domain:parrhesia.substack.com
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11m ago
Okay. Show me core red tribe cadre publicly calling for a person to be killed, a red-triber killing them, and then core red-tribe cadre publicly celebrating the killing. That's what we have in this case on the blue side, and you think this is a both-sides thing, so let's see the other side.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11m ago
It's a safe-edgy position
It's only a testament to how far we've come that liberals are describing it as "safe-edgy".
The constant drumbeat of trans bad will just sound like bullying the longer it goes on
We don't need to rely on "trans bad" and bullying. We can go after the doctor Mengeles that pushed the practice on unsuspecting parents of vulnerable children, we can go after corrupt academics, we can go after healthcare providers that cynically used this fad to extract money. We can keep hammering this issue longer than you can imagine, outflanking you from the left as we're doing so.
The true depth of this scandal is yet to hit the mainatream, and if it does, you will be looking at the innocent days of the year of Our Lord 2025 with wistful nostalgia.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13m ago
I wrote a far-too-long reply, and then lost it to an internet outage. hopefully this one will work better.
Here's an article giving a feds-were-being-Red interpretation of Waco. I'm fairly sure I saw at least one other version of this argument during BLM.
....Existence proven. That is quite the article; I haven't made it through the whole thing, and it took a while to get further than the subheader. @gattsuru, you might get a kick out of this. I might try and do a writeup for it.
I think you may be underestimating the degree to which "smart money"/the forces that actually steer society have taken as a lesson from WWII that maintaining normality and proving chudjak right over and over again is the winning strategy for all conflicts, and how good they have gotten at it.
The last several years are best modelled as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble. It is not this way because someone commissioned a search of how to maximize evil, it is this way because the search is simply the sum of our collective desires. We want it to be this way more than we want it to be some other way. We are, at the end of the day, only human.
Over the last two years in particular, I think we have an abundance of solid evidence that both sides of the culture war are headless, and that no one is to any meaningful extent "in control" of the mechanisms driving the conflict. It's all paths of least resistance, incentive gradients, water flowing to the sea. Ukraine and Russia can keep cute cafes and nightclubs running fifty klicks behind the front because they are two cohesive cultures fighting an actual war centrally-directed between them, not the corpse of a formerly-cohesive culture undergoing increasingly rapid decay. We are sewn up together inside this corpse, and will likely claw each others' guts out trying to escape it. We have no front to hide behind and so everywhere is the front, and the fight is exponentially more chaotic.
The people publicly cheering Kirk's death appear to be core Progressive cadre: lots of teachers, health-care professionals, intellectuals and academics. I'm skeptical that the Democratic party or Blue Tribe more generally can actually sideline these people, much less change their minds. What can and likely will be done is to try to get them to shut up and stop scaring the hos; I think additional five-minutes-hates like this are unlikely, because the lesson learned here will be that this permutation gets you in too much trouble, so keep the murder but more plausible deniability is needed. I think this will mostly be accomplished through vibe transmission, largely subconscious, maybe through a couple essays or think-pieces crystalizing things for the slower among us.
After all, a Shepard tone is made up of many separate frequency peaks that all fade in, drift in the same direction, and then eventually fade out.
I get that. What you seem to be arguing is that a couple years ago, support for riots increased and then decreased, and this time it's support for assassins that's increasing and then will decrease, but overall the total level of violence stays roughly equal, right?
I don't buy it. The floyd riots represented a huge increase in violence, far beyond the baseline of the post-70s decades. They were unsustainable, and so they were not sustained, and now that increased tribal appetite for violence finds new channels to flow down... but it seems to me that it is concentrating and accellerating. In the Floyd years, even in CHAZ, political killings were mostly opportunistic or impulsive, and support for them was mainly drawn from support for the riots as a whole, or from after-the-fact damage control rationalizations. Now we're seeing targeted ambush murders, with broad-based incitement and encouragement beforehand and explicit celebration afterward. That seems like a change that should worry us.
If I understand it correctly, your further argument is that in the 60s-70s, there were a bunch of other forms of conflict that were much more worrying, and we don't have those now. That's true; the Russian Collusion hoax aside, there's no hostile foreign power either tribe can ally with, and most of our foreign entanglements have been bipartisan. On the other hand we aren't the America that went into the 60s and 70s either. We're short many institutions and norms and a shedload of social cohesion, and the violence, again, is not actually coming from the fringes in any meaningful sense any more. My model is that an outright majority of Blues would be happy to see Trump murdered. That model is, I think, shared by most of Red Tribe, and we form our plans and actions based on that understanding.
Take away the top-down approval, and a lot more symmetry can be seen: for example, the widespread approval among the Right for lawless killings such as the Zimmerman/Martin case (whatever you think about whether it was justified, there is little to dispute about it being lawless).
