It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat, and discord has says it's not on any discord servers. Did you read the full thing? Do you think it sounds like a real 22 year old online zoomer wrote any of it?
It reads like the narrator's introduction before the episode begins.
Yes it sure does! It's badly written yet necessary. Otherwise, Trump Jr would have had no reason to call trans people more dangerous than Al-Quaeda. And the FBI would have no reason to characterize trans people as nihilist violent extremists. And the agenda to curtail rights and freedoms couldn't move forward yet another step.
Yes, and this sort of statement from the OP "joint effort" 🤔is just propaganda thinking. We don't have to believe what we are told, just because someone is now dead
"If we take the words of the accused killer both seriously and literally—which we must, a man is dead"
That’s right - we cannot know whether or not the accused killer actually wrote that much less shot Kirk. But there’s one way to tell if the words and deeds attributed to him serve an agenda. And that’s to watch how they are used to widen the political divide and justify curtailing rights such as free speech. “You will know them by their fruits” is among the best advice I’ve ever heard. And given how easy it is to look back on recent history and see how we’ve been manipulated into believing narratives that resulted in us willingly giving up rights and freedoms, it would be naive to assume that either the correspondence or the murderer are actually as presented.
*I want to mention, I have encountered trans violence myself and it is like other forms of narcissistic abuse and violence. AGP is a narcissistic disorder. A difference between that group and, say, regular family man domestic abuse is that there is not a subculture that winds each other up on twitter and reddit (can't speak to discord), and another difference is that the regular family guy isn't injecting hormones which are known to destabilize the emotions even in temporary but widely experienced states of being, such as adolescence, PMS, testosterone responses to acute threat, etc. Although, they may mess with their endocrine systems in other ways, such as with heavy drinking, SSRIs, and similar.
SSRIs are another factor for people who are distressed or fixated enough to want to alter their sex characteristics.
We shouldn't ignore the existence of the subculture or its profoundly antisocial tenor. But that doesn't mean it should be used as a scapegoat, either. The cynicism and selfish destructiveness of this administration is just as bad as the Biden administration before it, and worse in certain ways. The Israeli influence has, after an initial stutter, regained its footing and increased its power over our treasonous president and his cabinet and the alphabet agencies. And this nonsense scapegoat construct is part of that.
The problem is, there's always a grain of truth behind narratives. That's why they're at all believable. I'm just not sure how profiling various groups ends other than with pretending it's possible to predict behaviour with enough accuracy to warrant pre-crime arrests. And that's a scary thing to imagine. Under that kind of police state, anyone can be detained for any reason. Just like under hate speech laws, anything can be designated hateful. It leaves the state with too much power and the public with not enough recourse.
100%. I was going to go into some thoughts about medical conditions and the vast knowledge difference between statistical tendencies (eg emotional side effects of SSRIs) and established attributes, but even that's too easily misinterpreted. Profiling based on assumptions and mind-reading and then "pre-crime" isn't just a misty dream of authoritarians, it's a hubristic fantasy that many in the tech industry believe is possible. They are so very wrong; their lack of understanding of 'how people are' is breathtaking, but they are impermeable on this, probably because they really don't understand what they don't understand. It's incredibly dangerous that we have that gang, snuggled up against a religious ideology that loves to demonize.
I think the tech bros "believe" in pre-crime because it moves them closer to the technocracy that puts them in control of programming the AI that decides our fate. And most seem to have bought into an ideology whereby democracy is ineffective and must be replaced.
Yes religious dogma can be dangerous and, if you look around at how many of the well-funded new media have recently converted, you can tell that dogma will be used in some way to further the agenda. I seems to me that all ideology loves to demonize. Otherwise there would be no "us" and "them" and how would we know we're better than them?!
Yes I agree, all ideology loves to demonize, on the (D) and (Prog) sides as well as the (R). About the only one that is limited in that regard is some types of Libertarian but it still bundles and sanctifies human behavior-- irrational but in the opposite way--while demonizing government...
