domain:nunosempere.com
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
39m ago
Once again, the rules of this site are extremely tiresome at times.
Tough.
I know you're sick of reading this same complaint, and I'm sorry for that.
Yes we are, and no you're not.
But this news was going to get posted here one way or another,
Yes. There are good and acceptable ways to post it that require a minimal amount of effort, and there are bad and unacceptable ways to post it because someone wants to be First!!!
and forcing people to jump through hoops to talk about current events while they're happening right now is bad.
No, it is not.
We've explained why the rule exists. We've explained why you can't do what you want to do. You can accept this or not.
I don't think there's a difference really. Rights aren't prayers, they are tools we use to protect society. I do think free speech and expression is the most important right, but that's because it is the last line of defence against the tyrannical - even if they lock you up, if you can talk you have the opportunity to convince your captor to let you go. Sure in practice that is very rare, but the potential is better than nothing. In abstract I can agree we shouldn't burn the whole thing down just because one guy can't shout obscenities at passers-by, but in practice that historically means I'm next. Unlike many on the right these days I will still defend the right to speak of people I find abhorrent, which is why that congressman annoys me. But fighting for it, that is fighting for your own demise.
The sad part, in my view, is that many of those who will suffer the consequences of 'belittling' speech will have been indoctrinated into it and raised in an environment where their speech didn't have consequences. They are victims of a zeitgeist shift, but to them, unaware of history, it will look like right wing authoritarianism run rampant. The cycle will begin anew. I'd be worried about that if I didn't think it inevitable.
I think rights are more than just tools we use to protect higher values. They're the values we aspire to themselves because we're happier living in societies that carve out spaces for different human activities. I think depending on where you are in society you're going to have a different view on what kind of society you live in. In my own case I can agree with what people like Jaron Lanier says and I think many people in country's across the world would say the same thing for themselves, even without an explicit commitment to free speech. If you're a black teenager that inherits the circumstances and conditions of having to grow up in inner city Detroit, you still may not say you live in a tyranny, but you live in a dog-eat-dog world in a 1st world shithole society that doesn't care about you, from some of their perspectives. And it's hard to disagree with that when it's baked into your life experiences. Those communities would greatly enjoy a little more security and a little less freedom if you offered it to them on a plate. There are compromises to reach on civil liberties which include free speech. I used to get criticized all the time for "not understanding" how important freedom of speech is. I can assure people I absolutely understand it's importance. But it's important to understand there are different sociopolitical planes and axes that people live under. And freedom of speech isn't a one-size fits all solution. Countries do what they believe makes sense in their circumstance and history.
Oh man, I know. And looking back, my life would have been much easier - and better - if I'd embraced the friend/enemy distinction. I used to feel like a poster child for 'here's why you shouldn't live by your principles.' But I think I'm just meant to stick to a smaller community, once I started focusing more on improving my community on the local level my life improved immeasurably. Liberal democracy is not entirely stable in a polarised society I think, it tilts back and forth. People like me will never be in power, but we remind those in power that their righteousness is false, and they can and should do better, which - up to a point - is useful imo. It is also probably cope, but it works for me.
This is why I'm a conservative and think it's ultimately the proper fit for society. It's hard for mere mortals to know what will work at a first glance. Even a John von Neumann or Einstein can't hold a candle to the thousands of years of human trial and error. The world's complicated and individuals have only seen so much of it, which is why you have to live life with a useful rule of thumb. Just like in evolutionary biology, we learn that adaptions are 'good' inasmuch as they promote survival, what's old and lasts through time as tradition is also adaptive becauase traditions are evolutionary adaptions for societies. We want something so secure that we can't even remember a time when it wasn't around. The longer something has been around, the more likely it's weathered every imaginable storm, under every condition, on every subject and at every point. When people come around and say "times have changed," that isn't a serious argument when you have 300 million years to wade through in order to make that statement. Anyone would laugh a remark like that off the debate stage. At the very least tradition works and it's dues need to be paid because it's a way of being pragmatic.
