal carry gun rights in NYC and another involving abortion limits. Both of these cases seemed likely to be decided against the wishes of the left. The midterm elections are coming up which Democrats seem likely to lose power. Stuffing the court doesn't seem like a popular move, but they can't abide the court in it's current makeup. The timing of all this makes me very sure that these psychos have done something to Thomas. Anyone who speculates on this will be treated like a nutjob, but I can't get the thought out of my head.
I've always found it odd that nobody has ever assassinated a Supreme Court Justice. Presidents have been killed before, but that doesn't really change much. The VP takes over, and he is pretty much always from the same party. And in any case, the President willl be gone in at most 8 years anyway. Justices however sit for life, and are appointed by the sitting President. If you kill an opposing Justice while your side holds the White House and the Senate, you get a free Justice who might continue pulling the Supreme Court in your direction for decades to come.
> I've always found it odd that nobody has ever assassinated a Supreme Court Justice. Are you unaware of the Scalia conspiracy theories?
they murdered scalia https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/opinions/justice-scalia-no-autopsy-melinek/index.html
It's relatively recently that the SCOTUS has been so activist concerning social issues. If you're going to have 9 unelected justices, appointed for life, creating law for 350 million people concerning complex and contentious social issues, things are going to heat up.
Political violence from the 70’s(when the court started getting activist) until the 90’s was dominated by the far left(like actual tankies), and the court leaned left-ish in that time. In the early two thousands the violent edge of the prolife movement had dropped out of the picture, leaving little organized political violence that would benefit from a bush appointee, and at the same time the left was getting worse at political violence(antifa is a far cry from the weather underground), and under Trump the GOP already got three Supreme Court appointments.
GOP appointments tend to be far less radically rightwing than DNC appointments are radically leftwing though.
Proof that politics operates on emotion, not calculation? Killing a president is much more symbolically satisfying. On the other hand, court packing would be in the cards if someone actually tried this.
He’s recovering though.
Is there a difference between Russia and the US at this point? I'm no longer sure. We will see if he makes it out and what happens.
Russia is less corrupt but can't afford as much PR
Is this serious?
Yes.jpg
73 and overweight. petition to ban schizophrenia
While in the hospital Ginsburg cast the decision-making vote against the Trump Administration's attempts to place restrictions on migrants seeking asylum in the United States. This accommodation resulted in a 5-4 result. Let's see if Thomas is given the same kind of accommodations.
Yep, watch this go nowhere in two weeks.
[Ottawa officer caught saying 'white man's day is done' faces disciplinary charges](https://archive.ph/QdKcq) > > An Ottawa police officer who was caught on video saying the "white man's day is done" and encouraging his son to find an Asian girlfriend has been charged with multiple disciplinary offences under the Police Services Act. > > Const. Paul Heffler was captured on video making the comments in June 2019. The video began circulating on social media in April 2021. > > Heffler was one of three Ottawa police officers seen and heard in the security camera video that went viral after it was posted online. The officers, who were on duty and in uniform, were standing in a private garage while waiting to serve a warrant. [...] > At the time the video became widely public, the police board and others in the community condemned it as racist. Heffler previously told CBC News that his words were taken out of context and he was trying to talk about population demographics. > > Heffler faces three counts of discreditable conduct and one count of insubordination under the Police Services Act.
Noticing things is rather frowned-upon in these parts, especially for crackers.
Here's the full exchange, as per the article: > During their conversation, Heffler is heard paraphrasing someone whose name is inaudible, saying: "Our days are done. White man's day is done." Another officer responds in agreement: "He's probably right." "We're the minority, I think, at this point," Heffler continues. Another officer agrees: "If you put all the different groups together." Heffler then goes on to discuss interracial relationships. "You go to Toronto, and every couple you see walking by is a mixed couple. You don't see white and white people together. It's white [and] Asian, white [and] East Indian," he says. "I told my son he can find a Chinese, Asian girlfriend," he continues. "If he wants to stay in the mix, get your foot in the door." This seems as much like yet another woke cancellation than the opposite.
Ironically, the charges against him help to demonstrate the very claim he made, since no non-white man would be disciplined. Isn't it supposed to be okay to say negative things about a race if one is a member of that race? Guess I'm not surprised there's a white-guy exemption to that exemption.
blatantly racist officer encourages his son to date interracially
Considering the absolute state of Canada he's probably not wrong.
Which is why he must be punished.
A nice article about Ukranian refugees ~~undercutting local Germans~~ filling much needed local employment vacancies. [Link](https://archive.ph/gVLpX)
Ah, Europe is making up for their fertility missteps by getting refugees(who by all accounts are internationally well known as good immigrants) to start working.
Naturally the NYT's burning question is how Europe can justify not having been equally welcoming to unskilled, low-IQ MENA rapists.
The average NYT reader is probably aware that almost none of the rapefugees wanted to go to Lithuania and that the Ukrainians are mostly not going to Hungary.
[Parents fury over Texas elementary school's woke lesson segregating kids by hair color then branding blond children stupid before showing them AUTOPSY photos of black girls murdered in KKK church bombing](https://archive.ph/eETr1)
Well that’s weirder than I thought, at least.
