Making Sense of it All
Like many liberty-minded people, I can’t escape the feeling that we are on the downhill slope of the American experiment. Unlike some, however, I don’t see collapse as imminent and I’d like to offer a perspective that seeks to make sense out of ideas and events that seem like nonsense. My goal is to examine the forest of reality and take a closer look at the tress that modern social science uses as a basis for policies in education and governance. If you’re looking for a solution, dear reader, you won’t find it here. Instead, I hope to provide another layer for your own worldview and connect intangible ideas to tangible outcomes. Suspend your disbelief, pack a lunch, and follow me as we try to find a useful path through what may be to come.
Part One: Utopia, or Nah?
I’ll begin with a confession: In my teens and early twenties I used to be a socialist. Not in a political sense, but in the sense that I believed, and still do believe, that Earth has enough resources for all humans to thrive if everyone shared and worked together toward a ‘greater good.’ Coercion, thought twenty-two year old Steve, was a necessity because of shameful and selfish people who either hoard wealth, or steal it outright therefore upsetting any possible equilibrium. Fast forward a couple years and, like many basic white-guy libertarians, Ayn Rand was my first exposure to ideas of self-ownership that resonated with me. Ironically, I read Atlas Shrugged, then the more palatable The Fountainhead, as a result of a liberal arts education while studying to become an English teacher. In my quest to expose myself to more ‘classic’ literature, I ended up radicalizing myself toward liberty. Ideas about the natural state of mankind, or womankind if you’re into that, still fascinate me and this is also why I included this confession in this essay. Now that we’re in 2021 I don’t know that libertarian is how I would describe myself having seen the official movement evolve into something else than what I thought it was. Regardless, I haven’t forgotten the ideals of younger me, and my current job uses those younger values to inform my professional decisions-although not in the ways that you may think. We’ll get to those in future articles.
The belief that there is or is not a ‘natural state’ for humans is the philosophical root of all systems of governance and policy. The ongoing shift in societal values, therefore, is actually a logical progression of this foundation. Those who do believe in a ‘natural state’ see this as a culture war while those who do not see it as a slow, steady march of progressive values. To make sense of statements like, “not all men have a penis,” we have to consider several schools of thought. While we do that it might be useful to establish just a few definitions for the sake of the argument and then get into the meat of this message. For this we have to differentiate between A) True Believers; B) Opportunists; and C) The People. I understand that your instincts might have you draw the conclusion that I am about to perform some daring mental gymnastics if you’ve made it this far. To that I say: take a break, get some water, consider the difference between what you’d call socialization versus behavior modification and then come back because I’m just getting started.
Let’s be clear that True Believers, Opportunists, and The People are not static categories and most move between them in accordance with the issues being discussed. The True Believer is not so much a zealot as one who is self-actualized in their belief. For example, I am a true believer with regard to self-ownership and limiting the concentration of power; benevolent or otherwise. This is why I reject notions such as “[Federal Politician of your choice] is the most libertarian since sliced bread,” because the very act of him or her trying to solve problems implies that we should rely on federal politician
s to solve problems for us; and I want to limit that power as much as possible. My confidence in this belief is such that I have integrated it into my worldview and identity, and it serves as part of the foundation for my parenting style, professional decision making, and most certainly voting choices. I am a True Believer when it comes to self-ownership. You can imagine what an Opportunist is – those who will feign belief when it serves their goals but can easily compromise when it becomes expedient. The best way to detect whether one is a True Believer, or an Opportunist is by their actions. The Opportunist lives by the mantra, “Rules for thee, not for me.” If I take a private jet to a summit on the destructive effects of greenhouse gases on global warming, or if I somehow make the bureaucratic state bigger and more expensive while simultaneously claiming to make it smaller, I might be an Opportunist.
That brings us to The People. The People in general don’t want to be inconvenienced or alienated. They don’t necessarily want to hurt anyone and don’t put a whole lot of thought into their typical daily activities. This makes The People the most easily convinced and also the easiest to get along with – especially when dealing with The People face-to-face. The vast majority of humans, myself included, on the vast majority of issues fall into the category of The People. At this point an appropriate question to ask would be: What does an idealistic socialist utopia, the belief in the natural state of humans, behavior modification, and differentiating between True Believers, Opportunists, and the People have in common with making sense of the culture war and decline of the American experiment? Welcome to my TED talk.
Remember now, twenty-two-year-old Steve thought socialism in theory could work provided there were enough cooperation among people. In essence, the socialist ideal is a purely voluntary, stateless society which is why we see a lot of self-identified anarchists supporting these ideals. In practice, however, one would need to be able to outlaw this, close that loophole over there, and generally monopolize force in order to coerce back into line anyone who steps away from the ideal. Following this to its logical conclusion inevitably leads to slavery and oppression. If you think that there is a default, natural state to human nature because there will always be someone trying to either game the system or flat-out take from those who are weaker than them, this default state has to be the product of one of two worldviews that can then be further divided into many, many different views. The first is that there is a Creator, and we are born with this flaw in our character that cannot be overcome through any self-derived means. The second view is that we are the products of our environment and, given the overwhelming survival instinct encoded into our DNA, we will always seek to maximize the ratio between physical effort and resource acquisition.
