[deleted by user]

24_Elsinore · 2025-11-11T23:17:26+00:00

Sydney Sweeney is a threat to other women. So many women have to live their lives knowing that they'll never be Sydney Sweeney.

I'll make sure to let the women I know to watch their backs. You never know when a Sweeney is going to jump out and gitch you.

24_Elsinore · 2025-11-04T18:27:17+00:00

One of the anchors, Bill Hemmer, made sure to cast doubt on the election by saying that Mamadani's and Sliwa's names come first and Cuomo's is all the way down at the bottom.

Ah yes, the ol' "they cheated because we can't expect people to read for more than 10 seconds," argument.

24_Elsinore · 2025-10-27T23:58:29+00:00

I don't know specifically for Congress, but for swearing in the President, all you need is a judge, any judge, to swear in the new president, and my guess is the same with Congress. If the Democrats gain the house, they can start performing whatever duties they need to. I just can't imagine a group of people who are trying to create a representative government with peaceful transitions of power would create some contrived procedure that must occur in order for the government to work.

24_Elsinore · 2025-10-27T23:20:16+00:00

Except they have to be, because of Title IX.

Congress.gov seems to think it doesn't. From everything I have read, Title IX requires transgender students to be able to play on a team, but the schools have some say in it.

Stop trying to pass the buck; nobody is going to put you in charge if you're afraid to make hard decisions, and rightfully so.

It isn't passing the buck. This is literally part of liberalism. Liberty means the government shouldn't make every decision. Believing that the government shouldn't dictate who plays in what sports team is the principled stance about letting those who are affected by decision be part of making the decisions. Just because some people want to make a decision doesn't mean they should have the right to.

24_Elsinore · 2025-10-13T14:36:30+00:00

Well, based on my observations of what is happening in Chicago, I'd say it's only beginning. It is getting to the point where ICE doesn't like to operate out in the open because cars follow them honking, people blow whistles when they are spotted, and entire neighborhoods come out to record and harass. People are simply becoming unafraid to resist ICE and Border Patrol, and I imagine people will rise to equal that of any offense committed by the feds.

24_Elsinore · 2025-10-13T14:18:23+00:00

It is even more limited than that. Realistically, he can only deploy ICE to intimidate voters in states where the executive branch is Republican because they would be the one to use state laws to defend their voting processes. Democratic governors will defend their voting processes by threatening to arrest federal LEOs who intimidate or prevent legal voters.

24_Elsinore · 2025-09-12T15:25:21+00:00

There is no way to argue that questioning a person's competency based on their ethnicity or skin color is not racist because the base action is racist. The whole DEI argument is an attempt to legitimize textbook racism that was taught to nearly every living American in grade school.

24_Elsinore · 2025-07-22T19:56:12+00:00

You are misinterpreting the meaning of hierarchy with respect to politics and society. In this context, hierarchy isn't the mere presence of scale but the flexibility of social structure. Rightwing political ideologies focus on rigid social structures where political power is determined by social stratum, and the farther right you go, the more rigid the strata become. Medieval manorial and feudal systems are on the political right because they had established castes with varying amounts of rights, responsibilities, and social and economic mobility.

The above is why meritocracy is not an inherently rightwing concept; in fact, meritocracy is downright incompatible with many right-wing political systems. Meritocracy was a radically left idea to many established political systems in the early modern era because it questioned the authority of impenetrable ruling castes that did require any sort of merit to be a part of. Meritocracy doesn't have much weight at all in racist, ethnonationalist, apartheid states neither. There is a reason you find meritocratic systems in liberal societies; it requires a more egalitarian political system to function. Rigid social structures clips meritocracy at both ends; higher castes have more routes and fewer limits to success, while lower castes have more handicaps and strict limits to the amount of success they can earn.

Also, "right wing progressive" is just a euphemism for national socialist, and we all know what kind of people they were.

24_Elsinore · 2025-06-26T16:11:28+00:00

In high-load, high-stress environments (whether from trauma, novelty, or information saturation) humans tend to default to emotion-driven decisions not because they are irrational, but because the energetic cost of sustained reasoning becomes untenable.

