The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Abdülmecid I]

I think it's safe to assume that the ad focuses exclusively on Californian females, whose bestie(s) studied in Italy and may have or not shared a scooter selfie on their social media network.

Obviously agreed that the USA one is a lot better, but it's still sugarcoating an army which is pretty gross.

No disagreement about the sugarcoating, I was just commenting on the ad's efficiency. It aims at the important demographic of educated, skilled women and also tries to erase the negative perception of the military establishment being a haven of chauvinism and homophobia. Neither of these values being particularly appreciated by the educated American youth (in general, not just blonde Californian girls, whose one mother was severely injured in a car accident), improving the army's public image on this regard might encourage more potential recruits to join the army.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meh, the second was alright, but the first felt like a Call of Duty trailer. Too many special effects and cinematic shots, it makes you think they simply regurgitated the same gameplay and that the most interesting content is locked behind paywall.

[Hobbes]

Even aside from the “muh look how many far fetched intersectional identities we can cram into one ad” angle, the USM ad was cringe af. Sure, the .002% of households who can relate to that story at some point in their lives might be pursuaded to look further - as if that’s the rationale to begin with - but who cares. It’s not like we don’t know how to make inspiring advertisements that showcase a range of career opportunities without making me wonder what real live person the ad is supposed to pander to:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ads like that second one sent me to the recruiting office at 18. I wanted to join the Marines because it seemed like the most challenging option, but the officer wouldn’t give me a straight answer to any of my questions, and made an obviously fake phone call “to check” when I asked what jobs were available, so I didn’t sign. Good decision in hindsight, but sometimes, whenever I see someone in uniform, I still feel guilty seeing some of my friends and family go fight when I didn’t have the guts.

The only military men who deserve any sort of respect are people who come back and spread the truth about the terror of war and the crimes committed by the troops. Veterans, young kids who got essentially brainwashed into joining, people who died doing what they thought was protecting their fellow Americans, all these people deserve our sympathy and compassion, ofc.

Check out my boy Clifton Hicks talking about his experience. Also do look him up for some nice old time music, I know you like some banjo as do I.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Meh, the second was alright, but the first felt like a Call of Duty trailer. Too many special effects and cinematic shots, it makes you think they simply regurgitated the same gameplay and that the most interesting content is locked behind paywall.

Oh it’s definitely behind a paywall. But they pay you. Low salary but free housing, job training and heavily discounted groceries and other goods on base, stipends for expenses, and money for college. You can also get jacked, make friends and learn how to fight without a gym membership, which is a nice bonus for any young man with an interest in personal health and/or a love life.

The only military men who deserve any sort of respect are people who come back and spread the truth about the terror of war and the crimes committed by the troops. Veterans, young kids who got essentially brainwashed into joining, people who died doing what they thought was protecting their fellow Americans, all these people deserve our sympathy and compassion, ofc.

I also thought about joining the Peace Corps because I needed something to do after college and I had a mind toward the Foreign Service or Congressional staff. I worked on the Hill for a bit and it was nice to be around people with a service oriented mindset who look for the big picture in the world the way I do. I lived in Spain for a semester, met some wonderful people, and figured I wouldn’t mind living abroad long term. I helped a classmate with her homework and then married her instead. Another good decision in hindsight.

Check out my boy Clifton Hicks talking about his experience. Also do look him up for some nice old time music, I know you like some banjo as do I.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

War is hell. There are no guarantees, but lasting peace comes through strength. The alternative is surrender. We went into these places for one reason or another, so we have a responsibility to finish the job. As American power declines, the world will become a worse place to live in for many, and that’s bad for everyone in the long run. I think some of our allies recognize this, and have committed to shoring up their own roles in the liberal world order, even as some US leaders carp about their desire for retrenchment. France, Canada, the UK and others have moved to support freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Japan has verbally committed to the defense of Taiwan and removed the GDP cap on military spending. Etc. If the US packs up and goes home, the fighting doesn’t stop. The difference is that our allies won’t succeed without our full support, and everything we spent decades building together would be at risk of collapse, with disastrous consequences.

[enoch]

War is a sadness. Glorifying war is evil. Anything that makes militaries less terror orgs and focuses on defense, an unfortunate necessity, is fine by me.

