magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6hr ago
Oh, right, forgot that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7hr ago
· Edited 6hr ago
But to address what you said, you are saying you tried to kill yourself to avoid a court case humiliating your side?
Yes.
What could possibly have been the circumstances here?
Australia's CP laws consider fictional characters who are "in-canon" under 18, or who "look" under 18, to be "children", even when all actors/artists were adults. Hence, loli hentai is legally CP here, and this has been backed up by case law. Text works concerning such fictional characters are in a somewhat-grey area: IIRC the only case brought came away with an acquittal but I've been told by an Australian lawyer they're illegal.
I've been flagrantly ignoring these laws for, oh, over a decade; I have over a dozen illegal Japanese visual novels. I'm not, strictly speaking, a paedophile - they don't help me get it up, so to speak - but I sure as hell don't refrain from pirating such illegal VNs if the plot sounds interesting (and, well, there were one or two early on where I was still, shall we say, "exploring"). On top of that, I wrote a Madoka Magica fanfic a while back in which a 14-year-old character rapes a 15-year-old character (there was a prompt thread on... possibly LiveJournal?... where people gave NSFW fanfic requests, and the fic was based on two of them; the content is not my cup of, ah, "tea" but the story practically wrote itself in my head and they did ask). I don't have any real CP, and have never sought it out (I can't say for sure I've never "possessed" any, because I can't rule out the stupid "jackass posts CP in an innocent forum thread, oh noes everyone who clicks on the thread now has CP in their browser cache" scenario, but that's true of anyone who ever visits a site that allows images; I don't remember it happening). But, while I didn't hide this all that hard, I don't post on the Internet under my real name, so the vast majority of people who knew this only knew this about "magic9mushroom".
In 2021 I wound up with a new housemate in uni accommodations. He and I clicked and got along like a house on fire until I made the mistake of sharing this, at which point he started thinking I was a dangerous sexual predator who needed to get his life sorted out. Eventually he resorted to blackmailing me in an attempt to make me co-operate with his attempt to, shall we say, save my soul. I refused, for much the same reason as I ignored the law in the first place i.e. "to say the things he truly feels, and not the words of one who kneels". At this point I was clearly going to get exposed.
And if I'd been an ideal defendant, well, fine, face the music and fight the charges to try and overturn things. Except I'm not, because any serious investigation into my background would turn up one of my bigger regrets i.e. that I tried to forcibly kiss a few people (of roughly the same age as I was) back in 2008-11. And so I feared that I'd be painted as a ticking time bomb in an effort to get caselaw against text works.
So I wrote a tell-all suicide note, posted it online, and cut my own throat. I just mistimed it, and didn't make it to the carotid before campus security and then the police arrived to stop me and cart me off to the looney bin (because that's what they do when they catch you literally red-handed in a suicide attempt).
...At which point I learned a rather-vital piece of information: the courts uphold these crazy laws when cases are actually prosecuted, but the police consider them a crock of shit and don't actually arrest people for them except in highly-unusual circumstances. So I got in no legal trouble whatsoever, and the motivation to kill myself evaporated.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9hr ago
Mean, or median, not mode; the mode should stay the same unless the modal value itself flipped (in which case there'd be a new, more extreme mode).
I will note that more progressive Internet communities have locked themselves into such a spiral for a long time, due to censorship on SJ boiling off anything that might cause the board to shift right.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10hr ago
Progressives (and indeed, most everyone) saw Trump v1.0 as a passing blip who won due to Hillary Clinton being a uniquely unelectable candidate
Nitpick: no, progressives generally weren't that introspective (the Berniebros were, but not the mainstream). They saw Hillary as the rightful winner, and her having being robbed of her victory by Russian interference and the Electoral College system. Hence the hashtag #NotMyPresident, which literally denies that Donald Trump won.
This actually strengthens your argument, but I felt it's important to keep the record straight.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12hr ago
I can think of a couple of motivations:
- If you're dead, you guarantee you can't later break under interrogation and turn in your co-conspirators, whom you probably care about;
- If you're dead, you ensure there won't be a court case to humiliate your side. The investigation might also be pretty attenuated.
The latter was the reason I tried to off myself nearly four years ago, and to deal with the former I wiped my entire email history permanently and scrambled some of my passwords to try and avoid any splashback on my friends.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15hr ago
I saw a decent amount of "I hate the guy but he didn't deserve to be shot" and "oh no, this is really going to piss the Republicans off".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16hr ago
unmasked, non-anonymous ICE agents would be a step away from the "Stormtroopers vs rebels" status quo and back towards a more stable situation.
Well, there's actually kind of a question there, which is why I said "mostly" above. There is the possibility that revealing all their identities would lead to mass attacks, and the resulting mass arrests as the counterterrorism apparatus moves in could escalate things even more. I kinda doubt it, because the limiting ingredient seems to be lunatics rather than targets, but it's possible.