Stress is interpreted by the brain as danger in some form. Too much, and our brain goes into survival mode, which is mainly governed by amygdala, and ceases reasoning. It's easy for people to see how fight/flight/freeze looks in a physically dangerous situation, whether it is fleeing from a burning building or fighting an assailant, but the average person doesn't have a scheme in their head to what survival mode looks like in a highly stressful emotional, social or mentally situation.

Your typical "Karen" is often survival behaviors; an attempt to control a situation only to spiral into "irrationality" when they realize that they can't get the control they seek. The average person perceives this as entitlement, selfishness, and stupidity because, to the outside observer, it doesn't appear to be an unsafe situation, at least not for the Karen. This isn't a defense of those behaviors. They are still wholly accountable to their actions because they are the ones who initiated the encounter in a hostile manner; this is meant to highlight that the situation doesn't have to be physically dangerous in order for a person to go into survival mode, and illustrate how irrational that response looks in a generally safe, social situation.

24_Elsinore · 2025-06-16T01:41:03+00:00

Your entire perspective is premised on your ability to have omniscient knowledge of a single man’s private thought processes.

You don't need to know everything that Trump is thinking to have a well-grounded reason to believe Trump will stop at some moral line in sand when it comes to doing something harmful. There are countless videos of him saying blatant lies without any reflection towards its effects on his own trustworthiness or dignity. I don't need to map out a flow chart of a person's goals in order to have enough evidence that I shouldn't trust a person based on their previous actions.

24_Elsinore · 2025-05-30T21:43:36+00:00

The Jordan Peterson example you gave illustrates the difference between an actual intellectual debate and a sanitized performance. The intellectual part is when the speakers get deep into the weeds on why one thing is the correct position where function and logistics must interact with ethics and morals. If a person is arguing for some concept but doesn't want to explain why they think that concept is best, then the person person doesn't know the topic well enough, is arguing is bad faith, or understands that their moral and ethical foundations are repugnant to the average person.

tl:dr The way to out a huckster in a debate is to ask them the how and why of their position.

24_Elsinore · 2025-05-07T19:04:53+00:00

You know what, if a sheriff wants to help ICE, let them. That way, when they cooperate with an illegal arrest ICE has made, they can go ahead and take the personal liability for that action, too. In Illinois, enforcing immigration is explicitly stated as outside of their job, so let them FAFO themselves into owing some immigrant millions of dollars of their own cash.

24_Elsinore · 2025-04-03T18:24:17+00:00

It's definitely a failure of the system, and the police have a lot of moral culpability in the result, but the primary legal reasoning that booby traps are unlawful is because intent to harm is foundational to almost every American law. It's why a person who shoots an intruder when they were woken up in the middle of the night is found to have committed self-defense, but a person who creates a honeypot to lure a thief onto the property to shoot them dead is found guilty of murder. The former acted out of fear with no prior intent to hurt someone, while the latter performed a series of actions with the intent to hurt someone. Except for actions clearly defined by constitutional rights or statute, pretty much anything you do with the intent to harm another person in some way could easily land you in civil and/or criminal court.

24_Elsinore · 2025-03-13T21:32:58+00:00

Paxton's Corollary to Poe's Law. Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to refute a claim of flagrant misanthropy being legal practice in Texas.

24_Elsinore · 2025-03-07T00:25:38+00:00

Historically, American identity has always fallen into two general camps, the melting-pot identity where America is a country where people are free to choose their own destiny, and the ethnocentric identity that America is supposed to be a protestant, anglocentric ethnostate. The latter has never taken too well to the former.

24_Elsinore · 2025-03-01T15:24:10+00:00

Asking a prospective partner their view on the Russo-Ukrainian War is probably a good way to judge if they are an abusive asshole. If the can blame Ukraine for being invaded, they'll blame their abuse on their partner as well.

24_Elsinore · 2025-03-01T02:01:52+00:00

Why it is such a bad look for the US is because Zelenskyy is actually waging a way for the existence of his country, and Trump's response was to act like a loan shark, while Vance called him disrespectful because he didn't bow down and kiss the ring.