[alhoon]

I have to lay it out, short of a radical shift in events I really don't see an Ivanka pick. It would be more forced than the DNC's pressing Biden to overrule the other candidates.

Bite your tongue!
Trump 2024! Ivanka Trump.

Transphobia, nice going there alhoon

I didn't even know they were transexuals. If one of them are also a Jew would you also call me anti-semitic? One of them is fat. Would you also call me fatist or whatever make-up word progressives have to pander to people with obesity? What if one of them is paralyzed from the waist down? Was my post that he is insane also ableist?

I just said that pretending these people are sane is hurting the progressives across the world that pander to them. It is also hurting those people as their obvious issues are not acknowledged but considered 'protected' and 'normal'.

Last but not least, I really, really don't think the nazis would be very worried about the pink-haired weirdos punching them with their soft fists. I would dare say that the loved ones of these people should quietly explain to them that skinheads with nazi tattoos etc are actually dangerous people so the pink-haired weirdos could get very seriously harmed. Skinheads are not sane people either - getting into a fight with them even if you are a pro, carries with it risks. And the pink-haired weirdos really don't seem like back-alley fight pros.
I am not talking just about the huge steroid idiot skinheads here. The short and thin neonazi may pull a knife and stab the weirdo when the weirdo is still in the "waving my finger in your face" phase.

Ah yes your well thought out comment in which you perpetuate a stupid stereotype so loved among right wing troglodytes.

That stereotype that is so loved among right wing trogs... happens to be True, Hobbes.
I was talking more about how the Russian and Chinese ads were clearly oriented towards people that want to fight than ... people like the ΕΠΟΠ of the Greek Army, the majority of which would be crying in a corner during a real war as they went into the army for job security and early retirement.

Rome didn't conquer everyone by being gay.

Weeeeeell... Hadrian did pretty well. Domitian conquered England and butchered the Dacians in what can be considered a genocide. Tiberius was more things than gay but he also conquered a bunch of land.
They conquered everyone by being gay but they were not shy of fighting and in many cases, great brutality.

You know, like what you expect from the Chinese and Russian clip and not from the ridiculous let's-be-friends! cartoon of USA.

I think it's safe to assume that the ad focuses exclusively on Californian females, whose bestie(s) studied in Italy and may have or not shared a scooter selfie on their social media network.

No disagreement about the sugarcoating, I was just commenting on the ad's efficiency. It aims at the important demographic of educated, skilled women and also tries to erase the negative perception of the military establishment being a haven of chauvinism and homophobia. Neither of these values being particularly appreciated by the educated American youth (in general, not just blonde Californian girls, whose one mother was severely injured in a car accident), improving the army's public image on this regard might encourage more potential recruits to join the army.

Meh, the second was alright, but the first felt like a Call of Duty trailer. Too many special effects and cinematic shots, it makes you think they simply regurgitated the same gameplay and that the most interesting content is locked behind paywall.

I think I disagree with every part of that statement except to whom the ad is oriented towards. To answer to DLS's question too:
Yes, the ad is oriented towards the very rare female SJW that is willing to fight (instead of apologize to) people of different cultures, skin-color and religion so that the "White Patriarchy" would profit. PovG: Not 0.02% but certainly not many. Abdulmecid: Yeap, it seems to knock on a very wrong tree. On the other hand, California has millions of SJWs.

As such, that tiny minority is not an important demographic as far as the military is concerned, they may also cause severe problems in the military since... the military of course is a haven of chauvinism and homophobia. On the other hand, people that play call of duty games seem a much much more important demographic and arguably the ads Thesaurian speaks of are orders of magnitude better than the horrible "Let's go for the SJWs that would want to project power and intimidate the weaker countries for the benefit of our country" because that's an important function of the USA military. It is not all helping bring justice to evil dictators. They do that, indeed, but much of the reasoning is geopolitics or, frankly, the oil those dictators happen to sit upon.

