domain:sotonye.substack.com
SerialStateLineXer
1m ago
"If you're reading this you're gay" has pre-Internet roots.
07mk
2m 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
7m 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
9m 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
11m ago
I do think I am far smarter than you, to the extent that you are incapable of modeling my thoughts.
faceh
11m ago
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 those than the left does.
07mk
11m 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_
12m 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!
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
12m 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.
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.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
12m 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
12m 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
13m 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.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14m ago
As it turns out, the shooter in this case was a Trump supporter at one point (with donations to boot)
I thought that was deboonked (they got the wrong guy, and doxxed someone completely different in the process)?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16m ago
Yeah, I always hated these entrapment cases.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17m ago
He says that they talk about why the Civil Rights Act was a mistake once a week. He also confirms that he thinks MLK is a bad guy, which is also a radical view - the latest polling I could find indicates that 81% of Americans think that MLK had a positive impact on the country,
This is a pretty silly way of trying to paint him as a radical. Comparing a summary of his position to answers on a poll is a terrible measure of disagreement, and "I disagree" and "this is too radical" are two completely different things.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
21m ago
Is your position that the US doesn't follow international rules of war and therefore all US citizens are legitimate targets of violence anywhere?
I don't think Functor is David French in disguise but that isn't far off from French's analysis of how the admin would justify the Venezuelan boat strike.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
21m ago
... if the shooter was pushed into this by feds who were trying to sell a particular image of a danger the country faces that only they are able to address, does that count as a "false flag"?
4doorsmorewhores
22m ago
As it turns out, the shooter in this case was a Trump supporter at one point (with donations to boot), and was posting groyper or /pol/ or /k/ memes. Preemptively assuming he was probably a lefty seems like a pretty big stretch. You should update your argument and assumptions given this new information, no?
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
22m ago
Economically: Middle-middle.
Culturally: Hobo in the woods.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
24m ago
Ketanji Brown-Jackson as affirmative action hires
Don't forget Biden said that part.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
24m ago
No I would prefer they shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Good luck with your totalitarian utopia.
He described Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson (and other black women) as affirmative action hires who stole their spots from white people and who don't have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.
Wait… I thought you were against lionizing Kirk?
I didn’t know much about Kirk other than a vague impression he’s some sort of milquetoast young conservative personality, but this makes me like him more.
For indeed, that’s the mechanical outcome of substantially lower average black IQ and massive racial preferences in favor of blacks and against whites and Asians. For a given level of achievement or “achievement,” a black person will, on average, exhibit a significant deficit in brainpower compared to a would-be replacement white or Asian person.
For example, the “Opportunity Costs of…” paper found that in the mid-to-late 90s, being black was worth +230 points on the SAT vs. being white (+280 vs. Asians). 230 is larger than the difference in current day SAT scores between Harvard and Florida State University enrollees (220 and 180 at the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively—lots of Harvard students likely hitting the math cap). It wouldn’t be outrageous for a person to take seriously the brainpower of an nth percentile Harvard student but not an nth percentile FSU student.
Celebration parallax in action. Using Brown-Jackson as an implied counter-example to black female affirmative-action-hire and lack-of-brainpower is a curious choice, given Biden was quite clear on his selection criteria. That’s the Problematic part about widespread discrimination against whites and Asians in favor of blacks and a group of high-profile black women voicing their support of it: someone doubting the brainpower of said black women.
TIRM
26m ago
According to the posters on /r/somethingiswrong2024 it was the Heritage Foundation who murdered him. That would be a false flag attack.
Politicians aren't really leaders, anymore.
See: 2020. Politicians were terrified of pissing off their uncontrolled constituents.
More options
Context Copy link