TwiceHuman
1d ago
They use the same feminine tactics, e.g. victim mentality. They're also over-represented in important universities (which now have a strong left-wing bias) and of course, they're big on banking, and the entire financial system is basically one big scam, which has been rather obvious for over 150 years now
But yes, politics in general is rather awful, and most people who make politics a big part of their life are awful.
Anti-semitism is becoming more common and this is a direct consequence of jewish actions, but I think it only adds legitimacy to their victim complex (which may be the goal). At this rate, they might not have to spray paint swastikas on their own synagogues anymore!
Holocaust denial is becoming illegal in more and more countries, even though such a law is in conflict with fundamental human rights. It's easier to get away with criticizing white men than jews (they're less protected), so jews are still in a stronger position. Don't merely judge the strength of a group by how much of a "minority" they are, those who are actually oppressed are never recognized as such
TwiceHuman
1d ago
That's like saying "Not all gay people are promiscuous". A tendency is bad enough.
I think more than 50% of classic conspiracies have come true. Many of the ridiculus counter-examples you're probably aware of were never real theories, but rather satire meant to mock conspiracies. They probably did get "vaccines cause autism" wrong, though. "Q anon" and "flat earth" are also trivially wrong. The chemtrail claims come from geo-engineering, which do occur, and they do add chlorine to tap water. Jews also do inflate numbers in order to victimize themselves further.
I was once told that a great way to humble oneself was to attempt to predict the future. If your world model isn't accurate, your predictions will be way off. Yet many of these "crazy" conspiracy theorist correctly predicted many of the issues which are currently happening. Instead of preventing these developments, people mocked them or claimed that they weren't happening. How many loops do we need? It didn't even take a genius to know that Muslims wouldn't respect western culture, the first person who told me that would happen was about 12 years old.
You're making this out to be about cognitive biases and false positives in thinking, but I think it has nothing to do with that. The reason people don't believe in conspiracy theories is because they've been branded "low social status", so you'll have as much success explaining them as you'll have explaining that being sexually attracted to 16-year-olds isn't unnatural nor pedophilia. It doesn't matter how correct you are. It also doesn't matter how incorrect people are when they say that HBD isn't real, or that mass-immigration is beneficial. Ideologues have a lot in common with religious people
TwiceHuman
2d ago
You've never seen those Twitter posts of jews shit-talking white people, identifying as white when and only when they can derive an advantage from it? I've show you a picture, but for some reason I can't find them on Google. Do you know how annoying it is to dig up any information which has a slight right-wing bias? Every search engine will actively work against you. I will find examples if you really want to see them, though.
Also, old conspiracy theories always mention the jews.
By now, you should have learned that most conspiracy theories were true. Here's some older theories (pre-2000):
Some people are trying to destroy gender and make society uni-sex.
Women are tricked into believing that they should be career-oriented rather than family-oriented. That they should be independent.
The elites are looking into population-control and depopulation programs.
A group that Conspiracy theorists call "the illuminati" wants a one-world-government (Anew world order).
Christianity and Christian values are under attack (this used to be blamed on satanists, freemasonists, and communists, but does it matter what we call those behind it?)
That Homosexuality is pathological and correlates with most forms of sexual deviancy (like pedophilia).
That muslims won't integrate into the western society, but merely lay low until they make up a good chunk of the population, only to then promote their own religious values aggressively while being intolerant of ours.
Most of the conspiracies that I saw on the internet as a child, most of which I doubted were true, are currently unfolding. So why would I not give these skizos of old the benefit of doubt about jews? They were right about basically everything else. Also, many of these issues are old, they all go back to the 50s if not earlier. Even transsexualism is old. For instance, look into Magnus Hirschfeld - an Ashkenazi Jew and sexologist who promoted LGBTQ doing the Weimar Republic.
Personally, I dislike jews because so many of them are dishonest. Ben Shapiro for instance, disgust me. And can you blame people for being angry that "America first" turned into "Israel first"?
Where do you think anti-white thought originate? It is at the very least strongly supported by the media, and there's a lot of jews working for the media.
TwiceHuman
13d ago
I can't disagree with any of that. If you're being graded by a human (and not a dumb set of rules), you can write a justification for your answers on the page (e.g. assumptions made, definitions used).
