TW: No funny pictures, and you may well think I’m somewhere between naive and insulting by the end of this.
You are what you eat. Obviously true for actual food for our physical body, but I contend that it is even more true for our mental and spiritual bodies as well. Probably even more so. If you deny yourself carbs, your body undergoes a process called gluconeogenesis where it turns protein into glucose. If you deny important inputs to your mind or your spirit, I don’t think there is a similar process to turn garbage in into anything but garbage out.
In the previous post in this series, I promised that I would put forward a way to use the insight of that post (that aggregation and transitivity isn’t universal,) to make yourself a better person. Here is the long, round-about way of getting to that suggestion.
There is a saying that is the answer to the nature / nurture question. That saying is “Nature loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger.” What that means is that ‘nature’ aka your genetics, your inborn instincts, and your physical limitations, they have created you as this machine that reacts to certain things in certain ways. In one environment, you will act in one way, and in another environment, you will likely act in a very different way to produce a different end result. Take, for example, a big burly man with limited abstract intellect, a distrust of machinery, but with great willpower. Put him in the workforce in a coal-mining town decades ago, and he will be remembered for generations as an American Hero. Put him in the workforce in a modern metropolis, and he is going to have a hard time holding down a steady job. Same traits, different environment, different outcomes.
Alla yall nerds, did you read Jim Butcher’s Brief Cases? Before the story about Marcone, Jim says that in another world, Marcone would be an ideal and humane landlord. But in wizard-and-magic Chicago, he’s a ruthless crime boss. Same traits, different environment, different outcomes.
Another example. Take the world’s most literate, religious, and educated population on the planet. Put them in a small town with no electronic communication facilities and a low enough level of wealth that many take for granted can only be made as communal property. A town usually has one oven, and all the ladies get together for bake days. The town has one mill, and all the men get together to for milling days. The town gets one newspaper and everyone gathers together when the mail comes so someone can read it out loud. Do you know the origin of the title Professor? He was the guy at the university who made up for the fact that there were more students than books. You couldn’t study in the library because there weren’t enough books to go around. They had a job called the reader where a bunch of people sit in a classroom and listen to someone read the books aloud.
This is a time of very cosmopolitan mixing. Anabaptists and Lutherans share dinner instead of the sword and the flame. Brewers sold yeast to Puritans. This happens because of the social environment. When two ladies are standing around waiting for the oven temperature to drop from “pie” to “bread,” it’s not likely that they’ll debate the scriptural validity of Calvin’s teachings. They’ll gossip about what sort of social disease the town strumpet gave to the preacher. Men around the millstone, slowly pouring in grain, don’t usually debate the value of the teachings of the Physiocrats vs that of the Scottish philosophers in developing the wealth of a nation. They talk about how preacher should apply a tincture of lead and witch-hazel to pants and stop riding the town bike.
Face to face, they’ve got a life to lead with more pressing and immediate concerns than abstract political economy. Or politics. Or whatever -ism you can think of. And having just seen what a circular firing squad it is when people of different faiths choose to go oppressing others, they opt to find a way to make friendly relations instead.
This has a drastic impact on what happens when a political disagreement comes up. I’m of course talking about the Colonies. Former-Loyalist or former-Patriot, early Americans knew that once the war was over they still had to live with each other and they had to work together to overcome the problems of slow communication and honest differences of interest. First time around, it worked pretty well.
The second time around… Well, it didn’t work so well. The economy and the social fabric of the nation had changed. Industrialization started in the north. The south became more stratified. People had less face to face time with each other. Rounded human beings became names, and names became labels.
Take the same humans out of the colonial environment and put them in Reconstruction. You have Yankees and Carpetbaggers, not Hank and Cynthia. Instead of a memory of the futility of warring over differences, you have a memory of a war where brother went to war against brother and shit got done because of it (either emancipating the slaves or perpetrating northern aggression and control, depending on which side of the Mason Dixon you haled from.)
Same traits, different environment, different outcomes.
The difference in the environment is a social difference. People knew more people but not as deeply, they cataloged others with labels, and they operated in an environment of labels.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was making you think you can only have tacos on tuesday. The second greatest trick was to get you to replace people with labels.
Because the human mind is lazy. Once you understand something, you won’t go any further to define that thing if we don’t have to. It has to be beaten into our heads. You have to stand next to someone working a millstone or loading bread into an oven day-in and day-out to see them as a human being instead of a label.
In short, labels are a way to aggregate people into types. It happened less in the Colonies, more in Reconstructions and…
And now, its out of control. Our social environment is becoming mediated by platforms and trends that reduces the standing-around-next-to-people time and increase the labeling tools at your disposal. Social media is making us evil, because remember, aggregation of humans is the root of evil these days. Your ability to spend more and more time plugged into your phone means you are spending less and less time being bored next to people you don’t have much in common with. Fewer and fewer kids are spending time running around the neighborhood with whoever happens to liveby, and more and more time being shuttled around to activities full of like-minded families.
And it’s making us worse off. On this website, lots of you call it derp. Posting links to show just how out of touch some idiot progressive or statist is. Progressive. Statist. These are labels and they do their damage even when, especially when, they are right.
Using labels like this makes someone a foot soldier in the culture war. “SJW” is used as a knowing insult. It’s a poke at people who are warriors when there’s no war to be waged. Its an assertion that these people are Mad Online in the real world. They can’t meme because they take everything to serious.
And in a lot of cases, it’s a rhetorical blow that strikes true. But it’s a blow in the culture war. It’s a fight in the war fueled with labels. It’s a blow in a battle that doesn’t need to be fought. Not by the SJWs. And not by us.
There’s names for people who fight battles even when it’s not appropriate. Different names in different times and places, but it’s an old idea. In one time, in one place, they were called ber-serkir. They were so useful in their society that they were treated like divine gifts. But that’s not what we call them now in modern culture. Now, if you go and you fight a battle without provocation, it just makes you a maniac.
I AM A MANIAC!
/first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FftI0oRg2M
You are what you eat. Obviously true for actual food for our physical body, but I contend that it is even more true for our mental and spiritual bodies as well. Probably even more so. If you deny yourself carbs, your body undergoes a process called gluconeogenesis where it turns protein into glucose. If you deny important inputs to your mind or your spirit, I don’t think there is a similar process to turn garbage in into anything but garbage out.
So…week 3 of GlibFit 3.0 is gonna look like I blatantly ripped from you.
I take my royalties in bitcoin or gold bars.
If you deny yourself carbs, your body undergoes a process called gluconeogenesis where it turns protein into glucose – not if you are keto
Sure it does. Go to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/ and scroll down to section 4 “Do Ketogenic Diet Work”
reading that initially the CNS feeds from glucose from protein, but this decreases as the keto continues so I assume after a few months of keto it is not so much… maybe some left though
That’s actually exactly what keto is. Ketones are part of this process and you excrete excess ketones in your urine, which is what you measure to see if you are in ketosis.
There’s a new GlibFit? Good on ya!
I need some motivation. Menopause and a very effective anti-anxiety med are kicking my rapidly broadening ass.
GlibFit 3.0 is starting this Wednesday, and the stated goal is to build confidence going into the holiday season. It’s timed to end the day before Thanksgiving.
Mrs trshmnstr is helping put the stuff together, including a HIIT workout to do each week (optional, but recommended for those that can/want to).
I’m in. Summer was fun but beer-soaked.
By the first of the year, Chivettes will be linking to Glibs!
Wurst?
There’s names for people who fight battles even when it’s not appropriate.
McCain?
Almost an anagram…
Patriots?
Well said Leap, nice write up.
Thanks. I was very unsure if I should have sent this in for publication, or just binned it.
I enjoyed reading it.