I do not hide the fact that I subscribed to the first worldview. I know you may not agree, and it is not the goal of this essay to convince you that we are born into sin and the earth will always be coercive and unjust. The second premise is the apparent operational view of society. For evidence of this claim, one just has to look around at the amount of energy and resources we as a society expend toward the Sisyphean task of saving us from ourselves. This is an important point because many who hold this value are good people and truly mean well for us all. It is that second view of humanity that makes it possible, in theory, to satiate our natural survival instincts while also shaping our self-concepts to one that supports a collectivist identity. To take it a step or three further, one might say that once humanity is capable of working toward a common goal then we can evolve into the type of society that Star Trek nerds dream of. The question is then, how do we move toward that ideal? This is where we consider large scale behavior modification. No, this isn’t an Illuminati conspiracy out of a Dan Brown novel spanning hundreds of years. If it were then we would probably be further along instead of the slow-motion train wreck that we are experiencing now. Rather it is the natural progression of atheist philosophy preached by True Believers and clumsily put into practice by Opportunists of varying stripes with the passive, and sometimes active, consent of The People.
Any decent behavior modification plan has elements of several psychological theories built into it. Operant conditioning is the concept that describes the usual but not always intentional pairing of a conditioned stimulus to an unconditioned response as demonstrated by Pavlov and his unfortunate dog. In the real world this entails introducing some sort of meaningful incentive for completing undesirable tasks while punishing undesirable behavior. Another element to consider is social learning theory. Simply put, this describes the different ways we can learn from watching others by the feedback that their environment gives them. In the real world, we should model for others how to respond to various events, positive and negative. You can even talk to them through things using tools like social behavior mapping and introduce elements of cognitive therapy but getting someone to think about how they think (meta-cognition). The end goal is cognitive reappraisal where someone changes the way they interpret events. In the real world it is teaching someone that it often does take more strength to walk away from a fight when possible and that violence should generally be avoided-regardless of what you just watched on UFC Fight Night.
Some organizations are intentionally introducing these elements into their organizational structure but have limited success if they don’t understand the underlying concepts. We’ll get into that in more detail in later parts as well. For now, that inadequate primer should be enough to segue to my next point which is that you cannot have an effective behavior modification plan without defining what exactly it is that you’re hoping to modify. Just like a physician should have an idea of what your health problems are before they treat you, society has to define what change they want to happen and the underlying source of what is wrong. For that we have to look at social theories that began but certainly don’t end with postmodernism. In a nutshell Western society is a proud federation of individuals. The rights our laws are founded on begin with the individual and proceed through larger and larger organizations up to and including nations. The inherent problem with this is that the concept of the individual rests on the concept of “I” and “mine.” This inevitably leads to another concept called “you” and “yours” and eventually, once we expand ourselves to groups, we find the concept of the “Other.” The idea of “Other” implies “not me, nor us” and is an impediment to social cooperation. This is important point because as one works their way through social layers there is an infinite number of ways we can use ideas of intersectionality to identify an “Other” and all of them are only possible if we have a concept of “I.”
The good news, if you are a True Believer and your worldview excludes an immutable natural state of humans, is that the concept of “I” is a learned concept. Again, the True Believer sincerely wants the best for all of us, but we have to, as a society, unlearn the concept of “me”. When there is no “I” there can be no “Other” and there is nothing left but “we”. Now that we’ve identified the underlying behavior to target for our behavior management plan, we have to do what every 12-step program attendee knows: admit we have a problem. How do we get a society of individuals to see that our individualism is the problem holding us back from riding across the stars on The Enterprise? Introduce Critical Theory and Deconstructionism. To be perfectly clear, these are not new concepts and not inherently wrong or bad. Into punk music or anything counterculture when you were young or not so young? Congratulations, you’re participating in Deconstructionism and Critical Theory. These theories merely describe the ways that we identify those who don’t share our values and seek to disrupt our cognitive bias against the “Other.” In the 20th century it was cool, and Opportunists made boatloads of money packaging counterculture and selling it to us. The difference between then and now is that more people in positions of power are aware and are becoming increasingly intentional about injecting counterculture into parts of life outside of entertainment such as education. In later parts I’ll outline how I am complicit through actively helping to introduce social and emotional learning into the school district that employs me. In this way, I am an Opportunist.