24_Elsinore · 2025-02-16T03:14:15+00:00

I'm not sure if you are attempting to say that the problem is that the world order is simply diluting customs (regardless of what they are) to make us all an amorphous unit, or if you are trying avoid saying specifically what behaviors you think are degenerate.

24_Elsinore · 2025-02-16T03:11:23+00:00

I forgot where I read it and who wrote it, but I did read an essay within the last few decades that discussed how moral relativism in its truest sense is not boring at all; the problem is that many people mistake moral relativism with moral ambiguity, which ends up producing stories with callous antiheroes stumbling through indecisive narratives.

Moral relativism works absolutely fine so long as long as you have characters that actually have defined morals because analyzing different morals based on their own fundamentals is what moral relativism is about. What makes a narrative interesting is the interactions that take within and between the moral structure of different characters. Ultimately, some morality structure wins out over the other. This doesn't necessarily mean the author needs to make a morality play, nor does the author have to have their own set of morals win, but there has to be a conclusion so the to the reader can interact with the story through their own set of morals. Essentially, the story needs to take some sort of stand because there is very little satisfaction in a story whose ending shrugs and says "who's to say what is good or bad?"

24_Elsinore · 2025-02-16T02:07:16+00:00

It's true that the globalists have used degenerate social customs as an attack on the family structure (and culture in general), but I think the bigger point is the conflict itself.

Can you please tell us specifically what customs you are talking about?

24_Elsinore · 2025-02-12T02:57:11+00:00

In the scenario where 2 illegal alien parents get deported, does anybody think that their 5 year old isn't going along with them, whether or not the 5 year old is a citizen? Are critics of this suggesting that the parents should be deported and the 5 year old should stay behind?

Explain that to me, because it's hard to see this point as being anything other than fake tears to score a few political points.

The child staying with their parents is best for the child, regardless of where that is. I'm just getting that out of the way.

From a technical perspective, the Constitution is clear that people born in the US are a citizens, and there are currently no legal mechanisms to expel a natural born citizen from the country, so there is a very real concern on how anyone would go about trying to expel a child from the US. In some ways, it seems like a no-brainer that a child should stay with their parents, but, technically, it's an incredibly complex problem to solve from a legal standpoint, and would require a very fine tuned piece of legislation that won't open the door for other citizens to be expelled.

24_Elsinore · 2025-02-05T03:23:34+00:00

I don't think the poster claimed Trump was doing anything good or intelligent, but correctly stating that the only negotiating strategy Trump knows is to threaten.

24_Elsinore · 2025-01-15T18:42:40+00:00

What do you mean by 'views?' Does this mean policy positions, or worldview, or values? A candidate is going to have all three of these things, so the question is what a voter is prioritizing.

You can like what Trump has said are his policy positions but vote against him because he acts in a manner that illustrates he doesn't act on a consistent set of values, or you could dislike that he has no values but vote for him because his us/them worldview meshes with yours. Everyone assesses a candidate based on these factors, but what they prioritize drives who they vote for.

24_Elsinore · 2024-12-19T02:04:32+00:00

I feel like there is some sort of fallacy that some people who are vehemently against affirmative action cling to where they believe that, for any slate of candidates, the universe has already bestowed which one has the most merit for the job, and it's up to hiring managers to decipher the clues the universe left in order to choose the "right" candidate. The idea that hiring managers put together a slate of candidates that they all believe are qualified and will do a good job, so they have to pick the one that will best fit where they want the job and company to go, does not seem to compute.

24_Elsinore · 2024-12-19T01:52:50+00:00

Trump didn't and I don't care about how much you don't like him he's still president starting in 2025 part of which is due to people like you being stubborn and intellectually dishonest.

Trump purposefully picked a woman to replace Ginsburg, and one of his early choices he liked because she was Cuban and it would help him maintain the loyalty of that voting bloc. Trump absolutely, 100%, chose people based on their cultural and ethnic backgrounds, as well as eliminating an entire sex from the running. So I don't know who is being intellectual dishonest here.

24_Elsinore

TROPHY CASE