MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I mean sure if you’re reading books like that, but then again, in order to find books written by people 300 years ago, you’d have to do some pretty active searches, they’re not likely to be on Amazon bestsellers lists or, prominently featured in B&N, or actually available at a local county library. For most people, it’s the path of least resistance that decides what books will be the ones they choose, and so unless it’s a pop culture book or popular classic, most people won’t find it. What they will find is modern novels and modern fantasy or romance or sci-fi novels in which the characters are completely modern people stuck in a different setting.
I feel the same way about travel being somewhat overrated as a “mind expansion” experience. Sure, properly done, you can learn interesting things about other cultures and people and yourself. But if all you’re doing when you go to these places is hitting tourist hotspots, and you really aren’t getting the full experience. Going through Puerto Vallarta and visiting Mexico are different— because decades of tourists have shaped everything there into something that appeals to modern Anglo American sensibilities. The locals speak perfect English, the food will be what we expect Mexican food to be like.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I’m not sure five years is long enough, as it simply will act as an attraction to those looking to migrate. Anything short of a decade to my mind is too short for that reason. Look at it this way — if you’re expecting that you can easily get into a European country work a minimal job for a couple of years and then be a full citizen and perhaps even have the right to bring family in on the back end, there’s something to jump at. And if that timeframe is shorter than other European countries, they’ll all come in through Italy and use their Italian citizenship to bring everyone to Europe and have free reign of the place.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
And of course leaders and sports stars don’t accept the rules. “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’!” Silver can cite to his polls all he wants, and he can try to model them to reality, but they’re little use unless we grapple with the realities: examining the fundamentals of the race doesn’t matter if voters don’t really believe in reality anymore. If the same people look at the same data and see a good economy and a bad economy, what can economic indicators tell us? And if there were widespread cheating, how would Silver ever know? Eventually he’d just adjust the model to show a shift in the vote to mirror the persistent cheating, and have a good enough model, and be satisfied. But that wouldn’t get us much of anywhere here in the real world.
Except that he has never actually cared about the election itself. He’s not interested in who wins. What he does is rather like a sports betting oddsmaker— he wants a model that reliably matches with the votes on Election Day so he can tell people who will win. He wants to tell you who wins the electoral Super Bowl, he doesn’t want to understand the game of football, or how the teams are winning.
The neo-reactionary crowd are not trying to tell you who wins the election. They’re trying to understand how the power dynamics work in American politics. They’re interested in the Laws of Power and War as they apply to the inner circle of American elites. Predicting an election wouldn’t impress them, though they’re often very interested in how power is gotten and how the cathedral shapes public opinion.
I suspect the public tends to use informal measures as they always have. If you’re going shopping and things cost more, that’s inflation and probably a sign of a bad economy. If you know of people getting laid off, again, that’s where people get their idea of a good or bad economy. The indicators that are used by silver and other prognosticators are very much lagging indicators because unlike prices at grocery stores or people in a given social circle getting laid off, they’re aggregate statistics and only released quarterly. To be blunt, by the time unemployment is officially up by enough for the economists to see it, it’s been long since noted by the public. I don’t think that’s distrust of official figures, just a reality of the system. He’s using numbers that come out quarterly. The public is using observation of things they see around them.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
A good book can be a window, but so can travel. But even if you’re a reader, for whatever reason, most books, no matter what the setting tend to act and think like 21st century Californians wearing the costume of whatever country and century the book’s setting tends to imply. And especially upon reading history, no we’re pretty unique as a culture. Most of human history is much more concerned with religion, with ethnic conflicts, with improved social status, with marrying into a good family. They were less concerned with hedonistic pleasure, more group oriented, more pragmatic, and much less tolerant of bad behavior. Yet every modern fantasy novel seems to think that the difference between medieval France and modern France is the fashion and aesthetics.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I think the better approach is to give platforms the option. If you want to moderate based on content (meaning that you don’t allow perfectly legal things to be posted because you don’t agree with the content) then you’re liable for any copyright and trademark, or libel violation that occurs just like a magazine would be. If you’re a neutral carrier, then muc( like the telephone providers you are not responsible for the content of speech used by users. Let them choose.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I’ll be honest I think people just really have trouble understanding minds that are not theirs. We just sort of assume that everyone is just like us and therefore values what we value and fears what we fear and so on. Especially for Americans who live in a huge continent surrounded by oceans and have only two neighboring nations that can be visited by land Canada (which is culturally similar to the USA) and Mexico (which has learned to cater to American tourists) — getting around to understanding that not everyone values what we value and thinks how we think or lives how we live.