I think I know where a number of the tech types got their ideas about government and it's so dumb: science fiction. I have read a good chunk of the stuff, excepting only the tedious "hard sci-fi" as it's largely robot-porn. It's largely a doomer, politically superficial genre but dang it carries a lot of ideology in its shootemups.
The meta-reason for Charlie's assassination was not due to his debating people who won't be changing their mind. His goal was to give some of those listening the tools to help push back from the ideological capture (Critical Constructivism) taking place in the university/academy.
Many if not most of those that were debating Charlie were not going to change their minds (there were some that did or at least looked as if they might). There is something that closes the door on thought that is a particular strength of the far left. At times it seems their minions almost act like drones, repeating what has been told but cannot explain why they believe that way. In fact, some even take the position that they should not explain their thinking. These people are lost and cannot be reasoned with (literally).
Kirk was talking to others in the audience and he was making good headway.
This must have enraged the vanguard of far left and relates to Lorenzo's comment about blocking correctives. Charles Kirk was a very effective corrective.
2nd point (sorry for long comment):
Major difference between traditional religion and woke-as-religion is that actual religion is based on a subjective and immaterial question: what happens to the soul?
Whereas woke-as-a-religion is based on materializing subjectivity (a form of fetish), where someone's subjectivity alters material existence (e.g., men are women based on feels).
Final point:
FWIW, I believe that AG Bondi's statements (she is not a very good public speaker) was meant more as a warning: those who engage in "hate speech" are potentially subject to government investigation. As they should be. She should have phrased it differently and did walk it back a bit the next day.
Of course government investigating those making inflammatory statements has been going on forever in the US, so maybe it was an unnecessary statement. But the US administration is extremely upset and rattled by this murder, so I give her a pass. Certainly do not expect the AG to start rounding people up for hate speech.
Tactical morality, in action...
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/tactical-morality
It wasn't said to be a text it was said to be a discord chat, and discord has says it's not on any discord servers. Did you read the full thing? Do you think it sounds like a real 22 year old online zoomer wrote any of it?
It reads like the narrator's introduction before the episode begins.
Yes it sure does! It's badly written yet necessary. Otherwise, Trump Jr would have had no reason to call trans people more dangerous than Al-Quaeda. And the FBI would have no reason to characterize trans people as nihilist violent extremists. And the agenda to curtail rights and freedoms couldn't move forward yet another step.
Yes, and this sort of statement from the OP "joint effort" 🤔is just propaganda thinking. We don't have to believe what we are told, just because someone is now dead
"If we take the words of the accused killer both seriously and literally—which we must, a man is dead"
That’s right - we cannot know whether or not the accused killer actually wrote that much less shot Kirk. But there’s one way to tell if the words and deeds attributed to him serve an agenda. And that’s to watch how they are used to widen the political divide and justify curtailing rights such as free speech. “You will know them by their fruits” is among the best advice I’ve ever heard. And given how easy it is to look back on recent history and see how we’ve been manipulated into believing narratives that resulted in us willingly giving up rights and freedoms, it would be naive to assume that either the correspondence or the murderer are actually as presented.
*I want to mention, I have encountered trans violence myself and it is like other forms of narcissistic abuse and violence. AGP is a narcissistic disorder. A difference between that group and, say, regular family man domestic abuse is that there is not a subculture that winds each other up on twitter and reddit (can't speak to discord), and another difference is that the regular family guy isn't injecting hormones which are known to destabilize the emotions even in temporary but widely experienced states of being, such as adolescence, PMS, testosterone responses to acute threat, etc. Although, they may mess with their endocrine systems in other ways, such as with heavy drinking, SSRIs, and similar.
SSRIs are another factor for people who are distressed or fixated enough to want to alter their sex characteristics.