Glad you sent it in, I’ve been chewing on a similar thought, but couldn’t think of anything smarter than – Quit taking two idiots on twitter and turning it into ‘This is what They (Libs,progs,etc) really believe’
There’s a lot more than two.
Hype, I’ve been struggling with that also. The internet/social media gives fringe nutters much wider visibility, and I think it obscures just how fringe they are (or aren’t).
Why? It is really good.
If you deny important inputs to your mind or your spirit, I don’t think there is a similar process to turn garbage in into anything but garbage out.
I am guilty as hell of this.
You ever see an email go around saying something like “This is a reminder to ALL EMPLOYEES that this office has a dress code and you are expected to dress in a professional manor at all times,” and everyone just kind of rolls their eyes because they know its because Steve dresses like a hobo and Shela dresses like a slut, but everyone gets the email. Then you hear Shela talk to Bob “Like LOL wut does this even mean? Who cares about this?”
*looks at some particular comments in this thread*
*looks back at Tundra*
*looks at some of the comments again*
You talk like a fag and all your shit’s retarded.
Plenty of tradeded people live kick ass lives, scro. My ex is totally retarded and she is an airline pilot now.
Thanks Leap,
Most of us have lived in different environments from time to time and have had to abide by the rules of said environment to make life work smoothly. Occasionally we find ourselves unable to abide by the social rules and have to move on to another group, i.e. when we recognize we don’t have the same religious or political beliefs and go searching for that place where we can be comfortable. Talking about many of us here, we can fit in with each other with most ideas but still retain our individuality.
I’m no shrink and I’m not saying I’ve got Marv all figured out or anything, but “crazy” just doesn’t explain him. Not to me. Sometimes I think he’s retarded, a big, brutal kid who never learned the ground rules about how people are supposed to act around each other. But that doesn’t have the right ring to it either. No, it’s more like there’s nothing wrong with Marv, nothing at all–except that he had the rotten luck of being born at the wrong time in history. He’d have been okay if he’d been born a couple of thousand years ago. He’d be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an ax into somebody’s face. Or in a roman arena, taking a sword to other gladiators like him.
They’d have tossed him girls like Nancy, back then.
But Taco Tuesday just rolls off the tongue.
As does “Taco Thursday” and “Taco Sunday”. Whereas Taco Saturday is kind of rough, so I just call it “CFTD” for college football taco day.
For being of Scandinavian heritage, the Chips household appropriates a south-of-the-border dishes. Make a whole mess of meat one day then it’s leftovers done up differently for two more nights.
I’m afraid there are a lot of battles to come. Technocrats are silencing dissent online. Leftists have completed the conquest of academia and government institutions. Now they are marching through corporations. Antifa is attacking people in the streets and they and their kind are making freedom of speech and assembly a thing of the past. The Senate can hardly hold a hearing without Soros paid maniacs turning it into a circus.
Fight or yield – the only choices.
Yes, the culture war needs to be fought because the left has given no other choice; it’s fight or submit, and I would rather not submit to Marxism.
As I see it, the only weapons we have (short of actual war) are those they allow us.
There are no rhetorical devices that can be used in a short-enough soundbite that is persuasive or immune to screams of “racist/sexist/bigot/etc.”
I just don’t think this is a war that be won until real violence starts taking over.
We are already in a low-intensity war. We just haven’t accepted it yet.
*sigh* Yeah.
This
*regains motivation to finish writing my next installment of Civil War II: Antifa boogaloo*
You know how to peddle an article bro…
Will the content actually have anything to do with that cool title?
I dunno, I wrote most of it 3 months ago and forget what I wrote. I see the title of the article in my list of unfinished drafts whenever I log in, so thats what sticks with me.
You know how to peddle an article bro…
It’s all about the comment counts. For every 1500 comments, they send me a free orphan.
Not to go all Godwins law, but I’ve been listening to Bloodlands recently. Have you read it? The author is making the point that, even if Hitler was on the right and Stalin was on the Left, there were a lot of parallels between them. For example, they both trotted out the line about not wanting to go to war, or not wanting to purge their enemies, but the jews or the capitalists gave them no choice.
They likely even believed it, too.
Felt they owed it to them.
Hitler was on a crazy version of the near left and Stalin was crazy far left. It was a crazy family fight.
Hitler may have advocated for a bunch of policies that are the same as those advocated for by the American progressives in 2018, but left and right are cultural designations and always have been. He was always on the right. His power base was the right side of the culture in Germany. There was no serious power-base to his right at the time. All other power bases were to his left.
The difference between fascism & communism was simply what role government played in the socialist state. Both are tyrannical collectivist ideologies.
Yep. Left/Right is now and has usually been an incomplete view of culture. They were both authoritarian shits, and the world would have been better off if neither one was born.
There are fundamental philosophical differences as well. Particularly, NAZIs have an ethical and moral framework which allows for individual moral agency. The Communists do not. This is perhaps the greatest tension between the two systems and why they came to a head.
It’s easier to see this in business.
I worked at a small software company. We weren’t bleeding edge or leading edge for the most part, but we got A LOT done in a short amount of time and each developer had a modicum of understanding of the business problems the software was trying to solve. Then we got bought and rolled into a larger company – at first we operated autonomously and there was little difference. But slowly we were incorporated into the large company – the product now had to be part of a suite, the planning of releases took longer which meant the ability to change gears quickly as customers changed was lessened. As other people got rolled into the projects, the division of labor got smaller and smaller – object orientation by another name. And the project teams slowly became technical teams rather than business problem solving teams. And a separate team of business knowledge experts sprouted up with little to no technical know-how. So we wound up with two teams: a tech team with little knowledge of the day-to-day operations of what the customers are doing, and a business team that has little-to-know tech skill and only know what’s “hot” in the tech marketplace without understanding why or how it fits. So much specialization that there were too few people on staff that could communicate effectively with both groups.
I can’t say whether the bureaucracy was a cause or a symptom, but the bureaucracy became more important than the customers. And the customers noticed. The result – two new bureaucracies to replace the old one. It’s not making things any better, and the customers know it. We lose deals to small, relatively new companies and we keep trying to sell the customers that a bigger organization is better.
Do we work at the same company??
One of our acquisitions absolutely refuses to integrate with the rest of the company, and I hope they continue to fight the good fight. Big companies suck at customer responsiveness, despite (or because of) all the programs and systems they implement to be more responsive to customers.
One of the worst effects was rolling multiple sales staffs into one. “Everyone can sell everything!”
Except that it confuses the shit out of the prospects. And nobody seems to learn that when a prospect turns you down, the “checkboxes” that you don’t meet (or are points of failure) are mostly made up just to get you off their back. They typically buy what they wanted in the first place – they only kicked the tires on a few other vendors because the consultants think that looks “thorough.”
And naturally the sales staff is now expected to sell more because they have more to sell. The ones who could effectively sell one piece to one segment of the market get discouraged and leave and eventually nobody remains that knows how to see to a particular segment. You occasionally get the sales rep that is so good he can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, but that can’t make up for the sales staff that moved on.
At my last company we brought in an expert scrum master to run our Agile project.
She had no idea what we were building or what the features were, but by doG she knew we weren’t filling out Jira tickets correctly and weren’t really living up to the Agile Manifesto. She would go on huge rants because we weren’t keeping the paperwork updated properly.
The head guy from our customer and I were the two biggest scofflaws. He would come to me because they had a demo for one of their customers and he wanted some special tweak to really give it some zip. I’d think that was a good request and since he was paying the piper he got to call the tune. Then when we would have our sprint review, our scrum master would go nuts when we told her that we didn’t finish some stuff because we worked on the demo stuff.
What really chapped her hide was that our customer would pull rank and say “I thought I was the product owner and got to decide what we are working on?”
