Kulturkampf

[HaughtyFrank]

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

MAGA Twitter is posting so much hilarious shit:

[Besticus Maximus]

Hitler killed his dog 

[Straight Edge]

please somebody find a paywall free version of this. I need to read this.

[HaughtyFrank]

[HaughtyFrank]

This is a crazy read

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/why-i-didnt-report-my-rape/#

The simple answer to the question of why I never reported the rape is that I believe in the abolition of police and prisons. The less simple, less articulate answer is that to pursue prosecuting and potentially incarcerating other people is inconceivable to me, even when they have hurt me more than I could have ever believed possible. Because of this, I can only vocalize what I want in negative and inherently impossible terms: that all I want is for it to never have happened. The prospect of being a participant in other peoples’ incarceration is as alien to me as anything could be, to the point that I can only conceive of it in childish terms—how silly and strange it would be to have a group of people incarcerated at my expense when doing so would do nothing to fix the damage they have already so thoroughly done.

This seems to be the most she engages with the idea that reporting the rape might at least protect future victims

Others have tried, too; friends have spoken patiently to me about how, even if I don’t want to do it for myself, pursuing legal action against those men who hurt me might protect other women someday. Many people say domestic and sexual violence are the only exceptions to prison abolition; those same people accuse abolitionists of professing to speak for what victims want (responses to rape that doesn’t involve someone’s incarceration) in their supposedly real aim of advancing a political movement. I’m skeptical of this charge, especially when it materializes much more urgently in the reverse. Supporters of the criminal justice system as it currently exists also proclaim that they are speaking for victims; they insist that prosecution and incarceration are the outcomes that victims want and deserve. When there is so little available to sexual violence victims in the way of justice or fairness, the current shape of criminal justice can begin to look appealing, if only because it is the most straightforward type of response to rape that currently exists. In fact, it’s because on some level that I suspect that carceral logic creeps, however unconsciously or unintentionally, into the minds of those who encouraged me to prosecute my rapists, that I cannot fully welcome that advice. Like any ideology, carceral logic presents itself as invisible and natural, the commonsense response to a crime and way of preventing future violence. I can’t be sure that this logic hasn’t inadvertently creeped into the guidance my friends offered. And so after all these years, I haven’t been able to pick up the phone; instead it hangs there suspended in time forever.

[Uncle]

imagine tracking down this woman in real life and just robbing her house, secure in the knowledge that she won't do a thing to stop you

[DavidCroquet]

[Ribosome]

[HaughtyFrank]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/25/ai-generated-british-schoolgirl-becomes-far-right-social-media-meme

Is the character subverted though? She's after all the same as she's in the game

[Alpacx]

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

Angela (not to be confused with Megan) is the former chair of the Libertarian Party and current chair of the Mises Caucus:

Tirstan also claims to be a libertarian on his profile.

[benji]

[Kazuma_Kiryu]

[killamajig]

https://www.psypost.org/the-tendency-to-feel-like-a-perpetual-victim-is-strongly-tied-to-vulnerable-narcissism/

A new study published in Personality and Individual Differences has found that a persistent “victim mentality” is strongly linked to narcissistic personality traits. The findings suggest that individuals who frequently perceive themselves as victims and signal this status to others often possess high levels of vulnerable narcissism and emotional instability. This research indicates that for some people, the tendency to see oneself as a victim is less about actual trauma and more about a specific personality structure that seeks recognition and validation.

Scholars distinguish between two primary forms of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable. Grandiose narcissism is characterized by high self-esteem, assertiveness, and a desire for power. Vulnerable narcissism involves high entitlement but is accompanied by low self-esteem, hypersensitivity to criticism, and defensive behavior.

Both constructs share a significant connection to neuroticism, a personality trait associated with emotional instability, anxiety, and moodiness. This suggests that the “victim mindset” is largely driven by a fragility of the self and difficulty regulating negative emotions.

The results also align with research by Ekin Ok and colleagues, who identified a strategy known as “virtuous victim signaling”. https://www.psypost.org/new-study-suggests-people-with-dark-personalities-weaponize-victimhood-to-gain-advantage-over-others/ Their work demonstrated that individuals with dark personality traits—specifically Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—often combine signals of victimhood with signals of moral virtue to deceptively extract resources from others. The current study adds nuance to this by suggesting that vulnerable narcissism is a primary driver for the internal feeling of victimhood, while the external act of signaling can serve the attention-seeking needs of grandiose narcissism.

I think we know where they can find more people with Grandiose narcissism or Vulnerable narcissism if they need more to study.

[Uncle]

Angela (not to be confused with Megan) is the former chair of the Libertarian Party and current chair of the Mises Caucus:
[tw eet]https://x.com/RealAngelaMc/status/2015477828255428937[/tweet]
[tw eet]https://x.com/RealAngelaMc/status/2015661403084820734[/tweet]

Tirstan also claims to be a libertarian on his profile.