No civilization out there better grasped that than the Romans. The highest authority to them in their society wasn't science, it was the "mos maiorum," or what we translate as "the way of the ancestors," (i.e. 'tradition'). And to question or put it in doubt, was literally to question the experts. Incidentally no other society was as anti-Utopian as the Romans were by the same principle. Tradition in this sense is ideologically agnostic. The content of the belief itself doesn't matter, which is why different societies have different traditions. All it has to be is useful, stabilizing, adaptive or productive and the best way to know that is how long it's been around. How else can you forecast what's rational? Only by repetitive, brute and often 'very painful' experience and by what 'works'. This is why contra an earlier statement by someone here who claimed conservatives want to tear down liberal institutions, no conservative I’ve ever met has said that. Conservatives are drawing some very important lessons on the utility and follies of liberalism on their 21st century Jupyter notebooks. Even Einstein conceded that:
"As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists."
sodiummuffin
42m ago
In addition to being a general Antifa thing Bella Ciao was used by the guy who attacked an ICE facility in 2019, as pointed out by Andy Ngo. So it's possible he took some inspiration from that, though it could just be generally popular enough in those circles that both referenced it.
The latter is are lyrics from the World War II-era Italian resistance song that has been adopted by Antifa as an unofficial anthem. It is frequently sung at their rallies and the song’s titled featured on their signs and slogans. In 2019, Washington state Antifa gunman Willem van Spronsen closed his manifesto with “Bella ciao” before attacking an ICE facility in Tacoma with a rifle and incendiary devices. He was shot dead while trying to ignite a propane tank close to the building and has since been glorified by Antifa as a hero and martyr.
oats_son
43m ago
It's not an insurmountable barrier for someone who's smart and posts here a lot. But those people can't provide coverage of everything here. From the way I see it, @yunyun333 is being punished because he posted in the wrong arbitrary thread, instead of the nonexistent megathread that should have been created (no seriously, why is there not a megathread about this? this is the exact use case for a separate thread), and some leniency should have been applied even if he posted in the wrong place, a gentle redirecting to the right place (which doesn't exist), because of how deeply hurtful this event was and continues to be.
TeknOShEeP
44m ago
So... you're reading a bunch of transcripts and concluding that he was a mainstream milquetoast conservative. Well, you'd be correct on that. But Charlie Kirk's power was not in his ideology, or his ideas, or his intellect. Charlie Kirk was extraordinary because alone among any political commentator in the US, he would go to various colleges and universities and welcome open, civil debate with anyone who showed up. This is something that our society is sorely lacking and we need more of, but there are very few people who have the courage to do it. Probably fewer now.
If your point is to dismiss him because he's not an ideological tentpole of conservatism, you are missing the big picture entirely.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
45m ago
I saw someone posted a clip of his appearance on Newsome's podcast. It seemed relatable and they had a reasonable rapport. But I haven't heard the whole thing.
Catsnakes_
45m ago
First, I don't think that scenario is a central example of what we're talking about, which is mostly people just putting shitty remarks about him into the ether apropos of nothing other than the event itself. That said, how and when you communicate is as important as the literal words. If I post "RIP Charlie Kirk. He was a great conservative mind." as a little eulogy and you reply with "actually he was a hack who believed whatever Trump told him to believe" then your message was heard loud and clear.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
46m ago
Compared to other people in Paraguay: Extreme upper class, much more educated, top 0.1% wealthy, well connected. If I imagine myself spending the next 30 years there, my economic impact is probably pretty large, and I could shape this country, and be shaped by it, a huge deal.