What really chapped her hide was that our customer would pull rank and say “I thought I was the product owner and got to decide what we are working on?”
Nice!
The only downside is she would still spend 30 more minutes scolding all of us for not updating the tickets and notifying her of the change to the sprint scope.
Really, at the end of the day, she was more worried about the other scrum masters looking at her Jira reports and tsk-tsking because our numbers looked bad on paper. Whether we built working software or the customer was happy with the results was a distant second.
reason number 1000 I hate agile and all the bullshit it entails
Agile as a methodology is great IMO. The problem is when you take the old style waterfall PMs, fixated on meeting dates, and tell them they need to be scumbags. All they know how to do is jockey a spreadsheet of dates & percentages of completion, and no matter what advanced tool you bring in to manage/track work their priority will be the fucking status. So what if they have to drag everyone into unproductive multi-hour meetings to create work cards (refereed to as work refinement) and check statuses.
And these fucks end up getting paid more for doing this shit than the people doing actual work…
This this this. We shifted from waterfall to agile when I was at Cisco, and it was the best decision they ever made. After some growing pains, our productivity tripled, especially since the managers and engineers took seriously the maxim that you could walk out of any meeting that was wasting your time. Went from hours of meetings per day to less than two hours of product wide meetings per week.
Agile has become process-bound and report oriented? The Hell you say! There were days when it was all I could do not to nail the original Agile Manifesto to the PM’s door.
“Agile” is what bureaucracies adopt to make themselves look like they are getting work done.
The scrum guzzler I work with showed us reports that our team was doing like 90% of the items on time. He said that was hard to believe since the typical team usually hits 80%. He said, “Management wants 95% though. I told them they were asking for the moon and they said we should target to be better than everyone else.” Another manager on another team said “I really don’t give a damn about these metrics. Because if we meet them they’ll just raise them. I’d rather look at how much we DID accomplish and then decide if we accomplished enough to improve the product or not. Because otherwise we’ll just wind up working on the stuff that we know we can get done – which isn’t the same thing.” She was fired two months later.
Brutal.
I enjoyed this.
Humans categorize and label as a shortcut since they are not capable of comprehending the size of the social groups with which we are tasked with interacting. I remember reading somewhere that the human brain is happiest living in a community of 50-100 people at most.
Unscrupulous politicians and useful idiots use identity politics as a way of exploiting this tendency to consolidate power. Labeling is the first step toward allowing atrocities of the worst kind. You don’t commit genocide until and unless you label the target group as subhuman or otherwise undesirable.
Yep – I can walk around my office and see individuals. I can walk around my yard and see individual trees – many of which I’ve planted and / or trimmed.
If I walk down a street in New York or through forest, I have to start aggregating and stereotyping. It’s the only way my mind can interpret what it’s seeing.
Dunbar’s Number is what you are thinking of. In groups below Dunbar’s Number, you can know everyone. In groups above Dunbar’s Number, the human brain just doesn’t have the hardware to keep that much information in RAM. Or so it goes. I don’t know how valid it is, but it sounds plausible.
In groups below Dunbars number, an effective society just so happens to be one that plays into our cognitive biases. We really can share and ensure the equitable distribution of goods via shaming the hoarders. You can effectively and bloodlessly enforce a religious mono-culture and then use the tenants of that religion to solve collective action problems like building a barn.
But a larger market-based society is more efficient, so that’s what we live in. Now we have humans who still want to enforce a religious mono-culture, and oh BTW we have this fancy new Model Army to make it happen.
Dunbar’s Number is boring. Let’s give it a funnier name: monkeysphere.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Man, that website has fallen a long, long way.
Did you just monkey up this discussion? Uffda, what a shitlord
Fuckin A
Makes some sense from my anecdotal evidence. My small company got rolled into a large one. Then others rolled in. After we hit about 300 employees, the effectiveness started decreasing.
To me, there is a big difference between organizations small enough that everyone knows everyone else’s name, and ones that are too big for that. I noticed it going from big companies to small ones and back again.
Because the human mind is lazy. Once you understand something, you won’t go any further to define that thing if we don’t have to. It has to be beaten into our heads. You have to stand next to someone working a millstone or loading bread into an oven day-in and day-out to see them as a human being instead of a label.
In short, labels are a way to aggregate people into types. It happened less in the Colonies, more in Reconstructions and…
I don’t think lazy is the right word. It takes time to know something and before that you use what you have aka categories stereotypes etc. this could have been life and death for most human history. Right now it is no longer the case, but things are so complex you cant know everything in detail. Aint nobody got time for that.
And it’s making us worse off. – compared to what?
It turns out that many stereotypes are correct a high percentage of the time.
Stereotypes dont exist for no reason.
is this oine o them cases where a double negative makes a positive?
You ain’t got that wrong.
“Busy” is. Busy surviving and maybe getting ahead a little.
Those who do not have to survive and get ahead because they are funded to wage this war have the clear advantage over those of us who do not.
I think “efficient” might also work better than “lazy”. If you start every single interaction with the world around you from absolute ground zero, no assumptions at all, you ain’t gonna make it.
True enough, but it takes two to make and maintain peace. I honestly believe the aggressors in the culture war are on the left, and have been for a generation. You can either fight or surrender, and I don’t feel like surrendering to deranged lunatics. At least the labelling is non-violent.
Yep, nobody on the right took this shit very seriously for quite some time, and now that the left has completed their long march through the institutions things are bordering on “too late”.
That kinda struck me, too. I agree with the sentiment entirely, but I’m not the one pushing my pet causes or philosophies on others. When someone firmly believes they should be able to steal my car, and I firmly believe that they shouldn’t, I’m not perpetuating the “car theft debate”. And, honestly, while I agree there is some truth to the “culture war” being largely bullshit, I think it’s important to realize that a lot of the SJW positions have legal repercussions. When you make it a legal offense to “misgender” someone, it is absolutely time to stop pooh-poohing these arguments as “culture war” and recognize that they are a real and legitimate threat.
I think it’s important to realize that a lot of the SJW positions have legal repercussion
I can’t really think of anything they are pushing that they don’t want enshrined in law so that they can enforce compliance and obedience. Even the current front on “deplatforming”, while now only being enforced by companies, is based on the idea that “hate speech isn’t free speech” – they are trying to limit freedom of speech to ideas they approve of, and if they win this battle, you can be sure that there will be government enforcement of prohibitions on hate speech. The door is already cracked open, really, with hate crimes and “hostile workplace” laws that either outlaw or enhance punishment for certain thoughts or statements.
Yeah, once you establish the concept of a “hate crime”, the camel’s nose is well and truly under the tent. That was a tremendous coup on the part of the PC crowd.
I have always despised the idea that one instance of a certain crime is worse than another based on some arbitrary thing like the participant’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or other such superficial characteristic. The crime is the crime, why does something so arbitrary suddenly make it even worse. I mean, fuck, murder is murder, right?
There are many degrees of murder, based on the state of mind of the person doing the killing. I’m leery of hate crime add-ons, but the idea that we punish some objective action based on the state of mind is not a new one.
We punish varying degrees of intent (negligence, heat-of-the-moment, premeditation), with different degrees of punishment. State of mind (hatred) is not directly relevant.
What the PC crowd wants to turn a heat-of-the-moment killing driven by hated into something equal to or even greater than a premeditated murder for hire.
What, exactly, is the mechanism by which you see posting derp and making fun of it on glibertarians.com leads to a credible change to the laws you are worried about?
What, exactly, is the mechanism by which any good outcome comes from letting one’s ideological opponents live rent free in their head? Have you ever looked at someone and said “You know, they were really depressed and anxious before, but now that they have TDS they look a lot better off?”
