JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
To all people that think "the gubmint" can save us from AI I have only one question: what year it was when the US Government won the War on Drugs?
Note that drugs just make you feel better, they don't actually give you superpowers. And most of them kill you quite fast. Now imagine there was a drug that actually can make you 10x smarter, with no (immediate) adverse effects. Do you think it's something that could be suppressed, knowing what we know about the world around us? Do you think "just take the fascism to 11 and it solves everything" is going to help?
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
As for what was said, I don't really think it's new. Even if you didn't have the Twitter Files, you could look at the cases that are given as examples and come to the same conclusion - Twitter was suppressing anything that was against establishment narratives on Covid.
As with most conspiracy facts, when they come out, the significance is not that they are new. The significance is that we have yet another proof that the crazy conspiracy theory guys who said it from the start were actually right all along. And The Experts (TM) who denied that is is about controlling the narrative and suppressing the debate, and claimed it's only to combat "dangerous health misinformation" that could "hurt people", lied to us all along. It's not new, just now we have the receipts.
JarJarJedi
5mo ago
White men don’t exist.
Almost true, but not exactly. My bank, for example, has a landing page where they show the usual stock pictures of happy people, presumably after using their bank services. I haven't seen a white male for a while there. But recently there were - not just one, but two. And a kid between them. If you get my drift. So there are situations where white men exist. Still waiting for a situation where white heterosexual men exist...
those making the decisions are so ideologically committed that they’re willing to hurt their own bottom line in order to “do the right thing.”
I think this is an experimentally established fact? I mean, Bud Light, Victoria Secret, Disney?
they do so with no guarantee that their rival agency is going to follow the same set of rules,
Here I think they have pretty good guarantee. First of all, they are all product of the same indoctrination system. Second of all, if somebody steps out of the line, online mobs - and in the case of especially stubborn target, actual mobs with actual weapons - will take care of them pretty quickly.
It's not a conspiracy - at least no more than things like money or English or Christianity are conspiracies. It's all in the open.
JarJarJedi
9mo ago
Trump wanted to revive the tradition by purchasing Greenland, but small-minded people derailed the plan. Sad!
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I think the show's strength was that it simply assumed it's audience was on board with the modern liberal package, and so didn't have to convert them.
Most preachy shows also assume that - otherwise they wouldn't count on the audience to shell out dollars for watching woke tropes - but still preach like crazy. I think the difference is not that. There's two ways of promoting certain ideas in cinema. One is to have human attractive characters to act in accordance with these ideas and make the audience draw their own conclusions. So, if you wanted to promote racial integration, you just feature a diverse cast (hopefully avoiding blunders like casting a black person to play Bjorn Ironside) and make them act like it's normal, without mentioning it. The audience gets the message "racial integration is the normal thing". The other way is to draw attention to this fact constantly, lampshade it mercilessly and have the characters to pronounce wooden monologues about how happy they are that they have racial integration and how it's long about time they had it and how eager they are to have more of it, because nothing could be better than more racial integration. The audience gets the message "they really want to push racial integration on me, at the cost of sacrificing everything that makes movies fun". The Community manages to do the former, while most woke content past about 2016 do the latter with gusto.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Part of this does fall on the left which has a weird sort of allergy to rules, no matter how well meaning.
They do? The same people who write humongous lists of micro-agressions, lengthy manuals about how to ask somebody for their gender without offending them, institute Rules of Conduct, Diversity Statements and Bias Incident Reporting Policies? The same that regularly rewrite books and change old TV shows to remove anything not matching the current directives of the Party? I think they are plenty fine with rules - as long as it is their rules, that they have developed and have all the power of enforcement over them. Replace violent smelly drug addict on a train with a clean-shaven white supremacist calling other people n-word, and see how fast the rules enforcement will be called in. They are just fine with you being harassed by a violent druggie because you are the oppressor and the druggie is the oppressed, so you get what you deserve.
If a ticket (assuming enforcement of having a ticket) were $10 or more,
Who cares, they'd jump the gate or just break it. If there's no police around, who'd stop them?