Zimmerman did recieve significant Red Tribe support (although notably I don't remember anyone celebrating Martin's death), but he claimed lawful self-defense and was acquitted of his charges in court. I'm willing to agree that some verdicts are wrong; I strongly object to Angela Davis' acquittal, for example, but I would not agree that the killing was clearly lawless.
By contrast, I would agree that Drejka's shooting of McGlockton and the McMichaels' shooting of Arbery were pretty clearly lawless killings. Both cases were attempts at self-defense, but in both cases the shooter made errors in judgement that compromised the validity of their self-defense claim. Drejka recieved no support that I'm aware of; the McMichaels recieved some minimal support.
Compare these three cases to Karmelo Anthony, Luigi, and now Robinson. That's one apparent impulse murder and two premeditated ambush murders, none with even a shred of a claim to self-defense or any lawful basis for the killing. All three have received appalling levels of support from Blue Tribe broadly.
I am not seeing an equivalence here. Red Tribe supported Zimmerman and Rittenhouse also because we thought they were legitimately innocent and had acted in self-defense, and Drejka and the McMichaels we wrote off because they broke the rules, even if only in marginal and technical ways. No one cheering Robinson or Luigi or donating to Anthony is under the impression that what they did was justifiable legally, or that the illegality of the acts derives from the legal fine-print. They are celebrating the fact that their tribe can collectively flout the law, as they did in the riots as well.
Do not confuse this for an argument that we Reds are not entirely willing and capable of coordinating similar violence; the difference is who we've generally aimed it at ("Are those Level Four plates?", "I didn't lose shit", "belt-feds are the only good feds", "the tree of liberty", etc), and the fact that we have drawn and enforced lines that keeps such lawless killing almost entirely (and, arguably, comically) theoretical.
aaa
16m ago
To turn the tables, imagine if George Soros died
IMO there is a very important difference between someone dying (in an accident, of natural causes) and someone being murdered. In the second case you are walking a fine line between criticizing someone who died (ok) and celebrating political assassination (not ok).
That said my rules > your rules applied fairly > your rules applied unfairly, as always. Until cancellation is taken off the table as a viable weapon the equilibrium is always going to end up being that if you can use it you use it.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
19m ago
Some people might say that the uncomfortable truth is that women's liberation is incompatible with above-replacement fertility, but I think the problem is broader: personal liberation in general is incompatible with natural above-replacement fertility.
And you can't really use economics to overcome this. Like in that story in Freakonomics about an Israeli daycare, once money enters the equation, duty leaves it forever. Stimuli and fines simply say: "you don't have to have children, if you can afford it". You need a society which treats having children as a sacred duty to the community, where it's unthinkable to go against its will.
Or, conversely, the first society that industrializes childbearing and childrearing will win. Via artificial wombs, as there aren't enough women that are willing to go through regular childbearing many times that you can make this into a full-time job: if the natural replacement rate is 1.2, then we need 1x more child per woman to offset this, or one woman in nine turned into a breeder and having 10.2 children instead of the usual 1.2. I don't think even the most collectivist society is totalitarian enough to achieve this.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21m ago
I was, indeed, talking about Thomas Crooks, the guy who shot Trump at a rally a year ago. We have a report of him being an outspoken conservative, and he registered as Republican in 2022, but a few months before that he'd donated a small amount to ActBlue, and he did, y'know, shoot Donald Trump, and AFAIK he didn't make any political posts on the 'Web to clear up what the hell's going on there, so I stick him in the "unknown" column rather than the "left-wing" or "right-wing" columns.
I think the Charlie Kirk murder screams Antifa, to the point that the only way it could be not Antifa would be if it were an outright false-flag trying to frame them - and even then, that's quite unlikely. But that wasn't the topic of discussion.
Are we good?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
29m ago
Sorry, I meant "either of [the Trump ones]". The Kirk shooter shack-up is now reported all over the place, so I think it's true.
Ioper
34m ago
Things could of course change but he has said that he planned for 6-7 volumes and he just finished the 6th.
FistfullOfCrows
55m ago
privately own cities operating as if they were corporate fiefdoms
I mean, there is a reason Nick Land decided to immigrate to Shanghai.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
57m ago
Ah, my bad. I just went off of the parent comment.
According to German news, the Charlie Kirk shooter was indeed shacked up with a transsexual, but YMMV on how trustworthy that tidbit is.
Rov_Scam
1hr ago
I worked for an inventory service in college and we used machines that were nothing but a numerical keypad with a one-line LCD display, and asa result I'm one of the few people whose typing is mediocre but can scream on the keypad—I use it almost every time I need to put a number in, even if I'm typing something. So I couldn't imagine having a keyboard without one. To be fair, some laptops don't, which incidentally included the ones the supervisor used to download the data and run the reports, so they carried a usb keypad with them to make manual entry easier.
FistfullOfCrows
1hr ago
You're quite wrong, the US was founded because the old country wasn't christian enough for the desires of the pilgrims.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1hr ago
The vast majority of signatories on the famous Harper's Letter are liberals or leftists. Few are conservative, and virtually none are associated with the populist Right that dominates the Republican establishment.