The culture war and the legislature are related, but they aren’t the same thing. Intensifying the culture war *makes legislative advancement harder.* Especially for us, who are really out in the wilderness right now. Our only hope of influencing politics is to be picked up as a minority interest group that one of the big parties needs to get past-the-post.
The fewer parties that are willing to hold their nose and pick us up, the worse we are. I don’t love the cosmos or the progressives any more than anyone else here. But the hotter the culture war gets, the less likely we are going to be able to convince the two big parties to make deals with us.
For example, do you think gay marriage in AZ would have come faster, or slower, with a less intense culture war (assume for the moment that “we” all want gay marriage recognized)
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/09/equal-marriage-arizona-on-hold.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/08/i-have-pointed-to-this-overlap-many-times.html
What, exactly, is the mechanism by which you see posting derp and making fun of it on glibertarians.com leads to a credible change to the laws you are worried about?
Its like voting, in a way. Individual votes, like individual posts/comments, make no difference. In the aggregate, though, marginalizing, ridiculing, and mocking the people pushing the left’s culture war strips them of the credibility they need to push through the laws they want.
Intensifying the culture war *makes legislative advancement harder.*
For everybody, which is a good thing, IMO.
Especially for us, who are really out in the wilderness right now.
Indeed we are, because the culture has moved away from individual rights and responsibility. I don’t think sticking up for that, and ridiculing those who oppose it, does us any harm in terms of cultural acceptance and possible, eventual, political relevance. I think sitting silent while the left continues its fundamental transformation of the culture and then the government is going to help, though.
But the hotter the culture war gets, the less likely we are going to be able to convince the two big parties to make deals with us.
Wars where only one side fights are typically very short. Wars where both sides fight are long and hot. The alternative to vocal opposition to the left isn’t no culture war at all – its a culture war the left wins.
“In the aggregate, though, marginalizing, ridiculing, and mocking the people pushing the left’s culture war strips them of the credibility they need to push through the laws they want.”
[Citation Needed]
Obama was a Keynesian, and he was called a socialist. It didn’t really convince anyone not to vote for Obama, and it didn’t really stop him from doing QE2: Electric Bugaloo, but now we have the rise of actual socialists holding an unprecedented number of local offices since the 70’s or maybe the 20’s (good numbers are hard to come by.)
What did we do wrong? How should have marginalized, ridiculed, and mocked moar better to get him to change his mind and get the American electorate to reject the kind of nanny-state-will-pay-for-it Socialism that is on the rise? Because I remember a lot of marginalization, ridicule, and mocking mocking from the right to the left at the time.
This can all be copy/pasted, replacing Obama with Bush producing Trump, btw. Trump really is an even stronger embodiment of the fighting-the-culture-war-backfires argument. Replace Hillary with someone like Webb who doesn’t loath knuckle draggers in Wisconsin, and the D’s hold the White House and the Supreme Court right now (assuming Kennedy still retires.)
Leap, I am open to ideas about how better to resist the tide of the left. I think that the approach of treating them civilly and with respect has been tried, and we are now looking at the left completing their march through the institutions as a result.
I generally prefer to hold the high ground, but it sure looks to me like playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules is a recipe for failure. Am I wrong? Has the left been losing the culture war and I’m just not seeing it? If they are winning, then those of us who don’t like it need to do something different. What’s your recommendation?
I don’t think we should be playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. In fact, I’m not even opposed playing very hard and very dirty, if it is effective. I think that letting them live in your head and posting derp is not effective and that seeing a war everywhere one look makes one a bad person.
But we are in a media environment that encourages drive-by derp posting that feels like its a blow for justice, when in fact it just has the effect of partitioning you off from the society you want to change.
So I’m kind of previeweing my next article in this series, but what I do is:
1) Go out and actively work to build societal instruments that put people into exposure with each other physically in non-ideological tasks
2) Demonstrate to them your value as a human being, including your empathy for people deeply different than you. Slowly let it be known that you have strong ideological positions that they don’t have, but actively work to prevent that from causing a rift.
3) Be ready to evangelize your side’s position to people who don’t agree with you, but not until the time is right. This can not be done with ridicule, mockery, and marginalization. And it can not be done if you are partitioned off from your fellow man.
You church goes may have noticed that I’ve just described missionary work. I did because it works. It requires you to turn the other cheek and if anyone thinks that Jesus was playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules, they weren’t really paying very close attention. He was the most influential subversive force to ever live.
TL;DR – The ref’s not calling any fouls and you’re losing because the other team is playing dirty. You can either throw in the towel, or start playing dirty and try to fucking win.
And FWIW, my kulturkampf is the right to be left alone by the right and the left. Fighting for a lack of coercion may seem oxymoronic, but there it is.
Dang, Leap. That sounds like work. 😉
For example, do you think gay marriage in AZ would have come faster, or slower, with a less intense culture war
I have no idea. It would have come slower without the judicial system stepping in, that’s for sure. To me, the culture war isn’t “gay people are pretty much like straight people and deserve to get married, too”. The culture war is “straight people are hateful, bigoted breeders who should be forced to, not just tolerate gay marriage, but celebrate it, too.”
The kind of social aggression that I associate with the culture war can lead to submission (faster gay marriage) or resistance (slower gay marriage).
Dean, I know you’re out in AZ and I’d like to buy you drinks and discuss this some day. Specifically, how the hell can I effectively fight a culture war inside a profession that produced the National Lawyers Guild and not get fired.
I think the NLG is pretty marginal, still. The sad thing is, the ABA is one of the institutions that the left has successfully marched through.
Thinking about it, the culture war is currently about silencing all dissent. The way to win may be to just be brave and not be silenced. Easy to say, but I let a lot of snide lefty comments slide without a response at my work, because I fear the repercussions. Even so, I think the people (including my boss) who parrot lefty tripe have a pretty good idea that I disagree and am exercising restraint.
My way listed above is more work, like you say, but provides more opportunity to quietly respond with a short, “I’m not sure I agree with that.”
Just sayin. But yes, any conservatarian working in corporate American these days either muzzles himself, or is at risk of a random Resume Generating Event.
As far as I’ve come to determine the only solution is to start my own shop or make enough rain nobody cares. You have a burner account or something to contact you on? I figure I should know more conservatives in the profession but things are pretty closeted in biglaw.
The human mind is incredibly, incredibly lazy. The book Thinking Fast and Slow lays out the argument much better than I could. Its one of the only two “you gotta read this, it’ll change your life” books I ever try to push on people.
I think the word is misapplied to the brain as an organ. So lets start with define lazy
I need to disappear like Batman because I got a thing I gotta go to, so I would love to stick around and talk about this but I can’t. But its in the book, I promise. If you read it and are dissatisfied I’ll make a $20 donation to some charitable cause in your name.
Well now I am just going to lie and say I hate it to make you write a check to NAMBLA. (or if I really had no morals at all, to the Clinton Foundation)
I have not read the book but I generally mistrust behavioral economics
Don’t leave us hanging. What’s the other one?
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish
No way. Hop on Pop just hits so many levels.
right in the ‘nads, that’s where hopping on pop hits.
Selfish Reasons to Have more Kids by Brian Caplan. The TLRD of the book is that, if you are a modern, functional American family that has its shit together, the particular style of parenting doesn’t matter. So don’t be a helicopter parent for 1 kid, be a less overbearing parent for 3 or 4 kids.
And although he didn’t say it in the book, I noticed that his arguments also would indicate that one could could also stop at 2, not be a helicopter parent, and have a lot less stress in their life.
I think anyone who has had a kid has had the experience where you realize how jaded you have become when you see your kid light up over something like playing in the grass. When you see how the kid gets into the feel, smell and color of something you have taken for granted for most of your life it is pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q00GoArQ_w
How does the saying go? You are the average of your ten closest friends.