I don’t think Americans, who are largely secular (even if we are nominally religious) get how religion rules the mind of a sincerely religious Muslim. We think about God for an hour a week on Sunday, maybe pray before a meal or something. They think of God all the time. They think about how to please God all the time. Or we assume that everyone is as individualistic as we are, or that they value consumer capitalism like we do. Even within our own country, I submit that neither side has a very good understanding of why the other side wants what they want. There’s a temptation to think that if only the environmental factors that make them disagree with me were removed that they would vote like I do, think like I do and do what I do. Except that this is rarely true. The Palestinians opposed homosexuality long before the Jews showed up because they read it in a book that they still take seriously as being from God. Jews or no Jews, you don’t want to be known as Gay in a Muslim country. Liberals are not brainwashed conservatives, and conservatives are not brainwashed liberals. We want different things and think differently about how to get there. It has nothing to do with loyalty or lack thereof for America.
The lack of ability to really model brains other than our own means that you end up stuck for an explanation for why you don’t agree about this really obvious thing. Is it because they don’t like the country? Is it because they’re stupid? Are they being fed lies? It doesn’t make sense to think of that other person as another person who has their own history, wants, needs, hopes and fears, and who does things even when you aren’t thinking about them.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I mean true, but I think this event is going to change security in airports. While this event didn’t down any planes because it was fairly careful and used small charges, it certainly will make security more concerned about things like cellphones and beepers and iPads on airplanes simply because this sort of attack is now possible even without the person being aware of the explosive, and even though the device itself still works. Had the tampered device not worked they would have gotten new ones long ago. So we know that as far as the end users knew the device worked and it wasn’t doing anything unusual. Now you have a new risk in the form of every cellular device that goes onto that airplane, even if you turn it on and can use it, it might still blow up.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
Honestly, because nobody has actually read the dumb thing. All they know is the scare monger stuff that’s out there. I’m not necessarily in favor of some parts of it, but to listen to the talk, it’s Mein Kampf as a policy manual. Even at its worst, it is not that, but until you can put those pages under the noses of the people, it’s impossible to have any reaction other than negative to a policy that is being held up as evil and that nobody is reading.
Most people would not care I think if they knew just how mundane most of it is.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I don’t mind it much as a place to jack around. But all this concern about reclaiming Reddit seems to be based on the idea that there’s something inherently important about Reddit to save or reclaim. It just hasn’t been my experience with the site that it’s anything much more interesting than Tumblr except for left leaning college aged males. All of these places are essentially created as circle jerky places and really are easily taken by entryists.
I’m thinking it’s probably better to simply create a separate set of fora that speak to your interests than trying to save a site that doesn’t offer much value.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
Even with small subs, they’re a bit better, except that for the most part, the population of Reddit is heavily skewed towards college-aged liberals who think they’re highly intelligent but in main are midwits who don’t understand the difference between their knowledge of a subject from their introduction to [subject] course and real knowledge.
On most subjects, I would absolutely advise against taking advice from Reddit unless you’re running it through an actual expert first, because most of them are basically wrong with great confidence on anything more complicated than the very basics. And the other thing is that people often misrepresent who they are. They’ll give legal advice like they’re a lawyer in legal threads and when you dig into their history they’re either 18-21 and in college, work in a completely unrelated field, or maybe don’t have a job at all. Most of the “tech” people are basically working the help desk, not high level security or programming or anything of the sort.
And this also comes with the problem that you have to find the extremely niche places on Reddit that aren’t full of bots, trolls and people fighting for credit.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I personally find the very notion rather crass. We are going to spend millions in taxpayers’ money to transition convicted felons while the people who will be paying for it can end up owing thousands of dollars because their insurance doesn’t cover 100% of their frivolous cancer treatments and heart surgeries and so on. The state doesn’t have infinite money to do everything it wants to do, and it seems that doing essentially cosmetic procedures on prisoners while other much more pressing issues cannot be dealt with due to lack of funds? If hormones plus surgery cost (totally made up number) 75,000 dollars a person, what are we no longer going to provide to pay for this?
