Tapate50
Well-known member
Dates of hire?
Real Talk - the 19th
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
sturg33
I
Yeah but yall would have not even opened the thread called "voting restriction are needed."
Thats too boring
chop2chip
Well-known member
You hold us in too high esteem
I’d have lived inside that thread. Your stated premise in the title is what I find boring and lazy.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
the two maga guys have been around for a while...the libertarian is a new hire
when i was hired four years ago there was no attempt to ferret out my politics...none whatsoever...they liked that i had an interest in baseball and soccer...that was about it in terms of delving into my personal interests and views
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
From post #3!!
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Read coldly, that passage isn’t really a policy argument; it’s a fantasy of lost dominance dressed up as political theory.
Here’s what’s going on inside it:
The speaker recasts political disagreement as biological hierarchy—men versus the ideals they hate (implicitly, ideals coded as feminine, progressive, or humanitarian).
That substitution does a lot of psychological work:
Once the categories are gendered and essentialized, compromise becomes betrayal of nature, not negotiation among citizens.
That closing line crystallizes the worldview:
Typically:
It isn’t necessarily violent, but it’s pre-justifying violence: building a moral logic where force becomes virtue when “niceness” fails.
The passage performs three moves:
It reads less like political analysis than like a lament for lost authority — the voice of someone who fears irrelevance and translates that fear into prophecy of inevitable conflict.
Here’s what’s going on inside it:
1.
The speaker recasts political disagreement as biological hierarchy—men versus the ideals they hate (implicitly, ideals coded as feminine, progressive, or humanitarian).
That substitution does a lot of psychological work:
- It turns abstract policy loss into personal emasculation.
- It implies that disagreement with him isn’t intellectual but unnatural rebellion against male order.
Once the categories are gendered and essentialized, compromise becomes betrayal of nature, not negotiation among citizens.
2.
3.
4.
That closing line crystallizes the worldview:
- Democracy = temporary truce between natural enemies.
- Politics = pre-war positioning, not coexistence.
It rejects pluralism entirely. In this frame, legitimacy flows from strength, not consent.
Once that idea takes hold, any election one’s side loses can be interpreted as illegitimate—a stolen victory in the ongoing war.
5.
Typically:
- Status anxiety – feels once central, now marginalized.
- Zero-sum worldview – sees rights and empathy for others as theft from “producers.”
- Romantic fatalism – believes history is a cycle of dominance and collapse, so moderation is cowardice.
It isn’t necessarily violent, but it’s pre-justifying violence: building a moral logic where force becomes virtue when “niceness” fails.
The passage performs three moves:
- Turns gender into destiny (“men are stronger”).
- Converts policy frustration into moral warfare.
- Re-mythologizes democracy as a pause between battles.
It reads less like political analysis than like a lament for lost authority — the voice of someone who fears irrelevance and translates that fear into prophecy of inevitable conflict.
chop2chip
Well-known member
The soccer question was a proxy
I will say this thread actually serves as a pretty good argument in favor of some of the updated views of gender expression. If we must accept these traits as so ingrained within our genders that we restrict rights based on those gendered traits, perhaps the really feminine kids who embody those intrinsically female traits really are women.
My qualms on gendered expression being real and not entirely based on environment (globally, not unique to liberal pro-trans, etc.) is one of the bigger questions I have on the validity of the more progressive views on gender. This argument just makes those traits natural and takes away that question.
My qualms on gendered expression being real and not entirely based on environment (globally, not unique to liberal pro-trans, etc.) is one of the bigger questions I have on the validity of the more progressive views on gender. This argument just makes those traits natural and takes away that question.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i think so!! a good way of sending out a coded message i was part of the globalist cabal
otoh sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...my office neighbor played at the professional level
sturg33
I
How'd that workout during the George Floyd riots?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i wasn't on the job market back then...but my daughter's PhD cohort was and I'm pleased to report every single white male in that group found a good job...i don't know their ideology...they are a bunch of neuroscience geeks....i doubt that ideology matters much in that group
sturg33
I
I recall a few being fired for having the audacity to say something true
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
what can i say...wokeness claimed so many victims...maybe someday we can have a museum to remember the victims of wokeness...i'm glad that you were not personally a victim of this terrible period in our country's history
sturg33
I
To be fair they deserved it. They should have known their institution was not one who seeks truth
Should have been more eggshell tip toeing than expressing facts
sturg33
I
Your robot friend really appears to lean into the fantasy dogma.Read coldly, that passage isn’t really a policy argument; it’s a fantasy of lost dominance dressed up as political theory.
Here’s what’s going on inside it:
The speaker recasts political disagreement as biological hierarchy—men versus the ideals they hate (implicitly, ideals coded as feminine, progressive, or humanitarian).
That substitution does a lot of psychological work:
- It turns abstract policy loss into personal emasculation.
- It implies that disagreement with him isn’t intellectual but unnatural rebellion against male order.
Once the categories are gendered and essentialized, compromise becomes betrayal of nature, not negotiation among citizens.
That closing line crystallizes the worldview:
- Democracy = temporary truce between natural enemies.
- Politics = pre-war positioning, not coexistence.
It rejects pluralism entirely. In this frame, legitimacy flows from strength, not consent.
Once that idea takes hold, any election one’s side loses can be interpreted as illegitimate—a stolen victory in the ongoing war.
Typically:
- Status anxiety – feels once central, now marginalized.
- Zero-sum worldview – sees rights and empathy for others as theft from “producers.”
- Romantic fatalism – believes history is a cycle of dominance and collapse, so moderation is cowardice.
It isn’t necessarily violent, but it’s pre-justifying violence: building a moral logic where force becomes virtue when “niceness” fails.
The passage performs three moves:
- Turns gender into destiny (“men are stronger”).
- Converts policy frustration into moral warfare.
- Re-mythologizes democracy as a pause between battles.
It reads less like political analysis than like a lament for lost authority — the voice of someone who fears irrelevance and translates that fear into prophecy of inevitable conflict.
It said as much on your earlier insistence that Americans did not celebrate Kirks death, or that academic institutions dont hire conservatives.
It appears to believe that a stronger party agreeing to be ruled by a weaker party is a sensible outcome in conflict of all evidence of human history
Id recommend a different robot friend. But its clear yours tells you what you want to hear
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
not that i ever expect it to happen, but it would be an interesting question to see who would prevail in a war
perhaps the most likely alternative reality is serfdom for people like you
don't be so sure you and your fellow travelers would prevail
i'm pretty sure in a war California would kick Texas' ass
New York would definitely annihilate Florida.
sturg33
I
Everything i advocate for (including national divorce) is an effort to stop such conflicts from ever happening