And since I vilify the very silly SJW UA ad a lot: My comments are directed to the ad. Not the soldier in question.
What the ad did for me, aside of making me laugh my butt off but also worry about the post-USA world, was that it made me realize that at least a few SJWs can also be patriotic and want to serve their country, not just serve a (ahem, actually disenfranchised) part of their community // or simply virtue signal and feel good about themselves pretending they are better than other people with real problems.
I am not trolling, I am glad that SJW is not mutually exclusive with Patriotism although (as can be shown by progressive posters here) it is certainly negatively correlated.

The only military men who deserve any sort of respect are people who come back and spread the truth about the terror of war and the crimes committed by the troops.

Ahh... and there are people wondering why people that promote progressive views are branded as unpatriotic.
Thankfully, we have the progressive in that silly ad to at least give a glimmer of hope that progressivism is not always unpatriotic - just most of the times.

[Gromovnik]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

[alhoon]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
-Samuel Johnson

Samuel Johnson is wrong.

"Quoting treasonous words espoused by edgy 18th century authors is the last refuge of the scoundrel - with the exception of TWC members as they are not scoundrels; they are simply wrong."
- alhoon

[Gromovnik]

OK. Obviously the government of the place where you happened to be born is always right, and members of an ethnic group you identify with can do no wrong. My bad.

[alhoon]

OK. Obviously the government of the place where you happened to be born is always right, and members of an ethnic group you identify with can do no wrong. My bad.

What the above has to do with patriotism? Since when Patriotism is support for the government or nationalistic supremacy?

[Sir Adrian]

Imagine unironically quoting Samuel Johnson in the 21st century.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As the white demographic in the US continues its inexorable decline, the disproportionate existence of whites in politics or other metrics of social success is presented as evidence of a sinister plot to disenfranchise and oppress non whites. Shelby Steele insightfully noted that as racism in society becomes less prevalent or relevant, the goalposts of what racism is shift to keep racial tensions alive among those who rely on it for a sense of validation and group identity.

Thus, for many blacks today—especially the young—there is a feeling of inauthenticity, that one is only thinly black because one isn’t racially persecuted. “Systemic racism” is a term that tries to recover authenticity for a less and less convincing black identity. This racism is really more compensatory than systemic. It was invented to make up for the increasing absence of the real thing.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ina...er-11606069287

However, the issue extends beyond political protest. The racial “majority rule” narrative, once derided as a white nationalist dog whistle used to justify restricting the political power of racial minorities, is now employed to facilitate “anti racist” talking points about the fundamental unfairness of white political and social power in the US.



https://wholeads.us/wp-content/uploa...re-may2021.pdf

The report blames incumbency advantage and the GOP for this “imbalance,” while declining to mention that the majority of all office seekers, not just incumbents, are white males:



Of course this, too, would probably be considered a “system failure” attributable to white privilege, or the ingrained sense of entitlement and “whiteness.” Logically, however, the majority of office seekers holding the majority of offices suggests the opposite of systemic unfairness.

What I find fascinating is how the narrative of a sinister elite ethnic minority conspiring to preserve its power is considered anti racist. The history of such rhetoric criticizing the over representation of Jews in positions of power, for example, is synonymous with anti Semitism. The over representation of Asians in metrics of social success is chalked up to inherent cultural differences, even though native born Asians are more likely to be successful than Asian immigrants. Yet the same is considered racial supremacism in the case of whites, though the latter constituted at least 70% of the population as recently as 2000, and even now, still 60%.

The question that remains is, will the narrative of insidious white supremacy decline with the white population, or will it grow more prevalent as a way to attack the persistence of the white demographic in positions of power? Clearly, the situation leans toward the latter. At some point, though, the soon to be non white majority in the US will have to come up with a way to address social questions absent the convenience of racial grievances against a white majority that will no longer exist.

[alhoon]

Look, I am not a SJW but to say that there's no systemic racism when 30% of the population hold 70% of the power is a bit of an oxymoron. There are reasons why white people are proportionally over-represented.

And for the SJWs out there: Some of these reasons lie directly with the minorities. There are minority communities where if you want to go for law enforcement you are considered the enemy and a traitor. This is of course not the only reason that police is 90% white people but it is one of the reasons.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Look, I am not a SJW but to say that there's no systemic racism when 30% of the population hold 70% of the power is a bit of an oxymoron. There are reasons why white people are proportionally over-represented.