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
You can hear whatever the model designed to generate it makes you hear. If the code was designed to generate a kid's voice crying for help - would you try to rescue the kid, fully knowing there's no kid? Your brain is designed to recognize certain patterns. The language model steals these patterns - probably because they are frequently produced by real people in training materials - and regurgitates them at you, and your brain helpfully reacts to them. But there's nothing under these patterns.
OTOH, Peter Watts kinda claims there's nothing under our patterns too. Who knows, maybe so. I prefer to believe there is something, but I can't really prove it.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I suspect the practices of handling some documents marked classified by top politicians has been very lax forever (maybe not raiding SCIF but not turning in some stuff that should be turned it, for sure). Outgoing Senators and Presidents probably kept some documents they technically shouldn't be keeping, and nobody made a fuss about it. Just as with many other things (e.g. FARA or Logan Act, etc.), everybody knew and nobody cared. Until it became necessary to use it to get Trump - because everything must be used to get Trump. Now there's a silly dance of trying to explain why our guy doing the same as their guy is totally different. I wonder if they dare to inspect the Lightbringer's archives - I bet there are classified docs there too, though nobody would dare to have FBI raid his residence, of course.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
This means that anyone who is "held without bail for wandering in" would be contrary to that court's order. It's possible I missed something, but I couldn't find any evidence of this happening.
In the Politico link, I see:
Karl Dresch August 4, 2021 Parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building No Six months incarceration; $1,000 fine 6 months (time served)
That means, this person served 6 months in prison by August 4, i.e. out of 7 months between Jan 6 and Aug 4, spent at least 6 in jail. I am not sure what was the bail status and how exactly it happened, but it seems to me that the situation is pretty similar to being held without bail for 6 months. As we see, the charge is "parading", i.e. in non-lawyer-speak, wandering about. So, I am not sure how it plays out against DC Court decision, but I see that we have at least one person that spent behind bars almost all the time until sentencing, and there's no charge above what essentially is "walking around". Then we also have:
Michael Curzio July 12, 2021 Parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building No Six months incarceration (time served) 6 months (time served) N/A N/A N/A Carl Nichols
Again, the charge is "parading", 6 months, time served, but on July 12. There's no way for this person to server 6 months by July 12 unless they actually spent all the time between being apprehended soon after Jan 6, and July 12, behind bars. Again, I have no idea how it plays against other court decisions, I just am looking at the first page of the link you provided.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I don't know much about this conference, but from the tone and keywords in their public materials it sounds a lot like a gathering of offense-seekers. When a lot of people who are concentrated on seeking things to be offended at and hyper-over-react over them get together, I guess some people offending some others and some people literally shaking and some people complaining to Twitter would only be expected.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Something I've seen today:
US Navy Used Drag Queen Influencer To Attract A ‘Wide Range’ Of New Troops As Recruitment Plummets
So, admittedly, I do not know much about the recruiting to the Navy (or any other military branch) and as a first generation immigrant, may misunderstand some larger things. But does it really make any sense to anybody else? I mean, sure, there are people that choose to lead this lifestyle, and I personally have no problem with that. But I always thought the intersection between them and the people that go to the military - and also the people that the military actually wants - is if not zero then small enough. And yet, this is what is happening, and I am struggling to make sense of any of it.
As I see it, the military is probably the last place that would be under pressure to go woke - the Left hates it unconditionally and passionately anyway, it is impossible to "cancel" it in any meaningful way, you can not really orchestrate an ideological boycott against the military (they have trillions of dollars, and most businesses would give an arm and a leg to be a military supplier, as I understand... maybe Google can afford to choose, but even they at the end are glad to be friends) and the advancement system does not really depend on the SJWs in any way up to the very top where only the very few get the chance to be anyway.
So, I see only these possible explanations:
-
Army recruiting is stunningly incompetent and literally has no idea what they are doing and why, they literally are desperate to try absolutely anything, on the tiny chance it may work, because they are completely out of ideas and can not think of anything that would attract the youth to join the military anymore, so they are just running through the options, however bizzarre, because it couldn't be any worse than it already is. Are things really this bad?