Quizzes cannot measure reality very well because they lack nuance (e.g. the MBTI). Which is probably why a professional is needed to diagnose mental illness - the answer sheet alone is not enough.
And frankly, a lot of questions are stupid, and the goal of quizzes (to reverse answers back into specific categories) fails completely as it's not a reversible function. These exams measure alignment of thinking more than they measure competence. You'll be punished by the difference in thinking, measured as the distance to the average opinion of those who created the exams. They cannot tell the more competent apart from the less competent, they look the same
One solution is for there to be no multiple-choice, but rather a text field that one can write in. But the fairness of such a quizz is still limited by the competence of the grader, their ability to understand you, and their impartiality. I have personal experiences with all of these possibilities
TwiceHuman
13d ago
I don't remember the probability classes I took, but I think I know what's going on here. The probability of one of the answers being true is smaller than the probability of all the answers being true, but the probability of one answer being true and all the others being false is even lower.
So P(All) is bigger than P(N and only N), but smaller than P(N)
TwiceHuman
16d ago
"African American" is not a group of people as far as I'm concerned - it's a politically correct term for black people in America (possibly from Africa). Slapping new labels on old things is not the creation of new things, it's a purely cosmetic change. Even worse, if we keep changing labels to have lower thresholds, things which are decreasing will look constant or even like they're increasing (like racism).
Old groups do split and change over time, but some traits become less extreme. We're domesticating human beings on a global scale, and have been doing this for a while. The changes are not only cultural, they're also genetic. The "endless new varieties" are all from a restricted set they're unlimited in the same sense that AI-generated content is unlimited. An AI would never create something like LotR or Made in Abyss, it only generates generic (= average = mediocre) content.
But even before AI, there was a decrease in good videogames, books, movies, etc. You don't think that abstract mathematical laws are to blame for all of these trends? I think it might be due to asymptotic convergence, tight coupling and materialistic competition.
I'm basing all of these things on my own intuition, but I don't think my theory is too crazy. In fact, people seem to have studied these exact things. These papers seems a little more optimistic about these dynamics than me, but many of the things that I've described seem fairly accurate. But there's many models, and the conclusions also depend on what assumptions we make about these systems, so it's not trivial. And I might just be worrying too much. Even if I'm right, other people will notice in ~10-20 years and look for solutions. I'm just a little early
Here's a study called "Statistical physics of social dynamics"
"What is the ultimate fate of diversity? Is it bound to persist or all differences eventually disappear in the long run?"
"According to some estimates, up to 90% of present languages might disappear by the end of the 21st century (Krauss, 1992)."
"Two mechanisms that are believed to be fundamental in the understanding of the dynamics of cultural assimilation (and diversity): social influence and homophily. The first is the tendency of individuals to become more similar when they interact. The second is the tendency of likes to attract each other, so that they interact more frequently. These two ingredients were generally expected by social scientists to generate a self-reinforcing dynamics leading to a global convergence to a single culture. It turns out instead that the model predicts in some cases the persistence of diversity." (emphasis mine)
And here's one called Clustering and asymptotic behavior in opinion formation which also mentions entropy. The abstract includes:
"Because of the finite range of interaction, convergence to a unique consensus is not expected in general. We are nevertheless able to prove the convergence to a final equilibrium state composed of possibly several local consensus"
I view that a little different, you can't unmix something which has already been mixed, but you can push it elsewhere and pretend that the problem has been solved.
Your example involves separating things, and it's not impossible for us to play Maxwell's demon and sort people, but society just doesn't take kind to the creation of spaces which excludes certain groups (not even toilets are exempt) so one is not allowed to reverse this process. Even if you make your own society kind of like the Amish, people will come and ruin what you're doing because the rest of the system has laws that it must enforce (for instance, it's illegal to collect rain water in some parts of the world).
But it's certainly the creation of something.
If you move nerds around the world, the total amount of nerds does not increase. You're re-ordering what already exists, you're not creating something more. So if white people have less children on average, you can reorder them all you want, the ratio of white people will tend towards zero. And in America, men and women have a poor relationship. This is not the case in Japan, but is that not a manner of time? Once American culture really gets its grip on Japan (As it's trying to), do you not think gender relations in Japan will take the same path? Is the corruption of gender relations reversible?
To really create something unique, you must isolate it and leave it alone for a while. Kind of like petri dishes. Borders used to have this kind of effect.