Compared to people in my native Spain: Maybe upper class, but realistically well-to-do bourgeoisie. I do speak three languages and have a good, if incomplete education, but noble blood is now several generations behind me, and I'm not particularly well connected to the Spanish economic or cultural elite (though both the queen and the PM went to my highschool, XD). The term for this would be Indiano
If I compare myself against the average american, e.g. imagining I moved there: I'm doing ok, aspirational middle class. My class would really depend on my eventual wife; if she is equally well off we might end up in the upper middle class after a few decades of work, if she were more of an artsy type I'd fall down to middle middle class.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
46m ago
The only part of that statement I'd disagree with is "squish".
Anyway, what is even the point you're trying to make here? When people are talking about his views they're trying to say that he wasn't saying any crazy extremist "fighting words" shit, and that he was trying to persuade his opponents by means of civil debate. If that's so beyond the pale that it warrants cheering for his death, than what the hell is supposed to be an acceptable way of being a conservative and participating in politics?
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
47m ago
But all the blue tribe leaders are saying the right things Bernie and AOC included.
Politicians aren't really leaders, anymore.
See: 2020. Politicians were terrified of pissing off their uncontrolled constituents.
SerialStateLineXer
48m ago
"If you're reading this you're gay" has pre-Internet roots.
07mk
49m ago
Most people will learn most of what they know about him immediately after he died. A period of not speaking ill of the dead is unduly biased towards his supporters.
Well, where by "his supporters," you mean "supporters of free speech and dialogue as a way to solve political differences that's preferable to violence," sure. People who support such things have a huge, legitimate reason to want Kirk to be lionized, in a way that's entirely orthogonal to their support of his non-meta political opinions, because it sets the precedent that political assassination is politically beneficial to the assassinated. Now, it's possible that the increase in incentive to murder someone on your own side via false flag is greater than the decrease in incentive to murder someone on the other side, but I'm skeptical of this notion.
Quantumfreakonomics
54m ago
No it doesn't. Conversation begats conversation. If someone posts, "RIP Charlie Kirk. He was a great conservative mind." It is perfectly okay to reply with, "actually he was a hack who believed whatever Trump told him to believe," without that being commentary on the acceptability of political violence.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
56m ago
They are at least material against the claim that Kirk can be best described as a "moderate conservative squish".
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
59m ago
I do think I am far smarter than you, to the extent that you are incapable of modeling my thoughts.
Nice try.
Is "Hey fascist! Catch!" a /pol/ or /k/ meme?
Did he write it on his bullet casing ironically?
Can you provide me a single reason why a Trump Supporter, groyper, /pol/ or /k/ poster would want Charlie Kirk dead?
What about the statements of the family:
Utah Governor Spencer Cox said a family member interviewed by investigators stated that Mr Robinson had become "more political" in recent years.
The relative also said that during a dinner conversation before the attack, Mr Robinson had stated Kirk "was full of hate and spreading hate" and mentioned Kirk's upcoming event at Utah Valley University, according to Cox.
Oh and I haven't seen evidence that HE was a Republican at any point:
Public records reviewed by the BBC suggest Mr Robinson had in the past registered as an unaffiliated, or nonpartisan, voter in Utah. Matthew Carl Robinson, the suspect's father, and Amber Denise Robinson, the suspect's mother, are registered Republicans, according to state records.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wl2y66p9o
I'm updating against him being trans, but much, MUCH more in favor of him being a brain-poisoned Zoomer with lefty sympathies.
Do you want to register a prediction right now as to which sort of Discord communities he was active in?
I am going to say its mildly ironic that the most competent/effective assassins that the left has are heterosexual young white men. Interesting message that sends.
But, the right has a LOT more of that particular demographic than the left does.
07mk
59m ago
The Right had the moral majority in the 80s and they went around oppressing everyone with their Christian morality. The lefties felt oppressed and did something about it, they took over. Now everyone feels oppressed by the woke feminist instead of the church lady. Is the solution really just to give it back to the right so they can go back to oppressing everyone?