Labels can be abused, but people often conform to group stereotypes unconsciously.
certainly not true for me and I doubt for many. But then again in Romania we do not suffer the wonders of the American university system, which I think is a major issue in the States.
*wonders whether pie’s 10 closest friends are contrarians, too*
most of them are not.
No; they’re vampires.
I dont have ten friends.
but are well stocked on enemies?
I don’t have enemies, and it’s not because I’m likable.
What if I don’t have 10 friends? Am I no one? *thinks* that checks out.
Do people on here count as friends? Cause as sad as it is you lot are the closest things I have to friends
I think so. When Mr. Mojeaux and I had dinner with OMWC and Libertesian, we felt those little bits of camaraderie that help you get over the initial bumps of meeting someone for the first time. Of course, good food helps.
Hey friend, you need an avatar.
So the question is, how can the current environment that encourages atomization in person while also giving a huge platform online via social media and the resulting echo chambers be changed? Or can it? Are we destined to descend into identity based politics where your options are to either kneel to those of a different identity group, or fight with the identity group closest to your own? How do you fight collectivization in an environment that practically demands you participate in it to simply survive?
Damn it CA, wait for the next article will ya!
I’m helping out here. Building the anticipation…
Buy guns. Buy lots and lots of guns.
No good without ammo though…
“TW: No funny pictures”
Here you go:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmmjBYkXgAE-LI-.jpg
You are saying in the middle ages they would be thin but still engaged in the activity of shoveling shit?
Imagine the damage if you hit one of them with your car at a rally.
Related:
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/social-media-disease
And oh-so meta in that they are soliciting Facebook likes in the middle of the article.
Thanks for submitting this. It’s interesting, and it dovetails with something we see in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon details the interaction of two groups of people descended from the original group which came over to the Americas from Jerusalem. These two groups war back and forth for 600 years, until the coming of Christ to the Americas after his resurrection. The two groups are known as the Lamanites and the Nephites, but after Christ’s visit they all lived together peacefully for almost 200 years, and one of the distinguishing characteristics of that time was that they eschewed labels. “[N]either were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (4 Nephi 1:17) At the end of that 200 years a dissident group leaves the church and labels themselves as “Lamanites.” This was the beginning of the slide towards the destruction of the Nephite nation at the end of the Book of Mormon.
Labeling is (obviously) the symptom, but when you look at where it leads, it can be terrifying. Now substitute Democrat for Lamanite and Republican for Nephite (or vice-versa if you prefer) and look at the rhetoric. We are about to slide into a really scary place, and I don’t think most people even see it.
Hey Glib ladies, you should know about this….
Use it or lose it.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/jordan-peterson-is-conservative-not-classical-liberal
Ironic off-topic to this article.
From the article:
“Peterson, currently a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, was a privately practicing clinical psychologist before his rise to prominence in 2016 through his vocal opposition to a Canadian human rights bill that would extend workplace nondiscrimination protections to transgender Canadians. Peterson believed that this law would “compel speech” in that it would require him to use transgender individuals’ pronouns or face fines or jail time—an assessment with which Canadian legal experts disagree.”
They will defend speech codes, I have no doubt about that.
“Additionally, more recent liberal thinkers like Canadian Dr. Jacob Levy have provided rather robust defenses of identity politics as a critical tool in assailing state-sanctioned violence.”
Nothing says “individualism” quite like “dividing people into different tribes based upon immutable characteristics”
identity politics as a critical tool in assailing state-sanctioned violence.
Only an academic could be so stupid as to believe that balkanizing a society along racial and/or religious lines will reduce violence, definitely including state-sanctioned violence.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
Identity politics is fundamentally collectivist. It subsumes the individual into nothing more than a cell of the respective identity group. Collectivism has never resulted in an enhancement of liberty.
Or a reduction in violence
When I read nonsense like that, coming from the institutions recognized as the thought-leaders in libertarianism, it’s pretty obvious that the libertarian movement’s leadership just isn’t all that into liberty.
You can’t have diversity if you don’t label people into certain groups.
You can if you define the smallest minority as the individual.
I distinctly remember linking to that a while ago. I am disappointed that not all my links are remembered (I do not expect people to remember things that were linked, just what matters aka things that were linked by *me*)
Uh-huh…..
I only remember articles that you post when they have to do with vampires.
I stumbled upon this article, because woketarians were bombarding Jeffrey Tucker with it after he wrote a fair piece on Jordan Peterson, for which he has become a baddie again among woketarians.
Tucker’s apologia for not treating Peterson as a boogie man
https://steemit.com/peterson/@jeffreyatucker/why-jordan-peterson-is-so-important-now
I mean Peterson has a lot of things that can be criticized. But somehow no one is doing it and instead throwing random attacks that are mostly ad hominems and smears… strange
Yes. I’m not even a Peterson fan, but I have to give him another listen if the only argument people have against him is fabricated fairy tales.
herte you go
It is the “self-evidence” of the unacceptability of undue suffering that in part serves Sam Harris as God. More accurately: his Savior is the embodiment of the ethic that motivates each of us to choose Heaven over Hell and to act out that motivation.
The same could be said about Trump.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that can be made, but instead we get hysterics about how he’s a Nazi and getting ready to liquidate all minorities and put all women into breeding farms.
just the hot ones. No fatties at the breeding farms.
Fair enough. We can throw the fatties into the furnace fueling the power plant.
The fatties are going to be put on the farm where all the cooking gets done. The hot ones are on the sex farm. In betweeners are on the laundry farm, the cleaning farm, etc.
Who is gonna make all the sammiches?
LIAR
I remember. That link was linked by PieInTheSKy.
Look everyone PieInTheSky is trying to steal credit!!!
Tulpa???
I miss PieInTheSKy.
whatever happened to that guy?
We never had someone named hairpieinthesky, right?
no, but we did have hairpieinthebush
Hmmmmmm…
Is that redundancy?
We should really be more careful with people we allow in libertarianism.
Are you telling me that people who dislike Peterson solely because he objected to a new government protected class status and he oposes identity politics aren’t actually all that interested in shrinking state authority?
Surprising
I am saying that, as libertarians, we should burn the heretics. Or at the very least offer them a nice helicopter ride
Damn right. We demand purity!
Or at least not progressive talking points masquerading as libertarianism. The author’s defense of a pronoun law and identity politics was just *chef’s kiss*
The ‘copter or the ‘chipper.
One of the unbelievable things about that article is how hard Cato is pushing it. They keep sharing it on social media every few days. And when they do, they get hammered with links to speeches he gave showing that the Cato narrative is full of shit.
These Cato guys were the same ones who complained when MacLean published that book proving that libertarianism was motivated by a desire to bring back segregation. I guess their problem isn’t with MacLean’s shoddy scholarship but rather the target.
I used to get irritated with the references to the “orange line mafia” and “cocktail party libertarians”, mainly because I am not a conservative and thought it was a bit overwrought. But, as in almost everyone in this age of Trump, they’ve ripped off their masks and proved they are what their critics said they are.
It’s almost like there were some common funding source or something that explains why CATO and Reason continue to push reheated progressivism in the garb of limited government
Soros?
I still subscribe to the Cato Daily podcast because a lot of the time it’s pretty good. But they were on board early, and continue to be, with the Trump-Russia collusion claims. And now they’re pretty much saying Trump should be impeached because paying off Stormy Daniels subverts open elections.
It reminds me of that line from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy about scientists discovering that what they really don’t like is a smartass. It seems the same with Trump: he’s uncouth so screw him.
“This was always about a campaign violation…”
Julian Sanchez in four months after spouting a CIA narrative for the past two years
Some people have thoroughly discredited themselves and no one should forget that
One of my faves was Trump’s abandoning of the Iran deal. Several policy analysts actually made the argument that one reason to stay in the deal was because “it was the only deal there was.”