It's not technically irreversible, but processes which generate certain things are very, very slow. Using money is faster than earning it. Cutting down a forest is much faster than growing it. Destroying trust is much faster than regaining it. Recycling anything back to its base ingredients is tedius work. It's this asymmetry which makes so many processes unsustainable.
If you wish to grow back something which used to exist, like "Uncontacted civilizations", "Untouched wild nature", "High-trust communities", "The wild west", etc. How long do you think it would take, if such a thing was even possible? Caning is currently a form of punishment in Singapore - if we stop this practice, do you think it will ever return again? If we ban gun ownership, will that ever return again? If we rise the age of consent, will it ever drop again? If all ownership is replaced with subscription models, will we ever go back again? Do you think the sexual revolution can be reversed?
TwiceHuman
20d ago
It's not like they don't exist, but most of them have negative reasons for remaining virgins for so long (like trauma or trust-issues). Some of these reasons aren't too hard to overcome, others are nearly impossible. And there's still many women with low body counts in Asia, but I understand if that doesn't appeal to you.
Personally, I don't mind higher (5-10) body-counts per se, what I mind is the reason behind them, like superficiality, a lack of loyalty, hedonism, etc.
TwiceHuman
20d ago
I don't really see a difference in the abstract mechanics.
Am I right to assume that ethnogenesis is a result of things being isolated from one another? If you were to split America in two, and disallow the two sides from interacting, and simulate 100 years of time, the two would grow less similar over time. They'd have different slang, different viewpoints, slightly different values, etc.
I don't think heterogeneity breeds innovation, I think that differences is a finite resource which you deplete every time you force different things to interact. You will generate innovation by using differences as your fuel, but once the fuel is been depleted, the local system will be at equlibrium, and you will need to import more differences.
Let me give you a similar example, call centers exploit the elderly, burning trust in order to generate money. As trust disappears, the ratio of people who fall for the scams will decrease. At equlibrium, either all gullible people have no money left, there are so many call centers in existence that they face hard competition between one another, or it costs more to find a new victim than one can expect to earn.
You don't seem to model the world as being finite in the same way I do. Many people seem to think that innovation and other such things are "better than zero-sum", such that things improve without bounds. That's a much more pleasant way to view the world, but I have a hard time believing that it's true
TwiceHuman
20d ago
I concede the thing about surnames. But the actual value of things is found in that which haven't yet reached an equlibrium. Value is that which you extract as things tend towards equlibria. But once that equilibrium has been reached, no more value can be extracted. So people promote that which destroys value, which is the classic definition of immorality. This is the problem with superstimuli, they have the highest value, and they destroy value the fastest. Porn destroys relationships faster than erotic magazines in the past, and the more hardcore porn is, the worse the damages. Energy drinks are more harmful than tea, and adderal is more harmful than energy drinks, and meth is more harmful than adderal. The latters have stronger effects, and therefore they build tolerance faster, thus depleting the value of stimulants (the productivity which can be extracted) faster.
Quibbling over terminology is beside the point
But "Diversity is good in itself" is a wrong axiom, and the statement "Diversity is our strength" is not based on said axiom in the first place. They're promoting their own moral values, saying whatever seems to defend said values. The important part is that people start with feelings and end with logical arguments, rather than the other way around. In a best-case scenario, the article in question is signaling, meaning that it holds little academic value
Culture isn’t a closed system.
Consider the entire earth as one big system. What would we expect if my model was correct? The continuous merging of many, small local systems into few, giant systems? Less languages over time? Countries becoming more similar in every way (culturally, legally, morally)? All of these changes are already taking place.
There's is a counter-force at work, but it doesn't generate uniqueness as fast as we're currently destroying it, and this generation seems like a unique property of humans, meaning that it will go away as we replace human systems with automated machinery.
probably
That makes me feel a little better.
TwiceHuman
20d ago
Patents do add value to the discovery of new ideas, and make it safer to share said ideas. They're not strictly good, but they're also not strictly bad. They've only become bad in recent times because patents last too long, and because they're used by monopolities to prevent competition (e.g. Nintendo vs Palworld).
