As an outsider looking in, it's always both depressing and hilarious coming to the conclusion that the problem epistemological, for it reveals the gravity and severity of our afflictions.
We need to return to being able to be honest and agree on truth, to change our minds and not be chastised by tribalism. Otherwise our ideologies and biases will invariably get a forced course correction from reality.
Even here in Italy and Europe (from what I read) it's impossible to have a non emotional and non ideological conversation about Gaza, Ukraine, Russia, DJT and America, immigration, race, culture, crime, LGBTQ, capitalism, socialism, social media, tech and AI. Our tribalism is tearing us apart at the seams.
It's like our entire body-politic, the social construct, it's not fit for purpose anymore.
Using the examples in the article, we're living downstream of a lack of justice in law and order, a lack of civil education and manners in culture. These issues have been decades in the making.
In your first example, the tragedy of stupidity and pranks, I'm not justifying the man's insane over the top reaction, but 11 year olds ringing someone's bell three times over 15 minutes at 11pm as a prank is just as absurd. Kids shouldn't be out after dinner, especially if they can't be responsible. Any repercussions for the parents? And the dude who shot the kids, the real conversation should be about the effects (if there) about if he was having a bad day because of work stress or taking meds or social media. To even contemplate shooting anyone should be an extreme act. But as a European looking at America, you people are insane on the issue of guns, both pro and against.
On the topic of race and racism, Fuentes might not be truthful on every detail and his own ideological biases do emerge, but on the whole he's consistent and speaks many truths. The problem isn't Fuentes or what he says, nor his biases. If anything personally I've found it to be refreshing to listen to him on occasion. The problem is what this reveals about us and our predicaments with the discourse of race. This is clear in both examples you provide. If every time a black person is laid off race enters the equation, then it's going to get ugly. The Shiloh Hendrix example marks another quickening in the pace of moving from "slowly slowly" to the "all at once" phase of collapse and doesn't portend well for the future. Law and order needs to be about justice and we've lost the plot on this. Europe has gone crazy in a "same but different" kind of way. The polling is indicative of the failure of dialogue to resolve issues and the consequences of this are terrible because then we shift from extremist rhetoric to extremist action.
On feudalism, Tucker in general is a psyop and is shifting the overton window. On the specific, the real conversation ought to be about predatory capitalism, the gutting of local economies because of financialization and the co-option of the state by private interests. But like with Fuentes, we're just not able to have substantive discussions without going full retard on ideology and tribalism. It never ceases to amaze me how people on the right both support entrepreneurship in one breath and then defend all the worst aspects of capitalism, because communism obviously.
Lastly on birthrates, besides motherhood and the rebirth of the feminine, until we have a conversation about the need to de-emphasize money and the problems of inequality, the trend won't reverse itself. All over the West we need to return to a society where each household only needs 1 worker earning money, through wages or entrepreneurship, for everyone in that household to live a decent life without anxiety or in poverty.
We're all victims of second wave feminism and its collateral damage, granted, but we're also victims of rogue capitalism and dysfunctional politics.
"I have a joke: how do you get a liberal to change her mind? Answer: you can’t. It’s funny, I don’t care what you think."
Don't worry Max, I laughed at this and also appreciate the reminder of my lifelong rule to never get into debates/fights online. The people who like to do that are usually so entrenched in their positions that it's just a waste of time.
It's not just online. Arguing with a liberal in-person is even worse. There's not another person out there more assured of their righteousness than a liberal.
Regarding “Mind Your Own Business.” If the flower shop owner were actually racist, she would never have hired the Black girl, and she would have remained unmolested by the woke mob. The young lady in the video does a great job with her commentary.
Males in academia were vocal supporters of the MeToo movement, but their actions were different. They reduced their collaboration with younger women. Female grad students are probably the most Left-wing and pro-feminist group in the world. so male professors cut down on their exposure to that demographic because MeToo raised the risks of getting into bed (figuratively) with them. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4105976)
Similarly, a sane white business owner today will reduce their exposure to black people, especially as employees. They may not even admit it to themselves, but things like the flower shop video will alter their behavior.