No conservatives signing a letter that includes a denouncement of the current leader of the conservatives doesn't tell you conservatives don't care about free speech. It tells you conservatives have kicked at that football one too many times, Lucy.
And now FIRE is progressive! I'm sure Greg Lukianoff will be surprised, considering the many attacks they have suffered from the left, being branded a front for conservative ideology because the only people they could source funding from were conservative.
And while I'm at it, the original FIRE database you link lists deplatforming attempts, which you call cancelling, but that is like calling attempted murder murder. Attempted cancellations are bad, yes, but of the successful attempts the left clearly dominates.
Lizzardspawn
1hr ago
The left enjoyed almost 15 or 20 years of dominance, and they lost it because of 2 errors. They couldn't police their fringe on immigration and trans, and they pissed off one of the few people on the planet with real fuck you money when they censored babylon bee.
The equivalent to "banning a movie for the contents of the movie itself", for people, is "firing someone from his job for things said in his role in his job"--writers publishing books that say bad things, politicians making speeches that say bad things, celebrities saying things during publicity for their films, professors teaching bad things in their class, etc. None of your examples are like that and thus are not excluded by my definition.
Damore posted things in a forum at his job, but posting there wasn't part of his job duties. (And even if it had been, he had been assured that he could speak freely.)
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Sure, he happened to be signed up with the other party.
Is he? The only specifics on this that I heard of was that he supposedly donated to the Trump campaign... except he didn't. Someone just found a guy in the donation record, with the same first and last name.
Last I heard the shooter was not signed up with any party.
Edit: although from the context it sounds like they're talking about the Trump shooter(s), not the Charlie Kirk one, I don't think either of them shacked up with a transsexual.
Earendil
Then over Middle-Earth he passed
1hr ago
I'd love for you to substantiate this by indicating what you saw in chapter one which suggested to you that I'd be upset about Jews or blacks.
For that matter, I'd like you to tell me if you actually disagree with anything.
FistfullOfCrows
1hr ago
Until the war is won, so forever. It is a meme war, a total meme war. As long as teachers decide it's a great idea to show the Charlie Kirk shooting to 11 year olds and tell them he was a bad man who deserved it, the cancelations will continue. If anything, Trump should declare antifa a terrorist organization and bear the full might of the government machine on the various NGOs and super pacs funding the woke mind cancer.
Tretiak
1hr ago
Financial support for riots/ers is a crime after all
It is?
In the case of something like January 6th, assume for the sake of argument it was an attempt at a coup (in my view it of course wasn't). An almost direct but legally implied right to overthrow a tyrannical government is built into the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Why wouldn't any of the rioters get off on that defense? Because that one isn't entirely clear to me.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
1hr ago
Shacked up with a transsexual, wrote a bunch of leftist memes, and finally shot a right-wing public figure.
Sure, he happened to be signed up with the other party. But his actual active actions speak a much clearer language than that bit of buerocratic neglect (i.e., inaction, which comes easy).
He does a lot of exaggerating to get the point across. In the real world, societies were not created on isolated islands. There was cultural and biological spillover through trade, wars, and conquest. So you wouldn't expect the differences to be quite this stark.
As with most (coherent) objections people have floated, this is addressed in the next chapter.
More egregiously, I don't think the implication holds...
I'm not implying any of what you just said.
Meanwhile Europeans, or their American descendants, are hardly genetically wired to be peaceful.
If you ever read something about Tidus with the word 'peace' in it you will know that it wasn't written by me. The word doesn't exist in that world, which is to say that, again, I'm not implying any of what you just said.
If anything, there is an argument that the western colonizers were the actual people that this post is warning about.
We have a winner! Or close enough. Enjoy today's chapter.
I don't think this is a good method. If you look at indictments for the recent years, it includes entires like this: "On October 5, 2023, Philip Jerome Buyno, 73, of Propheststown, Illinois, accepted a guilty plea of attempted arson. In the early morning of May 20, 2023, Buyno attempted to burn down a building set to become an abortion clinic in Danville, IL. According to the DOJ, Buyno "admitted that...he brought several containers filled with gasoline with him and used his car to breach the front entrance to a commercial building... for the purpose of burning it down before it could be used as a reproductive health clinic." (DOJ)" Buyno is not listed anywhere else, so this is a case of a recent crime that is listed just in the indictments, meaning that you'd be filtering out many other similar cases. Clearly this category doesn't just list people convicted of decades-old cases.
I also tried to check out whether the dataset includes the Allen, Texas - what seems to be an obvious case of right-wing terrorism - shooting with Mauricio Martinez Garcia listed as Hispanic or White to check whether just limiting cases to white people leaves out essential right-wing terrorism cases perpetrated by, say, Hispanic people with clear far-right ideology, but I couldn't find it... at all?
More options
Context Copy link