As I said, it’s a misleading statistic. The reason mostly whites hold political office is because mostly whites apply for them. If that’s “systemic racism,” then the term is only as useful as the supposition that the very existence of white people in any position of power is therefore inherently unjust.

[enoch]

Why do mostly whites run don’t be silly?

[alhoon]

As I said, it’s a misleading statistic. The reason mostly whites hold political office is because mostly whites apply for them. If that’s “systemic racism,” then the term is only as useful as the supposition that the very existence of white people in any position of power is therefore inherently unjust.

The "Systemic" part of the problem is that these positions are often made in a way that discourage minorities to apply for them.

I have no problem with non-educated people being under-represented. I applaud that. Call me a technocrat / elitist if you want. But there are also reasons, systemic reasons, that the people more 'qualified' to become judges and governors are white males. It is not just that the white cohort is richer than the minorities.
I don't know all the reasons, but I will list some.
- More $$$$ and more alumni in your family/circle = higher chances to go to the good schools and unis
- Good schools / unis = more connections. When you party with the future CEO of company_13, you're more likely to get funding for your campaign from your CEO buddy and his other buddies. And the CEO of Company_13 is probably white because it is easier to keep money than move upwards.
- Police abuse makes minorities see the police as enemies, thus if you are member of a minority you will have a much more negative view of law enforcement.
- Poverty and "we don't care that much for the poor" disproportionately affects minorities and as I said, it's harder to move up.
- On top of poverty, less interest in poor people = there's more crime in ghettos = if you think to become a policeman you go against the local gangs.
- Speaking of ghettoes, you will find that ghettoes they have crappy schools and crime is rampart = minorities are more often required to turn to crime because of where they stay.
- When you're poor and there's rampart crime in your area, there's a good chance you had done something illegal at some point in your life. So, your chances to be accepted in the law enforcement are lower because that's the system.
- When you're from a rich family (white people are over-represented in the 1%) you have much more access to power because of your connections. Your kids also have a much greater chance to remain in the 1% because they will often inherit your wealth and connections. Do you honestly think that Donald Trump would have been a Billionaire if his father was a 9-to-5 salesman and he didn't start his life with connections and 'a few millions' in the pocket?

All in all, the system as it is, favors white people because they are ALREADY in power.

I am not saying that a white kid in a crappy neighborhood in South Chicago has better chances in life than a black kid from the next door. What I am saying is that minorities are over-represented in the crappy neighborhoods.
And when you're from a crappy neighborhood, the system is stacked against you.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The "Systemic" part of the problem is that these positions are often made in a way that discourage minorities to apply for them.

What does this mean? In a general sense, it’s not true.

Results from regression discontinuity and difference-in-difference designs suggest that the presence of ethnoracial minority candidates increases the share of minority contributions in U.S. House elections. We find little evidence of a donor backlash to minority candidates. Nominees of color generally receive larger contribution totals from coethnic contributors but see little change in white contribution totals to their own campaigns or to the campaigns of their opponents, relative to white candidates.

We find no difference in fundraising competitiveness between white and ethnoracial mi- nority candidates. Fundraising gaps between candidates and their electoral opponents are equivalent for white and minority candidates. Candidates of color are equally likely to achieve fundraising parity with their opponents (see Appendix Table A1). Democrats of color are slightly more competitive in their fundraising against opponents, while Republicans of color are slightly less competitive, but these differences are statistically indistinguishable.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3385855

People don’t fund candidates who aren’t running for office. Obviously a white group of donors will likely have more resources than non-white donors, because again, the vast majority of Americans were white until very recently. If ethnic minorities are motivated to donate more based on the race of the candidates, but white donors are not, I’m not sure how the white donor class is the racist one in this situation.

Disparity does not prove discrimination. For example, Asian Americans’ share of campaign contributions is greater than their share of the electorate. Is the system rigged in favor of Asians, then? As I said, if the mere existence of white people in positions of power is systemically racist, this would suggest the phenomenon of a white majority at any point in the country’s history is fundamentally unfair and unjust.

It is not just that the white cohort is richer than the minorities.
I don't know all the reasons, but I will list some.
And when you're from a crappy neighborhood, the system is stacked against you.