(And no, you can't just not deploy the counterterrorism apparatus. You can't just let domestic terrorists operate unmolested and successfully deter people; that's partial state failure and drastically undermines the social contract.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16hr ago
They just want the agents to be killed by lynch mobs,
No, most of them aren't that bloodthirsty (obviously the lynch-mobs are, but AFAIK there haven't been Democratic legislators in the lynch-mobs). They do legitimately want the names for justified (and not-so-justified) lawsuits, and they probably want to employ the standard cancellation playbook as well.
Mostly, I think the identification laws should go through; it's a bad look for the government to hide from domestic terrorists rather than crushing them (and yes, retaliating against law enforcement in an effort to deter them from performing their duties is terrorism, or even insurrection).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Pretty standard terrorism justification structure too.
When I was drafting that post, I said something about this basically being how being a terrorist feels from the inside. But, well, I didn't feel sufficiently qualified to make that claim.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
So, what, his plan is for progressives to chuck out a bunch of violent rhetoric and hope none of their own side will act on it but that conservatives will get scared of it and back down, without any more actual conservatives getting shot? Right after an Antifa did, in fact, shoot a conservative?
You'd like to think nobody could be that stupid but... okay, I can kind of see how somebody could twist himself around into 4D chess logic like that.
holds head in hands
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
and wants the right to feel the same way so that they'll stop doing what he believes to be encouraging violence.
Um, that plan is called terrorism. Or rebellion, I suppose. The whole point of rule of law and the monopoly on force is that nobody except the state gets to control people's behaviour by threatening to shoot them. Promoting this plan is asserting that "now we're all sons of bitches", the social contract is unconscionable or has failed, and let's start fighting the insurgency. And, well, as noted this is very bad.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
Thanks for the link.
You've certainly got me less convinced than I was. I will note that there are two ways to read what you posted - one is that he doesn't like people trying to rip away plausible deniability and extract a straight answer - but earlier than either of these he does shit-talk someone as a terrorist supporter.
The bit that had me convinced was the first sentence:
I need, you need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events, so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature.
...because the scenario he's describing is specifically the terrorist wincon and can only be achieved by terrorism. I edited in the request for earlier context because I thought there was a possibility he might be explaining what you actually need for terrorism to succeed (to demonstrate why it's a bad idea; I've made this exact point when people ask me "why aren't you blowing up datacentres?"). The obvious historical example is Yamamoto Isoroku's letter:
Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.
...which is very much saying that this is a stupid and unworkable idea.
But there's no context like that; Destiny seems to just have chucked this out out of nowhere in response to a guy who's condemning violence. So I dunno what's going on here. Maybe Destiny went temporarily nuts, said something crazy, and didn't catch it because he was streaming; livestreams do have that hazard. Or maybe he's treating the US political landscape as effectively being a civil war, and is saying he doesn't want to lay down arms unilaterally (that's still crossing the line, though).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
Some definitions include it; some don't. There's a reason I didn't say I wasn't being a hypocrite below. It's definitely a highly-noncentral case, even if included.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
· Edited 2d ago
There have been several scalps, including MSNBC pundit Matthew Dowd, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah, political streamer Destiny, and, most prominently, Jimmy Kimmel.
Some have tried to claim that the Right’s version of cancel culture is different in some vague way that makes these statements not hypocritical, e.g. it’s OK to cancel someone if they’re “celebrating the death” of someone, but I generally find these arguments unpersuasive.
I agree there's a definite overreach and some of the reaction is clearly overboard.
I will say, though, that Destiny is different to the other three cases you mention. Here's the video. I'll transcribe it for those, like me, who prefer to read (and because the hardsubs in that vid are inaccurate):
I need, you need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events, so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature. The issue is, right now... they don't feel like there's any fear... they, I dunno, I dunno, it's like memes. It's just memes to everybody, I guess. I dunno bro, I dunno, I don't care. I'm playing video games. Okay? I'm done today. I don't give a fuck.
God, I'm gonna-it's gonna be so fuckin' gay if I get killed in the next fucking two months of shit I'm doing. With all the cuck shit out here, please don't anybody make any actual fucking... the most cucked, weak-ass, fucking bullshit-ass speeches on my side. God, if it happens, holy shit, I'm gonna make a Death Note before I go out, to go live[*] and not... God, it's so cucked. It's so optics cucked.
The question you should ask is, why is nobody on the right afraid enough to say "Hey Trump, can you like, tone it down a little bit, bro? We're getting killed out here, like, literally. Can we, like, chill?" It's unacceptable, that that feeling doesn't exist over there. And the, the reason why it doesn't is because, they're just like infinitely hyped up on their civil war machine. And then everybody on the left just rolls over on it. It's so crazy to me!
*For clarity, this is pronounced as the adjective, not the verb.
So, um. He's publically endorsing the political strategy of murdering conservatives, as a class, until they are afraid enough to make political concessions (there's a word for that strategy), and saying that it's "unacceptable" that it hasn't succeeded yet. This is going well beyond "celebrating murder" and into "incitement of murder".