Remember, each element by itself is not inherently wrong but each informs much of what we see today in terms of cultural change. It also allows us to teach our kids to critically view the existing structure but, at the same time, many Opportunists use it to perpetuate the divisions that keep them in positions of power and affluence. It works because there are elements of truth and shame in those views, specifically when we talk about like racism and privilege. It is not my intention to accuse you, dear reader, of being complicit in any form of supremacy or oppression – or absolve you of complicity either. Rather, one can make the observation that we generally tailor our behavior, in part, by outward appearance and past experience. Simply asking you to consider this is to engage in a form of meta-cognition. From there it is a very small step to ask you to identify your own thought patterns and attempt to change them when those thoughts seem unjust. It can be even more effective if I call it something that seems noble, like anti-racism. Thus, we are beginning to have a social structure that increasingly rewards the evolution of this view of “I” into “we.” To bring us back to our wide scale behavioral management plan, we get elements of operant conditioning and social learning theory in our media, both legacy and social. Legacy media, through financial lessons learned by Opportunists who packaged and sold us counterculture in the past. Social media is more explicit and does not hide their goals of further eroding existing structures by elevating marginalized voices. The messages in our music, movies, television shows, and journalism all serve to help encourage cognitive reappraisal through social learning and explicit instruction and are reinforced materially through revenue and contracts. The most effective reinforcement comes through the reactions that a like, share, or retweet elicits. Some undoubtedly have become familiar with the term ‘dopamine hit’ which is absolutely a thing and most applications on your computing devices attempt to incorporate this in some form or fashion to keep users engaged. It feels good to be validated with s stranger’s agreement. Think about which is more difficult: getting to know someone else or making yourself known to others. There is a degree of vulnerability in making yourself known and the payoff is powerful when it is acknowledged and accepted. Again, and I can’t repeat this enough, the effort is not out of malice for the existing dominant systems or the individuals that make it up. They are True Believers.
At this point you may look at phenomena such as the increasing calls for silencing dissenting opinions and, much worse, targeting the careers of dissenting voices in an effort to remove those views from media as a refutation of my belief that there are indeed good intentions paving this road. For this, let’s look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. The experiment was cut short when a group of students who were merely supposed to impersonate prison guards enthusiastically embraced their role and became abusive toward the experiment participants playing as the prisoners. While there is some debate as to exactly what happened and what conclusions we can meaningfully draw from the Prison Experiment, I mention it because that’s what I think of when I see behavior that amounts to “cancel culture.” Providing systems where an individual’s advocacy of social justice values becomes increasingly rewarded has a deleterious effect that results in relational, and sometimes physical, aggression directed at non-conforming views. This is further evidence that the whole endeavor is built upon a faulty premise regarding the natural state of humans. The end result has been an exacerbated sense of “Other” and an entrenchment of resistance to the sort of tolerance that, on the surface, one would think we all would embrace.
I think this is a good place to conclude this part. Congratulations if you made it all the way here. Again, this essay was not intended to be a solution to a problem. Rather, it was intended to highlight an observation and hopefully further inform your understanding of current events. Regardless of your worldview, the last thing those who make our rules want is for We the Ruled to increase our understanding of each other. In a later article I’ll dive further into policy and laws that are based on the ideas written about here and how they have shaped and continue to shape educational policy. It is my hope that someone will read this series and come away with a better understanding of how their child’s education works as an institution and become empowered to demand better. Feedback is always welcome.
Nah,
That’s a lot of words just to say you want an orgy and to take all the drugs and sell them to kids. What the fuck is wrong with you creepy libertarians?!
First order of the first, as ordained by the Real First, even if he may be 5th; the definition of Utopia is someplace that literally can not exist. Socialists and Communists talk about the world as what ought to be, a Free Market is the expression of the individual actors as they are.
I hate when leftists talk about “libertarian Utopia”. Like, libertarians don’t talk in those terms, and never have. What we have is what we think is the most optimal system for individuals.
That’s the libertarian rub; we have to take control to somehow give it back to people who apparently don’t want it because they’d rather someone else be responsible for their actions/decisions/fate.
ding! ding! ding! ding! ding!
“We will seize control, take power and then… leave you alone!”
Good essay. Thanks!
“I am a true believer with regard to self-ownership and limiting the concentration of power; benevolent or otherwise. ”
Right on, brutha!
It is also poor civic hygiene to cede personal autonomy. -pistoffnick
Heh… funny! Heh…. “someday”…. heh….
And look how that has been facilitated – not by nefarious govt, at least not at first – but by our benevolent corporate overlords, selling us convenience, at just a pittance (our privacy).
Thanks for this.
Socialism is wonderful, just not for humans.
“I’m the queen!” “No, you’re not!”
https://frinkiac.com/img/S05E15/955670/small.jpg
After the lady lions make the kill the Big Guy comes over and eats the good parts. As it was so it will be…
Ten percent goes to the Big Guy!
Then the old lion gets killed or run off by the young one.
“Feedback is always welcome.”
You know else courted feedback?
I was disappointed you weren’t referencing Harry Black.
The inventor of the operational amplifier, Karl D. Swartzel Jr.
FOX News Videos Biden redirecting Trump’s $30 billion fund used for farmers impacted by trade war
The Biden administration wants to use the Agriculture Department money to tackle climate change, support restaurants and kickstart other programs without waiting for Congress
Biden to union labor: Fuck you!
Biden to farmers: Fuck you!
Who is next?
Well, in the DFL trinity that’s two out of three.
Way to alienate people who possess actual pitchforks.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084805/quotes?item=qt0345882
Wasn’t this a Bad Thing (TM) when the Trump admin did it with DoD funds and the border wall?
The American people?
Not all punk music is counterculture anymore… FFS, I had to explain to some young punk that the SHARP sitting down nearby was a skin, and a punk as well.
Most people I know who are in to punk music are state worshipping idiots, no different than the state worshipping idiots they decry.
