The article linked is unobjectionable because it is from the Irish Independent. The headline jpeg is from a right wing news site funded by neofascists and the headline "The Great Replacement" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement is a racist conspiracy theory.

Lionino masked the racist jpeg with a link to a different article.

Edit: Cross-posted

OK, well, I can't say I quite get what you're at but if it's not the usual "blame women for men's woes" schtick we periodically get here, it's not a problem.

Hm, sounds like you're having a hissy fit because you were just warned for posting a racist conspiracy theory headline. Yes, you will be banned for more of that but you can go before if you like. If you think you're the paragon of seriousness we should emulate, I really don't know what to say given your posting history.

it is about the fact that they are using the picture of a female model while the cross-dresser in question is this person: — Lionino

I did see that. It's a cock up on one tweet. So what?

Of course mate, I am the one who is intellectually unserious LOL not the tens of people on this website paddling pseudoscience. Maybe focus on that. — Lionino

OK, name just five of these "tens of people" and I'll go deal with them.

I did not mention the gender of the "someone" getting paid cash and prizes — Tarskian

I think I can guess the gender of the Passport Bros' nemeses.

The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest. — Tarskian

Until there are no people left in one generation.

:party:

Appreciate this. :pray: I've been planning to get back into Sartre.

If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing. — Tarskian

Indeed, the thesis is:

based on the idea that women are evil and aim ...to torture men emotionally and take their money. — Baden

Your view is stupid and superficial. And keep a lid on the misogyny.

This all seems based on the idea that women are evil and aim to get pregnant so they can torture men emotionally and take their money. And men that don't leave their "Western" country are naive victims of a system rigged against them. And you're a hero because poor farmers want to give you their daughters. Or something. All very broish and immature so far.

You will just end up paying child support for children that you will barely see — Tarskian

Not if you don't screw up your relationship.

. I do not understand why anybody still takes that risk. — Tarskian

Maybe they have faith in their ability not to screw up their relationship.

That's cool. I don't know much about the theory of surrealism, but I dig some of the art. And I think I understand Dali's watches, but why the elephants have super-long legs is beyond me, frankly. :smile:

Yes, that's where I thought you were coming from. But given just the silly name for a start, the "Passport Bro"s don't sound like a movement any intelligent person would want to be associated with. I don't like living in Western countries either but it's because I find them generally stifling and over-expensive. The idea that I'm somehow legally safer in less developed more corrupt jurisdictions makes no sense to me except from the very narrow angle of "family law" you seem concerned with. That's why I'm saying just come out and deal with that instead of mixing it up with other stuff.

Looks like the libertarians won't be flocking to Trump considering how RFK shat on them for some as yet unrevealed promise from the Orangeutan. I doubt they'll go Dem either though.

Your concern is that some woman you committed yourself to will take your money or you will have to support any children you have rather than be able to shag some farmer's daughter in outer Mongolia and just move on to the next jurisdiction where you have more money than the locals when things get complicated, right?

Because that's a rather narrow view of "avoiding legal issues". You may find that an absence of strictly enforceable / codified law in farmers-daughter-rich hinterlands could lead to you getting arrested just for looking the wrong way at a bigwig or to having to fork out a massive bribe after being tempted into a compromising situation caused by your patronising complacency.

You'd be better off talking directly about your problem with "the West", i.e. family law, than coming at it from this odd self-defeating angle.

Life dwells in that open space between facts — frank

Nicely put. :smile:

It's all about avoiding court cases.

I simply don't want them. — Tarskian

But who cares what you want?

You haven't made any coherent argument that living in the "West" is a relative legal risk in general.

Good question... The facticity of something would be its features (set of facts) in context.

"Facticity' refers to the inherent features of entities in the world that are shared with others, such as objects, concepts, and experiences, shaping an individual's understanding and interactions within a public, shared world."

So, the facticity of a watch, from this perspective, is a combination of its material reality and what it represents socially and symbolically. One fact about it is it's a symbol for time. But the set of physical facts about it, that aspect of its "facticity" is not directly related to the concept of time. So in a way its facticity is less unified from a regular perspective than an artistic one that uses time metaphors to warp its physical characteristics.

Edit: So the surreal can be the more (psychologically) real and the "real" real relatively deficient.

As well as being representations of ideas, can't they also be a 'fiction' in that they are dynamic and depending on cultural elements and imagination? — Amity

Absolutely. :up:

As a passing thought, I like the reference to surrealism. The facticity of things at one level can obscure the fact of them at another. A clock or watch finds itself a symbol for the abstract concept of time, but materially it's a construction dependent on material and spatial contingencies and only arbitrarily related to its symbol. The fact of time is then both represented and obscured by its concrete symbolization. Art can bring these things together by deconstructing the concrete facticity in a way that frees the symbolic within. E.g. Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching.

