A Mighty Wyn @AMightyWyn

My biggest problem with most forms of modern liberalism is that I reject that we’ve made substantial moral progress over the last few hundred years. You are not the moral superiors of your ancestors. I think, in fact, you’re just lucky to be alive in a time where it’s possible to express alternative moral positions, because of technological progress and improved material conditions. I think that you’d behave exactly as your ancestors did, given the same information and constraints under which they labored. And I think, further, the outrageous narcissism and arrogance that results from believing that all human beings up until about five minutes ago were racist and sexist pieces of shit is really deranging people’s sense of society and of their place in it. And this, ultimately, makes them their ancestors’ moral inferiors in most ways that matter.

vittorio @IterIntellectus

a week ago

growing up, i knew my great-grandmother and used to spend the summer holidays with her and my grandma. i knew all of my parents’ aunts and uncles. my dad told me stories about his great-grandparents and their relatives during the great war and wwii. our house had dozens of

22 83 1K 81K 189

You’re skipping the part where you actually have to establish causation. A medication having a rare reported adverse effect does not mean that adverse effect occurred in this individual, much less that it caused her to become psychotic and murder three children. Her toxicology does not show some massive drug intoxication. Several medications were low or subtherapeutic and the others were largely within therapeutic ranges. More importantly, the psychiatrists actually treating her shortly before the murders specifically documented no psychosis. One diagnosed severe depression without psychotic features. And then look at the behavior surrounding the murders. She researched whether sociopathy could be treated, calculated how long her husband would be gone, sent him out, added another errand, waited until she was alone with the children, concealed what she intended to do, and carried it out. That is methodical, sustained, goal directed, reality based behavior. Planning can occur during psychosis, but this degree of planning, concealment, timing, and preserved awareness makes an acute psychotic break incredibly unlikely in the absence of some compelling delusional framework explaining it. She doesn’t have one. Even her later account of the supposed “voice” is unusual for maternal psychotic filicide. In classic cases, the killing occurs within an actual delusional reality. The mother believes the children are possessed, condemned, in terrible danger, or that killing them will somehow save them. Lindsey said a voice told her she had “run out of time” to kill them. A forensic psychologist who evaluated her has now specifically testified that he did not believe that represented an acute command hallucination. And calling it postpartum psychosis does not solve any of this. Her youngest child was eight months old. Classic postpartum psychosis has an abrupt onset shortly after delivery. Eight months postpartum is nowhere near the characteristic presentation. Could psychiatric drugs rarely cause agitation, disinhibition, mania, aggression, or other severe behavioral reactions? Of course. But “this drug can rarely cause X” and “therefore the drugs caused these murders” are two completely different claims. You need evidence connecting the drug to the mental state and behavior. Saying it is “quite clear” when the contemporaneous psychiatric assessments, toxicology, behavioral evidence, and forensic opinions are contested is simply asserting causation that has not been demonstrated.

The Lindsay Clancy case has exposed something I find deeply disturbing about the way people talk about women, mental illness, and responsibility. Three children were strangled to death by their mother, and somehow a significant number of women have managed to make her the emotional center of the story. My position on insanity is pretty simple. I do not think insanity fundamentally changes the public safety question. If you are capable of murdering three children because you are psychotic, you are dangerous. If you are capable of murdering three children while completely sane, you are dangerous. The mechanism may be different. The social consequence should not be. Mental illness can explain behavior. It does not erase the behavior, resurrect the victims, or eliminate the danger that person has demonstrated. Explanation is not exoneration. For clarity, I am not in favor of the death penalty for anyone. That is a separate moral philosophy of mine. But I absolutely believe that people who demonstrate that they are profoundly unsafe for a functioning society should be removed from it. And this was not simply someone impulsively snapping. There was organization and forethought surrounding what happened. Methodical, sustained planning is not a hallmark of an acute psychotic break. Planning alone does not rule out psychosis, but organized behavior, concealment, forethought, and apparent awareness of consequences are all highly relevant when evaluating the claim that someone had completely lost contact with reality. Lindsay displayed all of these. You do not get to wave all of that away by saying “postpartum.” And the hormone argument is even worse. Hormones can influence mood, arousal, anxiety, aggression, sexual motivation, and cognition, often through the lens of preexisting beliefs. But influence is not compulsion. Hormones do not mechanically force people to murder. If you genuinely believe they do, apply that logic consistently. A man with high testosterone has biological influences affecting sexual motivation, dominance, and aggression. If he rapes or assaults someone, are you going to say his hormones made him do it? Of course you fucking aren’t. And you shouldn’t. Because biological influence does not eliminate agency. You cannot demand that women be treated as fully autonomous adults while simultaneously resurrecting the oldest argument imaginable about female biology making us irrational and incapable of controlling ourselves whenever accountability becomes uncomfortable. And stop conflating postpartum depression with postpartum psychosis. They are not the same thing. Women experience postpartum depression every day without murdering their children. Using a woman who strangled all three of hers as some kind of martyr for ordinary women struggling postpartum is not compassionate advocacy. It is unbelievably poorly thought out. If anything, you are giving vulnerable women another reason not to seek help. Imagine being scared to admit you are depressed, anxious, having intrusive thoughts, or struggling after birth because social media has rhetorically bundled ordinary postpartum mental health problems together with women murdering their babies. Brilliant advocacy🤡 What disturbs me most is how quickly people can look at three dead children and start constructing a rationale for the adult who killed them. If that is your immediate moral instinct, something is seriously wrong with your priorities and mindset. Seek help yourself. Now. You can advocate for better maternal mental health care. Please do. But that does not require turning the person who brutally killed three children into a martyr. Whether someone is criminally malicious or catastrophically insane, if they have demonstrated that they are profoundly unsafe for other human beings, society has every right to protect itself from them. And let’s remember, the children should be the center of this story. Not the woman who killed them.

