Crockett 16 points ago +16 / -0

There's the problem with arguing "Don't misgender just because he's a criminal."

But there's an interesting deeper issue: They're actually willing to embrace Chris Chan as valid. A sane movement would distance themselves from him, regardless of crime. They would say he's clearly mentally disabled, and his kind of delusion was completely unrelated to legitimate transgenderism. But they're not. They're implicitly confirming that he is just as sane and valid as they are, and vice versa.

Ain't that somethin.

Crockett 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know. I've only just started seeing "Touch grass." But coming from the right is not necessary to trigger leftists.

Crockett 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't know about the Capitol protest, but I do remember seeing stuff like that concerning Tea Party rallies. I think stories like that did the rounds during Occupy Wall Street, because it was that same contrast. Tea Partiers cleaned up after themselves and left things looking pristine. OWS left behind a landfill of Starbucks cups.

Crockett 2 points ago +2 / -0

So many questions.

If he needs food stamps, what was "going on his life" that made it impossible for him to get food stamps?

How did he get approved for food stamps the first time if he didn't make the interview?

If he's already been interviewed and approved, then why does he still need to make a phone call to get his food stamps? What the hell is this deadline about?

How much time did he have before the deadline to get this done? Is procrastination just biting him in the ass?

Why is he going to the department of Children and Families? He doesn't appear to be either.

Why isn't he embarrassed by this?

Why does his face change color when he opens his mouth?

Crockett 1 point ago +1 / -0

Props to you, OP, both for your honesty with your family, and for standing your ground.

Crockett 12 points ago +12 / -0

I don't know that they actually think they were wrong. (Some do, of course. And more every day). However I think that for most of them at this point, they're ashamed of their decision for a different reason.

They realize that they were coerced into it without really thinking. They were peer pressured. They were strung along with donuts and promises of normalcy. They were worn down to submission with fatigue.

And so even if they think that it was the right decision in the end, they recognize that you possess an endurance that they lacked. They gave in, and you didn't. That's shameful.

That's why they have to wear you down. If you give up, too, then they don't have to be ashamed. They weren't weak, they were ahead of the curve.

That's also why they need to use social pressure. That's what got them. If they were to convince you through rational argument that it's in your best interests to get the vaccine, then you'd still be making your decision rationally, so it wouldn't help. If they submitted to peer pressure, then you making an informed decision still shames them, even if you end up taking the same action. They have to get you with the same tools that got them.

/End armchair psychology.

Crockett 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's almost as if the industrial revolution and its consequences (in addition to being a disaster for the human race) weren't as necessary as we're led to believe.

Crockett 6 points ago +6 / -0

The fact that the Rothschilds amassed massive financial and political influence over Europe fed the deranged anti-semitic conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds have massive financial and political influence.


Crockett 10 points ago +10 / -0

First there was "It's okay to be white," and they were offended by that.

Now we have "Touch grass" and they are offended by that.

I wonder how far we can go? Let's try to find the most banal possible statement that still triggers a Twitter user.

Theoretically, there's no limit, since their entire motivation is to be offended.

Crockett 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is literally the exact tweet that made me stop caring about black lives. The incident wasn't a rowdy scuffle, it was an attempted murder with a deadly weapon.

What we have here is someone so immersed in a culture of violence that she doesn't comprehend that another world even exists. She's like a legless person who has never noticed that some people do have legs, and thinks that stairs are just a way for other people to mean to her for no reason.

If this is what black people are like, if casual violence is truly this embedded in their culture, and if they truly don't recognize that this is their own unique problem, then what hope is there of coexistence? Why should anyone else bother trying to help them, if they can't even tell the difference between good and bad culture? Why would anyone put anything on the line to protect them from each other, if they don't even think they have a problem?

I fucking refuse to care more about black lives than blacks do. I just can't do it.

Crockett 1 point ago +1 / -0


Whether that answer sounds optimistic or pessimistic to you is all up to you.

Crockett 6 points ago +6 / -0

Mike Lindell might actually succeed in making difference in the grand scheme of US politics

Honestly, this is the best whitepill I've seen in a while.

Crockett 24 points ago +24 / -0

Meanwhile, everyone else told me I was the source of all evil in the world and should seek the dissolution of myself and everyone like me.

Weird how I ended up here.

