YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
54m ago
Taking an insane argument that anything and everything, some sentient life might do, which might through nth order effects, might cause me to be restricted in my rights, so I should just kill everyone, including myself, proves nothing. It is the definition of an absurd argument that nobody is making and that no sane person believes.
If you seriously see that as the logical conclusion of my argument then you have a few screws loose or are discussing in incredibly bad faith.
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
I gave an example of how going along with their example violates their own negative rights. Apparently you can violate people's negative rights for flapping butterfly wings, which means the concept of nth order effects being actual violations is ridiculous. Reducto Ad Absurdum
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
Yes unfortunately some people are incapable of not being narcissists. I am increasingly on the opinion that universal suffrage was a mistake. A section of the populous will never be anything more than knuckle dragging apes.
I have no solution to that at this time. Other than recognizing that perfect is the enemy of good. And intelligent people can understand the concept of a negative right and the ironclad boundary between that and a positive right.
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
gun DID go off and confused agents might've then shot him in the chaos. Fog of war.
We must have seen some very different movies on the screen. "A gun did go off" Yes that happens when an ICE agent pulls the trigger on their service weapon. The initial shot is what matters and ICE is the one that did it.
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
If you want to get into pedantic word-choice discussions I don't have the patience, interest, or inclination to join you. Speak plainly, make an argument on the content and we can have discussion. If not, your reputation is evidently of someone who abuses the report button on tribal issues so idk if its worth engaging with you.
YoungAchamian
4hr ago
Anything can be reframed as anything considering nth order effects. The butterfly effect is supreme. Doesn't mean it is relevant for discussion
Your example requires 4th order effects? I think anything past 2nd order starts to get into low probability land. It's just as likely that Corvos's friend hating on a David Bowie party, alienates the moderates due to the pettiness, drives them to the right, making it more likely for laws to be passed that oppress the activist. Therefore the activist having a shit behavior around negative rights is causing them to lose negative rights. Also a 4th order effect.
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
Mean Girl behavior: Feminine violence? Like I said I'm still fermenting the concept. It's not just policies I disagree with, I'm not a lefty and probably agreed with Kirk on things, but I still think he was engaging in a sort of Feminine violence. This "I'm not violating the letter of the law" concept of just being rhetorically intelligent enough to imply the violence he wanted to inflict through policy applied by the state, not him. Feminine violence is never directly violent, it applies that violence socially, or through an authoritative figure.
I could easily frame any leftist figure as engaging in equally mean girl behaviors from my POV.
I can easily frame much of the left as engaging in feminine violence. I think it is super applicable. It grates on me, I hate it. I hate it so much I voted for Trump in 24. Doesn't mean I don't hate in when the right does it too.
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
My original disagreement is not in the details of the situation, they are absolutely distinct and incomparable at that level. My viewpoint is wholly on the symbolic or semantic level. In that what do they represent?
-
Kirk et al: No actual violence, no calls to violence directly. But coordination of violence through the intended effect of policy. Application of the Authority/State's MoV. I classify this as Mean Girl behavior, Feminine Violence, Exploiting the letter of the Law
-
Pretti et al: Physical violence, direct in your face aggression, not coordinating violence for the future, no subterfuge, honest, masculine violence.
Should these really be treated so distinct? We condemn masculine violence but does that mean we should allow feminine violence? Humans are social creatures. We can innately recognize when social violence is being enacted against us. Allowing for the only response to feminine violence to be more feminine violence just lets the best at it thrive. Balance is required.
Words are not sacrosanct. And the ability to use feminine violence is not either. Just because people who love to use words as their weapons scream and rage and call you all manner of names when you take them away doesn't mean you should stop, or that the comparison is not apt. And sometimes the only answer to feminine violence is masculine violence. That is natural law.
YoungAchamian
5hr ago
It is an application of the original argument applied to a topic I've been thinking about. "Fair" is very load bearing and I am unsure if I believe it was "fair" to kill Kirk and it definitely wasn't morally right.
The idea I've been thinking about: mean-girl behavior in adult politics is not sacrosanct. Free Speech is wholly a more pure thing and tarnishing it by association with the afore mentioned behavior degrades it. Exploitation of words by mean girls to coordinate social/political violence does not make them untouchable just because they aren't directly engaging in violence.
The ramification of said concept are still being thought through.
YoungAchamian
6hr ago
I like to think regardless of how batshit, heterodox and wacky my own thoughts are. I am at least honest, internally consistent and converse in good faith.
YoungAchamian
6hr ago
I'm going to need to read that and get back to you, 2013 Scott is wayy prior to my introduction to the Ratsphere.
YoungAchamian
6hr ago
And I still wouldn't advocate or nod at her murder.
I'm not advocating for nor nodding at their murder. I'm pointing out what I see as a very human reaction to heated tribal politics that I think Kirk contributed to.
