Funny events in anti-woke world

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
Awesome. That's the plan
That's not what I meant. I meant that when you have literature that normalizes things like sleeping with a married, older adult the literal day it becomes legal for them to sleep with you, they also normalize lots of stupid ideas that put people at risk.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,029
887
118
Country
United States

Pretend for a moment you are a pure realist. You don't care about human life, the economy, etc. You would still think an invasion of Taiwan right now is dumb. I cannot think of a way to defeat the US military, economy, and government. Right now the US military due to aging aircraft, political division, and lack of military personnel is at its weakest. And it's still not enough for China to defeat it. If China defeated half of the US military, and the US military retreated from the 2nd island chain to the third island chain. The US still controls SWIFT the international payment system, it has allies everywhere like the UK, NATO, etc. They would plunge the Chinese economy into a dark void that I don't know how the Chinese could counter. China even if is fully self-sufficient which is very hard, would have no means of selling its goods or getting international students into good universities for cross-country knowledge, and that would degrade the Chinese ability to innovate. You can buy as much Saudi, and Russian oil, but without western academic know-how, you're not winning the long game either.

You cannot fight half of the world's GDP, and the US could send special forces to attack the belt, and road initiative. They would attack China by 4 gen aircraft flying low into Taiwan to avoid aircraft defenses from China like S-400 and then bombing the invasion with guided bombs like JDAM and more advanced cruise missiles, using bombers like B-52 to strike at Chinese ships with long-range standoff munitions, their fifth-gen aircraft like F-22, and various F-35 variants would crush any 4 gen Chinese aircraft, and the US has more, and better 5 gen aircraft than China. They may deploy the US Marines to Taiwan which will be a nightmare for the PLA to counter. The China scare from the US defense contractors has prompted the US to in effect an arms race against China. I just don't see a way China could win. If the American populace turned into cowards, that could be possible, but I am seeing the opposite, yeah Gen Z does not want to join the US military, but the US financial system itself could destroy China in the long term even if China's military was 50% better than the US one which it's not. Chinese hackers are on par with the US, but again if China takes down US infrastructure with Chinese Stuxnet, the US could do the same.

I get the Chinese logic for invading Taiwan, the US could use it as an airbase to bomb Chinese Cities in the future, but they could also do that from Japan as well. If China won World War 3, or the Chinese-Taiwanese War they likely will beat the US with regards to the first island chain, but the Chinese nominal GDP is still lower than the US, and the US controls the second, and third island chains(Unless China pushes then out which is unlikely). Great, you're building more bullet trains, and apartment buildings than the US, but are you beating the US/the Western world with innovation?

If I were Xi I would first solve the demographic crisis first, and it looks like Chinese R&D is going there. The second problem with China is its lack of cooperation with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Why not have Putin invade Ukraine when China invades Taiwan? The West would be forced to fight on two fronts. ( I still don't think that would end up in their favor, but it would be better than doing it this way where Russia invades Ukraine, and China invades Taiwan now)

If you cloned the US military in its entirety and added it to Chinese forces today, US allies and US financial sanctions would end up still winning over China eventually because the geography itself is against China. It's surrounded by rival countries, Vietnam which doesn't like it, India doesn't like it, Japan doesn't it, and Taiwan doesn't like it, and South Korea which is wary of it.

And climate change isn't making things better, look at the drought in China that cratered its GDP alongside its covid policy, they could have just produced US vaccines, but they refuse out of either national pride or lack of special refrigerators.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
These materials normalize exactly that kind of thing though.
Teaching that sex shouldn't be painful doesn't normalize sex being painful, no. Debunking common sex lies doesn't make those lies true.

The fuck are you talking about? It's verifiable *fact* that comprehensive sex ed lowers teen sex rates, teen pregnancy rates, child abuse rates, and teen abortion rates.

It verifiably doesn't normalize anything you should be worried about. That's all your feelings overriding pure facts

Shit man, maybe *you* should read Sex Ed 120%
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,923
1,792
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm not trying to construct a strawman, I'm trying to accurately describe the situation. People, including you, are arguing that it is good to teach the youth to find sexual pleasure. Why? Because you think pleasure is an inherent good.
What does it mean for something to be good?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you would consider it desirable for children to be happy, but why? What is the intrinsic value of happiness if not the fact that happiness is pleasurable?