This is a scalp that needed to be taken; he has sown the wind and he shall reap the whirlwind. I don't think Destiny streamed this on YouTube itself, but rather Kick, so I'd quibble that YouTube isn't the proper authority to enforce this (Kick is, and the criminal justice system is; to quote Elon Musk in regard to this matter, "He can resume streaming when he has served his term."). But yeah, there is a very direct and legitimate public interest in not having calls for terrorism in the public square; as @zeke5123a alluded to, this is the real Paradox of Tolerance where even a libertine like myself thinks this crosses a line.
(NB: Just in case somebody's been keeping notes from years ago and other sites and is about to accuse me of hypocrisy: yes, I've crossed that line myself on a couple of occasions, it's one of the worst things I've ever done, and while I haven't actually been punished for it I wouldn't complain if I were. This is repentance, not "rules for thee and not for me".)
EDIT: If someone can find me a longer clip of that stream (in particular, one starting a few minutes earlier), I'd be appreciative.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
I don't actually think that it is. Excusing (and frequently endorsing) police brutality as a matter of regular practice because you have little regard for their victims' rights or welfare is significantly worse than dancing on a metaphorical grave. One is indecorous. The other contributes to perpetuating unjustified violence (and, it bears repeating, detracts from public safety).
Am I reading you correctly, that you're implying celebrating an assassination of a nonviolent activist doesn't "[contribute] to perpetuating unjustified violence" or "[detract] from public safety"? Even in a causal sense, rather than a criminal responsibility sense?
Because, well, that seems obviously untrue, insofar as the elasticity of terrorist attacks with respect to celebration of terrorist attacks sure seems like it should be positive, and "shooting people for their political views" seems pretty damned unjustified outside a literal war.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/my-response-to-daniel-bergners-new
Okay, now it strips out everything after the ?, which is certainly better.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
There are people who would say that living under Red* despotism is better than dying due to civil war.
*In the West other than the USA, red = left as a holdover from Communist red.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
6.6 million is 2% of 330 million. 5% of 330 million is 16.5 million.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Otherwise you’d have to believe that almost every person who supports Kirk murder has been vocal about it on the internet, which is implausible.
What, is there a tweet saying "Shooting Charlie Kirk was good actually" with 10,000,000+ likes, or something? Because even if you've been reading pro-assassination tweets 8 hours a day for the past week, and you can read a tweet in two seconds, that'd still only be a little over 100,000 of them.
I was basing my guess on the rough proportions I saw in a thread elsewhere on the 'Net (i.e., no algorithmic sorting), with a fudge factor to account for lunatics tending to talk about politics on the 'Net more than non-lunatics.
EDIT: although I flubbed the maths, and with the same fudge factor but proper arithmetic I get 8%.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
it is that we have half the country that sees riots and murders against people they don't like as a good thing
This is an exaggeration. I'd say it's more like 5%, although they are very loud and influential, and that proportion is still way too high.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
· Edited 8d ago
Mmm, yes, but selection effects going both ways. Yes, people who don't care about politics don't tend to show up at rallies. But social justice warriors also don't tend to show up at religious-right rallies unless they're explicitly planning to attack or disrupt them in some way. Not sure which is the stronger effect.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
TBH, I only really said it because the accusation of deliberate obfuscation was thrown and I felt that that was even less charitable. Probably would have kept my suspicions to myself otherwise.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
Yeah, maybe I should have prefaced my comment with "Nitpick:".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Chaos theory is maths, not physics.
I mean, it is a political issue, just not one that's culture-war-charged at the moment.
As noted, I posted a tell-all suicide note that got forwarded to the police. Everything I said above is a matter of public record, tied to my real name. So, at this point, why hide it?
I have three dozen legal VNs (or, well, legal to own; I pirated them, but that's neither here nor there). Also, I misspoke a little: many of those VNs with loli scenes also have non-loli scenes which do appeal to me (some of which still involve characters canonically under 18; paedophilia is the paraphilia of being attracted to prepubescents, and puberty is a long way before 18). But, yeah, some of them I find basically unarousing and would still recommend to people who also won't find them arousing! Saya no Uta and Marunomi, for sure (though, y'know, massive content warning; both are in the horror genre - without the limitations normally imposed on that genre in Western media by needing to be legal for kids to view - and Saya in particular gave me nightmares as a 20-year-old; I'm marking this post 18+ in part because I'd generally rather kids didn't look into those).
The fanfic I wrote... there are some parts of it that push some of my buttons, which does have something to do with why I wrote it, but the work as a whole is not my preferred prurient reading because I followed certain things to their logical, and frankly rather nauseating, conclusions. What can I say? I treat fictional worlds very seriously, and won't just handwave things whether for taste or "taste". "But the aaaaart" doesn't disappear as a thing just because one's writing sexually-explicit content.
I guess I have.
More options
Context Copy link