In both cases, it's horribly detrimental to the group, but it's not sexism or racism. It's rational self-interest.
It's the impossible demand. Don't hire them? Racist. Fire them? Racist. It's a humiliation ritual and being called racist is the point. I'll say it again: it's a cruel society and the American Dream is to become the oppressor.
I notice how you say Nick Fuentes's racist views are "bad" but never actually engage with them. Just labelling something bad without examining them (because they're entirely correct) is so typical of the slop we get from the media. And now your channel too.
People should have as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be problematic is simply wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
It's just hard to tell who wants what. The Left wants less babies born, but they want bazillions of everyone all over the world to come here, otherwise the economy collapses. The Right wants nobody to come here, but they want lots of babies born to where we have a young population, while also lamenting the fact that the economy cannot support young people today.
Both attitudes are wrong, because they're primarily ideological positions. The Left's position is just flat-out stupid, but the Right's position is also contradictory: if it's hard for the economy right now to support our young people, then it's not going to be any better with more young people. In fact, lots of young people and an insufficient economy is a recipe for disaster.
In many ways, things are just fine the way they are, but we absolutely don't need more people. If that means the economy has to shrink a bit, let it. Growing it will only produce more problems later.
No one said that. The point is that smaller populations are not necessarily a terrible fate. Remember the world’s population is still increasing towards 10 billion people, mostly in Africa which can’t feed itself. Mass starvation is still in our future.
As an outsider looking in, it's always both depressing and hilarious coming to the conclusion that the problem epistemological, for it reveals the gravity and severity of our afflictions.
We need to return to being able to be honest and agree on truth, to change our minds and not be chastised by tribalism. Otherwise our ideologies and biases will invariably get a forced course correction from reality.
Even here in Italy and Europe (from what I read) it's impossible to have a non emotional and non ideological conversation about Gaza, Ukraine, Russia, DJT and America, immigration, race, culture, crime, LGBTQ, capitalism, socialism, social media, tech and AI. Our tribalism is tearing us apart at the seams.
It's like our entire body-politic, the social construct, it's not fit for purpose anymore.
Using the examples in the article, we're living downstream of a lack of justice in law and order, a lack of civil education and manners in culture. These issues have been decades in the making.
In your first example, the tragedy of stupidity and pranks, I'm not justifying the man's insane over the top reaction, but 11 year olds ringing someone's bell three times over 15 minutes at 11pm as a prank is just as absurd. Kids shouldn't be out after dinner, especially if they can't be responsible. Any repercussions for the parents? And the dude who shot the kids, the real conversation should be about the effects (if there) about if he was having a bad day because of work stress or taking meds or social media. To even contemplate shooting anyone should be an extreme act. But as a European looking at America, you people are insane on the issue of guns, both pro and against.
On the topic of race and racism, Fuentes might not be truthful on every detail and his own ideological biases do emerge, but on the whole he's consistent and speaks many truths. The problem isn't Fuentes or what he says, nor his biases. If anything personally I've found it to be refreshing to listen to him on occasion. The problem is what this reveals about us and our predicaments with the discourse of race. This is clear in both examples you provide. If every time a black person is laid off race enters the equation, then it's going to get ugly. The Shiloh Hendrix example marks another quickening in the pace of moving from "slowly slowly" to the "all at once" phase of collapse and doesn't portend well for the future. Law and order needs to be about justice and we've lost the plot on this. Europe has gone crazy in a "same but different" kind of way. The polling is indicative of the failure of dialogue to resolve issues and the consequences of this are terrible because then we shift from extremist rhetoric to extremist action.