In our current society, patents are necessary. I'd say it's a locally optimal idea. But if there existed a more ideal society, in which people cooperated with eachother rather than competing aggressively, patents wouldn't be necessary. But the model in the paper would naively assume that such a society is strictly inferior to ours, merely because the people within it are less hostile to one another. I wish to reject the metric on the grounds that it assigns the most value to materialistic dog-eat-dog societies. It harms collective faith in FOSS philosophies by implying that the moral values behind it are irrational/suboptimal (and that irrational == suboptimal), which rubbed me in the wrong way
TwiceHuman
21d ago
Occupational surnames may have happened sufficiently long ago that any correlation has been drowned in noise.
You're going to need to elaborate on this metaphor.
It's not a metaphor. You can "race mix" but the opposite operation does not exist. When things interact, they tend towards the average of the two. If you mix cold and hot water, you get lukewarm water. If you mix eastern philosophy and western philosophy, you get something which borrows ideas from both (and the mixture is not necessarily better than either of its components)
The reason Easterns and southerns are different is because there's distance between them. Higher distances means fewer interactions. Long physical distances are similar to physical borders. Any other kind of mechanism which prevent interactions will protect differences - including age gaps and language barriers. But what that article calls for is local diversity, so mixing things. You can do this, but people won't remain diverse for very long. To make matters worse, there will be conflict until people are in alignment, and the definition of alignment is establishing something which is common to all (and therefore not diverse)
In America, some aspects are local, and some aspects are global. A global aspect (e.g. the tendency to have guns) lacks diversity, and local aspects (something which is specific to a single area) does not mix with the rest. Of course, different areas can benefit from trade with eachother, but the more they trade the less they benefit (an equilibrium will be reached).
There's a natural tendency for people to create bubbles of similar-minded people (friend groups, echo-chambers, religious gatherings, ghettos, etc), but the lobal political concensus is (increasingly - as America is exporting this value system) that all people are equal and that all things must be openly accessible to everyone (no gatekeeping, no mens-only spaces, no right-wing spaces, no privacy, no elitism, etc) so the world will rapidly tend towards homogeneity
TwiceHuman
21d ago
Is that satire? Nothing on that page makes any sense. Many surnames come from occupations, so of course there's a relationship to diversity of labour. The reason "diversity" used to correlate with innovation was that skilled migrants from many countries in the world would go to places with opportunities. The diversity was more of a result than a cause. The phrase "Diversity is our strength" is made to imply that diversity of races is good in itself, which is an entirely different topic. It also implies that there's no difference between races, which is trivially false. To begin with, culture is something shared between people, the concept "cultural diversity" contradicts itself. Also, people who advocate diversity of race do not value diversity of political opinion, thought, values or morality. Plus, by the second law of thermodynamics, diversity necessarily destroys itself. Countries are more similar than they were in the past because of globalism, the only way to slow down the trend towards homogeneity is separation (borders for instance). I'd go as far as to disagree that innovation is necessarily good (it conflicts with stability).
And what's a patent? It's something which forbids others from using your ideas.
Lets look at the Abstract in the linked paper. What does it say? "Fostering the diverse social interactions that faciliate idea sharing"
Am I being too pedantic? Do these people even realize that they're being dishonest?
Often indicative of deeper beliefs
It can be that, but it can also be the complete opposite. For example, I trust myself to not engage in immoral behaviour, therefore I do not walk on egg-shells around moral subjects (this scares the shit out of some people, though)
Homosexuals might find it easier to joke about how gay they are, but as will straight people who have overcome any fear of being thought of as gay, because they know for sure that they're not. As with the Horse Shoe Theory, the correlation is curved.
A lot of people with dark humor have been victims of the things that they joke about, by the way. I find it quite distasteful when people who haven't experienced such things accuse them of being insensitive, which is often what happens. Too much morality is performative, and I find this whole situation to be another instance of people point fingers at others in order to feel morally superior and score virtue signaling points, or at the very least it's a reaction prompted by fear (rather than goodwill, taste, actual concern, etc)
You could argue that some jokes are bad taste, but I think this depends on a lot of factors, and that most of them are hard to judge from an outside perspective. Once you know a person well, you will be able to tell their real attitude towards things that they joke about, and the mindset which prompted the joke.
Edit: Extra thing of note: If somebody is a bad person, it's better for everyone if they show it than to hide it. For this reason, I see no point in punishing speech even if it's vile.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
Well, life originated on earth about 4 billion years ago. Between that time and now, qualia has slowly come into existence. Emotions, consciousness, subjective taste, ego, and other such things. I also have reasons to believe that individuality and higher levels of consciousness are somewhat recent (say, developed over the past 5000 years). But more generally, what I'm claiming is "In a completely material universe, qualia emerged due to some unknown factors, and now it seems that these factors might be disappearing again".