Yeah, Candace Owens, Fuentes, Kulak are definitely more extreme than Kirk was, but its also unclear if they had his reach. I don't really think he was all that moderate. To me this is a class, Kirk could absolutely be on the lower end of the extremity scale but he's still in that class. I think that entire class of individuals is a problem.
I also suspect personally that Kirk was motivated by genuine conviction
I think that was part of his brand. Genuine conviction doesn't make you worth 12 million at 30y. You don't chance into that kind of wealth. History is ripe with people of genuine conviction who advocated for political change, are immortalized for it, and still died poor.
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
We are having civil discourse right now, have I threatened your negative rights? Have I sought to remove them or advocated for their removal via first or known second order effects?
If that guy wins, my team loses, therefore pew pew.
Pure conflict theory, extremely tribal, us-vs-them mentality. Politics doesn't require you to take from other people. If your view point was correct why don't we see one side genociding the other after every election? Afterall if all politics is existential then why even have an election if you can't afford to lose.
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
So you have a category error.
That assumes I agree with your framing of how society has decided these or that society is even right. I don't recognize your authority to define that framing. Considering a section of society definitely reacted to the later as a "Well he FAFO-ed" or "I don't think his death was great but maybe he should have been less of a hateful ass". (real IRL conversations with real IRL leftists) I'd contest that society really has decided as your framing is correct.
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
You are not serious, and engagement with you is not in good faith.
I am and I'm sorry you feel that way.
That's why there are trannys in the first place, because of state violence threatening people.
So you understand what it feels like for activists to coordinate state violence against you and people like you then? You also understand the violent urge to respond to that? Yet you can't understand how your mirror, some lefty feels?
Not all politics is about abrogating negative rights of individuals via the state. Only tribal politics around radicalization and extremism.
Tell me, how advocating for relaxing zoning laws advocating for state violence? How does it remove your negative, natural law rights?
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
I fundamentally believe there are a class of influencers that sell tribal turmoil: Hatred of the out-group, Us-vs-them, Dehumanization, Crazy-highlighting. They create communities/followers around these manufactured identities, belief systems, narratives. In doing so they raise the political heat level, it sows division, and division sells, hatred sells, tribal fighting appeals to the basest of our human desires. Doing it torches the commons. It burns the social fabric of a society.
I have a coworker with a PhD in the cognitive science of radicalization. We talk about this topic at length and we both see it. Is it hyperbole? I don't think so. Its insidious, slow. Kirk isn't solely the perpetrator. He is part of an entire ecosystem of tribal influences, left and right. Describing motive is more nebulous, do I think Kirk and his ilk are mustache twirling villains? Absolutely not! Their incentives are the same as everyone else: personal enrichment, wealth, fame, status. But what sells better? Moderate takes, restrained discourse? Or provocative knuckle dragging, ape is stronk! content? Idk how anyone on the internet can fail to see that? People follow incentives, and incentives to exploit hard-wired human nature are undoubtedly the most profitable.
EDIT: Kulak is a very clear Motte-based example of this.
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
My opinion has been changed. It is not premeditated enough to be an execution. It is manslaughter and gross negligence on account of the shooter. It's not an accident because the shooter did not "accidentally" unholster, point, and pull the trigger. He did all of those things very deliberately. His failure of situational awareness resulted in death.
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
your adherence to it as an ICE-specific problem makes
I have never claimed this and don't agree its an ICE-specific problem. It's problem across LE agencies and executors of the Governments Monopoly on Violence (GMoV).
American policing is on the whole too protective of officers
I am more here. Police are given enormous power, prestige, respect and authority. And that level of authority needs to come with consequences when you fuck up big time. "Great power = Great responsibility". When a police officer fucks up, us citizens pay the bill, both in loss of rights, and loss of money as the government needs to settle with our taxes.
Those split second decisions
Nobody is forcing these people to become police officers, if they lack the temperament, or ability to react in a competent manner in split second decision making, even after training then they should either be confined to a desk or fired. I'm remined of the previous discussion on the Uvalde Police officers and how the neighboring police actually responded competently vs the local ones who just cowered and beat up parents.
I ignored the bottom half your post because I think you are tilting at windmills that aren't my position. I changed my opinion that "it is literally an execution" to it has "The optics of an execution", It's manslaughter, and if I was on a jury I'd convict on that charge. As I've said elsewhere this site is really my only media use, so charges of believing some MM propaganda are super hollow. I am able to develop an opinion via my own thoughts and senses even if you don't agree with the conclusion.
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
This has changed my view, it being an "execution" would have required some premeditation on the executors part. However do you grant that this has the optics of an execution? Where 5 agents dogpile a guy to restrain him and another draw and shoots him from behind while he is kneeling and being restrained (who wouldn't resist their "execution")
YoungAchamian
9hr ago
There's humor in everything, you just need to look for it.