A review of childhood anxiety research found that parents often respond to a child’s distress by allowing avoidance, providing repeated reassurance, changing routines, or taking over responsibilities. This “family accommodation” is associated with more severe anxiety, greater impairment, and poorer treatment response. Parents are trying to help. But shielding children from discomfort can backfire by reinforcing avoidance and preventing them from learning that they can handle anxiety themselves. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC48…

Kelsey Grammer, dad of 8, on the US education system: “I think the educational community has really dropped the ball, probably deliberately in a lot of ways. They don’t like the idea that we are a great country. Somewhere along the way, our education system decided we aren’t, and that’s what they teach our children. “If you’re learning that from your teachers—and we believe our teachers—you start to think, well, maybe they’re right. “You begin searching your soul for why you come from a ‘crap’ place, why you’re not a good person, why our country isn’t good anymore. “That means mom and dad aren’t very good either, are they? There’s a whole series of questions that follow. “What we’re doing to our children is basically child abuse. “Someone deliberately set out to introduce the idea that we aren’t a good country through our educational system.”

The left invented a rule that no one should ever criticize them and they become genuinely furious when people don’t follow it lol

Secular Talk ([email protected]) @KyleKulinski

a month ago

Imagine going on a left-bashing tour at the exact same time NSPM-7 is specifically targeting the left for "terrorism" in a new red scare. Absolutely depraved.

608 866 10K 731K 490

I didn’t get cheated. You did.

SpaceX raised only $12B of capital before going public. With that $12B, they revolutionized the rocket industry, built a global satellite network, and created arguably the most innovative company of all time. The federal government spends $12B every 15 hours and still can’t get its shit together. Prior to SpaceX, NASA was sending astronauts into space on Soviet-era Russian Soyuz capsules. So no, I don’t find Elon’s wealth to be a problem, and I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to allocate a single dollar of it.

Correct.

The amount of self-hate Americans have towards their own history is truly unreal. They defeated slavery by fighting against their own family. They shut Europe out of the western hemisphere so that nations wouldn't live under colonization forever. They had the ability to stay out of world war 1 but they went and died to help Europeans. They had the ultimate power in the nuclear bomb. They also had access to all of Europe's colonies that were in shambles. But instead they promoted freedom. They rebuilt Japan and Germany after defeating them in war. They stood down the Soviet Union, even as the world jeered them. They sent soldiers to places like Vietnam and Afghanistan that died TRYING to create a better world (even if you disagree with those wars, the intentions were fairly good) And they sent more missionaries to the world than maybe any other country in history. Translated more Bibles into indigenous languages than any other country in history. Ran bigger charities than any other country in history. Created more Christian resources than any other country in history. Whether it was stopping the Dutch from reconquering Indonesia to the Berlin Airlift to giving Cuba its freedom in the Spanish-American war to saving China from the Japanese America has at least ATTEMPTED to do good with its power. Yes yes, America has problems. People are imperfect. But goodness gracious does the world have a lot to be grateful for in America. And when we could have taken SO much from the world we have often chosen not to. Rome, Britain, Mongols, Assyrians, Soviets, Chinese, no other group has ever shown the restraint America has consistently shown with such vast power at its fingertips. We didn't even get into the GIGANTIC technological advances, consumer advances, convenient lifestyle changes America has pioneered. From electricity to space to the light bulb to the smart phone to many cures in medicine and agriculture to the airplane the world has been enormously blessed by America.

dinosaur @dinosaurs1969

5 months ago

how US history what actuaIly is taught happened

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

519 11K 99K 4.4M 3K

Every invocation of "universal love" is always invoked to legitimize a very particular form of hatred. The Left does this thing where it denies the existence of its own ideology as being political at all. It's just "love". It's just morality-as-politics, or simply "being a good person". And Leftists insist this is all they're doing, even as they engage in the most aggressive and ruthless forms of politics imaginable. Nothing is ever depicted as a power struggle between competing worldviews. It's always a crusade against social ills, pathologies, and evil itself. "Conservatism" doesn't exist to these people. There's no legitimate opposition, only a criminal element that has to be destroyed because Leftists have already declared themselves to be the universal manifestation of morality, peace, kindness, love, progress, and everything that is good and just in this world. But everyone can see just how utterly hypocritical these people are. We continuously see examples of these same people exhibiting the most immoral, disgusting, and downright evil manifestations of hatred and violence against people and factions that they despise. They just call it "love" as they do these things.