I’m agnostic on the deal itself but the idiocy of that argument – one used by statists everywhere for the status quo – is idiotic.
“One of my faves was Trump’s abandoning of the Iran deal. Several policy analysts actually made the argument that one reason to stay in the deal was because “it was the only deal there was.”
Yeah, the problem was when you asked too many of these fucks that said he did wrong why they felt that deal was to be kept, despite the fact it was a horrible deal, they all eventually, when being candid, said it hurt Obama’s legacy. It was not even that having a bad deal was better than no deal, but the same stupid shit that drives them to pretend the economic boon we have because Trump rolled back Obama era stupidity is now to be credited to Obama.
TBF, for Cato, they didn’t mention Obama, just the “any deal is better than no deal.”
Sensible chuckle: http://wendymcelroy.com/images/newspost_images/eyddofbyqpetqgmogkgunjct7esek7opf1hhv5-yax0.jpg
Related:
https://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/021/818/hitlerbook.jpg
How to deal with bullies….
hate crime!
I mean, her technique was a little sloppy, but she made up for it in gumption. Plus that takedown was pretty solid.
She got what matters right; she went from sitting down talking to Defcon 5 kill-or-be-killed at the first punch, no hesitation.
Yup. If she’d have let go of her phone a little earlier it might have been a cleaner W.
I still would like to know what led to the altercation. I see the slap and then the immediate move to all out violence, but I can’t tell from the interaction WTF transpired before the slap….
I’m curious about that also, but I can’t imagine that the first blow was justified in any way, so it doesn’t really matter much.
With the audio on, it appears the large black girl in the yellow (bumble bee) was concerned that skinny white girl (cheer brawler) was dissing her in some fashion.
CA, I suspected something like that, but what was the dis? Did she try out for the cheer club and get told sorry, but you need to be able to actually jump u and down a lot without having a heart attack while looking pleasant? or was there some other kind of problem? Did her man want a piece of the cheerleader, for example, and she was making sure the skinny bitch left him alone? Maybe this cheerleader is a bully in her own right?
When I see people go at it, I often times want to make sure I understand what motivated it before I say whom was right or whom was wrong.
I often times want to make sure I understand what motivated it before I say whom was right or whom was wrong.
I still can’t think of a plausible scenario that justifies bumblebee punching cheerbrawler, including the ones you list.
Considering some of the shit I have seen women say or do to each other, I often wonder why more of them don’t play out just like this did.
that chicks YouTube is awful. Instagram okay…
I just looked over some of it. I dont know what any of that means. Cute, but that wont last. No class, low IQ.
No thanks.
Well shit, that little cheerleader beat the snot out of that big fat chick.
It’s like a porno come to life (minus the fat chick)
Also, one poster showed that the video was edited. It was more of a back and forth fight. The cheerleader can clearly hold her own, though, considering the weight differential
The bodyslam was pretty vicious.
Eh, her opponent was well padded.
great spirit.
One thing about this is it brings to mind one of the central paradoxes of libertarianism: how do you corral a group of people who place individual liberty at the pinnacle of their priorities into a large enough force to effect political change?
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a8/d2/a8/a8d2a8c294907dc0409ffc0d472c4a7e.jpg
The central problem here being that any group who actually has the means to take over the world will never leave you alone. Labels are a good shortcut in some cases for ferreting out someone’s overall approach to liberty. “Conservative” in the US typically means that person wants to conserve Constitutional rights; in other circumstances it can mean totally different things. By no means does it imply that I will agree with a “Conservative” person on every issue or will easily be able to fit that person into a box. Politics, however, is the art of the possible. And if I am interested in preserving as many of my individual rights as I can, I’d better band together with other people whose intellectual dot product is >0.5. The unfortunate reality is that once a “side” or “group” or whatever you want to call it starts categorizing and slicing and dicing in order to take rights away, you need to find like-minded people with whom to fight back.
“Conservative” in the US typically means that person wants to conserve Constitutional rights – meh… Not all all the time consistently
Yeah, a lot of people in team red only disagree with team blue on what they want government to force people to do.
“in other circumstances it can mean totally different things”
“One thing about this is it brings to mind one of the central paradoxes of libertarianism: how do you corral a group of people who place individual liberty at the pinnacle of their priorities into a large enough force to effect political change?”
Sad fact is that the people that value freedom and individuality are always going to be out-hustled by the ones that have an agenda to impose on others. Especially when said agenda peddles free shit.
I think its a form of public choice theory in action.
Not only are they peddling free shit, but the movement promised the worker bees who staff phone banks, do lit drops, tows the lion, that they will get a cushy sinecure once they have seized power.
What can libertarians promise? “Well, you can be the Secretary of Education for a donation of $2M”, “OK, wait…. Did you promise to kill the Department of Education?”, “ummm. Yeah, you caught me.”
Well, the problem is that the state is the ideal tool for the perpetuation and expansion of the state. What I mean is that our entire political system, maybe all political systems, are geared toward sublimating individual wills to a group objective, necessarily controlled by a minority. The paradox is that the more liberty you have, the less able you are to create and preserve the circumstances in which it can exist.
Otherwise known as “herding cats”.
all political systems, are geared toward sublimating individual wills to a group objective
I think its definitional – that’s the purpose of political systems/the state, full stop. We were blessed, for awhile, with institutional and cultural constraints on this inherent drive, but they are in tatters now.
I am skeptical about the ‘good ol’ days’ assertions. I am not sure that the US was a freer place in the past. Constraints on individual behavior took different forms. In some ways we might have been freer, in others not. The details of it are lost in time.
It is also possible that I have a biased view. The wife and I are retired. We dont depend on anyone’s approval for our survival. That is very liberating. We do as we please and anyone who disapproves gets a middle finger. I can say what I think without fear of any real repercussions. In short, no one has any power over me.
I’d settle for firearms law prior to the NFA.
I think the US is much more consistent in application of liberty these days, but the actual liberty is eroding. Went from mile deep and inch wide to mile wide and inch deep.
I am not sure that the US was a freer place in the past. Constraints on individual behavior took different forms.
If we look at it narrowly as constraints on individual behavior imposed by the government, I think there is no question that the US was freer in the past, with the notable exception of Jim Crow laws constraining the freedom of minorities (and the various government activities during wartime).
Went from mile deep and inch wide to mile wide and inch deep.
I’m not seeing it. We used to be burdened by a fraction of the laws, regulations, and agencies we have now. It used to be miles wide and plenty deep (again, looking at government and not social constraints), now there is less that you can do that doesn’t require permission of some kind, or is outright prohibited.
Which past? Because there was a time when you could not make your own beer, when there were various government monopolies, when if you were gay you had a rough life, police overall could be even more brutal without todays scrutiny, drug war varied there was conscription… it depends a lot. Overall there were fewer laws and regulation in some fields… but overall… I dunno…
not to mention asylums in the past were awful, treatment of homeless, vagrants, hobos etc,
“Which past?”
Whichever one people think existed? This is going to be subjective and will vary.
“Because there was a time when you could not make your own beer”
Because we didn’t have the necessary items to do our own brewing, or are you talking about prohibition (legal blocker)?
“when there were various government monopolies”
Today we still have them, but government uses the law to favor one over the other, and pretends we are freer now because all they do is pick winners & losers, not own the winner directly.
“when if you were gay you had a rough life”
There were many things that made you a non-conformist that could lead to a rough life. Not minimizing being gay, but single motherhood, divorce, birth defects or chronic disease, and so on, all could lead to a societal repercussions.
“it depends a lot.”
A lot of this. Even similar experiences could vary…
Because we didn’t have the necessary items to do our own brewing, or are you talking about prohibition (legal blocker)? – obviously legal blocker,
Which past?