I am not claiming Kirk violently assaulted people, and I never have. There might be some sort of masculine honor in that at least. Instead, he advocated for the state to go inflict violence on people, he advocated for a return to laws and norms that would physically hurt his out group, he engaged in running political campaigns to do that. He knowingly kept the temperature of political discourse high and cultivated a following out of these efforts that provided him with a very very lavish lifestyle/worth. And he was effective in doing so. Apparently his out-group can predict the future better than you can, they felt this future violence, real or imagined. And they decided to act, to do something about it.
Act like a mean-girl, and maybe someone is going to violently attack you for it. Profit off of stirring tribal hate and division and maybe society should "Turn a blind eye" when some of that hate and violence finds you.
YoungAchamian
9hr ago
I have deliberately never gotten into a bar fight as a post-college adult, violence and alcohol with strangers is a level of risk I am not interested it. So last time would be at a frat party in college when i was a bit more risk oriented. A lot more often in high school, where my verbally slow autistic self preferred to use violence.
Does Kirk strike you as the type to accept an offer of mutual combat? Or do you think he would call security and go back to "mouthing off"? I might be biased in thinking he is too much of a wordcell type to accept. I think mutual combat probably breaks down somewhere in the social dynamic between average joes and rich influencers.
YoungAchamian
9hr ago
A challenge to violence is definitely the preferred approach but it is not always going to happen. Sometimes you just get punched. I'd argue that skipping straight to violence is because a challenge to violence is not legal and would be giving away the opportunity.
I'm openly unsure how to square this honor cultures being absolutely shit places to live.
You are actually advocating for violence as a response to mean words?
As a government policy? Absolutely not. As a social reality? Yes with caveats.
YoungAchamian
9hr ago
I do note that said militia would be fairly unlikely to support 2nd amendment rights as pursued by say the NRA.
To my current eternal despair. Who knows maybe the silver lining will be that the left realizes the need for strong 2nd Amendment rights to protect against "Nazi Authoritarian Governments". I'm not holding my breadth. But the point of principles is to hold them regardless of costs. Otherwise they aren't really principles are they?
In this case it was the right not to be deeply harmed and re-traumatised by the rape culture inherent in celebrating the life of a man who once slept with an underage groupie
You have no negative right to restrict someone else. You are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you. I know this isn't your argument and that tortured lefties make stupid arguments but they get away with it because no one shuts them down.
YoungAchamian
9hr ago
But discourse about government isn’t child-like behavior.
I, at least in this thread, am not really discussing government behavior. Government is blunt instrument and this is a problem that requires a scalpel. I have no desire to put a loaded gun on the government's table for use in restricting speech.
Go around kicking SUVs is child like behavior.
Absolutely, Pretti/Anti-ICE movement acts like a child, deliberately attempting to toe the provocation line and claim injustice when they get punch back. WhiningCoil's argument is that we should should ignore it to teach the left a lesson. I think this idea can be applied to other behavior as well, that he might really hate. Like Kirk's mean-girl like behavior.
It is a meta-argument around people trying to abuse the rules-as-written but wanting to avoid the natural consequences of people recognizing that as defection and responding/punishing it.
Say you are a green hat wearer, its a core part of your culture/identity/religious beliefs etc. I am am a blue hat wearer. I host a famous podcast where I spend several hours a week advocating that green hat wearers are scum of the earth.
"They are morally bankrupt", "We should return to times back when green hat wearers didn't exist", "something needs to be done to those green hat wearers before they harm us", "They are going to inflict violence on us", "Look at this unhinged take from a green-hatter", "look this politician is anti-green hat, he gets us, vote for him", "Green hatters are trying to replace us!", and through my wealth from this podcast I run super pacs, think tanks, and lobby politicians to make wearing green hats illegal.
Am I inflicting violence on green hatters? You'd say no. After all I have never directly advocated for violence. I've merely drummed up hate, which is not violence. Perfectly fine right? And if a few lone wolfs go off and commit "stochastic violence" against green hatters, unfortunate, but "have they tried not being green-hatters", "Wearing green hats is going to result in nonzero deaths..."
Maybe after a couple years I get enough political capital together and a president is elected who "really gets the problem with green-hatters" And this president starts passing laws that make life difficult for green-hatters, not illegal yet, just difficult. If they break the laws, well I get to point at "See I told you all this PoS green-hatters were criminal degenerates", "We need more laws to secure a green hat free future!"
I imagine you can see where this argument goes. At what point in your opinion have I directly coordinated violence against the green-hatters? Probably never right?
Feminine violence feels like an older concept. I am not directly doing the violence but I am coordinating it to be done, and when it is done, through my schemes and machinations, I will bear some culpability for that. I am a key part of what made the Green Hat Pogrom happen. Should the survivors of that pogrom, never be able to blame me? After all I didn't commit the violence, I was just "using my words" "speaking my piece" "Engaging in discourse".
More options
Context Copy link