Why would it outcompete an equivalent setup
It must have, otherwise it wouldn't exist. The reasoning I'm using is the same that Darwin used, survival of the fittest is a tautology in a sense. If consciousness resulted in a lower fitness, I believe it must necessarily have disappeared. Another fun fact we can deduce from this is that suffering is good (useful), and that deeming suffering to be bad (a problem) is useful as well. So, suffering is good but we're meant to think that it's not.
Some more arguments for why qualia might disappear:
What you learn in school is to be less human, less spontaneous, less biased, less subjective. The socialization process is basically destroying parts of yourself until you fit within the mold. The goal of most religions is suppressing parts of yourself (Buddhism takes this idea the furthestm though). The system just wants you to be useful and productive, and you're judged by your utility alone. In society we value fairness, impartiality, reason, level-headedness, stoicism and other behaviour at which robots happen to be perfect because they lack qualia. Most psychiatry and medicine works by numbing qualia. Most psychological defense mechanisms have the goal of numbing qualia. Most people life in constant distraction (escapism) and hate being alone with themselves. Most philosophies are designed around lowering qualia, bringing it towards zero: "This too shall pass", "Nothing really matters". It's all dead-mans morality, minimization of the human experience, a sort of suicide and glorification thereof.
The remaining aspects are collapsing into categories of superstimuli (porn, girlfriend ASMR videos, power-fantasy manga, slice-of-life manga, gambling, spices, reaction videos, fast food, massage, roleplaying, daydreaming) and serve as drugs to satiate or numb a category of human needs.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
Powerful manias happen when that type of person builds up momentum, and the paralysis happens when they cannot build momentum. The "gifted kid burnout" is what happens when somebody takes up more of a challenge than they can handle. The more resistance you overcome, the greater the rush you experience when it is overcome, if you overcome it. Perfectionism is similar, people either make amazing things, or they're destroyed by their own high standards. I think what happens is that such people accidentally condition themselves into inaction. If you deem your own imperfect product to be a failure, then you punish yourself for your own hard work. The higher your standards, the less reward you get from your accomplishments.
Suffering leads to greatness because suffering is the gap between your current state and your goals. But if this gap is too wide, you realize that the current you is insufficient in reaching the goal, so you realize that you "aren't good enough". Most positive emotion felt in life comes from movement towards ones goals, and despair generally comes from the prediction that one will not reach their goal. Often, despair drives one to re-evaluate things, and if one questions reality for too long, it falls apart, and one falls into nihilism. From nihilism, one can build their own, better philosophy out of the rubble, but it's generally a really difficult thing to do.
If Diogenes was a Nietzsche-type, then he was broken early, only to never fully recover. A common trait in nihilistic people is that they find enjoyment in pointing out other peoples illusions, e.g. "love is just chemicals". If he had actually recovered, he'd be more positive and monk-like, or like Jesus or the Buddha. A well-made philosophy is for something good, while poor philosophies rely on something else to be against, they exist only as a negation of something else
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
This post is uncomfortably well suited for me. Thanks for sharing it! It ties together a lot of seemingly unrelated things that I've already come across by chance (I noticed years ago doing my depression that the shared reality of a group was more or less the sum of individual interpretations, making social matters collaborative storytelling). The advice is good as well, but it seems difficult for shamans to achieve financial security. Oh well, at least my autism gives me a buff in STEM related tasks
The quoted text in your post is basically all true, except of course for the fact that socialism is a terrible system.
I'll try to be short and axiomatic:
1: Systems become worse with size, meaning felt by the individual is inversely correlated to the size of the structure they exist within (a social being can tell when it's not needed by its environment. This terrifies the social being)
2: Because of laws of statistics, the limit of the micro-scale will result in a macro-scale in which the individual properties of the micro-scale entities don't matter (I don't know the name for this, perhaps asymptotic emergence?)
3: In the far past, emotions didn't exist, life competed in a purely material sense. Emotions (or more generally, qualia) came into existence because they out-competed agents without emotion.
