The future vice president of America is close with the leaders of the neoreactionary movement. I suppose, I wonder if a positive public opinion would make it easier for them to mobilize.
Edit: ending up with support from both sides of the isle.
That’s a sensible way to look at it. People’s actions can be separate from thier outlook, and that’s ok.
Fair take. That wasn’t my intention, although, now, I suppose that maybe a natural progression.
I admit, there is definitely a disconnect, considering his actions, but, I really am torn on the idea. I guess, I question that if (and big if) his intention is to build this type of future, would his actions be enough to make others sympathetic to his cause? If, or at what point, people turn away?
It could just be the tech culture he was around, and not the actual reasoning. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Does everyone still feel the same if he turns out to be a neoreactionary / accelerationist?
Per The San Francisco Standard
Mangione gave Ted Kaczynski’s book “Industrial Society and Its Future” four out of five stars, writing that the man known as the Unabomber was “rightfully imprisoned” for “maiming innocent people” but noting that his actions were “those of an extreme political revolutionary.”
Mangione’s social media accounts paint a picture of a tech enthusiast with a soft spot for conservative thinkers. He has retweeted posts from right-wing capitalists like Peter Thiel and lists an applauding biography of Elon Musk as one of his favorites on GoodReads.
And considering there’s so many new accounts, its not like one can go back and check the post history to see if what they’re saying adds up.
There were accounts, posting seemingly “up to date” information with no way to really fact check. There were some political “personal” accounts just testing the waters with BS. Stuff like: “It’s me. I’m not going to say anything else yet, but, here I am.” It made it kinda hard to discern.
OK. I know this sounds ridiculous, but…what if this is all a secret agenda to prepare us for climate change? Make it too expensive to use gas or drive or buy stuff or buy food.
They slowly ween us off of our dependence on…everything, while making us think it was our idea. (Cause climate change doesn’t exist) We would have to go back to living with nothing, poor, and growing our own food. Everyone that can’t keep up is given a free meal and work…in jail.
I know, I know. I was just pretending there was a bit of some sort of humanity in this train wreck.
You’d be surprised how a pokemon go player will open the app in the middle of the wilderness, even with one questionable reception bar, just to see if there’s a secret rare pokemon that lives there. Bonus if you get a postcard from a pokestop someone submitted, because that trail mile marker is “special.” You can keep it for memories, or send it to a friend you’ve never spoken to, for bragging rights. It’s also not unheard of, for people to crawl through backroads in their car, since the app won’t let catch pokemon or count km’s, if you go more than ±15 mph.
He’s an ex drug addict.
Yeah, well…
Happened once, doesn’t mean it’s can’t happen again. No matter how unlikely, this time.
Pre-covid Musk quit Trumps presidential councils over “withdrawal of the Paris climate accord.” If nothing else, theres a possibility, I guess…
Yet, after the election.
But, yes, it happened under Biden’s presidency, Biden should get the credit.
Apparently, food did get cheaper.
Maybe they think she’ll try to do all the things Biden won’t do. Things like pack the court or somehow codify Roe v Wade, even if it’s far fetched. Show everyone what they missed out on, even if it gets reversed a month later.
Unless that’s the plan, it would be a complete waste of time.
deleted by creator
This was more my take. I mean, like women just sat there and said, “Whelp, there’s nothing to do. Let’s just take care of the kids.” It’s not some natural evolution. And, for all the people studying the past (in the past) to just be like, “Men hunt, women gather,” is ignoring how women ended up in those roles in the first place. The fact that they needed “evidence” of this is, before comming to that conclusion is…disappointing, but not surprising.
Crap. They just took it from somewhere else and passed it off as their own. Jerk.
Edit: But then why is this even being debated?
My SO has a theory that if the group of people lived in a harsh environment, ie. having to work for what you had with no guarantee of food or safety, etc, it was common for women to work just as much as men. Such a society needed all hands on deck, so to speak. But, when we start becoming “civilized”, and things started getting made for us, (as opposed to an individual making it themselves.) Women and men start having diverging roles. Essentially, there’s just not enough work, so womens role turns into raising the babies, to fill the time. Eventually, for whatever reason, “civilized” society just forgot about the hard times and assumes women have always been there just to raise babies.
Disclaimer: This is based on absolutely nothing. Maybe some random information that explain that women did “men” jobs too, once. Idk.
DELETED