YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
You are not serious, and engagement with you is not in good faith.
I am and I'm sorry you feel that way.
That's why there are trannys in the first place, because of state violence threatening people.
So you understand what it feels like for activists to coordinate state violence against you and people like you then? You also understand the violent urge to respond to that? Yet you can't understand how your mirror, some lefty feels?
Not all politics is about abrogating negative rights of individuals via the state. Only tribal politics around radicalization and extremism.
Tell me, how advocating for relaxing zoning laws advocating for state violence? How does it remove your negative, natural law rights?
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I fundamentally believe there are a class of influencers that sell tribal turmoil: Hatred of the out-group, Us-vs-them, Dehumanization, Crazy-highlighting. They create communities/followers around these manufactured identities, belief systems, narratives. In doing so they raise the political heat level, it sows division, and division sells, hatred sells, tribal fighting appeals to the basest of our human desires. Doing it torches the commons. It burns the social fabric of a society.
I have a coworker with a PhD in the cognitive science of radicalization. We talk about this topic at length and we both see it. Is it hyperbole? I don't think so. Its insidious, slow. Kirk isn't solely the perpetrator. He is part of an entire ecosystem of tribal influences, left and right. Describing motive is more nebulous, do I think Kirk and his ilk are mustache twirling villains? Absolutely not! Their incentives are the same as everyone else: personal enrichment, wealth, fame, status. But what sells better? Moderate takes, restrained discourse? Or provocative knuckle dragging, ape is stronk! content? Idk how anyone on the internet can fail to see that? People follow incentives, and incentives to exploit hard-wired human nature are undoubtedly the most profitable.
EDIT: Kulak is a very clear Motte-based example of this.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
My opinion has been changed. It is not premeditated enough to be an execution. It is manslaughter and gross negligence on account of the shooter. It's not an accident because the shooter did not "accidentally" unholster, point, and pull the trigger. He did all of those things very deliberately. His failure of situational awareness resulted in death.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
your adherence to it as an ICE-specific problem makes
I have never claimed this and don't agree its an ICE-specific problem. It's problem across LE agencies and executors of the Governments Monopoly on Violence (GMoV).
American policing is on the whole too protective of officers
I am more here. Police are given enormous power, prestige, respect and authority. And that level of authority needs to come with consequences when you fuck up big time. "Great power = Great responsibility". When a police officer fucks up, us citizens pay the bill, both in loss of rights, and loss of money as the government needs to settle with our taxes.
Those split second decisions
Nobody is forcing these people to become police officers, if they lack the temperament, or ability to react in a competent manner in split second decision making, even after training then they should either be confined to a desk or fired. I'm remined of the previous discussion on the Uvalde Police officers and how the neighboring police actually responded competently vs the local ones who just cowered and beat up parents.
I ignored the bottom half your post because I think you are tilting at windmills that aren't my position. I changed my opinion that "it is literally an execution" to it has "The optics of an execution", It's manslaughter, and if I was on a jury I'd convict on that charge. As I've said elsewhere this site is really my only media use, so charges of believing some MM propaganda are super hollow. I am able to develop an opinion via my own thoughts and senses even if you don't agree with the conclusion.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
This has changed my view, it being an "execution" would have required some premeditation on the executors part. However do you grant that this has the optics of an execution? Where 5 agents dogpile a guy to restrain him and another draw and shoots him from behind while he is kneeling and being restrained (who wouldn't resist their "execution")
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
There's humor in everything, you just need to look for it.
I am not claiming Kirk violently assaulted people, and I never have. There might be some sort of masculine honor in that at least. Instead, he advocated for the state to go inflict violence on people, he advocated for a return to laws and norms that would physically hurt his out group, he engaged in running political campaigns to do that. He knowingly kept the temperature of political discourse high and cultivated a following out of these efforts that provided him with a very very lavish lifestyle/worth. And he was effective in doing so. Apparently his out-group can predict the future better than you can, they felt this future violence, real or imagined. And they decided to act, to do something about it.