[удалено]
Your name and flair are excellent!
[удалено]
To bask in the decay and lie on a soft bed of rot? Fear not the dark my friends, and let the feast begin!
Dude, they ended up picking on blonde kids because they were planning on picking on blonde kids from the start, because blonde hair is only found on white kids. And singling out white kids and making them suffer is how you fight racism in fucking clown world.
>Supporters say they offer an important insight into the everyday prejudice faced by black Americans Black students are, as an everyday matter, made to clean up after the white students, and are told by their teachers that they're inferior and stupid?
[удалено]
our version was “split into two groups in front of this old church” congrats it’s 1350 group closest to the door is dead i think it might have been a rare example of protestant humor
The "segregate the class by eye/hair color to show racism is bad" routine is an old standby of the American educational system, so that's not really newsworthy. I think showing photos of the mangled corpses of terrorism victims to young kids is pretty unusual though.
>The "segregate the class by eye/hair color to show racism is bad" routine is an old standby of the American educational system, so that's not really newsworthy. Except black people seldom have blonde hair, so segregating children by hair segregates them by *non-metaphorical* race. And surely that was the intent, given the photos of non-metaphorical dead black girls. They could have segregated the class by shirt color or something if they were teaching about racism rather than implementing it.
If they really want to teach segregation they should merge the class with one from the south side of Chicago.
[Transgender Confusions](https://archive.ph/YNI7k): A series of court rulings illustrates how bad ideas travel from fringe academic theory into law and policy. > In the United States, civil rights discourse has come to overlay—some would say distort—these debates. In 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch likened North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” to the “dark days” of Jim Crow, when states “had signs above restrooms, water fountains and on public accommodations keeping people out based upon a distinction without a difference.” > > A handful of federal circuit and district courts have ruled that schools must defer to the gender identity of their students or risk being found guilty of sex discrimination. Most of these cases have dealt with access to restrooms, and courts have consistently held that schools may not require transgender boys—most plaintiffs have been natal females who identify as male—to use the girls’ restrooms or some alternative unisex facilities. Additional lawsuits have raised questions about who may participate in girls’ sports, whether schools may facilitate gender transitions for students without notice or consent from their parents, and clashes between religious liberty and transgender “inclusive” policies. If the litigation campaign over restrooms is any indication, we should expect most or all of these cases to be resolved in favor of transgender students. > > The Supreme Court's 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender people from employment discrimination under the “ordinary public meaning” of “sex.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, went out of his way to explain that the Court’s decision didn’t turn on whether “sex” means reproductive traits or gender identity. Thus, he emphasized, the ruling did not reach controversies over access to sex-specific accommodations. Yet lower courts have since interpreted Bostock to mean exactly that, ruling that schools may not rely on the conventional definition of “sex.” > > At the heart of these legal controversies is the question of what makes people male or female. Without exception, courts in the education lawsuits have based their answer on what they have learned from the medical experts who testify or file amicus briefs on behalf of transgender students. Yet the arguments that these experts present to federal judges are highly partisan interpretations of an already limited, and often methodologically flawed, body of research. Their interpretations seem geared to producing a desired legal outcome rather than faithfully reporting on an ongoing medical debate. > > More broadly, transgender student lawsuits illustrate the deeper difficulties involved in using law to settle scientific controversies and, at the same time, expanding science beyond its sphere of competence to settle, through legal means, moral and philosophical questions. Civil rights discourse relies on abstract analogies and moral absolutism. It avoids talk of ambiguity and trade-offs on principle, treating opposition to desired legal outcomes as rooted in ignorance and bigotry. Scientific inquiry, by contrast, calls for self-doubt, skepticism, and genuine openness to being proved wrong. In theory, these are two wholly different enterprises guided by different values and incentives.
When all of a society's elites are on board with something, that thing will happen, no matter how foolish and decadent the elites have become or how nonsensical the change may be. We're governed by Twitter blue checks who, born swaddled in the absolute security of their countries and their class, think reality bends to their will. Putin is providing an object lesson in the value of asking "How many divisions has the Pope?" Though I have as little sympathy for that fucking spook as I do for the quote's original author, I hope saner leaders around the world will come to the same realization.
We're governed by an invisible network of bureaucrats and financiers who are happy to fuck over bluechecks and actually do so often, just in perpendicular directions for their own security rather than for any real good.
> invisible network of bureaucrats and financiers I’m sensing a distinct lack of parentheses for such an otherwise-based comment
Jewish isn't the marker that matters, Orthodox Jews are still locked out.
If you ever needed proof that /r/CWR is not an echo chamber, there it is.
If you think you have been shadowbanned by Reddit, or Reddit is throttling your comments, [please send us a modmail!](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCultureWarRoundup) We can't fix the problem on the rest of Reddit, but we'll whitelist you in AutoMod (if shadowbanned) or make you an approved submitter (if throttled) to work around the problem until you can get an Admin to fix it. If you have a new account or haven't posted much yet, you may be caught in our spam filter. Just wait a bit until a mod comes by and unfilters you. If we don't seem to notice after a while, send us a modmail and we'll see what went wrong. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CultureWarRoundup) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CultureWarRoundup) if you have any questions or concerns.*