We can all speculate. The simplest answer is that white people, being 60-90% of the population during the country’s history, are likely to have 60-90% share of resources. That proportion has not declined as quickly as the white share of the population, because why would it? To suggest this is systemic discrimination is to suppose there should not be 60-90% white people in the first place. The stereotype of the impoverished minority is dated if not prejudicial. If minority donors are more likely to donate to a coethnic candidate, it makes sense that Asian contributions are disproportionately high while Hispanic and black contributions are disproportionately low, because Asians in the US have achieved disproportionately high levels of success. No one would suggest the system is rigged in their favor.

[Sir Adrian]

Look, I am not a SJW but to say that there's no systemic racism when 30% of the population hold 70% of the power is a bit of an oxymoron. There are reasons why white people are proportionally over-represented.

And for the SJWs out there: Some of these reasons lie directly with the minorities. There are minority communities where if you want to go for law enforcement you are considered the enemy and a traitor. This is of course not the only reason that police is 90% white people but it is one of the reasons.

That's no racism though, that's just arbitrarily splitting the statistical group to push a narrative. If you split by gender you'll find that women hold most of the economic power. If you split by education you'll see that it's asians. If you split by ethnicity it's the jews. There is no limit to what subjective criteria you can use.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Another day, another lesson in “anti racism:”

* This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. (Time stamp: 6:45)
* I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a ing favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)
* White people are out of their minds and they have been for a long time. (Time stamp: 17:06)
* We are now in a psychological predicament, because white people feel that we are bullying them when we bring up race. They feel that we should be thanking them for all that they have done for us. They are confused, and so are we. We keep forgetting that directly talking about race is a waste of our breath. We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero, to accept responsibility. It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just like sort of not a good idea. (Time stamp 17:13)
* We need to remember that directly talking about race to white people is useless, because they are at the wrong level of conversation. Addressing racism assumes that white people can see and process what we are talking about. They can’t. That’s why they sound demented. They don’t even know they have a mask on. White people think it’s their actual face. We need to get to know the mask. (Time stamp 17:54)

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...m-of-the-white

Yale has since distanced itself from the lecture due to “profanity and descriptions of violence,” in full damage control mode:

On April 6, a speaker who is not affiliated with Yale gave a Child Study Center Grand Rounds talk, with the provocative title “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” After the event, several faculty members expressed concern to the Yale School of Medicine’s Office of Academic and Professional Development and the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion about the content of the talk.

Based on these concerns, School of Medicine leaders, including Dean Brown and Deputy Dean Latimore, in consultation with the Chair of the Child Study Center, reviewed a recording of the talk and found the tone and content antithetical to the values of the school. Because Grand Rounds are typically posted online after the event and in consideration of Yale’s commitment to the right of free expression, school leaders further reviewed the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale.

https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/education/rounds/

The lecture was held as part of a weekly series, advertised in advance on the school’s letterhead:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It seems that while giving a lecture on the depravity of white savages to current or future medical professionals is perfectly acceptable, using profanity and violent language is not. You know, standards. From the interview:

My masters is in humanities and the focus is largely on critical theory. I don't know if you’re familiar with the University of Chicago, but it was very critical theory-heavy when I went. I did pre-med stuff in undergrad and had always been thinking of these issues. I also majored in English Lit and wondered about other ways of thinking. And I was interested in the unconscious for a long time, so it wasn't that big of a jump for me.

Critical theory is about how you are positioned in the world. Ever since I was a little kid, since I’ve interacted with people who are white, and especially white women, I would notice that things were really off. So what I’ve done by going through psychoanalytic training, which is all about getting in touch with the unconscious, is literally work backwards. I'm like, “Ok, I’ve noticed that white people tend to put me in certain roles. White women will experience me this way, white men will experience me this way.” I'm going to use psychoanalysis to work backwards and treat all of this as a projection to see what I can learn about their mind.

Remember: People like her are in charge. They create policy. They teach your kids. And this is what they tell them to think about themselves and the world.

[Cope]

Speaking of prejudice, toxicity and anti-intellectualism in academia: Medical Journal Describes Whiteness as 'Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition'.

[Gromovnik]

Imagine unironically quoting Samuel Johnson in the 21st century.

Everything to piss off Supreme Gentlemen.