Act like a mean-girl, and maybe someone is going to violently attack you for it. Profit off of stirring tribal hate and division and maybe society should "Turn a blind eye" when some of that hate and violence finds you.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I have deliberately never gotten into a bar fight as a post-college adult, violence and alcohol with strangers is a level of risk I am not interested it. So last time would be at a frat party in college when i was a bit more risk oriented. A lot more often in high school, where my verbally slow autistic self preferred to use violence.
Does Kirk strike you as the type to accept an offer of mutual combat? Or do you think he would call security and go back to "mouthing off"? I might be biased in thinking he is too much of a wordcell type to accept. I think mutual combat probably breaks down somewhere in the social dynamic between average joes and rich influencers.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
A challenge to violence is definitely the preferred approach but it is not always going to happen. Sometimes you just get punched. I'd argue that skipping straight to violence is because a challenge to violence is not legal and would be giving away the opportunity.
I'm openly unsure how to square this honor cultures being absolutely shit places to live.
You are actually advocating for violence as a response to mean words?
As a government policy? Absolutely not. As a social reality? Yes with caveats.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I do note that said militia would be fairly unlikely to support 2nd amendment rights as pursued by say the NRA.
To my current eternal despair. Who knows maybe the silver lining will be that the left realizes the need for strong 2nd Amendment rights to protect against "Nazi Authoritarian Governments". I'm not holding my breadth. But the point of principles is to hold them regardless of costs. Otherwise they aren't really principles are they?
In this case it was the right not to be deeply harmed and re-traumatised by the rape culture inherent in celebrating the life of a man who once slept with an underage groupie
You have no negative right to restrict someone else. You are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you. I know this isn't your argument and that tortured lefties make stupid arguments but they get away with it because no one shuts them down.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
But discourse about government isn’t child-like behavior.
I, at least in this thread, am not really discussing government behavior. Government is blunt instrument and this is a problem that requires a scalpel. I have no desire to put a loaded gun on the government's table for use in restricting speech.
Go around kicking SUVs is child like behavior.
Absolutely, Pretti/Anti-ICE movement acts like a child, deliberately attempting to toe the provocation line and claim injustice when they get punch back. WhiningCoil's argument is that we should should ignore it to teach the left a lesson. I think this idea can be applied to other behavior as well, that he might really hate. Like Kirk's mean-girl like behavior.
It is a meta-argument around people trying to abuse the rules-as-written but wanting to avoid the natural consequences of people recognizing that as defection and responding/punishing it.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
You appear to be doing an absolutely fantastic job of demonstrating this reality with your arguments, so my congratulations on that. I will certainly be quoting your arguments in the future.
I genuinely can't tell if this is praise or a "You have a shit argument I can't wait to use them in the future to throw tomatoes at"
Rules are just the manifestation of human will, they have no sanctity on their own. Rather they must be continually believed in, and enforced. Resting on the laurels of some previously set up rules is much like resting on any laurels, it lasts for a bit but always fails later. We as a country have become complacent believing the rules of yesteryear were sacred, untouchable, enforced themselves. But that is a mistake, it takes active effort to defend the liberties our founders enshrined.
The problem with litigating rules, is that it leaves them open to abuse of the rules-as-written instead of the rules-as-intended. But rules-as-intended requires active effort to get people to agree with the understanding and to police bad actors who desire to abused the rules-as-written for personal or tribal gain.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
And wokies are mean girls in power
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
That's what I assumed, being asked to prove that something is a media lie is too much effort. It's much easier to sit on the couch and throw arguments in from the peanut gallery.
Probably because violence against mean girls has been so restricted that once something pops past the threshold it is insanely more violent than it should be. This is an argument that some earlier low level of violence probably would have prevented later lethal violence.
It is hilariously a very feminine argument that mean girls should just be ignored. You ever see the videos of female privilege to mouth off colliding with someone who doesn't recognize it? Maybe we really do live in a longhouse.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I believe you are the big advocate for rules having no agency around here. Are you going to apply that same argument to your own arguments?