4: It seems we may be creating an environment in which emotions are once again sub-optimal. In fact, a lot of human things are starting to be sub-optimal, and the shortest paths to "success in life" requires destruction of the self ("selling out") and of good taste (morality prunes locally optimal choices if the definition of optimal is purely materialistic)
5: We're trapped in a world in which the incentives threaten to destroy humanity, in the sense that, even if humans exist in the future, they will lack depth and personality. I predict that the standard deviation on various tests and quizzes will shrink as the homogeneity of various things increases.
In short, the problem is not "capitalism", it's the traits/structure of the system that we exist within, like it's size and connectivity. The woke are not wrong when they say that diversity is good, they're wrong when they accelerate the destruction of diversity by mixing together different things.
Technology is only making all this worse, though Ted Kaczynski seems to blame technology for all the problems I listed above.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
AI-generated media is, I think, necessarily generic. Generating proper art is antithetical to how AIs function. People seek novelty, and LLMs learn through repetition, so novelty is precisely what they fail to learn. AIs are also downstream of human experience, and they cannot ever be otherwise, so attempting to solve this problem is like trying to turn hyper-processed foods back into healthy ingredients. An experience is more real than the memory of said experience, and for the same reason, AI generated content is necessarily lacking to anyone with taste (those who can taste the difference between home-made food and microwaved supermarket food)
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
I don't think anyone would do more for a stranger than a close friend. But these people might have beliefs like "I generally don't like humans, animals are much better" or "If only we could all become cyborgs so that we could get rid of our human imperfections" or "Humans are a plague on the planet, I'm ashamed for being human myself".
Thoughts like this correlate with the dislike of nationalism, because of the belief that egoism is bad at any scale (speaking positively about the self, or ones own group is perceived as being immoral because it implies that other groups are inferior). These people also feel inferior, which is why they feel great pity for other groups that they perceive as inferior. These people want an ideal world, and think that if we aren't living in one, it must be because somebody is mean (and not because life is hard), so another trait in leftism is naivety (the exact same kind which is found in communism!).
Of course, prioritizing friends over non-friends is the same sort of bias as nationalism, and even considering leftism superior to right-wing beliefs is not different from thinking that one culture or race is superior to another. Leftists always speak about how bad white people are, even white leftists, but somehow they feel superior for noticing that they're not superior. This feels similar to when people compete in who can be the most humble, and other virtue signaling. It feels illogical, but that's likely because the goal isn't logic consistency, but things like:
1: Calming ones conscience. 2: Feeling good about oneself. 3: Defending against criticism from other people. 4: It allows for people of mediocre and uneventful lives to feel like they're fighting for something important.
Leftism can also be compared to some aspects of Christianity, especially the strongly feminine parts. Even more interestingly, the subversion of Christianity can be compared with the subversive nature of leftism, as described by Yuri Bezmenov.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
You're talking about this right? I think most people here are familiar with it. There's even more interesting things, like this
If you want to know my current model, it's that the leftist is a psychological type. There's more of them in major cities, so I think the unabomber was right to call them "oversocialized" (cities have more people, so more interactions between people)
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
That's a good point. "Dangerous" is meaningless unless it's a strong and direct effect. Perhaps "calls for something which is against my human rights". This has to actually be true, it's not enough to argue "It's an attack of my person that you don't give me special rights which suit my uniqueness".
How people interpret dangers is strongly influenced by propaganda, so if you convince group X that group Y is out to get them, group X will start attacking group Y in perceived (but non-existent) self-defense. I feel that this second part, the interpretation, is where most conflict happen. Actual value disagreements seem minor. Perhaps the value hierarchy (order of priority) is different, though.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
I think we're overcomplicating things (not refering to you, but to society). All preferences align as you approach the source from which they originate. For instance, if the left says "Trump is violent" and the right says "Left-wing activists are violent", then both sides agree that "violence is undesirable". Of course, you see a lot of left-wingers advocate for violence, and a lot of right-wingers indirectly doing the same: "The tree of liberty...". Here, the agreement is "Violence might be necessary in self-defense" and "Violence is an acceptable means against tyranny".
The actual conflict is whether or not Trump is tyrannical, and whether or not Charlie Kirk's rhetoric is dangerous (an attack which should be defended against). Another comment of yours mention pedophilia, but the real disgreements are things like "Is teaching children about anal sex education, or is it grooming?" and "Is a 20-year-old male dating a 17-year-old woman natural and innocent, or is it predatory?", for we agree that grooming and predation are immoral.