-
It is part of some kind of 4D chess complex strategy that I fail to understand because I am too dumb. Please ELI5 it to me then.
-
I am stunningly ignorant and there's actually a huge untapped reserve of drag queens that dream about joining the Navy (and the Army, and the Marines) as long as their penchant for womanface performances ceases to be a barrier. This is so significant audience that the need to address it absolutely overrides any negative effects that can be caused by such outreach effort to traditional macho-man audience which has been the traditional target of the military recruting efforts before. Is that the case? Any data I could see that supports it?
Any other explanations?
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
It's so secret that it is featured on his official website: https://flgov.com/2023/04/27/governor-ron-desantis-delivers-keynote-address-in-jerusalem-to-commemorate-the-75th-anniversary-of-the-founding-of-israel/
Doesn't get any more secret that that. And of course, a man gearing up for a presidential campaign going on foreign relations tour and going to Israel among several other key US allies is super-nefarious - I mean, Joos(!)!11oneonme11 are involved. He surely is part of the ZOG now, it is proven.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
For the wokes, it's not even nearly the same level. The Pride flag expresses best hopes and feelings of millions, is a symbol of all that is best in our nation and quite possibly is a sacred object, while the National Anthem is a symbol of systemically racist oppressive society and constant reminder of suffering and oppression every person who became a multi-millionaire for playing a game is subject to. There can't be any comparison.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
This is good effort post, but it sounds to me a bit like proving that communist USSR didn't exist, because look how dysfunctional the ruling system was, how many dissidents were there, how if you look at any particular party functionary, they were regularly removed from their posts and assigned to random places or even just sent into retirement (or sometimes worse). I mean, if the communist dictatorship was as real as the conspiracy theorists claim, would it not be able to function much more efficiently and would something like removal of Khrushchev (who was supposed to be an all-powerful communist dictator, following right into the footsteps of the mythical uber-tyrant Joseph Stalin figure!) ever happen? Clearly, the supposed "dictatorship" and "totalitarian society" there is nothing but a conspiratorial fakery, and not even a well done one.
Of course The Machine would be full of infighting for who exactly controls the levers and who gets to be in the driver seat. Of course you can be the Chief Machinist one day and cast out by a coup on another. Of course mafia bosses would order hits on each other and sometimes even rat out each other to the feds. That doesn't mean the Machine or the mafia does not exist. A better test would be - can an outsider - or, horrible dictu, even a deplorable - ever get to the levers at all? What challenges would they encounter - besides the obvious "convince the voters" ones?
JarJarJedi
8mo ago
Sure thing, there are many things that are worse than a technocrat golden boy. But when doing something like electing a candidate for president, we're not limited to consider only worse things, we actually can consider better things.
Throw up their hands and say we should wallow in stupidity and despair because it's hard
The problem is not that things are hard. The problem is when people try to "fix" things without realizing how hard they are and why they are hard. Each problem has a simple, clear and wrong solution. And that's the one the golden boy would rush to, breaking through all Chesterton fences on the way. Should we admire him for his zeal, can do attitude and energy? Maybe. Should we entrust him with our destinies because it's better than wallow in stupidity? No way.
Capitalize on feels > reals to grift off the masses
Saying it like it is is a great quality. The problem comes when you start thinking that what you think it is is really what it is. Because more often than not, that's not the case, and lack of epistemic humility, combined with a healthy disdain for status quo and a bias for action, can lead to great things - or to spectacular epic failures. I'm not sure that "exploding lottery ticket" is the right model for a future President. And if we need somebody explosion-prone, we already got Trump anyway.
Technocrats are unelectable, sure, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying.
I'm not sure we should even start, until they unlearn phrases like "science is settled" and "trust the experts".
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
Those in favor argue that any non-violent offender would be offered a lenient deal.