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'm pro-ish... I'm not sure this is the gotcha you think it is.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'm not sure how shooting a disarmed person in the back who is being restrained will ever be seen as "self-defense". A Tragedy, absolutely. An accident, sure I can grant that. But accidents that lead to death is manslaughter and the ICE agent should be tried for that. Mutual combat is far fetched.
Notice the "Radical" in radical centrist, I ain't laundering shit. But nice stupid word game.
I like most motteposters am heterodox as hell.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
Well actually negative rights is a pretty defined concept. Coordinating violence is almost always used to remove or restrict NRs from people.
I am reminded of the activist who told me with tears in his eyes that throwing a David Bowie themed party constituted violence against the victims of sexual assault.
What negative rights is this David Bowie themed party removing from SA victims?
it is very clearly an organized militia and no sane country could or should permit such behavior to continue.
The 2nd amendment very clearly is designed, in part, for an organized militia, so this is about an unamerican statement as it comes. If anything the anti-ICE movement should avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights and have armed protestors protecting their right to protest. Obnoxious as they are.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I'll admit its still cooking as a concept. I used to be much more of a free speech maximalist. I need to work on defining the boundaries a bit better. But to me this is a concept that I think is more accepted that people give credit for.
If you are at a bar and start mouthing off towards someone, they might enforce reality on you, through a punch to the face. I think people have gotten too used to the idea of words as a sacred inviolable medium and naturally that allows the verbally intelligent to exploit that to get away with things. Sometime you need to punch that person so they understand there is consequences to their rhetoric. Seems pretty basic. People have seem to have forgotten that and it has escalated to a point it is no longer just a punch.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
No, because Kirk as you describe him is lot real
Considering my media diet is pretty sparse (predominately here) and I know of Kirk/Crowder/Walsh from my MRA/Debate-Bro days, I find the insinuation that I am believing some sort of mainstream media lie pretty unbelievable. You are welcome to believe what you want of course.
If you want to do the effort of changing my belief, I am open to some evidence. My current stance is that he was a debate bro influencer who stirred tribal tensions and hate towards the outgroup for profit, while advocating for a return to traditional Christian conservative values. Should give you clear goal posts.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
I am only human and have only recently awakened the urge to post online. My position hasn't changed, I'm just going to shrug. As for partisan instincts, mine are squarely in the libertarian section, entirely orthogonal to this left vs right divide.
YoungAchamian
4mo ago
He can advocate for what ever he wants. If his beliefs are around restricting the negative rights of others then he can also face the consequences of what happens when people don't want their rights restricted.
The government should not be in the business of restricting speech, but people are allowed to respond to coordination of violence with violence. To do otherwise is just letting the fantasy of rabbinically-inclined and wordcells to replace reality
If I give you a rubric what's to stop you from rule-lawyering it as a bad faith actor? Written laws cannot fight back as they have no agency. I can definitely say that any LE shooting someone who is restrained and is not pointing a gun at someone is outside of it is outside of it. This is not restricted to ICE. FBI, ATF, Fed, DEA, DoE, anyone with the power of violence. Do you think the ATF were competent at waco/ruby ridge? Do you think the LEs were competent here: Daniel Shaver?
I'm willing to give you an effort post in what does a competent government agent look like, if you'll return the favor/effort and give me examples of government LE agents behaving incompetently in the past decade? People on the right here love to complain about the lefties acting incompetent in the gov Bureaucracy, shouldn't be hard.
That assumes I agree with your framing of how society has decided these or that society is even right. I don't recognize your authority to define that framing. Considering a section of society definitely reacted to the later as a "Well he FAFO-ed" or "I don't think his death was great but maybe he should have been less of a hateful ass". (real IRL conversations with real IRL leftists) I'd contest that society really has decided as your framing is correct.
More options
Context Copy link