I do personally find it a bit odd that he didn't seem to be suffering from much dysphoria before he decided to murder someone, and in fact for the first 16-18 years, he wasn’t really saying or doing much that indicates dysphoria. I’m not sure that he isn’t faking to some degree either as a “fuck the system” thing or as a way to get better treatment that he imagines he’d get as a female prisoner. In short I suspect he is playing a game here, and he’s trying to be manipulative.
Being fair to him, I don’t think he’s the danger here. Female gang members and murderers are tough and they aren’t going to take this lying down. These aren’t nice polite PTA wine moms he’s going to be housed with. They are highly likely to try to hurt him before he could try anything stupid.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I don’t think Reddit can be salvaged as unless you’re pretty far-left, there’s nothing really there for you. Even if you’re fairly middle of the road centrist, the pile on that comes from suggesting things that would be absolutely normal in the offline world is incredibly huge. And so if you try to simply allow crime think, not even supporting it, you’ll drive off the existing user base who think communist ideology and radical woke are normal discourse. So you’d buy it, make the changes, demod as necessary to allow freer discussion, and all the users flee to something that suits their tastes.
The other thing about fora that big is that it’s actually really hard to have a real discussion unless the topic is really niche. If you aren’t commenting on a popular topic within ten minutes of it being posted, save yourself the effort because nobody is going to read past the first 50, and you’re likely number 10,000. That’s not nearly as conducive to conversation as a place like this or other small fora where even if I come upon a thread I care about later, it’s still at least plausible that I can do something other than shout into the void.
Finally, outside of product reviews (which I suspect are likely bots anyway) most of the comments are just not that insightful. I attribute a lot of this to the speed necessary to get a post actually read. The time it takes to compose and edit a post to say something interesting means that you can get swamped out of the top 50-100 (the zone people will read) by the time you finish writing the post. This leads directly to a lot of stupid one-line “dad jokes” and puns, a ton of “this. Came here to say this, I agree with this,” threads that are just painful to read. Add in that the majority of the population of Reddit is college students who think they’re intellectuals, often with no real insight into anything they’re reading (and again, the speed of comment-writing necessary to actually be read at all means nobody actually reads the linked article) means that what you get is whatever you’d find in a freshman college course at best. No an interpretation, but actually pretty much what you’d find in a freshman class textbook with no understanding of what it means.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
What kind of single unifying culture you favor promoting here? As an outsider looking in, It makes sense for the USA to promote a unifying culture and also to stop undermining the white American historical nation and part of its unifying culture to be about the continuous American nation. I.E. White Anglo Americanism. While the story of USA will include also black experience but with much less grievances, and sure there is some room for the story of other groups. A multiethnic country which is what the USA is today, can promote a unifying culture, but will also have to promote. And plenty of grey lines on such issues, but your trajectory is not a good idea, and leads to the destruction of American culture, and towards a post-American culture.
To be Frank, I’m suggesting a return as much as practical to the culture of the turn of the twentieth century. Cultural Christianity, specifically high church Christianity, as far as manners look for a turn of the twentieth century etiquette book like Emily Post. For mass media and entertainment, I’d bring back something like the Hayes Code (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/MediaNotes/TheHaysCode), and alongside that, promote the ideas of hard work, self responsibility, self respect, respect for other people. I’d also teach such things, alongside the old canon of western literature and music in schools. Heck, I’d return to the classical model of education because I think it works much better than what we have now.
As to immigration, I think a very controlled system of legal immigration is fine. I want them to be high quality immigrants, who can read write and speak English, have at least an equivalent to a high school education, and are committed to learning to live as an American and to respect the culture we have.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
Promoting a single unified culture has been a part of every national movement since the Greeks and Romans. Calling “treat everyone in society as legal equals and insist on a unified culture” is a concept that would be as close to universal as can be. The Romans insisted on the unification of their territory into being Roman. Major business and cultural exchanges were in Greek or Latin. If you wanted to be an elite, you better learn to speak the language. It was the same with unification of various countries in Europe— the French promoted Frenchness, the British promoted Britishness, the Russians promoted Russian culture. Peter the Great was not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. He was a Russian Czar promoting the culture of Russia.