Is that true? Would a random citizen from Sticks, IA get a "diversion program" if he violated firearms laws, while on drugs, didn't pay taxes for several years and also has been involved in a million-sized international bribery scheme, and there were actual multiple witnesses and documents confirming it? Or would he been sent to jail for many years? "Non-violent" alone doesn't cut it - Bernie Madoff didn't hurt a fly, violently, as far as we know it. If the answer is the latter, then we have a problem. We have a two-tier justice system, which is extremely hardcore and unforgiving for plebes and soft and gentle for patricians.
the other side argues that since the facts of the cases do not map 100% perfectly to this one
No two cases ever map 100%. Still, a competent and experienced person would be able to estimate what the prosecution usually requests in similar cases - and, in fact, there are multiple guidelines and procedures about establishing the punishment for such cases. There's certain wiggle room when it comes to plea bargaining, but these things are not arbitrary.
Was this action fair, in an ethical sense?
Absolutely not. Biden got a sweatheart deal, and he got it explicitly and brazenly, to show us all - again and again - that the elites are above the law, and that even is the case where the crimes are known, well documented and undeniable, the Deep State would protect their own and ensure there's no consequences for anything, and they wouldn't even hide it too much, because what we're gonna do? Tweet harder about it? Produce more memes? Note that the main scandal - the bribery schemes - aren't even touched. We had multi-year multi-million hyper-hyped investigation of Trump over much flimsier evidence. Here all the efforts of the law enforcement so far have been directed to burying the case (and insinuating those that want to investigate are foreign agents, and getting them silenced) rather than investigating it. It's not even in the same universe with "ethical" or "fair".
Was this action within precedent
Mostly, yes. There is a long history of political favoritism and elites getting away with all sorts of criminal behavior. We like to pretend we try to do better, usually, but in this case all pretenses are being dropped and the corruption is shoved in our faces with all its naked ugliness. Half of the country is cheering it, because it's their team is getting away with it, so they "owned" the other side. The other half is seething helplessly, suffering what they must and being unable to change anything. This is a completely routine thing for many countries and times, and happened in the US before. It's not a healthy state for the society, it's not where any ethical person wants the society to be, it's likely to end badly and cost us a lot, but yes, it's "within precedent", just as crime and corruption are within precedent - Bidens did not invent either.
Do you think the choice to offer pretrial diversion was politically motivated?
There's an Arab (supposedly) parable: One asked a camel: "Why your neck is so crooked?" and the camel answered: "What in me isn't crooked?"
Of course it's politically motivated. Everything around Bidens is politically motivated. The question is what policy it reflects. The current development reflects the policy of "the elites are above the law". It could reflect the policy of "there are things that are too much even for a prince" (not likely, but could happen in theory) or even "the law applies equally to everybody" (rrrrriiiiight...) but it obviously didn't happen.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Exactly. We now have a couple of generations of "subversive conformism" - where the culture behaves as if it still were 1960s and there were some "establishment" they are fighting, but they are not fighting any establishment actually, because they have been the establishment for decades now and has (mostly successfully) suppressed everybody who dissented from them. That's why they need constructs like "systemic racism" and "patriarchy" to maintain the image of rebelling against an overwhelming force, while actually being one.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Stating that he no longer identifies as black.
So in other words, he's still a fat troll who likes trolling. Nice to know some things don't change.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I expected Trump having some corrupt deals - I mean, he's a billionaire RE developer from New York, he must have cut some corners and greased some palms. But I see that they are digging into him for 6 years now, with all force of the FBI, DOJ and every Democrat local prosecutor in the nation, and so far they got zilch. I mean not just zilch as court convictions, the worst thing he did that I know (which I knew before he run for President, actually) is that he lent his name and likeness to a fake university which charged simpletons a lot of money to teach them to make money. Which I guess is a sleazy thing to do but hardly literally Hitler. The rest is just routine stuff where the taxman disagrees with you on the value of some property - as a homeowner paying property taxes (obviously much less than Trump does) I know what it's like. So I am moving to the conclusion there's actually nothing on Trump - at least nothing worth talking about. He is that clean, somehow, otherwise they'd found it by now. That doesn't mean they can't manufacture some crime to get an indictment - partisan control combined with partisan fervor does wonders to the notions of justice - but he looks surprisingly less corrupt than my priors were.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
We wouldn’t need endless medications or miraculous scientific breakthroughs - we could already have the power to end massive amounts of truly pointless suffering.