"protectionism is an admission of inferiority" is to ignore different manifestations of superiority and inferiority

you could imagine a horde of xenomorphs being unleashed on the US and we shouldn't protect ourselves from them because that would be admitting we are worse than them, we should compete with them in the free market of ideas

so they murder everyone and then when they have the place to themselves we discover are utterly inferior at tasks such as manufacturing, industrial maintenance, technological innovation, governance, and improving quality of life

so if we valued those things, then it turns out protectionism wouldn't have been "admitting inferiority" on those fronts, it would've been preserving our superiority

[benji]

[benji]

"protectionism is an admission of inferiority" is to ignore different manifestations of superiority and inferiority

you could imagine a horde of xenomorphs being unleashed on the US and we shouldn't protect ourselves from them because that would be admitting we are worse than them, we should compete with them in the free market of ideas

so they murder everyone and then when they have the place to themselves we discover are utterly inferior at tasks such as manufacturing, industrial maintenance, technological innovation, governance, and improving quality of life

so if we valued those things, then it turns out protectionism wouldn't have been "admitting inferiority" on those fronts, it would've been preserving our superiority

No, this is a wrong analogy, especially from a libertarian point of view. Protectionism is an admission of inferiority because it assumes the world's most advanced nation can't compete with a single individual. Xenomorphs being unleashed isn't the same situation as a single individual being allowed to trade with Americans to their benefit. (That's aside from how the argument is solely about humans.)

Protectionism isn't libertarian, it's socialist, it assumes the state always knows better than any individuals and thus has a duty to "protect" those individuals from freely trading with who they wish. Socialism is based on the assumption that everyone will be exploited if individuals are allowed do as they personally wish, hence why individualism needs to be abolished for a single mandatory action by all. If Angela, and the other "libertarians" who support protectionism, rejects the argument for free trade then she has no basis to advocate for any libertarian positions as they all oppose the notion that the state knows better than the individual. She should simply stop claiming to be a libertarian and admit she wants a system that creeps ever closer to socialism through permanent self-justification for any and all state actions.

[HaughtyFrank]

I prefer sicko fan

[Uncle]

(That's aside from how the argument is solely about humans.)

this example was used in order to avoid the example of letting a bunch of muslims settle in your land, become the majority population, change the laws, and execute the remaining former occupants for being infidels, only to discover that they are inferior at upholding all the ideals the former society held to, due to their incurious adherence to tradition which won't allow them to innovate, ask questions, or learn to the extent of the former society

which goes back to the original point of deportation not being an admission of inferiority, but to preserve what your culture perceives as superiority

Protectionism isn't libertarian, it's socialist, it assumes the state always knows better than any individuals and thus has a duty to "protect" those individuals from freely trading with who they wish. Socialism is based on the assumption that everyone will be exploited if individuals are allowed do as they personally wish, hence why individualism needs to be abolished for a single mandatory action by all. If Angela, and the other "libertarians" who support protectionism, rejects the argument for free trade then she has no basis to advocate for any libertarian positions as they all oppose the notion that the state knows better than the individual. She should simply stop claiming to be a libertarian and admit she wants a system that creeps ever closer to socialism through permanent self-justification for any and all state actions.

I understand that protectionism refers to trade, but he said "look at this like you would businesses in the free market," the "this" being the global immigration situation she was speaking of, so in the analogy protectionism means protecting your country's interests through deportations

[Potato]

I love it when US Christians, with all their made up fake extortion churches start accusing other people of worshipping false idols. Really gets my juices flowing.

[Potato]

https://www.psypost.org/the-tendency-to-feel-like-a-perpetual-victim-is-strongly-tied-to-vulnerable-narcissism/

A new study published in Personality and Individual Differences has found that a persistent “victim mentality” is strongly linked to narcissistic personality traits. The findings suggest that individuals who frequently perceive themselves as victims and signal this status to others often possess high levels of vulnerable narcissism and emotional instability. This research indicates that for some people, the tendency to see oneself as a victim is less about actual trauma and more about a specific personality structure that seeks recognition and validation.

Scholars distinguish between two primary forms of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable. Grandiose narcissism is characterized by high self-esteem, assertiveness, and a desire for power. Vulnerable narcissism involves high entitlement but is accompanied by low self-esteem, hypersensitivity to criticism, and defensive behavior.

Both constructs share a significant connection to neuroticism, a personality trait associated with emotional instability, anxiety, and moodiness. This suggests that the “victim mindset” is largely driven by a fragility of the self and difficulty regulating negative emotions.

The results also align with research by Ekin Ok and colleagues, who identified a strategy known as “virtuous victim signaling”. https://www.psypost.org/new-study-suggests-people-with-dark-personalities-weaponize-victimhood-to-gain-advantage-over-others/ Their work demonstrated that individuals with dark personality traits—specifically Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—often combine signals of victimhood with signals of moral virtue to deceptively extract resources from others. The current study adds nuance to this by suggesting that vulnerable narcissism is a primary driver for the internal feeling of victimhood, while the external act of signaling can serve the attention-seeking needs of grandiose narcissism.

