YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
10hr ago
I feel like i am still trying to hammer out the concept. It’s raw and unrefined. Anyone who is expecting tight linguistic references is going to be disappointed. I think these are details to attach after it has been fully pulled from the ether of the mind and given shape.
Yes i am obviously stripping away your negative rights by calling out your insincerity and partisanship.
I live in ########### you are welcome to come by and get shot for trespassing anytime
Edit: removed identifying information post mod warning
YoungAchamian
10hr ago
I’ve discussed this up and down this thread and don’t feel like rewriting it.
YoungAchamian
10hr ago
Yes and i see plenty of public statements, testimonials, and mainstream media coverage to the effect that Ibrahm Kendi is a genius, thought leader fighting the greatest evil of our time: equal opportunity and meritocracy.
Just because people say it doesn’t make it true. Sometimes people want to be seen doing something for the social benefits and incentives. Kirk benefited far too much personally and financially for me to naively believe he was just “giving a voice to the disenfranchised” out of the goodness of his heart and the conviction of his beliefs. Obviously his brand requires people to believe those narratives though.
YoungAchamian
11hr ago
Has it?
YoungAchamian
11hr ago
Like i said, very bad faith.
YoungAchamian
11hr ago
Idk maybe i am just abnormal around hero worship. But i was a right wing MRA in a left-ish college and when those conservative speakers rolled through i didn’t feel they were “giving me a voice as a disenfranchised righty”. More like now i had to defend any association between our ideas whenever they put their foot in it, acted like a smug asshole that was too rhetorically slippery to pin down or admit they were wrong.
YoungAchamian
11hr ago
Well someone linked a poll result that something lime 44% of leftists believe that Kirk “deserved” what happened, and 40% of rightists believe Pretti “deserved” what happened. So apparently the concept i am describing is far more concrete than your framing and “polls” would suggest.
YoungAchamian
11hr ago
It is actually his and mine’s active area of research. The interplay between domestic actors and foreign ones, engaging in the manufacture of narratives vs naturally grown ones. How much of this increased polarization is a result of cognitive warfare, how do you identify that, strategies for radicalization and deradicalization, etc.
I can’t really say more on a public forum.
YoungAchamian
12hr ago
I’m referencing the class of kirk-like influencers, i don’t think kirk himself has said any or all of the things in this thought experiment. This is purely about how words/speech lead to violence. And that style of coordination isn’t rightly some hallowed thing that everyone around here seems to think should be protected
As i said, its not about the particular details of the kirk case, its about the meta-level symbols/semantics. If you need to sub kirk out for Alex Jones, Nick Feuntes, Hasan Alabi, etc go ahead.
YoungAchamian
19hr ago
If you are going to call me out and make insinuations about me at least have the courage to tag me so i can respond.
Say you are a green hat wearer, its a core part of your culture/identity/religious beliefs etc. I am am a blue hat wearer. I host a famous podcast where I spend several hours a week advocating that green hat wearers are scum of the earth.
"They are morally bankrupt", "We should return to times back when green hat wearers didn't exist", "something needs to be done to those green hat wearers before they harm us", "They are going to inflict violence on us", "Look at this unhinged take from a green-hatter", "look this politician is anti-green hat, he gets us, vote for him", "Green hatters are trying to replace us!", and through my wealth from this podcast I run super pacs, think tanks, and lobby politicians to make wearing green hats illegal.
Am I inflicting violence on green hatters? You'd say no. After all I have never directly advocated for violence. I've merely drummed up hate, which is not violence. Perfectly fine right? And if a few lone wolfs go off and commit "stochastic violence" against green hatters, unfortunate, but "have they tried not being green-hatters", "Wearing green hats is going to result in nonzero deaths..."
Maybe after a couple years I get enough political capital together and a president is elected who "really gets the problem with green-hatters" And this president starts passing laws that make life difficult for green-hatters, not illegal yet, just difficult. If they break the laws, well I get to point at "See I told you all this PoS green-hatters were criminal degenerates", "We need more laws to secure a green hat free future!"
I imagine you can see where this argument goes. At what point in your opinion have I directly coordinated violence against the green-hatters? Probably never right?
Feminine violence feels like an older concept. I am not directly doing the violence but I am coordinating it to be done, and when it is done, through my schemes and machinations, I will bear some culpability for that. I am a key part of what made the Green Hat Pogrom happen. Should the survivors of that pogrom, never be able to blame me? After all I didn't commit the violence, I was just "using my words" "speaking my piece" "Engaging in discourse".
YoungAchamian
21hr ago
Taking an insane argument that anything and everything, some sentient life might do, which might through nth order effects, might cause me to be restricted in my rights, so I should just kill everyone, including myself, proves nothing. It is the definition of an absurd argument that nobody is making and that no sane person believes.