Pleasure is not just an abstract moral concept, it's an evolved feature of the way human brains work. Pleasure, by definition, creates desire or motivation to experience it. It is a "positive" feeling in the same way pain is a "negative" feeling.

The philosophy of hedonism isn't about whether pleasure is desirable or "good" to experience. That one is pretty much built into both the definition and neurological reality of pleasure. The question is whether the "goodness" of pleasure forms the basis of all ethics. For example, if a person abstains from sexual pleasure today in the belief that doing so will be rewarded in the afterlife, then a hedonist would argue that the basis of that ethical action is still the promise of a pleasurable reward.

But this is quite abstract. When you claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a hedonist, I don't think you actually mean that they believe pleasure is an inherent good. What you actually mean is that they don't view sexual pleasure as inherently bad, and thus you view them as shallow or selfish or concerned only with base sensory pleasures, as opposed to someone who is capable of valuing more sophisticated pleasures like happiness or moral self-satisfaction.

The problem, and again this is ironic for someone who talks about being misunderstood and the need for empathy, is that you do not allow the views of others to possess the complexity or nuance that you believe your own views do, and it's particularly telling here because you've completely, completely misunderstood both my own views and those expressed in the book we're talking about.

Because I fundamentally don't view raw physical pleasure as the objective of sex. I view happiness as the objective, as any healthy person should, and physical pleasure as one tool to facilitate it. However, I also believe that the pursuit of happiness needs to be balanced against the needs of individual freedom, because I am far more comfortable declaring that freedom is intrinsically good than pleasure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,094
3,062
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Normally, you'd get so concerned about this if there was actually some national security to worry about...

 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,451
3,582
118

Long thread, that'n.






Oh and because we all love surprises...


IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, Donald Trump welcomed a handful of Republican allies to Manhattan’s Trump Tower with an urgent message: He saw a “scam” happening with midterm election voting in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, and he wanted conservatives to do something about it.

“During our briefing, he was concerned that 2020 is going to happen again in 2022,” says former senior Trump administration official Michael Caputo, referencing Trump’s debunked assertion that voter fraud in Philadelphia helped win Pennsylvania for Joe Biden. Caputo — who attended the meeting alongside Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko and retired CIA officer Sam Faddis — says they had a message back to the former president: “Our team encouraged him to be concerned … [Furthermore], I’m advising Republicans to recruit and train election observers and a team of attorneys to oversee historically problematic precincts.”

But it’s not just one meeting, and it’s not just Philly.

In recent months, Trump has convened a series of in-person meetings and conference calls to discuss laying the groundwork to challenge the 2022 midterm election results, four people familiar with the conversations tell Rolling Stone. In these conversations, pro-Trump groups, attorneys, Republican Party activists, and MAGA diehards often discuss the type of scorched-earth legal tactics they could deploy.

And they’ve gamed out scenarios for how to aggressively challenge elections, particularly ones in which a winner is not declared on Election Night. If there’s any hint of doubt about the winners, the teams plan to wage aggressive court campaigns and launch a media blitz. Trump himself set the blueprint for this on Election Night 2020, when — with the race far from decided — he went on national television to declare: “Frankly, we did win this election.”

Trump has been briefed on plans in multiple states and critical races — including in Georgia. But Pennsylvania has grabbed his interest most keenly, including in the Senate contest between Democrat John Fetterman and the Trump-endorsed GOP contender Mehmet Oz. If the Republican does not win by a wide enough margin to trigger a speedy concession from Fetterman — or if the vote tally is close on or after Election Night in November — Trump and other Republicans are already preparing to wage a legal and activist crusade against the “election integrity” of Democratic strongholds such as the Philly area.

Trump’s focus on Pennsylvania, however, seems to be more about his own political future than about party allegiance or fealty to his celebrity endorsee. As he hosts meetings on possible 2022 election challenges, he’s also been laying the groundwork for a run in 2024 — where Pennsylvania again promises to be critical and competitive. As one source who has spoken to Trump several times about a potential post-election-day legal battle over the Oz-Fetterman race puts it, Trump views a potential midterm challenge as a “dress rehearsal for Trump 2024.”

Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 and then lost it to Biden in 2020 by more than 80,000, and if the two candidates rematch in 2024, it could well be the state that picks the next president. At the Trump tower meeting in September, Trump also pushed the officials on their efforts limit mail-in voting, the Morning Times and Semafor report. (The biggest 2022 boon for Trump’s 2024 hopes could come if Doug Mastriano — the state’s Trump-touting, 2020 election denying GOP nominee for governor — manages to pull off an upset. But the people in Trump’s orbit, reading the same polls as everyone else, see little chance of that happening.)

Trump is gripped by the belief that he got cheated in Philadelphia in 2020, and this time around, he has privately demanded his allies concentrate additional firepower and legal resources in the commonwealth’s largest and most racially diverse metro area. In recent weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the situation, the ex-president has asked several advisers and at least one of his attorneys what national and Pennsylvania Republicans are doing to prevent Democrats from — in his words — “steal[ing] it in Philadelphia [like] they did last time.”


Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mehmet Oz. He faces Democratic Pennsylvania Senate nominee John Fetterman. MARK MAKELA/GETTY IMAGES

Trump’s preparation to undercut the midterm elections is part of a broader GOP attack on electoral democracy. Since Trump’s tumultuous and ultimately violent campaign to overturn the results of 2020, he and other prominent conservatives have turned lies about “voter fraud” and “stolen elections” into GOP orthodoxy. And that orthodoxy has supercharged existing Republican Party efforts to limit ballot access — all in the name of election security.

That’s not, however, how team Trump describes its own efforts. “It’s important to prepare for legal fights that will inevitably arise,” says Hogan Gidley, a former White House official who is now vice chair for the Trump-aligned Center for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute. “The effort that the Center for Election Integrity is focused on started at the beginning of this year…We’ve been seeding efforts across the country in important states…[because] having people on the ground locally is key to these efforts — because if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

Other prominent Trump loyalists also say they’ve been gearing up for a potential electoral fight, particularly if there are close races.

“No matter what happens, I’m not giving up on getting rid of those voting machines … I will not stop until the machines are gone,” says Mike Lindell, who notes he is similarly prepared to spend millions of dollars on lawyers and possible 2022 legal battles. The MyPillow CEO, a personal friend of Trump’s, was a major financial supporter of multiple efforts to overturn and delegitimize the 2020 presidential election results.

Patrick Byrne — the former Overstock CEO who advised then-President Trump when the latter was weighing using increasingly authoritarian means to cling to power — is working with Trump’s onetime national security advisor Michael Flynn. The duo have formed a group called the America Project, to enlist like-minded activists and Trumpists. “We have made proper preparations for post-election challenges if necessary, but our overwhelming focus is on having a clean, transparent election, which obviates the need for post-election legal scuffles,” he says.

However, the simple Trump and GOP definition of a “clean” election is typically one in which their side wins.


Republican candidate for Pennsylvania Governor Doug Mastriano. MARK MAKELA/GETTY IMAGES

For the moment, the most heated battle over Pennsylvania election law is focused on the state’s rules for mailed in ballots, and is being waged by legal teams for the Republican National Committee. The dispute, which surfaced both in the 2020 election and the 2022 Republican senate primary, Republicans have since tried to stop election boards from counting any mailed-in ballots cast without handwritten dates.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that tossing out undated ballots violated the Civil Rights Act by “disenfranchising otherwise qualified voters” over a “meaningless requirement” that has no bearing on a voter’s eligibility. The case led the Third Circuit to instruct Pennsylvania election boards to count undated ballots In a ruling last week, the Supreme Court threw out the Third Circuit’s decision but did not rule on the underlying legality of counting undated ballots.

Absent a clear federal position on the ballots, the state is left with conflicting court rulings on whether or not to count them. The state’s Commonwealth Court previously ruled against the Oz campaign and ordered undated ballots can be counted in a non-precedential case filed by his primary challenger, David McCormack, in May. In a 2020 split decision, Pennsylvania’s state Supreme Court ruled that undated ballots would count in that year’s election but not in future elections.

Governor Tom Wolf and Acting Secretary of State Leigh Chapman have both issued guidance that counties should count undated ballots, citing both the Oz case and Third Circuit ruling. But last week the Republican National Committee and a coalition of Pennsylvania Republicans filed a suit in the state Supreme Court asking it to rule that election boards should not count the ballots.