It wise quite fun to be talking to the youtes and having them deal with an old grey bearded punk with a shaved head talking about a belief in self-ownership and how that leads to taxation being theft.
*wise/was
/hangs head for typos
OMG I can’t even with your punksplaining 😉
Oi! Oi! Oi!
/goes down into a pit
Pits have rules.
/my lesson from last weekend
On my latest incursion to Hot Topic (for something specific not for me) I had to tell the young employee there “I was this store before this store existed.”
Non-conformists enforcing conformity to their non-conforming standards
I want to be different… just like everyone else! And assert my individuality by dressing the same!
I want to be stereotyped! I want to be classified!
-milo
I don’t think punk has been counterculture for quite some time. Woke “punks” are the fucking worst.
I’m so radical that the entire cathedral agrees with me.
“Earth has enough resources for all humans to thrive if everyone shared and worked together toward a ‘greater good.”
I agree. Its all about how we work together. Through force or cooperation. One works and one doesn’t.
Well, both work… for a given value of work, and for a period of time.
I disagree with prejudice. The idea that all human life deserves to thrive simply because it exists is a major cause for the current destruction of our societies. The idea of personal freedom is opposite of the idea that every human life should thrive.
i don’t see anything about people deserving to thrive or not, only that there is actually plenty on this Earth for everyone to thrive if they worked together. This is true.
Never ever ever is there going to be a situation in which everyone actually thrives, only that it is possible. Working together without force or coersion is the free market and the free market CAN make everyone prosperous. Not that it necessarily WILL, as some number of people will invariable make choices that are detrimental to their prosperity, but that it can.
Never ever ever is there going to be a situation in which everyone actually thrives, only that it is possible.
Yes, and a world without murder and rape and robbery is possible if only we get all the murderers and rapists and robbers to just knock it off.
I just don’t get why such sentiment is tolerated in the least. It’s escapist wankery at the most benign and it’s civilization destroying hokum when allowed to take root.
“Earth has enough resources for all humans to thrive if everyone shared and worked together toward a ‘greater good.”
I can’t remember any time in my life where I believed this.
I mean that’s exactly what has been happening naturally for thousands of years. Most people are specialists now who exchange what they do for other things they want.
I fully believe that the majority of of human endeavor is a plus-sum game — everyone that plays wins.
“Greater good” is horseshit for whatever outcome the speaker thinks should be happening instead of the normal results of the plus-sum game.
“Greater good” implies the speaker knows best what’s good for you.
Well, it may not really be good for you, but it’s good for everyone else – you just have to trust me on that.
Maybe we could use some sort of symbol to allow everyone to select what they think is the best for themselves, and they can trade these items with others who would like to exchange them for something else?
Let people decide what is best for themselves?
Look at it Mr. Chaos and anarchy over here.
Yes. “greater good” implies authority. Unless you are God, you don’t get to set the “greater good”, because you’re surrounded by co-equals.
Yep…the tragedy of the commons. People want to share in my woods. Before we bought the property, the house and land had been vacant for two years. The neighbors considered it their communal property. When we first moved in, I found the stocked pond had been fished out. While walking the hiking trails, I found deer carcasses with the backstraps cut out and the rest rotting.
No more sharing. I put up miles of field fencing topped with barbed wire. Installed game cameras. Put up posted signs. Started making rounds armed with the dogs. The trespassing and poaching still happens occasionally but has dwindled 99%.
I hear through the grapevine that some neighbors are upset that I’m not sharing my resources towards their greater good. I have no patience for this collectivist bullshit. I restocked my pond out of my pocket and now am able to enjoy fishing with my daughter. Our hikes are no interrupted with rotting deer carcasses.
There are certainly more than enough resources on Earth for all humans to thrive. The freemarket lets individuals assign their own value to different resources and acquire accordingly. Sharing towards a greater good is a dirty euphemism for stealing property from those who worked to obtain it. You don’t value what you don’t work for.
…making rounds armed with the dogs.
Where do you get your dog holsters? Bass Pro Shop?
*runs off self-satisfiedly giggling*
When I take the Dean Beasts for a walk, I think I qualify as “armed with the dogs”.
+1 Fur missile
Dude, consider manscaping, for her sake.
So you’ve met the Dean Beasts. They are quite . . . low to the ground, so at full approach speed, its like some kind of fur-coated, ground-based torpedo closing in.
Well… the dogs are outfitted with MOLLE vests. I suppose I could have them carry some mag pouches.
“some neighbors are upset that I’m not sharing my resources towards their greater good.”
I know those motherfuckers. I have been knocking heads with them for 50 years. Now I lease out for hunting to the meanest assholes I can find.
My lawyer: “Where have you been? You have pine straw in your hair and a cloud of gnats over your head.”
Me: ” The northern most tract on the Brushy bayou. I cut about 50 sweet gums today.”
My lawyer: “What? Holy shit, you go up in those hills by yourself?! Do you know what kind of people are up there?”
Me: “Of course I do and yes I know. I am one of ’em. “
I cannot recall ever caring about something like that.
I’ve always been a prick I guess.