If you seriously see that as the logical conclusion of my argument then you have a few screws loose or are discussing in incredibly bad faith.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I gave an example of how going along with their example violates their own negative rights. Apparently you can violate people's negative rights for flapping butterfly wings, which means the concept of nth order effects being actual violations is ridiculous. Reducto Ad Absurdum
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Yes unfortunately some people are incapable of not being narcissists. I am increasingly on the opinion that universal suffrage was a mistake. A section of the populous will never be anything more than knuckle dragging apes.
I have no solution to that at this time. Other than recognizing that perfect is the enemy of good. And intelligent people can understand the concept of a negative right and the ironclad boundary between that and a positive right.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
gun DID go off and confused agents might've then shot him in the chaos. Fog of war.
We must have seen some very different movies on the screen. "A gun did go off" Yes that happens when an ICE agent pulls the trigger on their service weapon. The initial shot is what matters and ICE is the one that did it.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
If you want to get into pedantic word-choice discussions I don't have the patience, interest, or inclination to join you. Speak plainly, make an argument on the content and we can have discussion. If not, your reputation is evidently of someone who abuses the report button on tribal issues so idk if its worth engaging with you.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Anything can be reframed as anything considering nth order effects. The butterfly effect is supreme. Doesn't mean it is relevant for discussion
Your example requires 4th order effects? I think anything past 2nd order starts to get into low probability land. It's just as likely that Corvos's friend hating on a David Bowie party, alienates the moderates due to the pettiness, drives them to the right, making it more likely for laws to be passed that oppress the activist. Therefore the activist having a shit behavior around negative rights is causing them to lose negative rights. Also a 4th order effect.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Mean Girl behavior: Feminine violence? Like I said I'm still fermenting the concept. It's not just policies I disagree with, I'm not a lefty and probably agreed with Kirk on things, but I still think he was engaging in a sort of Feminine violence. This "I'm not violating the letter of the law" concept of just being rhetorically intelligent enough to imply the violence he wanted to inflict through policy applied by the state, not him. Feminine violence is never directly violent, it applies that violence socially, or through an authoritative figure.
I could easily frame any leftist figure as engaging in equally mean girl behaviors from my POV.
I can easily frame much of the left as engaging in feminine violence. I think it is super applicable. It grates on me, I hate it. I hate it so much I voted for Trump in 24. Doesn't mean I don't hate in when the right does it too.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
My original disagreement is not in the details of the situation, they are absolutely distinct and incomparable at that level. My viewpoint is wholly on the symbolic or semantic level. In that what do they represent?
-
Kirk et al: No actual violence, no calls to violence directly. But coordination of violence through the intended effect of policy. Application of the Authority/State's MoV. I classify this as Mean Girl behavior, Feminine Violence, Exploiting the letter of the Law
-
Pretti et al: Physical violence, direct in your face aggression, not coordinating violence for the future, no subterfuge, honest, masculine violence.
Should these really be treated so distinct? We condemn masculine violence but does that mean we should allow feminine violence? Humans are social creatures. We can innately recognize when social violence is being enacted against us. Allowing for the only response to feminine violence to be more feminine violence just lets the best at it thrive. Balance is required.
Words are not sacrosanct. And the ability to use feminine violence is not either. Just because people who love to use words as their weapons scream and rage and call you all manner of names when you take them away doesn't mean you should stop, or that the comparison is not apt. And sometimes the only answer to feminine violence is masculine violence. That is natural law.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
It is an application of the original argument applied to a topic I've been thinking about. "Fair" is very load bearing and I am unsure if I believe it was "fair" to kill Kirk and it definitely wasn't morally right.
The idea I've been thinking about: mean-girl behavior in adult politics is not sacrosanct. Free Speech is wholly a more pure thing and tarnishing it by association with the afore mentioned behavior degrades it. Exploitation of words by mean girls to coordinate social/political violence does not make them untouchable just because they aren't directly engaging in violence.
The ramification of said concept are still being thought through.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I like to think regardless of how batshit, heterodox and wacky my own thoughts are. I am at least honest, internally consistent and converse in good faith.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I'm going to need to read that and get back to you, 2013 Scott is wayy prior to my introduction to the Ratsphere.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
And I still wouldn't advocate or nod at her murder.
I'm not advocating for nor nodding at their murder. I'm pointing out what I see as a very human reaction to heated tribal politics that I think Kirk contributed to.
Yeah, Candace Owens, Fuentes, Kulak are definitely more extreme than Kirk was, but its also unclear if they had his reach. I don't really think he was all that moderate. To me this is a class, Kirk could absolutely be on the lower end of the extremity scale but he's still in that class. I think that entire class of individuals is a problem.
I also suspect personally that Kirk was motivated by genuine conviction
I think that was part of his brand. Genuine conviction doesn't make you worth 12 million at 30y. You don't chance into that kind of wealth. History is ripe with people of genuine conviction who advocated for political change, are immortalized for it, and still died poor.
I’d disagree with that framing definitionally, politics is a solution to the coordination problem between independent agents. Politics is not required to be zero sum, that is submitting to a purely conflict theory frame. I reject that.
Coordination is not emergent because humans are not mind readers or simple agents engaging in thoughtless behavior
More options
Context Copy link