The feud over mailed ballots in Pennsylvania marks a case of deja vu for the state. The GOP is being represented in its undated ballot suit by attorneys Kathleen Gallagher and John Gore.

The two previously represented the Pennsylvania Republican party in its attempts to overturn the 2020 election over late-arriving mail-in ballots through a Supreme Court challenge.

(Porter Wright and Jones Day, the firms involved in the 2020 suit, both faced an intense public backlash for efforts aligned with Trump’s push to overturn the election.)

And much like the 2020 fight over mailed ballots, rhetoric in the run up to midterm elections is growing heated. MAGA candidates like Arizona’s Kari Lake and Blake Masters, running for the state’s open governor and senate seats, and New Hampshire senate candidate Don Bolduc have all refused to commit to accepting results on Election Day.

Trump supporters in the media have also begun to float a familiar narrative. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson recently backed Lake’s refusal to accept election results, declaring “If it is fair, Kari Lake’s going to win.” In Pennsylvania, Radio host Mark Levin has accusedDemocrats of “trying to steal the election for Fetterma” over the issue of undated ballots. (Chapman, whose office oversees the state’s elections, says workers have been receiving a number of “violent threats” over the issue of undated ballots.)

Republicans downplay the similarities to 2020. “It’s normal for there to be all kinds of challenges heading into an election and after,” says Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Trump ally. “This is good, and this is the way competent campaigns run.”


Supporters of Democratic candidate Joe Biden and Republican candidate Donald Trump face each other as hundreds gather outside the central ballot counting location at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, PA on November 5, 2020. BASTIAAN SLABBERS/NURPHOTO/GETTY IMAGES

Even before the election, conservative and pro-Trump groups have closely monitored state and county election rules. America First Legal, a nonprofit run by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, launched a successful bid in Chester County to require increased security at ballot drop boxes in the county and segregation of ballots after security camera footage obtained through an open records request showed voters dropping off more than one ballot into boxes.

Trump’s apparent focus on buttressing Republican legal infrastructure in Pennsylvania stands in contrast to the relatively small sums the former president has put into the race to boost Oz. MAGA Inc, the Trump-backed Super PAC supporting MAGA congressional candidates in 2022, has so far spent just $770,000 in TV ads for Oz—a small amount relative to the $34 million the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC has pledged to spend on Oz.

Trump and national Republicans have also not opened the funding floodgates for Doug Mastriano, who Trump backed in the Republican gubernatorial primary. As governor, Mastriano would have great influence over the state’s election rules in the next presidential election. But his campaign has operated on a shoestring with little outside funding and a near total absence from Pennsylvania airwaves.

At least some Republicans in the state say they have taken notice of the lack of funding from the former president is a sore subject. “There’s a lot of people that were Trump supporters, who backed him through thick and thin,” one Pennsylvania Republican attorney active in politics tells Rolling Stone. “That’s not lost on them.”
 
Last edited:

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,195
429
88
Country
US
Next gun to cause a probable mass shooting...


Seriously a 50-round handgun.
So, mount a P90 magazine on a handgun without concern for function?

The PS90 is basically the optimal civilian weapon for public mass shootings, but it's never the weapon of choice. Do you know why the AR-15 and other guns built off the same design are the most popular weapon for those sort of shootings in the US? Because it's the most popular rifle design in the US, and most of these shooters are using rifles already available to them, not rifles bought for purpose.

That sounds like a bad parody of 40k fluff, which is disturbing on all sorts of levels.
The whole GEOTUS thing was a bad parody of 40k, and we see where that's gotten us.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
The fuck are you talking about? It's verifiable *fact* that comprehensive sex ed lowers teen sex rates, teen pregnancy rates, child abuse rates, and teen abortion rates.
It's a verifiable *fact* that you have no idea what "comprehensive sex ed" refers to. Comprehensive sex ed isn't teaching high schoolers how to give more pleasurable hand jobs.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you would consider it desirable for children to be happy, but why? What is the intrinsic value of happiness if not the fact that happiness is pleasurable?
You went out on the wrong limb. There is potentially a specific conception of joy that could be used to have me agree to that premise, but children being wrongfully happy is definitely a thing.
But this is quite abstract. When you claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a hedonist,
I never said that.
I don't think you actually mean that they believe pleasure is an inherent good.
That is what I mean.
What you actually mean is that they don't view sexual pleasure as inherently bad, and thus you view them as shallow or selfish or concerned only with base sensory pleasures, as opposed to someone who is capable of valuing more sophisticated pleasures like happiness or moral self-satisfaction.
That is not at all what I mean. Sexual pleasure is certainly not inherently bad. It is the selfish pursuit of sexual pleasure that is seen as bad. Pretty much all of the seven deadly sins are the selfish pursuit of personal gratification. Eating good food is not sinful, gluttony is. Enjoying sex is not sinful, lust is. Having money isn't sinful, greed is. The sin isn't the pleasure. The sin is the person focusing purely on themself, motivated by their own pleasure.