I mean, the 80s is half a lifetime away. The right wing that existed then doesn't exist today, and the lineage is rather thin as well. But regardless, the solution seems to be to just... stop oppressing the likes of FC. Stopping oppressing such people does not, in any way, mean giving power back to the right or whatever - that'd only be the case if we presumed that the only way the left keeps power is through oppression of people like FC, which I would consider completely false. And, TBH, the opposite of what it is when the left is actually living up to its ideals; the value of the left is that it's, in some real sense better than the right, and the only way that'd be the case is if it arrives at its policy prescriptions without oppressing people who would fight against it tooth and nail; it's this ability to win over the people despite giving every leeway to its opponents that actually verifies the superiority of our ideals over those of our enemies in a liberal democracy. Without that verification, we're just two groups killing each other over whether bread should be buttered on top or on the bottom.
Catsnakes_
59m ago
I've seen plenty of conservatives assert that any criticism of Kirk at this moment is tantamount to saying "He deserved to get shot. Also, I 100% support political violence against people who disagree with me". This is flatly nonsense, as it's obviously valid to decry political violence while simultaneously believing Kirk was just a mundane political operative like any other.
People could also just not comment on the guy's assassination. Going on Twitter to criticize the guy 10 minutes after he gets internally decapitated live in front of his kids (rather than just saying "what a senseless tragedy" or just remaining quiet and saving the takes for a week later) does in fact amount to saying "he deserved to get shot" and both the intended audience and their political opponents are correct to interpret it that way!
Let's entertain a hypothetical, some law gets passed that says "Saying the Democratically elected President has no clothes is now illegal punishable by jail time" I say the President has no clothes. Cops show up outside my house. I refuse to let them enter. What do they do?
In your world the distinction is that when they bust down my door and take me to jail they are the only ones inflicting violence, the law is not violent even though it backed up its authority with the social-derived power to inflict violence as an enforcement mechanism. I obviously disagree. I can infer the causality of that law and directly hold the people who proposed, lobbied, agitated for, etc. responsible for attempting to use the state's power to enforce violence for their own ends.
I feel like your rebuttal fails to understand the social reality of laws and how they are enforced. Can someone break the law and ignore the consequences? Governments that allow their power to be ignored don't survive.
The whole libertarian argument is farcical because those libertarians want the creature comforts that society provides them without wanting to pay for them. By living in society you agree to the implicit social contract. You are welcome to reject the contract and go live in a lawless place. Obviously since societies are land based, they tend to lay claim to all the land and its in their best interest to remove game-theoretical defectors.
That is (at best) unintentionally misleading, and (more often) an attempt at rhetorical sleight of hand to try to get people to accept a point they never would if you made it straight out.
idk what slight of hand you think I am doing. My explicit point is that governments are formed on the basis of a monopoly on violence and social consensus (for democratic systems) and their authority is derived from those basses. Thus any action by the government to enforce a law carries an implicit threat of violence against lawbreakers. I am open to you explaining to me how that is not the case but I have yet to see anything to the contrary
Words can never, ever, constitute violence. Violence only means inflicting actual physical harm upon people.
I agree that words alone in a vacuum can never, ever, constitute violence. I disagree that advocating for policies that lead to violent action absolves the speaker of blame. How do you think laws and policies get made? Do people not speak words when doing so? When they proposed the "President has no clothes" law was there not someone using words? If the end result is violence is there not some causal chain we can draw to such Words + Actions that directly led to that violence?
EDIT: I feel sort of confused on how my argument relates to the non-central fallacy that Scott is addressing, I'd need to go reread the blogpost. My argument is derived from a Hobbesian sense of social contract theory with observation on how people/collectives/governments actually accrue and use power.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
59m ago
I think your spot on. And, like all fashion, the user / wearers have to have some level of self-awareness. It's one thing to wear some digital camo pullover with a sports logo over it or something. It's quite another to show up all tactical gear'ed out to go on a cub scout 3 mile hike (ask me if I'm referring to personal experience here :-) ).