You think changing culture is easier than making a pill? I'm not sure it's the case. It may be possible to change the culture by the pill (e.g. - oral contraceptives?), but if somebody gave me two options of achieving the same goal - either by inventing the pill or by figuring out how to change the culture - I'd go for the pill. I think semaglutide has a better chance to make the dent in the obesity epidemic than 1000 public awareness campaigns.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
OK, I am interested - so what law enforcement, DHS, Tom Corbett, etc. did there actually? I mean, for me the conjugation of "DHS" and "stopping hate" immediately invokes the abortive "disinformation panel" as an attempt of the Government to route around the First Amendment somehow and get rid of the annoying necessity to ask Facebook/Twitter to censor for them "voluntarily" and demand the same directly and without question. An offer nobody could refuse. I mean, not that Big Tech would ever refuse to censor people they don't like, and it so happens the people who control the government and the people who control the Big Tech dislike the same people, so we have perfect harmony - but still, the control is in the wrong place. That's how I see this combination. But I am ready to keep an open mind and let myself be surprised.
So I didn't spend much time on it, but I went to look at the agenda. Looks like I need to correct my prior almost-zero-information impression about it and add some details.
-
The Military and Veterans are major source of Hate. If fact, they are the only segment of society that has a separate track concentrating on how to deal with Extremists among them. It's actually Track 1.
-
Far-right is full of Hate and Extremism. Far-left does not exist at all. I did find one single panel that suggests left-wing extremism exists, though nobody cares to study it, but no mention of it beyond that.
-
Antifa does exist, but only as a target for hate from the Far Right, because for some of them for reasons beyond comprehension, think anti-fascists are their enemies.
-
Anti-semitism exists, but the sources of it are on the Right only.
-
There's no hate at all directed towards white males (yay!) unless they're Jews of course (dang...)
-
January 6 demonstrators are roughly the same thing as Nazis. At least considering them together in one bucket is entirely appropriate.
-
Islam does not exist. Islamic State did, but it's all in the past and they didn't do anything of interest to anybody there. Wait, no, Muslims do exist - as targets of hate from the right.
-
The reaction to violent extremism should include increased censorship and suppression of speech on the governmental (or inter-governmental) level. This includes suppressing "misinformation", as it is a major driver of extremism.
Of course, this is from the agenda description only, but I think I'm not wildly off base here.
So yes, I think I was wrong in my initial assessment. This is not a gathering of people who want to feel offended. This is a gathering of people who want to suppress and eradicate "haters", "extremists" and "domestic terrorists", by which they will primarily designate their political opponents, and these political opponents will be mainly residing on the right. The terms "hate" and "right" aren't really as much equated as "hate" is presumed to be almost fully contained and encapsulated by the "right".
Now I wish my original assessment were true. It was so much more comfortable.
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
It sounds weird to me too, how "they are dirty people that eat weird disgusting shit and live in anti-sanitary conditions, and that's where the diseases come from" is non-racist, but "they conducted a high-risk high-technology cutting edge research in collaboration with US government and made a mistake" is racist. But then, very little that the wokes say makes sense to me, so that's just one more thing...
JarJarJedi
10mo ago
the second largest politcal party switched from vehemently pro to anti-lockdown with the Pro-lockdown losing their jobs
Everybody is anti-lockdown now. In fact, nobody even knows anybody who advocated for the lockdown except their political enemies. It's not fashionable now, so everybody has been always supporting what is fashionable now, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. This is not victory - once the need arises, the agenda will turn back as quickly and you'll find the same policies implemented again - only now, with full knowledge that there are no costs, except maybe having to move on to the next cushy job as the winds change. This rotation happened in Canada, happened in the US, happened in many other places. Attributing it to the power of the protest is a delusion.
Trudeau's government is basically crippled all of his policies since have failed as seen with his gun ban
I don't really see how Trudeau failing to pass the largest gun ban in history of gun bans (while still feeling free to enact various smaller gun bans by executive order) means he is "crippled" on "all policies". This ban was not especially popular before the protests, and claiming its failure is the direct result of the protests - and that it extends not only to this one but all policies - is a bold claim that needs some better substantiation than just proclaiming it.