And then there's a book like This Book is Gay trying to tell children: "You can do whatever you like as long as you look after yourself and don’t hurt anyone else." (That is an actual quote.) Do you see the competing moral systems here? The moral goodness of selflessness and sacrifice is by no means a strictly Christian concept, but it is a concept in Christian morality that informs most of western society, and that book is built within a competing moral system asserting that whatever you want to do is good so long as you take care of yourself and don't hurt anybody.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
It's a verifiable *fact* that you have no idea what "comprehensive sex ed" refers to. Comprehensive sex ed isn't teaching high schoolers how to give more pleasurable hand jobs.
And This Book is Gay isn't part of a sex ed curriculum. It's also largely tongue in cheek. You're massively overselling it
And then there's a book like This Book is Gay trying to tell children: "You can do whatever you like as long as you look after yourself and don’t hurt anyone else." (That is an actual quote.) Do you see the competing moral systems here? The moral goodness of selflessness and sacrifice is by no means a strictly Christian concept, but it is a concept in Christian morality that informs most of western society, and that book is built within a competing moral system asserting that whatever you want to do is good so long as you take care of yourself and don't hurt anybody.
...and the argument for why you *shouldn't* be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting yourself or others is...what? Exactly?

Because...no! No, I do not see the competing moral systems there. It in no way precludes the "moral goodness of selflessness and sacrifice" that you pretend is the bedrock of Christianity that underpins western civilization
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
My first thought when I saw that was 'Can Kel-Tec get sued by FN for doing this?'
For using their mags? Probably not... hard to say as IP law is extremely complicated and can get fucking stupid depending on the jurisdiction the IP was registered in (specifically, the US and it's binfire IP law)...

The only way it could an issue is if KelTec are making their own mags without FN's authorisation *and* the patent for the feed mechanism on the mag hasn't lapsed (and on a 30+ year old design it should have) OR, and I just thought of this, the P90 has some weird proprietary tech in its receiver set up and KelTech copied some of that without authorisation (and the patent hasn't lapsed).

So yeah, mostly likely the best FN could get if their IP wasn't directly infringed is permission to go "don't blame us if you use our mags in someone elses' guns" if the things start exploding or whatever.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,269
970
118
Country
USA
And This Book is Gay isn't part of a sex ed curriculum. It's also largely tongue in cheek. You're massively overselling it
Me: These books don't belong in schools
You: Comprehensive sex ed is PROVEN to be AMAZING
Me: The content people are upset about isn't part of comprehensive sex ed
You: Well that book isn't part of comprehensive sex ed

...

Ok.
...and the argument for why you *shouldn't* be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting yourself or others is...what? Exactly?
You're jumping straight from what should be allowed and skipping over what should be advised.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,507
7,086
118
Country
United States
Me: These books don't belong in schools
You: Comprehensive sex ed is PROVEN to be AMAZING
Me: The content people are upset about isn't part of comprehensive sex ed
You: Well that book isn't part of comprehensive sex ed

...

Ok.
Hey, you were complaining that teachers were teaching kids to do good hand jobs. That's clearly not happening.

It's got a lot of good information in it. Teachable life experiences for people who don't have the life experience and all that. Broad spectrum knowledge for people who want it that has zero capacity for harm.
You're jumping straight from what should be allowed and skipping over what should be advised.
Fantastic non-argument that says nothing. Why would you "advise" against something that feels good and harms literally nobody except to be a killjoy? How would something that feels good and harms literally nobody be antithetical to "the moral goodness of selflessness and sacrifice"?