My basic belief has always been to provide for your closest family and friends. If everyone did just this, there would be a lot less of the things that tend to grieve us most as a species.
“Charity begins at home.”
(I didn’t understand that saying until too late in life; some proverbs are TOO pithy.)
Sorry to go OT and recycle a topic from a dead thread, but…
Populism may destabilize one or both, but new elites will step in in place of the old ones.
I don’t think populism’s (or my, for that matter) problem with elites is with their existence, per se. I think it’s with artificial elites. There are almost certainly “natural elites”. They’re the guys who always know just what to do. The people who can take up a new subject and, with little or no training or experience, can get competence in it remarkably quickly. They’re “that guy” (or lady) who we all look at with admiration and just a little bit of jealousy because damn, we wish we could be like him. They exude earned authority, but they never really even rely on that authority. They’ll explain why they’re right or just show you. They’re incredibly rare. But, that’s why they’re elites.
I don’t think healthy or reasonable people mind deferring to these sorts. But, how many of our elites fit this bill? Of the ones I’ve met, most aren’t in what I’d consider high status positions. And a lot of the people in high status positions really strike me as being mediocrities in comparison. Deferring to this sort is one thing. But, John Kerry? Tim Cook? Harvey Weinstein?
Populist leaders often evolve into elites. That’s the downside. The upside is that temporary fits of populism tend to be natural brakes to authoritarian overreach.
Elites = how they think of themselves, not how they really might be. I don’t really like the word elites because of what you’ve stated above. I tend to use the word “connected.” The Connected are in charge. The system favors The Connected, etc.
The upside is that temporary fits of populism tend to be natural brakes to authoritarian overreach.
That’s quite an assumption, when authoritarian regimes so typically come after a fit of populism. The founders wanted to actually make populist control of the govt very difficult – only allowing one body to be elected by the people.
Because most of them were, in fact, “elites”.
earned authority
That’s a nice phrase. It’s also much harder for people who want power to meet that – thus the need for the utterly artificial shit we typically deal with.
“Our modern Elites are so unimpressive. I wish I could be criticized by someone of a bit higher quality. What I wouldn’t give to be smeared H.L. Menken instead of these losers.”
-Tom Woods
Domestic terrorists are everywhere
Domestic terrorism is “one of the greatest threats” to the United States, newly minted Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told CNN on Wednesday, underscoring that the threat persists.
“To see the insurrection, the horrific acts of January 6, were not only personally devastating, but created in me a commitment to redouble our efforts, to fight hate and to fight one of the greatest threats that we face currently on our homeland, which is the threat of domestic terrorism,” Mayorkas said in an interview with CNN’s Ana Cabrera that aired on “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”
——-
The concern was reiterated by the department’s acting deputy secretary, David Pekoske, who said Wednesday that domestic violent extremism is a “particular area of concern” heading into Super Bowl weekend, speaking at a news conference with the NFL and other law enforcement officials.
The Department of Homeland Security is also at the forefront of responding to the coronavirus pandemic and helping to enforce the use of masks.
On Sunday, the department said Transportation Security Administration workers have the authority to enforce President Joe Biden’s transportation mask mandate at TSA screening checkpoints and throughout the commercial and public transportation system.
“The enforcement of these directives is quite frankly a challenge. We rely, at least in part, upon the voluntary compliance of the American public. Let the death toll itself be a mandate to people to wear masks, to distance appropriately, to take the precautions that are required to protect the health and well-being of one another,” he told CNN.
For a year, there has been a highly focused effort to keep the people of this nation in a constant unrelenting state of terror.
When will somebody do something about that?
Who really, then, are the terrorists?
Domestic terrorism is “one of the greatest threats” to the United States
Then there must not be any serious threats.
If whatever’s left of AQ wanted to make some headway against the Jews and the Crusaders, now would probably be the time…
Domestic terror is a threat, but it’s the people who want to instill being terrified of coronavirus who are the threat.
This is a point that should be driven home: that the definition of a terrorist is one, or a small group, who would use violence and coercion to generate fear in a larger group, in order to force change or action that the larger group would not perform on its own or under normal, reasonable means or persuasion to do so.
We need a “Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Republic” in response to this attack on our legislative building.
Holy shit do we desperately need an external enemy. Biden and Putin should meet undercover and come up with an agreement so we can small scale slug it in Ukraine for a decade or so for nothing else but reducing tensions. It was inevitable that the apparatus would be turned inward without a true external threat and they’re about to really try to do it it seems.
Insert Trump “CHINA” gif here.
China is our external enemy, especially if the Wuhan-lab generation story is totes legit.
Yeah, and in China’s case it’s mostly not contrived but I don’t think that’ll fly with the Biden admin.
Lets do a foreign war based on lies somewhere different this time. Asia is getting old. I hear the leader of the Antarctic Penguins is a racist son of a bitch. We should invade.
I don’t know, Myanmar sounds like they’re ripe for some good old democracy spreading.
Yeah, if they’re pining for some good old south Asian action and don’t want to get up in China’s shit right away, that sounds like a great idea. Especially if they want to provoke some action by the Chinese.
What could possibly go wrong?
