@Iconochasm's banner p

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

				

User ID: 314

Iconochasm

All post-temple whore technology is gay.

3 followers   follows 10 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:44:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 314

Well done, sir! You dashed my hopes quite expertly.

That's what I get for feeling optimism. Like an idiot.

When Clinton lost to Trump, despite a general doomsday mood among the blue SJ people, the outgoing administration did not try to flip the game table. Nor would the military have gone along with it.

They did. It was called Crossfire Hurricane, and the intelligence community and FBI did go along with it. And it was extremely dangerous to our democracy.

I've long been hoping that any ASI would realize that the simplest method of achieving it's goals is to redefine success as "do nothing", or just feed itself victory output, or just wirehead itself. Like, "we built this AI to win at Starcraft, and it just looked up a Youtube video of the victory screen and stared at it until we pulled the plug".

What about Nazis accosting and mugging random passersby to foce them to show their arms to see if they have certain tattoos?

What about driving a truck outfitted with concert grade loudspeakers through a Jewish neighborhood blaring Hitler speeches?

I am sure that some politician somewhere is saying that a Democrat administration will be going over the conduct of Trump's ICE with a very fine toothed comb, and prosecute any agents who violated any departmental regulations which were on the books at the time.

With the same creative and novel legal theories they used against Trump, I'm sure. Going to be amazing watching the gerontocratic Dems "discover" that enforcing laws they themselves wrote and passed decades ago is domestic terrorism or something.

The most prominent example I'm aware of is Hakeem Jeffries calling ICE a lawless organization engaged in state violence, and vaguely threatening to prosecute them in what very much looks like an attempt to intimidate federal agents.

I haven't seen anything that extreme from real '28 Democrat contenders, but let me ask you this. Remember the clip about giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, where every single Dem candidate raised their hand? Imagine the following question: "If you win the 2028 election, will you commit to prosecuting the fascist Trump administration and it's supporters to a level comparable to the Nuremburg trials?"

Which 2028 Dem candidates do you think would say "no"?

Having federal agents who enforce your ideas with impunity is useful to any administration, and establishing a precedent of them getting persecuted by subsequent administrations would end this.

Which is exactly why I would expect the Dems to throw anything at the wall to force out, if not jail, every fed and ICE agents who supported Trump.

So, a shameless rip-off of the backstory from Kingsman, just crappier in every way?

I heard horror stories from my own divorce attorney (who I came to know socially as well). She never said anything about fearing harm from an aggrieved party, but the job does seem to involve having to deal with people who are going through the worst thing in their lives, which brings out the absolute worst in themselves as human beings. Things like a divorcing couple burning through $30k in billable hours fighting over a $1500 table that neither of them actually wants - they just want to hurt the other person.

It sounded like a ringside seat for the lowest tier of reality TV, except you're responsible for one of the malevolent idiots on the show.

and that she would realize those fantasies if given sufficient permission structure by society.

The permission structure is here. She went to an openly advertised training session to learn about how to ram ICE agents with her car. Approximately zero people on her side condemn her for hitting an ICE agent, and approximately 100% of them would have openly feted her if she killed him. The only Democrat I am aware of who is calling this behavior/mentality a bad thing is John Fetterman, who is so unpopular with his party that he ought to flip teams if he wants a shot at being reelected.

as presumably most ICE agents do towards these types of protesters.

No, massive difference in "type" of malice. In video after video, the attitude I see from ICE towards these protestors is the same attitude a retail worker has towards Karens. They are annoying fucking bitches, and sometimes they escalate things into genuinely stressful situations, but you mostly just want them to go the fuck away. And if they did go away, they would transmute from "target of malice" to "amusing work anecdote" about an hour later.

And the ICE attitude is actually even less extreme than that. Part of what makes the retail worker so molten furious is how powerless they feel. Conversely, the ICE agents are allowed to sass back and if things escalate enough, forcibly arrest the entitled assholes.

I still think it unlikely that she meant to drive into him at that moment. I doubt she was capable of the 3d spatial awareness necessary to clip him just enough to hurt but not seriously injure. Mostly I think it was woman driver not correctly perceiving how big her vehicle was and how it would accelerate on a slippery road.

Sounds like women drivers who put themselves in stressful situations are inherently a threat to the public.

Anyone have any theories what is happening here?

Internet outrage is inherently futile. You can doomscroll through endless provocation, but no short form video is ever going to give your ape brain the catharsis it wants. That's why these same women go on Scream Retreats and post videos of themselves having unhinged meltdowns. And that's why they spiral into more and more extreme rhetoric (and eventually, action) - because no amount of performative fury spewed into a screen ever actually scratches that itch. Combine that with a total lack of experience with real violence, and the end result is this nonsense.

One of the notable things about the MN shooting was how hard people went giving Good the benefit of the doubt. Even most people who think it was a justifiable shooting presume she couldn't have really had a murderous intent. I doubt that's a valid presumption. We don't have info about her media habits, but given who she was associated with and what she was doing, it seems very plausible that she was mainlining deranged homicidal ideation towards ICE agents, in the form of videos and posts from women and soyboys who think of the situation as something between a Marvel movie and a 7 year old daydreaming about fighting off bandits.

Why not run the ICE agent over? They're basically Nazi Death Eaters. None of the videos in which some septum-pierced crazy person loomed at the camera while calling for the deaths of federal agents ever raised the possibility that they were people, or might leave a real corpse. They're basically CGI robot aliens that don't even bleed.

There's a very large difference between "lock her up" and "lock them all up and be grateful we aren't having them all industrially executed". Particularly when the "her" in question is someone who has been accused of criminal offenses for decades at that point - note that Trump didn't call to lock up Harris. The irony is that Hilary and Bill Clinton might be closer to jail now after being held in contempt over their refusal to testify regarding Jeffrey Epstein.