I think we know where they can find more people with Grandiose narcissism or Vulnerable narcissism if they need more to study.

Perfectly captures the divide between moderation/prominent members and the regular Resetera users.
 vs   

[benji]

this example was used in order to avoid the example of letting a bunch of muslims settle in your land, become the majority population, change the laws, and execute the former occupants for being infidels, only to discover that they are inferior at upholding all the ideals the former society held to, due to their incurious adherence to tradition which won't allow them to innovate, ask questions, or learn to the extent of the former society

which goes back to the original point of deportation not being an admission of inferiority, but to preserve what your culture perceives as superiority

I don't see how this is not an admission of inferiority. If your culture is so weak that it will fall to anyone who joins it, hence the need to police it pre-emptively to protect it from its superiors.

Your Xenomorph example is the same, you're saying they're superior. Desire to stop free trade or innovation or anything else is the same, a fear that you'll no longer matter, etc.

[Nintex]

 

[Uncle]

this example was used in order to avoid the example of letting a bunch of muslims settle in your land, become the majority population, change the laws, and execute the former occupants for being infidels, only to discover that they are inferior at upholding all the ideals the former society held to, due to their incurious adherence to tradition which won't allow them to innovate, ask questions, or learn to the extent of the former society

which goes back to the original point of deportation not being an admission of inferiority, but to preserve what your culture perceives as superiority

I don't see how this is not an admission of inferiority. If your culture is so weak that it will fall to anyone who joins it, hence the need to police it pre-emptively to protect it from its superiors.

Your Xenomorph example is the same, you're saying they're superior. Desire to stop free trade or innovation or anything else is the same, a fear that you'll no longer matter, etc.

because you can be superior or inferior in different ways, and inferiority in one aspect does not automatically prove inferiority in all other aspects

If your culture is so weak that it will fall to anyone who joins it

the argument isn't "anyone" who joins it, it's about sheer numbers and physical force supplanting a culture which might be better than the other in every other aspect; nor is it about "weakness," that is changing the terms when the conversation is about superiority vs. inferiority

if I believe in feminist ideals and then a bear kills me, this does not prove that the bear's philosophy regarding feminism is superior to mine, simply because he overpowered me; you don't get to say "hah, looks like your precious feminism isn't an effective ideal at all, if you can still be murdered while adhering to it"

you are essentially saying that one man who has somehow stumbled upon the best set of philosophies in the world, primed to transform the world into a utopia if they could be adopted by everyone, actually has bad and terrible inferior ideas because 500 barbarians showed up at his doorstep and killed him without even asking to hear those ideas

which, in an alternate universe where he isn't killed and instead sees his ideas gradually adopted, suddenly become the best, superior philosophies, even though they are the same exact philosophies in both scenarios

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

the argument isn't "anyone" who joins it, it's about sheer numbers and physical force supplanting a culture which might be better than the other in every other aspect; nor is it about "weakness," that is changing the terms when the conversation is about superiority vs. inferiority

if I believe in feminist ideals and then a bear kills me, this does not prove that the bear's philosophy regarding feminism is superior to mine, simply because he overpowered me; you don't get to say "hah, looks like your precious feminism isn't an effective ideal at all, if you can still be murdered while adhering to it"

You're doing exactly what the tweet told you not to do. Take your emotional attachment out of it and evaluate it purely on objective grounds, the superior one is the one that wins which was proven by how it won*. Feminism is an inferior method to stopping a bear. Abandoning libertarianism for socialism is an inferior method of bringing about libertarianism and thwarting socialism. If Islam overruns your culture as Islam always did, your culture is inferior to Islam because they converted more of the population before you converted more of them.

If you have doubts about your superiority at doing the latter, then you'll turn towards protectionism, which is then an open admission of the inferiority when the grounds are equal. It doesn't need protecting, especially by abolishing any opposing or limiting all others, if it was superior. It would just be adopted. That's the argument for capitalism and free trade that Angela wants to abandon by conceding the entire argument up front. She thinks it's "different" in this case for the same reason you do, you imagine your preferences to be superior. Right, we know, that's the argument for all forms of protectionism. It's not different at all. Libertarianism is supposed to reject that premise, not use it to oppose liberty.

*

you are essentially saying that one man who has somehow stumbled upon the best set of philosophies in the world, primed to transform the world into a utopia if they could be adopted by everyone, actually has bad and terrible inferior ideas because 500 barbarians showed up at his doorstep and killed him without even asking to hear those ideas

which, in an alternate universe where he isn't killed and instead sees his ideas gradually adopted, suddenly become the best, superior philosophies, even though they are the same exact philosophies in both scenarios

Right, yes, your edit is correct. We evaluate the real world by the real world, not the pre-determined results of a hypothetical.

[nachobro]

the bots are out of control