I think as far as people suddenly becoming “strangers in their own land”, again, this isn’t some weird new idea that nobody ever thought about until Marx came along. There have always been subcultures and ethnic groups on the outs in any given society. It’s how a unified culture tends to work, you go along with the culture or you are at least somewhat on the outside. I and my near kin would be on the outs in lots of cultures. The Chinese are not going to look kindly on a bunch of white Americans suddenly showing up in their country, nor would they tolerate a situation in which such groups demand infinite carve outs for their particular cultural preferences. I don’t think that legally forbidding someone to practice a religion makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that it should be perfectly legal to do things that the rest of society finds abhorrent in public under the guise of “my religion or culture.”
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I’m not suggesting for ten seconds that the solution is to make race or gender “not exist”. To the contrary I think they exist in a strong sense via cultured preference and whatever else you choose to name. What I’m suggesting is that those with power stop noticing and certainly stop catering to these notions. If a woman applies to be a programmer, that’s fine, she can do whatever she wants. But she shouldn’t ever expect to have a leg up on getting a position simply because she exists and has a vagina. The laws and policies should not be giving special treatment to anyone. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with whether enough of a given demographic is obtaining certain goals. That’s their job to work that out.
And as far a# culture goes, I’m firmly in favor of having one culture that people generally abide by. You can worship anything you want, but you may not undermine the cultural norms of the dominant religion. You can speak any language you like at home, but we aren’t going to translate or hire dozens of speakers to accommodate your lack of English skills. We value hard work, and being on time, and studying hard, if you don’t want to work, fair enough, but you get nothing from the rest of us. We will be teaching our culture here. Your culture is okay, but we aren’t going to accommodate the entire culture to what you want.
International affairs are a bit different, and in that case I agree with nationalism— a country should primarily look after its own national interests and avoid treaties and wars that don’t serve their interests.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
I would say that cultural marxists are those who are biased in favor of progressive favored groups, of intersectional alliance, such as blacks, Jews, women, LGBT, and more, are identitarians in favor of such groups, on the basis of deeming them oppressed, and favor the destruction, or disminishment, with especially hostile against whites, and are also hostile against men, straight, etc, treating an environment that favors them, or is even even handed, as inherently oppressive and an example of the crisis of misogyny, antisemitism, racism (agaisnt blacks). It is about those who are dogmatic and see as heroic favoring such groups and a reforms in that direction.
It is about the presumption of ism being against those groups. So your quoted definition is great if one says that a cultural marxism is someone who makes that presumption. But inaccurate, if you use that definition on face value.
It’s basically naked tribalism as most in-group out-group political ideology is. There’s no way around it, and frankly it’s no different than any other sort of political tribal alliances that existed in every society that ever existed. Political hegemony is produced by convincing various tribes to unite against the common enemies of the powerful. In this case it’s whites mostly because they have the legacy money and connections to effectively fight back against regime power. By destroying the rivals in the name of other tribes, they cement their power.
Where there is some difference between more naked tribalism, although I consider cultural marxism, to be fairly seen as progressive supremacist, and supremacist movement of supremacists for those groups and against their outgroup is that there is an argument that promotes disingenius one sided critique and promotes a motte of against identity politics, inequalities. Then they change it, to favor superior treatment for their favorite groups.
Some do this while arguing for the destruction of their outgroup, and painting them as nazi evil threat for opposing their own self destruction.
It’s still tribal. And pretty nakedly tribal. Blacks being outright told that they’re betraying their tribe if they vote republican or pretty much calling it “self-hating” if they bite the hands of the elites. And yes, the white tribe is the Dalit of modern political discourse. Any hint of the kind of tribalism that is encouraged by the discourse for others is evil for the political Dalits.
Another element, is the utopian dream that after destroying their white, or heteronormative, or any combination of identities they are against, they will reach a utopian without racism, or oppression. There is a certain egalitarian pretense, or belief at least with some of the less well off groups. But cultural Marxism is not sincerely egalitarian.
They’ll pick something else. I’m already seeing people start to include East Asians and Jews and Indians as part of the tribe.
But to be honest, Equity is the problem. It’s impossible for any society to create a situation where everyone is capable of doing everything equally and with equal results. You are not an interchangeable cog. And so the tribes simply use the cudgel of “inequality of outcomes” to secure the ability to cut in line to the good positions society has on offer. You don’t hire the only black guy to apply — you’re obviously racist even if he isn’t qualified. And as not everyone wants to do the work, it often means active discrimination against whites to meet the quotas.