I offer this perspective because it keeps me clearsighted (prevents me from drowning in complexity) and because any conclusions generalize to all similar issues.
The internet does not have to mean that, which is why the old internet did not mean that. As with the disappearance of borders, nationalism, "gatekeeping", male-only spaces, churches, etc. the problem is the modern mindset that everything should be interconnected. If you model the world as a big graph, and calculate the connectivity of said graph and call it X, then you will realize that different values of X leads to different mechanics, and that large values of X create problems that smaller values of X do not. The idea that more information is better, is actually wrong, and intellectual circles have yet to realize this. All of this is probably downstream of the facts that information can be sold, and that more information makes automation easier.
The simple solution is both separating things, and considering things as seperated. The first is achieved by decentralization (and you've already realized this yourself), and the latter is achived by getting rid of pathological associative thinking (if somebody calls you an evil nazi because you support borders, they're making the association borders -> nationalism -> nazi germany -> evil). Mental maturity is broadly speaking the complete opposite. For instance, if your comment makes me angry, then this is an issue with myself rather than with you.
People who fight evil will create mental associative knots, and call it "Them", "(((them)))", "sin", "nazism", "communism", etc. and ruthlessly attack everything within greater and greater distances. For instance, somebody might attack anime because "anime -> school-girl characters -> pedophilia -> child abuse -> evil".
The idea that guns kills people, and that Google should be punished for indexing illegal websites, are both failures of proper separation, structually and psychologically. This cognitive error is thus responsible for censorship, people being forced to take sides in issues that they aren't interested in, and things like corruption (for corruption is when two entites which cannot benefit themselves engage in an agreement to benefit eachother, thus bypassing a defensive structural design).
An alternative method still possible today is embedding secrecy and separation inside a connected, judgemental structure. This requires encryption between structures such that the shared structure they exist within cannot read the message (Encryption stops the flow of information in some directions, so it separates). So like how an app can have E2E encrypted messages that even the app cannot access, you could make a website that your host of choice cannot access. This will go away if encryption is made illegal, or if one is forced to give the keys to the authorities.
You cannot 'win' unless you own the outer layer. If you have full access over your computer, then you can stop an app inside it from spying on you. If the government have full access over your computer, then it doesn't matter how secure the apps you use are, they can simply look at the screen or read the keyboard.
You also cannot have your cake an eat it too. If you have privacy, then criminals will have it as well. It must apply to both the very best people and the very worst. It's completely binary, you either have 100% privacy or 0% privacy.
The theorists I remember do mention weather manipulation, but their main criticism is that they're spraying toxic chemicals. That the trails which come after planes aren't just regular water vapor, but some kind of chemical, and that these lines covering the sky used to go away faster when they were young. When these conspiracies were booming, you could frequently see the sky almost covered by contrails, which doesn't seem to happen much anymore. There's fewer lines now, and they disappear more quickly.
It wasn't a muslim, it was an European who had read the Quran and concluded that muslims migrating to Europe were doing so in order to take it over. That they'd prioritize their religion over our culture and laws. That they'd exploit our good-will. And the prediction was pretty spot on
Do you know of zero popular beliefs which are trivially wrong? Do you really need an investigation to tell that the vast majority of the best scientists the world has seen are men? Do you need an investigation to recognize that men are generally stronger than women? That A person from Sweden is quite a lot smarter than a person from Africa? That third-world immigrants engage in about 10 times more violent crime than natives?
All you need to know that the current world is completely crazy is a memory of the past. "Sticks and stones may break my bones" is a children's rhyme. We used to teach literal children not to be offended by words, and now we're arresting adults because other adults cannot handle their words. It's pathetic, and every person who knows anything about mental development should be able to see it at a glance. But as universities are far-left, these so-called experts construct a blind-spot against this observation. Neither Education nor Science defend against stupid beliefs, so why would an investigation? Here's the fully sourced chronological story of GamerGate. How many knows it exist? What difference did it make?
People get used to whatever is the case currently, and then they consider it "normal". This proves that the common perception of the world is relative rather than absolute. In other words, if society had entirely different beliefs, then the consensus of scientists would "investigate" and find those beliefs to be true. None of it is rooted in any objective reality, as people largely don't care about objective reality.
More options
Context Copy link