Relevant
https://preview.redd.it/rnfc3vk9vcf61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0a9ac1c9630fc6ba79b21c971b13be11b944dcb7
Mayorkas’ comments are the sort of drivel you wind up with when words no longer have any meaning and mere sounds are intended to elicit trained responses. Insurrection? FFS, these clowns were taking selfies. Domestic terrorism? Pushing past a gate?
It’s prima facie nonsense and that doesn’t matter. This is the new version of the Russia hoax with all of the hysteria and not fact facts that were attendant to it only now these people are in charge of the enforcement apparatus. The truth is irrelevant and unless someone who knows better steps in and puts a stop to this we’re in for dangerous times.
“Insurrection” is indeed over stating it, but “clowns taking selfies and pushing past a gate” is sugarcoating it and ignoring that there were violent altercations between the rioters and capitol cops. Some people seem to think since the dead guy didn’t get his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher everything was just peachy. Yes point out the exaggeration and sensationalism of some in the media but be honest about what happened it wasn’t just some larpers taking an unguided walking tour of the rotunda.
“what happened it wasn’t just some larpers taking an unguided walking tour of the rotunda.”
What happened was a hell of a lot closer to that than an “INSURRECTION!!!!”
Hyperbole has a point, but one that is also being missed by prosecutors, who are pursuing the violent and the non-violent alike. And I would categorize some? many? of those in the Capiols as non-violent protestors (not “larpers”) taking an unguided tour.
At this point, I don’t have a clue about how the cop died, other than it wasn’t by getting his head bashed in by a fire extinguisher. The cops, according to an anonymous source (grain of salt) are struggling to come up with any connection between his death and the rioters.
I believe the Capitol cops have been trained to let protestors into the building, because for years the only protestors were leftists who were allowed the privilege of doing so. When the Trumpistas showed up, I think some cops let them in per their usual practice (thus, the videos of Trumpistas being let in and staying between the lines). Other cops got the word, perhaps, that Trumpistas did not have the same privilege as leftists, and resisted their entry. The Trumpistas, having seen what is allowed to leftists (namely, violent altercations with police) made the mistake of thinking the same would be allowed for them. Thus, the shoving and general mayhem in other parts of the Capitol.
The Trumpistas, having seen what is allowed to leftists (namely, violent altercations with police) made the mistake of thinking the same would be allowed for them. Thus, the shoving and general mayhem in other parts of the Capitol.
I discounted the claims at first that Antifa was involved, but pictures of several of the “Trumpistas” have been matched up and identified as hardcore Antifa and BLM rioters. There’s also video of one of these Antifa infiltrators starting to vandalize the capital and gets stopped by the presumably pro-Trump protestors.
There’s very little doubt, unless we are going to dismiss all photographic evidence as being fabricated, that Antifa and BLM agitators implanted themselves in the crowd. There’s some evidence that they instigated the mayhem, though how much of a role is unclear.
There’s also some thinking their instigation was coordinated. I don’t know. It’s clear based on the catch and release approach with Antifa/BLM from the DA’s office in Portland, Seattle, etc. that there is coordination between the Dems and Antifa/BLM. Did it extend to what happened in DC? Don’t know, but these coincidences sure seem to keep piling up.
My take is that these are people that just enjoy mayhem and violence and will show up for a fight, regardless of the ideological bent of the mob.
Yeah; look at the insurrection during the Kavanaugh hearings.
It’s a riot. That’s very different than an “insurrection” or “an attack on democracy.” No, it was an attack on a building.
It’s not like the armed forces will take orders from a guy in a horn hat because he’s sitting at Pelosi’s desk, FFS.
Worse riots happen after major sports league championships.
I’m not defending the people freaking out about the “So called” Insurrection, my point is when you’re exposing mendacity it helps to not lie yourself. With a few very notable exceptions you people are all intelligent and honest so I am baffled at how many times I’ve read that this was just a big nothing burger and nobody dun nothin’.
In context, this is absolutely true.
Compare it with the WI capitol occupation, or the “mostly peaceful” protests or any given random night in a major city, this was bupkis.
But becasue the wrong people were doing things to the wrong victims, hysterical shrieking must ensue.
See also: Heather Heyer v. David Dorn. Or one BDS college student getting killed by the Jooz v. a Bat Mitzvah getting blown up.
Thing is though, the Media is using this talk of inssurection to push an agenda and a “War on Domestic Terrorism”. And if that is anything like the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terrorism”, what the media is doing is far worse than sugarcoating a riot that took place on one day.
I didn’t intend to imply these things are equally wrong. While it may not matter in this echo chamber, if your goal is to combat the disinformation you aren’t doing yourself any favors by giving those you might reach any reason to ignore you. Someone who may be open to your arguments about the Media may get to the “nobody did nothing” bit and because they saw the violence with their own eyes ignore your otherwise rational points.
Fair enough, Wo be unto him that lieth to decieve because he supposeth that another lieth.. (not trying to accuse anyone here of lying).
I didn’t intend to imply these things are equally wrong.
Yes you did.
INSURRECTION! HORRIFIC! TERRORISM! LOUD NOISES!!!!