Them doing something about / commenting on an issue you consider trivial (transgender rights) is not evidence that they do nothing about things almost everyone would consider important.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/

Your childish smear though is evidence of your lack of intellectual seriousness, something which, oddly, you don't realize you are putting on full display with posts like this. Maybe focus on that.

Absolutely. I think I've made clear before there are no morals to be found on any side. I can understand Americans having practical reasons to prefer one over the other though.

Just another slimy politician doing what’s best for himself. — praxis

Probably the worst thing about him is the fusion of antisemitism (e.g. his veiled suggestion that the Jews and Chinese got together to launch COVID), his staunch support for Israel's war on Gaza, and a central pillar of his platform being that he's anti-war. The hypocrisy / opportunism combo there is audacious even for an American politician.

It's a betting market, so it's sentiment based. I think Harris will still win but just barely.

This is typical "journalism" of today, from DW: — ssu

I like that as a generalizable example of how consumerist media kills reality in favour of sellable fictions.

They got RFK's endorsement though. According to polymarket, they are (very slight) favourites to win now.

I'm not too interested in the gory details but the political shifts that are being experienced are symptomatic of social fractures that may signal the inherent unsustainability of neoliberalism and the delusion of the "end of history" paradigm. I'm not sure that leads anywhere good in the short term.

:up:

It’s been that way for a while. It’s the establishment vs. the outsiders. — NOS4A2

There's some truth in that, but it doesn't make the outsiders the "good guys". Stephanie Grisham was right when she said Trump has no morals. She just left out the bit about her and the Democrats also having no morals.

I find the left to be mostly a conga-line of hectoring fuck-sticks. — Tom Storm

If I had to pick a side, it would be the left, but I still find the remark amusing as it reminds me of the classic Viz insult "Go piss up a rope, fuckstick!".

As a rule I don't follow politics. I detest it. — Tom Storm

It mostly boils down to who can tell the best lies. Not too edifying as a spectator sport for sure.

Given Stephanie Grisham's record--including her previous defence for Trump calling Never-Trumpers "human scum"--it seems highly unlikely she is doing anything other than using the DNC as a free advertising platform for her book. Wealthy establishment conservatives, like those on the Lincoln project, I guess, realize Trump threatens instability and the Democratic same ol' works better for them. I doubt any of the objectors are concerned with actual corruption or lack of morality as there is no morality to be found anywhere in American politics and corruption is systematic and desirable for both parties.

Thank you. :smile:

Please stop double-posting this kind of stuff in this and the election thread.

It's not clear to me what happened. You're complaining you have been falsely accused of being @keystone?

:strong:

I doubt they will see that it is in their interests, as one of the big two. — unenlightened

If the same percentage-wise results occurred in Ireland which has a more proportional system, the largest party would be facing a forced coalition now. If I recall correctly, at least 45% is realistically required for a majority and no one party has achieved that in decades.

So, no they won't.

It cannot be stable to have a minority of 34% of a turnout of 60% which I think comes out to a government with just 20% of the electorate supporting, and some of that a reluctant "they can't be worse than the last lot" support. With a little help from a hostile and scandal-hungry press, that support can vanish almost overnight. — unenlightened

That's just what I was thinking earlier. Beyond the hype, only one in five actually voted for Labour. And the Rupert Murdoch party winning again is hardly going to be transformative. If it were, his press would quickly decide they're no longer his party and that would probably be the end of them.

The narrative that Trump will be granted evil superpowers if he wins is out there now and not going to be vanquished by facts.

I'm not trying to look inside your heart here. I'm just saying, if you know how not to sound sinister and threatening, please take that route. If not, take your chances. We haven't been able to disentangle your semi-incoherent explanations.

Any Republican celebrating this is going to look comically misguided if the upcoming and inevitable Dem fear strategy works and their people turn out in droves to vote against the Trump monster regardless of whatever personal state Biden is in.

It's the conservative right who fear Reform. The better Reform do, the better for Labour*, because it's largely conservative votes they're taking. That's clear based on any understanding of the first past the post system, which tends to offer disproportionate benefits to the most popular party.

*Although, calling Labour "leftists" is a bit of a joke.

Anyhow, if someone is making this up, it'll be Conservative headquarters who are quaking in their boots right now.