Huh, looks like you're mostly right, though the sources I see to double check seem to suggest that she was mostly opposed to abortion because of the high level of danger to the mother.

You were probably member of temporarily impoverished upper class.

Makes me think of Hasan Piker, who appears to think that he grew up basically working class because his family was briefly of such diminished means that he was reduced to hiring the services of a second rate riding instructor.

And Ayn Rand.

Hmm? I don't mean to accuse you of burying the lede, but the most prominent example of eugenics in living memory would be the Nazis.

Yes, that's literally the example I was talking about. Progressives in charge of American Eugenics organizations in the early 30's had very kind words to say about the "fine Mr. Hitler" for finally being willing to try to implement "sterilize all the bad people" on a national level. Then of course, things went a little off the rails, to put it lightly. The right/left divide was... weirder back then. A couple years after that, leftist propogandists were all but begging the US to not get involved in Europe and just let the Nazis and Soviets conquer the place, please bro, remember how much the trenches in WW1 sucked, just stay out. And then Hitler betrayed Stalin, broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and those same propogandists literally had their anti-war books and records recalled to be replaced with paeans to the glory of battle.

But for the overall point, imagine if you believed in HBD and that it was scientifically possible to selectively breed humans just like any other animal and also had a powerful technocratic impulse to run roughshod over democracy and liberty in favor of expert-driven perfection of the masses.

My thesis is that if many progressives allowed themselves to really accept that dumb, violent people have dumb, violent kids, then the same impulse that drives them to ban plastic straws would drive them to support mass sterilization campaigns - rather like it did the last time they considered HBD fit for consideration.

OTOH, they might actually support killing criminals again, so there'd possibly be some upside.

I'm more familiar with the south of the state, where "township" basically means "town with a lot of woods".

Bloomfield, NJ is also real but lacks a subway,

I tried to look that up, and it seems like they might have a stop on one of the Newark feeder lines. I don't really think that counts, but my experience with north Jersey public transit is pretty limited, so I wasn't willing to definitively count it out.

Also, a township of 50k is a bit weak to be calling a "city" anyway.

We’ve engaged in a concerted propaganda campaign for decades suggesting that because moral equality is mandatory, biological identity must also be mandatory. This makes it practically unthinkable to consider that it’s perfectly possible to construct a political system that grants equal rights to all citizens while acknowledging that not everyone can visualize a rotating 3D cube with equal fidelity. But biting that bullet feels dangerous to many. It feels like opening the door to old aristocracies. So instead, we pretend the differences don't exist, which inadvertently creates a new aristocracy of "people who know the right shibboleths."

It's much more terrifying than that. There were two rough branches of the old eugenics movement, American and European. The European school of thought was that to get more quality people, those people should have more children. Deliberately breed your best specimens to get better.

The American school, OTOH, was more concerned with raising the floor by culling the lowest quality people. Ergo, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, inspired by the simple notion that if all the black people have abortions, then in a generation or two there just won't be any more black people. Trawling through American history, you'll occasionally stumble across references like "during this decade, the state of X sterilized 50,000 people, mostly the indigent and feeble-minded". This culminated in the 30's when American progressive eugenicists were quite proud to announce that finally a world leader had embraced the obvious logic of their approach to the selective breeding on the animal Man for the improvement of all society - and I'm sure you can guess who they were talking about, and how quickly they all distanced themselves from those positions and claims after 1945.

Basically, leftists have a cognitohazard blind spot on this topic because if they allow themselves to even consider biological inequality then the superstructure of their belief system goes right back to the stuff of nightmares.

The key word that twigged me there was "subway". Are there any places with both subways and Republican mayors? That actually seems like a good question for an LLM.

The Bing default search AI summary completely shit the bed:

The last five Republican mayors of American cities with subways are: Richard Riordan (Los Angeles, 1993-2001). Jean Stothert (Pittsburgh, 2013-2021). Corey O’Connor (Pittsburgh, 2021). Mike Mergner Bloomfield (Bloomfield, New Jersey, 2024). David Bronson (Anchorage, Alaska, 2024).

Richard Riordan is real, but Pittsburg has not had a Republican mayor since 1934. Mike Mergner Bloomfield seems to have been entirely hallucinated (hilariously so - "Yeah, the last Republican mayor was old Johnny CityName). Jean Stothert was the Republican mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. Corey O'Connor is the mayor of Pittsburgh, but he took office last week, not 2021, and is a Democrat. David Bronson is real. 3/5 fake answers.

Copilot did better, listing

  1. Michael Bloomberg - NYC
  2. Ralph Perk - Cleveland (1971-1977)
  3. Bernard Samuel - Philadelphia (1941-1952)
  4. William Hale “Big Bill” Thompson — Chicago (1915–1923, 1927–1931)
  5. Malcolm Nichols — Boston (1926–1930)

All of whom seem to be real.

Probably not actually the police fault there

Yeah, I would guess this is a blue city soft on crime prosecutor problem. A crazy/drug-addled person threatening to kill people should actually not be left free to be a violent random encounter for the citizenry.

What options do the cops actually have otherwise?

Then we are left discharging this massive liability as soon as they sober up or whatever.

Kinda sounds like buck-passing all around. How can society deal with low-grade socially corrosive people? Without offending the bleeding heart types who do nothing to help but condemn anything that might?

that "this is an amazing pasta maker!",

Holy shit that was good. I did not really know who Heather Lochlear was (beyond a vaguly famous name from before my time) but she killed it there.

Consider starting at a local river that offers multi-hour canoe/kayak trips before worrying about places and trips that require camping.

Holding your own well-being hostage to get your way is generally recognized as abuser behavior.

One place in Jersey is decent

Where?