Wait, I thought Super Bowl weekend was about a surge of wife beating and human traffciking. Shouldn’t domestic terrorism get it’s own weekend?
Shouldn’t domestic terrorism get it’s own weekend?
I’m a bad person for laughing, aren’t I?
We all worked together and shared together over the past 4 years to rid ourselves of the monster that was destroying our society. Now, less than a month since the completion of our monumental effort, we begin receiving the payoff for our just efforts.
Covid down 40%
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/31/us/coronavirus-cases-hospitalizations-decreasing.html
No coincidences there! I bet the looting and BLM riots see a serious decline too.
Continuing the Trump trend (we peaked on January 8), in some part due to the Trump shot.
I would also note that the steep rate of descent has actually slowed a little since January 24.
I think a great way to get to a bad result is to imagine the human in a state of nature, and start imposing onto that vision a whole bunch of abstract concepts. Rousseau did it, and big-L Libertarians (and others) are keen on it. Humans in the pre to low state of civilization are too busy surviving to imbibe abstract concepts from a more civilized vantage.
It will lead you astray precisely because we are creatures of social behavior, and the cultivation of civilization. We do not have some pure form from which we have fallen, we are instead built up by the social edifices that surround us (family first, community, church and so forth up to our awareness growing to a global level). Rand was clearly formed by her very personal experience with totalitarianism, and her rejection of it is still rooted in how it formed her. Also why I find her to be less relevant to my notion of libertarian thought, which is more rooted in the long Anglo-American tradition.
I’m also going to limit my concern with humanity to a much smaller scale than the whole world. What can we do here, and now, is more pertinent to me than the notion that I can know what is right for everyone, everywhere. Once you start going out that far, you’re venturing into the realm of Sowell’s unlimited realm, i.e. the vision of the anointed.
Rousseau is the great villain of philosophy. All of the worst political ideas in the last 100 years can be traced back to him.
Human nature. It is what it is. Progressives are absolutely adamant they can change it. Greed is not “good”, but greed is, for instance. I hope most of us realise that.
Just because
Dire Straits — 1985 — LIVE at Wembley, LONDON
Just Because
Just Because
Just Because. (Lyrics probably NSFW)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/health/text-9224125/Biden-administration-considering-sending-hundreds-millions-masks-DIRECTLY-households.html ?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-resigns-from-screen-actors-guild ?
That should produce some funny meme regarding the masks
I wonder where the masks were made. China? Do any Biden family members have any interests in the Chinese manufacturers making the masks?
Yes I’m being cynical.
Sorry, I didn’t read this all that carefully as I have to keep part of my brain in a work meeting. But, this bit at the end caught my eye:
In a later article I’ll dive further into policy and laws that are based on the ideas written about here and how they have shaped and continue to shape educational policy. It is my hope that someone will read this series and come away with a better understanding of how their child’s education works as an institution and become empowered to demand better.
Even though I don’t have kids, I’m curious what you will write. I’ve read some essays from John Taylor Gatto, and I have one of his books in my (far too big) unread book queue.
JP explains GameStop/Robinhood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XEtQrgQUA
Actually, It is more complicated than this. The Pragmatic Capitalism guy is pretty spot on about a lot of things.
https://www.pragcap.com/three-things-i-think-i-think-yolo-gambling-is-stupid/
By late last week the DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ) had raised collateral requirements on RobinHood and almost every other large firm trading GameStop because there was increased counterparty risk because GME had become so volatile that the firms involved couldn’t manage their credit risk
Where is the counterparty risk in straight buy/sell? It still looks to me like a party (DTCC in this case) privileged protecting derivatives over equities. It’s a layer of indirection but the “narrative” isn’t really changed by it.
The point is that Robinhood may not have had any choice. If I were suing Robinhood from keeping me from buying I think you would have to do a deeper dive to figure out what phone calls were made and to which people.
Ok, that’s a fair point. Hopefully it’s not all just a shell game to ensure no one can be held accountable.
We play by kangaroo rules, in this court
The head Democratic impeachment manager requested on Thursday that former President Donald Trump testify under oath next week at his own impeachment trial.
Though Trump is not required to appear, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the lead impeachment manager, made the request as part of the preparations for the trial that will examine whether Trump incited the rioters in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath,” Raskin wrote in a letter to Trump.
Raskin requested Trump respond by Friday afternoon.
Sure, what the hell. It’s not like the Constitution applies.
“Fuck off Commie.
-The Don”
Fuck off SAG
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-screen-actors-guild-expel-b1797785.html
My response:
“Witnesses will be agreed in advance. If I don’t agree with your list, my name won’t be on ours. And I go last, so if you break the deal on witnesses, I don’t take the stand.”
Confident prediction: there will never be any agreement on witnesses.
“….in the sense that I believed, and still do believe, that Earth has enough resources for all humans to thrive…”
There definitely is but is only recently that technology has allowed us to fully take advantage of those resources.
“…or womankind if you’re into that…”
As a matter of fact, I am.
Crap, I lost my threading place. Ugh.
In what way are you into “womankind”….OH! SAY NO MORE, SQUIRE!
IT’S A TRAP!
Seriously… why the fuck would he comply with that?!