Excellent question. But, I think it almost doesn’t matter because the government has been expanding its control almost since it was founded.
What confounds the issue, I think, is that it used to be more socially acceptable to be bigoted against minorities/nonconformists, which led to laws backing up those social positions. I tried to take social constraints out of my answer, but there is no question that removing those laws increased the freedom of minorities/nonconformists.
That balances against the multitude of laws constraining the freedom of everyone, including minorities. One of the fascinating things about my time in Richmond VA was that my bus route home took me through historically black neighborhoods, which were thriving middle class neighborhoods from way back. I think it was easier in the ’50s for a black person to start their own business than it is today. Sure, their customer base would be more limited, but they still had a business and could be quite successful. I don’t even think there is an easy and obvious answer to the question of whether black people were more free during the Jim Crow era than they are today. They have made some particular gains, but they have also suffered the more general losses.
There was a time when you could make your own beer, then a time when you could not, and now, again, a time when you can. But now, you can only up to a certain amount before you have to get permission from the government. We’re somewhat more free than we were when you could not, but not as free as when you could, pretty much regardless.
I tend to think that the trajectory of freedom started going down when the frontier closed. A person could no longer move away from government. I also suspect that in some ways, the end of the cold war accelerated it.
You just hit on one of the arguments for anarchy; if government is a cancerous tumor, there’s no reasonable amount of it because it will eventually grow monstrous and deadly. It’s a view I happen to have, yet I think anarchy offers no better workable solutions. My philosophy on social organization is “we’re fucked no matter what we do.”
Government is violence. We’ve replaced warlords with elected officials that hire unfireable thugs with handcuffs and guns. But the threat is still the same. Comply or die.
My reason why anarchy wouldn’t work, is that anarchy isn’t stable. A form of government always fills the void.
Jefferson saw the problem and the solution too well. We haven’t really had the will to follow through.
I am not one for anarchy, but I absolutely believe we need serious restraints and limitations on government. We lost this not just because people lost their individualistic nature, but because the shame associated with using government force to rob Peter to pay Paul was basically not only remove, but we now hear people saying you have rights to other people’s labor and stuff, and nobody calls them thieves.
There’s kind of a double whammy for me, because by preference I’m an ancap, but I also believe that, practically, that’s not gonna work. So, I’ve made my peace with ceding some of my liberty in exchange for government. But, not only do I have to cede some of my liberty, but I have to take (or allow to be taken) that of others who might feel differently. It’s the flip side of my car theft example above: in order to arrive at the outcome I want, someone else has to not get what they want.
Anarchy will not last long so I see little argument for something that cannot exist.
ANARCHY!
It occurs to me that ‘different environments, different outcomes’ would be less of a thing if people had more principles.
Also, the social media problem is mostly fueled by what has been mentioned above by RC: the SJW crowd are the aggressors and balkanization by identity politics is calculated and deliberate.
Most people here, myself included, just want to be left the hell alone. I could care less what the TrigglyPuffs of the world are up to as long as they stay out of my business. They wont. I am labeled as possessing the original sin of being a straight, white male and thus a legitimate target of their ire.
It is worse than just collectivizing, they go way over the top. Anyone that disagrees with them is a nazi, whatever they think that means. Words are violence and thus extraordinary and violent response is warranted.
I really do see dark times ahead.
Imagine how these people are going to respond when Republicans hold the house and senate proving that the polls continue to be worthless horseshit.
They are using polls as propaganda. They are saying ‘why fight back? you are going to lose anyway’ and hope we lay down. So far it isnt working.
I dont think there is going to be any ‘blue wave’. I am a bit worried what their reaction is going to be if they lose big. They are becoming increasingly frustrated and thus unhinged and the leaders increasingly vocal in calls for non-political solutions. I suspect they will crank up the violence.
I admit I was a lot more optimist 3 4 years ago than now. But while I do not actively do it cause I aint on social media, this needs fightback. This is why I tend to appreciate people like Peterson although I disagree with many things they say. At least they get people to listen to different views.
Nice article, Leap. It made me think, the greatest appeal (to me) of libertarianism, is that if I’m completely wrong about the whole thing, other people are at least free to solve things their own way. And also, all of our camps will be the fun kinds with rifle ranges and big-ass fires, not firing squads and boring make-work.
Camp will be fun until they serve deep dish pizza with pineapple on it for lunch one day.
Mmmmm… tasty!
Would it really be LIbertarian Camp without purges?
There’s a lot to what you’re saying here. The problem is that it relies on a presumption of goodwill. At a certain point, that presumption isn’t merited. Not, of course, universally. I’ve no doubt that there are a great many progressives or SJWs who genuinely mean well and would happily live their lives alongside the rest of us. But, it also strikes me that there is a large and growing contingent who look on the rest of us with complete and utter malice. And those people do need to be fought. Because, make no mistake, they are fighting.
I think the problem is that there are people who don’t want to fight just for the sake of fighting, they want to force their preferences on others. So it’s not like if you just opt out of the fighting bit the problem will go away. Lots of people didn’t want to fight the Mongols; the result was that they were absorbed into the empire, not that they were just left alone to do their thing in peace.
I think that was sort of what I was trying to get at, just not so eloquently. You don’t have peace unless both sides decide they want peace. War on one side isn’t peace, it’s a one-sided war. Even if it’s a Culture War.
Man, if that was eloquent the bar is low! 🙂
I think it’s again due to such division of labor (loosely speaking). You have a group of loudmouths who want something but don’t actually want to be patient and do the work to create it. You have another group who likes fighting, period – they get off on the conflict and really couldn’t give a damn about the result. These two groups eventually find each other useful.
This is why I walk away when my cop buddies start bitching about their jobs. I told them once “You’re the one who chose a job to be the henchman for whatever asshole happens to win office and pass whatever asinine laws come into being. You either need to get the fuck out or admit that you took the job for the thrill of the conflict.” They know better than to complain about work in front of me now.
great many progressives or SJWs who genuinely mean – I try to belie that but then I see how they refuse to think or argue honestly, how they result to the worst straw men and ad hominems etc. I tried to have conversations on politics with people on both left and right and there is no use. they make zero effort to think beyond their feels. I struggle as some are genreally good friends outside of this, but in politics… And in time politics seems to make them worse
Ah, The Onion .
From the sidebar:
https://www.theonion.com/class-is-dismissed-1828938026
while social media has it’s bad things, I find it can also be quite useful since the left has a strangleholds on education and entertainment, a lot of fightback has occurred on social media and a lot of it has reached the young, people who read less Bastiat these days but do stay on YouTube. This is why there is this huge campaign to deplatform dissenting voices on social media. Because it causes cracks in the decade long attempt of the left to take over sources of information.
I frankly wouldn’t care if these social media companies were de-platforming if it wasn’t for the fact that the same people saying “it’s a private company, they can do what they like” weren’t the same people who go apeshit crazy when consumers decide that they don’t like a product, a la national anthem kneeling, and the company tries to correct for this.
Alex Jones wasn’t de-platformed because he wasn’t popular in the market- he was de-platformed because he was popular in the market. In contrast, Kapernick wasn’t signed with Nike because he was popular with football fans, he was signed because he was unpopular with football fans.
I wish people would just be honest that they’re all raving hypocrites (except me, of course).
“Alex Jones wasn’t de-platformed because he wasn’t popular in the market- he was de-platformed because he was popular in the market.”
Which, ironically, gets him even more attention and likely drives even more traffic to his website, on which he can now host his rants with no middle man. Forget regulation and anti-trust, Trump just has to drop Twitter and go to Gab and their stock would drop to junk-status.
Until his ISP/webhost drops him, and he can’t find another one.