We shouldn't ignore the existence of the subculture or its profoundly antisocial tenor. But that doesn't mean it should be used as a scapegoat, either. The cynicism and selfish destructiveness of this administration is just as bad as the Biden administration before it, and worse in certain ways. The Israeli influence has, after an initial stutter, regained its footing and increased its power over our treasonous president and his cabinet and the alphabet agencies. And this nonsense scapegoat construct is part of that.
The problem is, there's always a grain of truth behind narratives. That's why they're at all believable. I'm just not sure how profiling various groups ends other than with pretending it's possible to predict behaviour with enough accuracy to warrant pre-crime arrests. And that's a scary thing to imagine. Under that kind of police state, anyone can be detained for any reason. Just like under hate speech laws, anything can be designated hateful. It leaves the state with too much power and the public with not enough recourse.
100%. I was going to go into some thoughts about medical conditions and the vast knowledge difference between statistical tendencies (eg emotional side effects of SSRIs) and established attributes, but even that's too easily misinterpreted. Profiling based on assumptions and mind-reading and then "pre-crime" isn't just a misty dream of authoritarians, it's a hubristic fantasy that many in the tech industry believe is possible. They are so very wrong; their lack of understanding of 'how people are' is breathtaking, but they are impermeable on this, probably because they really don't understand what they don't understand. It's incredibly dangerous that we have that gang, snuggled up against a religious ideology that loves to demonize.
I think the tech bros "believe" in pre-crime because it moves them closer to the technocracy that puts them in control of programming the AI that decides our fate. And most seem to have bought into an ideology whereby democracy is ineffective and must be replaced.
Yes religious dogma can be dangerous and, if you look around at how many of the well-funded new media have recently converted, you can tell that dogma will be used in some way to further the agenda. I seems to me that all ideology loves to demonize. Otherwise there would be no "us" and "them" and how would we know we're better than them?!
Yes I agree, all ideology loves to demonize, on the (D) and (Prog) sides as well as the (R). About the only one that is limited in that regard is some types of Libertarian but it still bundles and sanctifies human behavior-- irrational but in the opposite way--while demonizing government...
I think I know where a number of the tech types got their ideas about government and it's so dumb: science fiction. I have read a good chunk of the stuff, excepting only the tedious "hard sci-fi" as it's largely robot-porn. It's largely a doomer, politically superficial genre but dang it carries a lot of ideology in its shootemups.
An excellent article - thank you very much indeed...
☝️😎
Great post.
The meta-reason for Charlie's assassination was not due to his debating people who won't be changing their mind. His goal was to give some of those listening the tools to help push back from the ideological capture (Critical Constructivism) taking place in the university/academy.
Many if not most of those that were debating Charlie were not going to change their minds (there were some that did or at least looked as if they might). There is something that closes the door on thought that is a particular strength of the far left. At times it seems their minions almost act like drones, repeating what has been told but cannot explain why they believe that way. In fact, some even take the position that they should not explain their thinking. These people are lost and cannot be reasoned with (literally).
Kirk was talking to others in the audience and he was making good headway.
This must have enraged the vanguard of far left and relates to Lorenzo's comment about blocking correctives. Charles Kirk was a very effective corrective.
2nd point (sorry for long comment):
Major difference between traditional religion and woke-as-religion is that actual religion is based on a subjective and immaterial question: what happens to the soul?
Whereas woke-as-a-religion is based on materializing subjectivity (a form of fetish), where someone's subjectivity alters material existence (e.g., men are women based on feels).
Final point:
FWIW, I believe that AG Bondi's statements (she is not a very good public speaker) was meant more as a warning: those who engage in "hate speech" are potentially subject to government investigation. As they should be. She should have phrased it differently and did walk it back a bit the next day.
Of course government investigating those making inflammatory statements has been going on forever in the US, so maybe it was an unnecessary statement. But the US administration is extremely upset and rattled by this murder, so I give her a pass. Certainly do not expect the AG to start rounding people up for hate speech.
I appreciated the logical take on hate crime in this article.