On feudalism, Tucker in general is a psyop and is shifting the overton window. On the specific, the real conversation ought to be about predatory capitalism, the gutting of local economies because of financialization and the co-option of the state by private interests. But like with Fuentes, we're just not able to have substantive discussions without going full retard on ideology and tribalism. It never ceases to amaze me how people on the right both support entrepreneurship in one breath and then defend all the worst aspects of capitalism, because communism obviously.
Lastly on birthrates, besides motherhood and the rebirth of the feminine, until we have a conversation about the need to de-emphasize money and the problems of inequality, the trend won't reverse itself. All over the West we need to return to a society where each household only needs 1 worker earning money, through wages or entrepreneurship, for everyone in that household to live a decent life without anxiety or in poverty.
We're all victims of second wave feminism and its collateral damage, granted, but we're also victims of rogue capitalism and dysfunctional politics.
"I have a joke: how do you get a liberal to change her mind? Answer: you can’t. It’s funny, I don’t care what you think."
Don't worry Max, I laughed at this and also appreciate the reminder of my lifelong rule to never get into debates/fights online. The people who like to do that are usually so entrenched in their positions that it's just a waste of time.
It's not just online. Arguing with a liberal in-person is even worse. There's not another person out there more assured of their righteousness than a liberal.
Regarding “Mind Your Own Business.” If the flower shop owner were actually racist, she would never have hired the Black girl, and she would have remained unmolested by the woke mob. The young lady in the video does a great job with her commentary.
Males in academia were vocal supporters of the MeToo movement, but their actions were different. They reduced their collaboration with younger women. Female grad students are probably the most Left-wing and pro-feminist group in the world. so male professors cut down on their exposure to that demographic because MeToo raised the risks of getting into bed (figuratively) with them. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4105976)
Similarly, a sane white business owner today will reduce their exposure to black people, especially as employees. They may not even admit it to themselves, but things like the flower shop video will alter their behavior.
In both cases, it's horribly detrimental to the group, but it's not sexism or racism. It's rational self-interest.
It's the impossible demand. Don't hire them? Racist. Fire them? Racist. It's a humiliation ritual and being called racist is the point. I'll say it again: it's a cruel society and the American Dream is to become the oppressor.
I notice how you say Nick Fuentes's racist views are "bad" but never actually engage with them. Just labelling something bad without examining them (because they're entirely correct) is so typical of the slop we get from the media. And now your channel too.
People should have as many children as they desire but the idea advanced by some that a smaller population will be problematic is simply wrong.
Smaller populations will not be a negative but will help humanity soften the impact of climate change and save the other species we share the planet with by protecting their shrinking habitat.
Robots equipped with artificial general intelligence (thanks Elon) will wipe our aging asses and grow and prepare our food.
Young people will have less competition for jobs so their wages will rise and with less demand for housing the cost of the existing housing stock will become more affordable.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman looked at low birth rate Japan and penned an amazingly optimistic report on its economic conditions. "In some ways, Japan, rather than being a cautionary tale, is a kind of role model - an example of how to manage difficult demography while remaining prosperous and socially stable.
It's just hard to tell who wants what. The Left wants less babies born, but they want bazillions of everyone all over the world to come here, otherwise the economy collapses. The Right wants nobody to come here, but they want lots of babies born to where we have a young population, while also lamenting the fact that the economy cannot support young people today.
Both attitudes are wrong, because they're primarily ideological positions. The Left's position is just flat-out stupid, but the Right's position is also contradictory: if it's hard for the economy right now to support our young people, then it's not going to be any better with more young people. In fact, lots of young people and an insufficient economy is a recipe for disaster.
In many ways, things are just fine the way they are, but we absolutely don't need more people. If that means the economy has to shrink a bit, let it. Growing it will only produce more problems later.
So we have the demographics of Japan?
No one said that. The point is that smaller populations are not necessarily a terrible fate. Remember the world’s population is still increasing towards 10 billion people, mostly in Africa which can’t feed itself. Mass starvation is still in our future.