Crockett 51 points ago +51 / -0

A lady I know once made the most brilliantly obvious point about medicating trannies: If a dude thinks he's a girl, shouldn't you inject him with testosterone, not estrogen?

Crockett 3 points ago +3 / -0

Further evidence for my theory that their end goal is to turn the flag into goatse.

Crockett 1 point ago +1 / -0

That would be a good plan, actually.

  1. Fake some pandemic hysteria.

  2. Make a vaccine that that does two things: protect against a future bio weapon, and lower the fertility of those who take it and their descendants.

  3. Release the new bio weapon to kill off the unvaccinated. Make the vaccinated feel good about their choice, and think that even if there are horrible infertility effects.

There you go. Mass depopulation, breeding of a compliant populace, and minimized resentment.

Crockett 2 points ago +2 / -0

to more thoroughly breakdown their resistance or something?

Either that, or they're deliberately trying to get people to break so that hostilities finally break out.

I don't know which would be worse. Forced obedience or manufactured conflict.

Crockett 10 points ago +10 / -0

Just getting a head start on the eternal guilt for when people do start eating bugs. Can't have anyone thinking their current lifestyle is acceptable at any point, no matter what they do.

Crockett 6 points ago +6 / -0

With the slightest modification, this logic could be applied to test taking, or any other form of objective success. "I have ADHD and being told no is scary therefore it's okay for me to break the rules that are in place for a reason."

Hey, here's a thought: how about no, and go fuck yourself?

Crockett 4 points ago +4 / -0

I haven't studied the Bible enough to know much about Revelations or the things you'd be referring to. Even the Papacy is something I only understand at a superficial level just from living in the world.

That's not a personal comment, that's just context for the kind of baseline comprehension an average reader might have. Consider it, especially when it comes to exposition.

The open ended ending feels both thematically appropriate and disappointingly anti-climactic. However, being a series of journal entries (I think that counts as "epistolary"; look it up for tips, if you're not familiar with the term) does do a good job of soothing the possible disappointment.

I don't love your idea. Pope assassination plus spiritual journey... it's okay, not remarkable. But I don't dislike it. It's worth writing if you want to write it.

I'm just a stranger on the internet. That means I'm honest and irrelevant. Make of this what you will.

Crockett 2 points ago +2 / -0

Economics: irrelevant and almost certainly wrong

"Some kind of 'family values' argument": What in gods names is nebulous about that? Families good. Extremely duh.

Muh Drumpf: Holy shit what a transparently garbage partisan point to needlessly inject. But first, family is about more than just what it does to the father. Second, Trump is a better man than Krugman could ever hope to be. So fuck off.

The need for more white Christians: Uh, yes. And?

So what we have here is a lie, an evil dismissal of basic human morality, a brainless partisan cheap shot, and flagrant disdain for a central unit of American society.

All in one tweet, no less. No wonder he got a nobel prize.

Crockett 5 points ago +5 / -0

Suppose you want to reduce the global population to ~500 million.

Suppose that ~25% of the population is compliant. They'll swallow whatever line you feed them, and go along with whatever plan you push.

Suppose that ~15% of the population will resist control no matter what.

Suppose that the remaining ~60% of the population is persuadable. They'll go along with whatever is easiest, but if pushed too far, will resist.

Would it be nice to have only compliant population remaining? Sure, of course. But even if you killed everyone else first, that would leave you with 1.7 billion people (assuming a world population of 7 billion). That's more than a billion sheeple you're going to have to kill no matter how successful you are.

But here's another hitch: If you start purging people, starting with the rebels, you'll tip your hand. Those 4.2 billion persuadables will notice, and might start being pushed into the rebellious category. That will only make things more difficult. You won't get to do things the easy way with them, but you might have been able to if you had played your cards right

Better to get everyone you can all at once. Catch as many compliants as you need, and the maximum possible amount of persuadables, with your opening salvo. The rebels you'll have to hunt down the hard way no matter what, so there's no advantage to getting them first.

So, you get ~90% of the persuadables and compliants without problem. Then hunt down the rest the hard way. Some of the persuadables defect at that point, but it's not a big problem because they've already been decimated (90%-imated?)

That's way smarter than "saving the sheep for last", in any scenario where most of the sheep have to die anyways.

Crockett 6 points ago +6 / -0

Exactly right. Accommodating pronoun delusion etc. is not polite, nice, or civil.

People need to get this through their skulls.

Enablement is cruel.

view more: Next ›