Wesley @WesleyBout

7 months ago

Imagine getting mad about this and still thinking you’re a good person

4K 34K 230K 5.3M 4K

Until around 2015, there was a kind of guy — he probably lived in Brooklyn, maybe he had an MFA. He wrote literary fiction and some of these guys had book deals and others were trying to get them. They were very passionate about books and talked endlessly about Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace. Women in publishing hated them and resented them, because their work was treated as real literature, and that of many of their female contemporaries were not. Dana Schwartz had a popular Twitter feed called @GuyInYourMFA making fun of these guys. Adelle Waldman lampooned them in a novel called “The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.” There were articles on sits like xojane by women complaining about how men wouldn’t shut up about “Infinite Jest.” Activists in publishing used MeToo and DEI to push out editors who acquired these books and cancel some of the successful male authors and shuffle people in the publishing houses around to change the priorities of various imprints, and after a decade where the kind of books these guys used to write do not get published, and every agent and editor is explicitly seeking only LGBT and POC content, guys like this are gone. And the result is not a vibrant literary culture centering around work written by women and minorities. There is no literary culture. There is no literature if guys like these do not write it, and books do not matter if guys like these are not passionate about them.

Bluesky Libs @BlueskyLibs

9 months ago

Joyce Carol Oates, meet Joyce Carol Oates.

94 1K 12K 716K 962

I'd like to thank Candace Owens for the shout-out in her latest rant. Good opportunity to remind you she challenged me to a debate once. When I accepted, she chickened out. 😂 She is a good example of the power of charisma unconstrained by intellect. All bark, no brain.

WILD 🔴 @Olivia_Reingold says she visited the Columbia University bookstore and found the Qur’an is required reading for all freshmen, according to a store employee. Check out the other books they have on display. Columbia university is rotting the minds of young Americans.

Have you noticed that if someone proudly displays the American flag, you can usually guess their politics? That’s a problem. And it’s dangerous. America isn’t perfect. No country is. But this country has done more to advance freedom, innovation, and human progress than any other nation in history. We should be proud of that. We should build on it. When one side treats patriotism like shame, that’s not progress. That’s national decay dressed up as virtue. I'm proud to be an American. You should be as well.

How did this happen?

This generation's ego problems are off the charts. WHO YOU ARE IS NOT A MAGIC GHOST THAT MAKES YOU SPECIAL. IT IS THE COMBINATION OF YOUR BODY AND YOUR EXPERIENCE. IF YOU DO DIFFERENT THINGS YOU BECOME DIFFERENT SO DO DIFFERENT THINGS

Yesterday, I made a very popular post about women's mating choices. Most of the replies were basically just the enclosed image. The problem that causes this style of thinking is, in a word, "ego," and in several words, "ignoring the parts of a system that you find uncomfortable and emphasizing the parts that make you feel vindicated." I could, of course, expand this to a book, but I won't. Today. The lesson you should learn from that thread is this: "If someone can't explain the problems that are typically caused by normalizing their favorite choices, that person has no understanding of the issue." People who argue with me typically think that I am saying "boys good" and so they reply with "no, GIRLS good," offering an extremely blind and highly partial perspective on a large and complex system. What I am actually saying is "discarding filters that reduce poor choices bad." It is very SAD and not very FUN to deal with the fact that making our favorite and most satisfying choices causes chaos and social degradation, but that is the struggle that God gave us. There is no fighting it. You are not ever going to invent a system that allows you to do the most fun thing at all times and also produces social harmony and civilizational progress. Our basic urges are LOW-LEVEL needs, and if you prioritize low-level needs, you get a low-level world. You're watching it all around you!

Activists love to claim that puberty blockers are safe because they have been used for decades to treat precocious puberty. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Puberty blockers for precocious puberty manage a diagnosable endocrine disorder. In gender medicine, the drugs induce an endocrine disorder in healthy adolescents on the basis of a self-declared identity. In precocious puberty, the drugs are stopped at the age when normal puberty begins. In gender medicine, the drugs are started when normal puberty has already begun. Then followed by cross-sex hormones so the kids never go through puberty. There are over 10,000 adverse event reports filed with the FDA by women who were harmed taking Lupron for either precocious puberty or short stature. In the coming decades, there will undoubtedly be class action lawsuits brought by the legions of young people who had their health so needlessly destroyed by gender quacks.

@wanyeburkett And we wonder why the new generation of screenwriters can't put out content of comparable quality to their predecessors. They can't read quality works that might give them a goal to strive for.