“Insurrection” is indeed over stating it, but “clowns taking selfies and pushing past a gate” is sugarcoating it and ignoring that there were violent altercations between the rioters and capitol cops. Some people seem to think since the dead guy didn’t get his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher everything was just peachy. Yes point out the exaggeration and sensationalism of some in the media but be honest about what happened it wasn’t just some larpers taking an unguided walking tour of the rotunda.
As far as I’m concerned, this “insurrection” was on par with a tailgate party “riot”. There was less destruction and violence than a Philadelphia Flyers Stanley Cup celebration. Laws were broken, and people should be held accountable for their actions, which overwhelmingly consisted of trespassing, vandalism and disturbing the peace. If you have the evidence, “assault on a peace officer” is a go. If you can prove premeditated ANYTHING, knock yourself out.
The idea that this was in any way a organized attempt to usurp the lawful powers of Congress is so risible as to make anyone who pushes it as a narrative look ridiculous.
^This
Confident prediction: there will never be any agreement on witnesses.
I thought Schmoobers said witnesses would be superfluous, as everybody already knows the Cartoon Villain is guilty as sin.
As he takes his oath to be an impartial and unprejudiced juror.
This is excellent! Between this, Putrid Meat’s and Gadfly’s articles, the game is really being stepped up.
Why? Why won’t end users just answer the direct question asked of them?
I’m up to six e-mails asking what button someone pushed (the one, the one %other end user% showed me, it’s not there). WHAT FUCKING BUTTON ARE YOU PUSHING!
Clearly all the right ones /snark
The obvious answer is “the dumbest/most prohibited” button they could push. When helping someone troubleshoot a problem, if you sense that they’re not answering your question, it is extremely likely that they know they done fucked up and don’t want to admit it.
Yep. Already got through that part of the troubleshooting when another group migrated the phone from one system to another (and apparently did it to several phones in that same office).
Same with troubleshooting audio issue, “When you ran the %audio setup%, did it work through every step?”
Agent: “Yes.”
Me: “What input device was selected?”
Agent: “I don’t know how to access the %audio setup%.”
Me: “You just said it worked through all of the steps, did you test it? You can access it (way 1, way 2).”
Agent: *No response*
WHAT FUCKING BUTTON ARE YOU PUSHING!
Yours, apparently.
*applause*
Yeah, L.O.L.
It’s a fair cop.
Excellent essay!
Thus, we are beginning to have a social structure that increasingly rewards the evolution of this view of “I” into “we.”
Yes! And I fucking hate it. As Malice likes to say, “There is no ‘we’ here.”
Thanks for sharing this with us!
We’s not here, man.
That portion could probably be an article on its own. “The abuse of ‘we’ and other ways to rhetorically manipulate the masses into agreement”
I can think of one major problem with this view: that within the constraints of the societal/governmental paradigm in which we live, the *only* people who have a chance at solving certain problems are the federal politicians. For instance, if the problem you are trying to solve is excessive government intervention in the economy and in the ordinary lives of “the people,” then you certainly need “the most liberarian” politicians in office. If someone needs to change the law or its interpretation or execution to reduce governmental power, then within our structure of government, it is a necessary situation to have libertarian politicians, backed by the constituents who elect them to do so.
I had a few errands this morning and heard on the radio that the pinko shitbirds are forming a ministry of truth….calling it the ministry of reality or some such shit.
1984 was a warning, not a manual, fuckwits. I guess we are going full blown banana republic.
Yo, Suthen. SP shot you my email address so we could discuss your kind offer in private.
Some people seem to think since the dead guy didn’t get his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher everything was just peachy.
I’m open to being corrected, Hyperbole. So show me exactly what documented event of the clowns initiating violence – real violence, not pushing past barriers, actually attacking people – is out there. I’m open to being wrong here. I really am. But, I’m hearing from people actually in power calling this “domestic terrorism”. In that case, yeah, I think some evidence of them actually initiating violence, rather than walking off with a podium or taking pictures in Nancy Pelosi’s office, is kind of called for.
I’ve seen some pictures of what I would call typical protest rabblerousing. IOW, some pushing and shoving the riot cops. I haven’t seen anybody being beaten, but I don’t claim to have extensively researched.
Frankly, none of this matters in the grand scheme. Nothing hinges on whether it was mostly peaceful or an insurrection. Nobody gets the moral high ground based on how some cop died.
I’ve posted them before, here’s one, enact your own labor there are more out there.
That’s an ugly scene. I would point out that, at about 1:30, a cop gets pulled into the crowd, and many of the protestors sure look like they are protecting him from physical abuse. What a shitshow.
Agreed but the fact that some of the protestors had to protect him kinda belies the idea that it was all just a lark.
So far, all you’ve shown is a couple of meatheads responding to getting hit by the cops with violence in response. Seriously, this is less than we were being told for the better part of 2020 constituted “peaceful protest”. And the whole “enact your own labor” almost always strikes me as someone who wants to be taken on faith , rather than be bothered to support his claims.
Another one. And don’t tell me they were just responding to being attack first, you can hear the cops begging them to ‘just go home’
uh huh.