I think honestly the law shouldn’t see race, sex, religion, or gender at all. If a field is 99% white, fine. If it’s 99% black also fine.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
But the lying part is where you impart a false belief into an audience. And Lawyer lying does much the same in a much more insidious way. Telling people that people in Ohio are having their pets or geese or whatever is obviously on its face false. But the reverse, that the integration of 20K Haitians into a town of 40K is going just fine, actually is also false and based on cherry-picked good reports (for example the factory owner saying that the Haitians are hard workers, which likely elides labor issues like wages and working conditions that the natives didn’t like) or the lack of reporting of things like crime, education strain (this town likely needs a whole lot of resources because they suddenly need to educate a bunch of ESL students who speak French) traffic congestion and accidents. Sure you can say that these aren’t serious problems and if you cherry-pick just right, you can get “Fact Check: True”. but you’re spinning the situation in a dishonest way to get people to believe what you want them to believe. Trumps lies are less sophisticated, but I contend that both are lies, and it doesn’t stop being a lie just because you happen to be using manipulated facts and statistics to tell the narrative you want people to believe in.
This is why I tend to be much more skeptical of the second sort of narrative than the first. Make no mistake, both are ultimately lies and meant to deceive an audience. But for all the faults Trump’s style of lying has, it’s easy enough to detect and therefore ultimately less harmful to the body politic than the kind of lying where it’s manipulated facts and thus hard to attack and debunk. That means the damage done will be harder to undo (especially since doing so is “racist conspiracy theories,” and thus impossible to bring up in polite society.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
Giving something a name and admitting it’s real gives people the ability to fight it as a phenomenon. Terms like Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism give you the ability to abject to the phenomenon without having to be an open heretic. You can oppose the notion that one must have only “correct” opinions or must be forced into silence if you can name the phenomenon behind it. You no longer have to argue for the heresy, just oppose the enforcement of orthodoxy. It’s much harder for the inquisition to fight back because you aren’t officially endorsing the heresies of the day. You didn’t say “trans women are men” you said “I should not be threatened for not using pronouns”. Because we still value free speech, it’s actually an appeal to commonly held values.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
10mo ago
Perhaps, but it was a time when standards of living were rising and life was pretty good.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
What’s causing the divide is the utter failure of the current system of delivering anything the people want from their leaders.
It can’t deliver on economics, in fact the standard of living seems to be getting worse. People are cutting back on things that were once considered normal. The hoops necessary to get to a decent wage and lifestyle are higher every decade. In 1950, a kid could barely graduate high school and still get a pretty decent job at a factory or something similar. He could expect at least a small house, a car, and to be able to support his wife and kids. That same lifestyle in 2024 requires a good college degree from a good university and quite often unpaid internships just to hope that if you and your wife work 40 hours a week, you can maybe have what your grandparents had with one less worker and less education.
It can’t stop crime. The number of anti-crime measures you take without thinking about them is crazy especially once you see how good it is in functioning societies. In Asia, it’s common for stores to leave their deliveries on the streets for hours. In some parts of Europe, people leave babies sleeping in strollers on the streets. In America, it’s common knowledge that you politely leave your car unlocked to prevent would be looters from having to smash windows to get at any valuables in the car. Porch piracy is a known problem. Personal safety often dictates when and where it’s advisable for the good people to go out. And police are basically told they aren’t allowed to stop a crime until it’s too late.
Education? About half of Americans don’t read above a 6th grade level. Many struggle with math more complicated than 10th grade algebra. All we can do with these kids is teach them The Narrative, encourage them to go into massive debt for the job training that K12 can’t give them and hope it turns out okay.
To me, it seems pretty clear that the problem is that what we have isn’t working, and everyone knows it, and so they’re grasping at the straws offered by radical and radically different ideologies to try and find a way to what people actually want — that the median American can live a modest but decent lifestyle in cities where crime is low enough that it doesn’t dictate how you live. They want their kids to have a good education and have the opportunity to be successful and happy. We have none of that, and the oligarchs in charge can’t give us that. So people are looking to other ideas: maybe socialism, maybe Christian theocracy, maybe some form of traditionalist society, maybe fascism, maybe some other idea.