Yeah, this is gonna be a real problem when it happens. Short of someone doing real illegal stuff like child porn or hosting a hackbot, I can’t see an ISP doing some stupid shit like that.
They did with a Nazi website
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action
If the contract you sign with them lets them do so…
It’s not an “if.” It’s a “when.” Logical progression of a marauding campaign.
I do care about deplatforming for vague TOS violations and think it is wrong and these companies are profoundly shitty for doing it. I do care because it stifles debate and it solidifies the prog hold on the youth. And I think creators who spent many hours over many years building their brand have as reasonable expectation not to be banned, despite the weaselly TOS that are vague enough for these platforms to ban who they want.
Deplatforming is mostly done, I believe, in response to complaints about offensive material. If social media treated all complaints equally, then this would come to a rapid end, as the right would succeed in deplatforming lefties just as the left is now succeeding in deplatforming the right, with the endpoint that everybody would be deplatformed. But, of course, that’s not the way it works at all. Just as the proggies believe that minorities can’t be racist, the left can’t be offensive.
And herein lies the problem. These kind of things, just like any one of a thousand other examples of Lefty hypocrisy, are never applied uniformly. Even bringing it up now results in people just screaming “WHATABOUTISM!!!”
Too much of the whataboutism complaint is nothing more or less than a defense of double standards. I take it mostly as a sign that whoever is complaining about it has been caught dead to rights, and doesn’t care, because they like the double standard just fine.
Apparently it’s illegal for Trump to block Twitter followers but not for Twitter to deny Alex Jones a platform? That’s one of the biggest discontinuities here.
Trump is our (the royal our) employee, Twitter and Alex Jones are not. We can make rules for Trump, in his actions as an employee, not so much the other two.
We can make rules for Trump, in his actions as an employee, not so much the other two.
When Trump tweets, is that an official action?
This is the guts of the judicial decision on Trump blocking twitter users:
I’m pretty sure that account pre-existed Trump’s taking office, which means its his personal Twitter account. The judge’s ruling that his election converted it into a public forum is interesting, and I don’t know how well founded it is. It seems to me, though, that applying this conclusion uniformly would mean that nobody who works for the government can block anyone from their personal Twitter account. As far as I know, though, it applies solely to Trump. Which makes me think this isn’t a principled ruling at all.
I know a few local government Facebook page managers that have, on the advice of the city attorney, stopped moderating the comments on their official feed. No idea how wide spread it is.
I know a few local government Facebook page managers that have, on the advice of the city attorney, stopped moderating the comments on their official feed. No idea how wide spread it is.
I can see an official government Facebook page as being a “public forum”. Whether a private individual’s pre-existing personal Twitter account becomes public forum when they take a government job is much less clear to me.
I suspect, though, that Trump realized that he was getting too much traction from his enemies raving and frothing on his Twitter account, so he decided to just go along with it.
When Trump tweets, is that an official action?
Not sure, and He makes it less clear with the types of things he tweets about If it was simply ‘look what I had for dinner’ or ‘Go (insert Trumps favorite sportsball team here)’ type stuff I’d say no, but often it is what amounts to policy statements. Can the Whitehouse put out press releases only to supportive media? I make sawdust for a living I don’t know all the legal ins and outs but President Trump isn’t like the other two, and I don’t know exactly where you draw the line between Citizen Donny and Public servant Donny.
The left wants to reserve the right to have vague rules that apply to their enemies, both internal and external to the marxist movement, but not to the privileged few, and be able to change them whenever and for whatever reason most benefits their power grabbing agenda. This isn’t about justice but the left’s powergrab and the ability to have mechanisms to destroy those that get in the way (they used to send these people to camps, but these days shit like that which results in final solutions, might actually cause the stupid mob to wizen up to the fact that with these fucks this could happen to them someday).
WTF is going on with <a href="https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/09/a-new-color-of-censorship-from-the-splc/" target="_new"this?
My question exactly.
GILORED.
Try again this?
Having successfully stripped “racist” of any meaning, the Left moves onto “hate” and “white supremacy”.
OT: Can’t see her face but still would just for the effort.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/09/06/skateboarding-skirt-heels-awkward-yet-impressive-viral-video/
a skateboard is not a legitimate form of transportation.
Trump admin closes PLO’s D.C. office.
Years ago, Greg Gutfeld joked about turning it into a gay nightclub, but simply shuttering it works, too. Maybe next we could turn over the UN HQ to the Trump family for redevelopment.
I like the bit where Bolton basically tells the ICC ‘Bring it, bitches. You want to have some sham court proceedings, we’ll do you one better.’
Yeah, this should have been done the very day that Arafat told Clinton ‘Sorry brah, but I can’t sign that deal. See, even though it gives us everything legitimate that we ask for, because at home they believe the only viable solution we will accept is to drive the Jews into the ocean (a.k.a. kill them all), if I deliver something other than that, not only will I have to give up the gravy train of European and US lucre I pad my Swiss bank accounts with, but my constituents will very likely just kill me. So pass on that deal’.
“We meant ‘to the beach’! Drive them to the beach!”
“but my constituents will very likely just kill me”
I don’t think that would happen. I think Arafat knew that he’d have to either get a real job, or expand the scope of the PLO. Essentially he chose the latter.
I actually once did hear someone claim Arafat basically realized all he knew how to do was be the opposition/terrorists, and that actually ruling was a hard and thankless job, and decided to pass.
The PLO was created as an outlet for Arafat and his cronies to make bank and keep the Palestinians under their thumb. So of course them actually governing and making peace with Israel was out of the question.
I say we gift it to the NRA and they straighten out the barrel of that Colt Python.
Whore houses… It’s close to what it is being used like today already..
I cannot stand Bolton, but damn it he’s earned a little of my admiration for doing something that should have been done a long time ago. I have no dog in this fight and feel bad for both sides, but at the same time, entities like the PLO wrap themselves in this cloak of martyrism but have no intention of ever living peacefully with their neighbors. And the PLO should be thanking us because without the US, the Israelis would have kicked the shit out of them a long time ago.
“And the PLO should be thanking us because without the US, the Israelis would have kicked the shit out of them a long time ago.”
Probably not without our support.
Israel wouldn’t have ever been stupid enough to take on what was, by every definition, a Soviet proxy unless it was the eve of WW3.
The PLO wasn’t a Soviet proxy in 1948
Right, it’s a creation of the 60’s. I’m specifically talking about the PLO.
The PLO doesn’t equal “Palestinians”.
I understand that. And I was saying that as much as American interference prevented the Israelis from destroying the PLO, American interference also played a role in other conflicts in the region.
It’s also worth noting that the PLO was founded just as much in response to the claims over Palestine by Jordan’s House of Hashim, which viewed themselves as the legitimate monarchs of both Transjordan and Palestine. In a bizarro world where the Arabs won the 1948 war, and the Arab League supported Abdallah I’s claims, Arafat would have been instructing young men to martyr themselves in the neighborhoods of East Jerusalem as well as Amman.
War between Jordan and the PLO?
It’s been done.
Jihadists make terrible house guests
Indeed. Look back 20 years then, it would have been interesting with whom the British and French would have thrown in with had things escalated to the point where either Israel or the Arab League would have reached a point where the balance of power slid too much to one side.
I forgot we were in September!
Trump is president, or hadn’t you heard? Every day now is the eve of WW3.
WW3, times a million. World War Three Million.
Israel would have drawn borders that made more sense and forced Jordan and Egypt to govern Palestine and the West Bank. Being actual countries who have lost several wars to Israel, they would have policed the border and made sure the usual idiots didn’t get them into a shooting war.
Mad Max.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/maxine-waters-brags-she-threatens-trump-supporters-all-the-time-wakes-up-in-middle-of-night-thinking-im-going-to-get-president/
Hahahaha. She’s entertaining, that’s for sure.