Charitably, I think patel probably had decent intent. But he seems like kind of spaz and may be one of those guys who kind of gets military / law enforcement / bro culture but is also not quite adept with it. If he had stopped with "Rest in peace, we have the watch." It comes across as salutary perhaps a little overwrought, but mostly fine. Throwing in "Valhalla" is deciding to unironically wear some of the shirts you see on /r/iamverybadass.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
1hr ago
Writing a five (5) (五) sentence paragraph with your own original analysis is not a "hoop".
@urquan wrote a very detailed post within hours of the original shooting. It's not an insurmountable barrier. You just have to, you know, do it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1hr ago
Why not just let them come back?
He's been told, privately and publicly, that we'd probably let him come back if he did so honestly, and promised he'd make some effort not to behave in the same way that got him banned last time. And this is not some special offer for Hlynka: almost any permabanned member, if they came to us and asked to be reinstated and promised to follow the rules, would at least be considered for amnesty. In case @The_Nybbler decides to lie again about what I just said, let me clear: that doesn't mean "if they grovel enough" or kiss our asses or whatever. It means convince us you want to participate in good faith, you understand why you were banned, and whether you agree with the rules or not, you are willing to abide by them. Someone last time I mentioned this got very upset that this implies "permaban" is not really permanent. Like we are not allowed to say "permanent" if we are willing to consider undoing it. I don't understand autists and anklebiters sometimes.
Anyway, Hylnka knows this, and his response has been to say (in various ways) "Fuck you and your rules."
There's another person active in the thread today who's so blatantly a banned user that I'm shocked nobody else has said anything, but they haven't been banned yet.
Generally speaking, we don't ban people we suspect of being banned users without a very high degree of certainty. This is mostly per @ZorbaTHut's guidance (if it were up to me, I'd be quicker to ban newly-rolled alts that are obviously just a troll recycling.) When I see someone beating a very familiar drum I may or may not ban them, depending on how well they are behaving, but mostly we'll let an obvious alt have enough rope to hang themselves with. This of course means we have many alts and returned permabanned users here right now, some of which I am very much aware of and some of which I haven't noticed or who've managed to fly under the radar thus far. No doubt they think they are very clever and have totally fooled us, but mostly we just don't find it worth our time to spend too much effort playing whack-a-mole. But we will whack them when they make themselves too obvious.
I remember an unofficial policy that if someone came back under a new pseudonym and changed their behavior sufficiently to plausibly avoid detection, that was a win too?
Yes, but you also have to not be determined to flip off the mods because you really want to let us know it's you and you're back neener fucking neener. Which is something Hlynka so far has been unable to do.
Not to mention if most people don't realize it's hlynka he can shed all the baggage of people who hated him for his mod decisions.
That would be credible, again, if he asked us. But I suspect Hlynka would never be able to stop being Hlynka. He'd be pretty obvious to most people quickly enough.
And I know you're reading this, Hlynka, and I'll say again what I've said before: I regret you had to be banned, I wish you hadn't forced us to do it, and I wish you would try to come back under honorable circumstances. But it's never going to happen while you're determined to show us how much contempt you have for us. It doesn't hurt my feelings, but I see no reason why we should consider amnesty for someone who very intentionally keeps trying to stick thumbs in our eyes.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
This can be spun into "radical far right killer 4chan tried to pin the blame on trans", and to an extent it will be. This is such a disaster.
I would bet $50 that ~no-one will remember this aspect after three weeks.
The actual reference for the song is the Netflix series Money Heist (by which I mean: yes it comes from the Itallian partisans, but literally none of these people would know that, were it not for the series). It was wildly popular in Europe, and is about as apolitical as you can get when writing a story about breaking into the European Central Bank. I think some of the iconography might have adapted by some activists, and if I had to guess the side, it would be left, but I'm not sure on that.
More options
Context Copy link