Do you want the CBC to pat you on the back and say "No its OK. You won"
No, I want some sign that it's not business as usual for all involved except declaring fascism on demand is now confirmed ok.
Every freedom I had lost from 2019 to 2022, everything I expected to never get back and to suffer across decades of insurgency trying to claw back... Was restored, mostly within a month, and the rest in half a year. THAT IS TOTAL VICTORY.
Man, whatever makes you feel better. You think introducing fascism, doing exactly what they wanted, taking away every freedom with no consequences whatsoever, causing thousand deaths and billions of economic damage on the way, then giving some of them back when the need is no longer there, and to make it a total mockery, make an "investigation", which confirms - yeah, we did everything exactly the right way and will do it again - this looks like victory? Well, your "victory" doesn't look anything like what I would want.
Who needs "decades of insurgency" if you have fascism on demand? The government would just take your freedoms when they are an impediment to them, do what they need, then declare "ok we're done, you can proceed as before" and you'd be happy. After all, they have stopped punching you and even though they didn't return your lunch money, they didn't take any more than all you had - until the next time they want your lunch money - so, everything is well and it is TOTAL VICTORY. If that's victory, how does the defeat look like? Some weird BDSM fantasy where the government comes to you personally to oppress you on schedule with whips and shiny leather? That's not how it works. Nobody cares about you to oppress you when they don't need to. When they need to, they have the option to get their way, when they want it and how they want it, and you can do absolutely nothing about it. In other times, enjoy your total freedom and TOTAL VICTORY.
Grow up. Politics is war by other means, casualties on your own side are acceptable in the pursuit of victory.
Except I don't see the victory. Removing the restrictions a bit later than the other countries who didn't experience the "victory" sounds like copium, not victory.
conpsiracy theorists who've shown themselves more capable that the entire right wing political class
Capable of what? The only organized protests that happened have been crushed with the rubes that gave their lives to them now have their lives thoroughly ruined, bankrupted and getting insanely long sentences, while their supposed leaders are afraid to even say something in support of them. All freedom restrictions are removed when and only when the government decided it's no longer necessary for their purposes, with full confirmation that every single one of them was legal and fully kosher to use again when desired. No significant pushback happened to neither lockdowns, nor nationwide riots and abandonment of the rule of law, nor to the wholesale overhaul of the election system, nor to the complete absorption of the big business into the woke agenda. Where is this superior capability deployed and what is it achieving? TOTAL VICTORY?
JarJarJedi
11mo ago
It'd be weird if Gwen Stacy was someone who followed orders blindly and this was portrayed as a good thing,
Would it be? Marvel is woke, Sony is woke, whoever they hired to do this is undoubtedly woke. Being woke is assumed to be an obviously right thing that is not up to reflection. A thing where you instinctively know on which side (the right side) you are. So, a Spider Woman (!), of course, is woke too, as as a woke, she would have all the appropriate attributes, including this kind of poster. It just confirms to you that yes, this is the right side. Just as a red flag with hammer and sickle would tell one communist that she's in the company of another fellow communist. You don't need to deeply reflect on what the sickle actually means for you personally - it's part of the package.
we saw Uncle Aaron turn into a monster because he did whatever his boss said.
But was his boss woke? Did he give him the right kind of orders? Probably not. I might now know the details (I am not deeply knowledgeable in Marvel universe anyway, and given the direction it all took, it waned almost completely) but in general the whole concept of something being morally right vs morally wrong in the woke world hinges of whether or not it serves the right agenda. Real world example: is segregation bad? It was bad when it served the KKK agenda. It is good now, when it serves the equity agenda. The goals justify the means. If you are told the right thing by the right people, it is right for you to accept it and put in on a poster.
There's two ways to handle it - one is to prove not all government funded media is the same (one may start by not using deceptive tricks like the graph described above) and another is to scream "how dare you publish true information about us" and ragequit. CBC chose the latter, because the former is probably too hard for them.
More options
Context Copy link