The fact that we’re all so tuned into politics and it’s becoming so central to everything itself is a problem. If things were good, we would not care. People in all societies all over the globe got on very well in functioning societies without even trying to understand world affairs. They didn’t care that much even when given the vote. It was a small part of life, and probably came far behind other concerns like the health and welfare of their own family, sports, religion, and so on. Common people really only get super into politics when they are neither left alone nor helped. And this is where we are. Some 40% of the income earned by Americans goes to the government. And not only do we get what Moldbug calls “bad customer service” (meaning that the government doesn’t improve things for those taxpayers) but spends vast resources on harassing people about what they should think all the time (with their own money of course). Normies getting involved is a reaction, and polarization is the result. I contend that the only solution that will actually turn down the polarization is results.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
The MV incident to me, showed just how bubbled the elites are. I’m not sure whether or not it ever occurred to the elites of those enclaves that importing people with no resources has a negative effect on community. They interact with the world through news media whilst living in gated exurbs where the only interactions they have with the rest of the world are transactional. They don’t talk with the lower clases, they order their services and when no longer paying for that service, they kind of forget they exist. I’m not sure it’s even contempt, it’s summoning a workman or servant, hiring their services and banishing them back into the ether where they don’t think about them until they need the air conditioning fixed or order door dash.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
To me it’s somewhat more dishonest. A lawyer lies by recasting the facts so that they tell the story that best serves his purpose, even when the clearest telling of the facts points in the exact opposite direction. They often do so by leaving out crucial context and details that would lead a neutral observer in the opposite direction, thus making people believe something is true that isn’t.
We’ve all been talking about the Lebanon pager explosions. Some people here have speculated on how it was done and how it might be detected or hidden. And on the political side, I would find it fair to say that the comments on this site have a lean towards conservative and neo-reaction. Now if someone who frequents this site is prosecuted, any good lawyer would have painted this site as a reactionary and even fascist site where terrorism was discussed pretty openly. Ripped from context, as lawyers tend to do, the discussion of how Israel blew up pagers juxtaposed with a bit of juicy reactionary or HBD talk paints a picture of this place as a Proud Boy type site. Left out is the crucial context. It’s against the rules to recruit for any cause, liberals post here fairly often, and the discussion of pager batteries was talking about a news story and discussed by people who work n tech.
Lying by recasting the facts is worse to me because it can cover itself with the veneer of truthfulness. You can cite a fact, and people who check will see that the actual facts cited are true. But stripped of context, the facts tell a very different story than the events they’re used to describe. A lie, on the other hand, is easy enough to sus out. You look it up, and it’s not true at all. And so it doesn’t get deep enough into the culture to affect how we see the world. But tell a sort-of-truth, and your fact-checking will help the narrative stick because it’s not obviously wrong. It’s just not an accurate and honest telling of the facts and designed to elicit a belief that isn’t accurate.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
I’m pretty much the same. The opinions of professional activists, actors, writers, singers just get an instant dismissal from me. Nobody in that group has any real stake in the outcome. They aren’t going to feel the effects of failure or the benefits of success. An activist wants less policing but he doesn’t even live in that community. If crime goes up, it’s not his stuff getting stolen. And if businesses flee, it’s not them losing their job.
Even so called experts are hyper-expert in one tiny corner of a very large interconnected web. Yes, shutting down all the coal plants in the world would mitigate climate change. Of course, it’s not going to work because our entire economy requires electricity to function.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11mo ago
The unspoken assumption here is that there’s only one way to solve the problem. The only solution to the dead baby is shooting the dog. But that isn’t true most of the time, in fact it only seems to make sense if you’re talking about a single product, and only if the product cannot somehow be made safer. Dogs are not like that. We can have leash laws, muzzles, requirements for training, size and breed regulations as alternative, to dog genocide. In the case of guns, you can require training, gun safes, restrictions on caliber and speed of firing, or limit the number of bullets available. In both situations there are probably solutions that are similar that I’m not thinking of.
I mean because there would be a complete investigation for one thing. What made the conspiracy theory take off more than it ever would have is the fact that nobody officially ever looked at the evidence. The Message was always “nothing to see here, and if you’re asking questions about it, you’re falling for disinformation.” That message cannot inspire people to believe that the election was fair. There’s no discussion of the evidence, no day in court, no witnesses cross examined, nothing that would give the impression that there’s anyone official who cares about the claim.
More options
Context Copy link