I do not know why people react like I'm crazy when I say that I'm sick of hearing their opinions about Jews and I speculate that they are feds or bots. I'm not trying to stop you idiots from having opinions, even opinions I disagree with, but you have to understand the difference between "It should be legal to use force to prevent you from saying that" and "Don't bother me with your stupid fixation".
@Jonny@pwm Millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute. I'm an American, Jonny. You can't conceive of a threat that would make me start typing differently. rorsh-compromise.jpg
@graf@judgedread Shit, you know when California got term limits, the wording allowed him to be governor again? I nearly shat myself when he got reelected. He's like the epitome of the slimy political entity, bubbling up from under the steps of the capitol.
@judgedread I'm skeptical that the Carnegies and the Rockefellers and Dulleses and Roosevelts are secretly controlled by some entity that decides who gets to be president or who gets to create a dynasty of billionaires, and not just that he can create them but that he can make all of these people dance.
If there is some guy behind the World Bank and the IMF and WIPO and the WTO and all of the UN tendrils and other shitty organizations, and this guy is a *different* guy than the all of the guys who pushed it and ran the PR campaigns for decades and negotiated the charters and donated the land and shoved that shit into their memoirs and made remarks about their actual motivations, then that guy (perhaps "god of the gaps" is a better descriptor than "guy") will have to show up once those things are broken. We're on the same team at least as far as getting rid of those things, and it seems to me like we could table the matter of what to do with the god of the gaps after he's demonstrated to exist.
At any rate, if it's been a week full of people babbling about something that has always bored the shit out of you after years of people periodically doing this (and the flare-ups always seem to coincide with more interesting events), and then you make a post complaining about the most recent flare-up, and someone shows up to try to discuss it with you again, you'd block without blinking. At this point, I'd be more willing to believe that all of the tard-spam about Jews is a false-flag, an inoculation to prevent anti-semitism from springing up spontaneously.
@p Teddy wasn't the architect of the administrative state.
It's statistical. Certain genetic clusters generate a high percentage of troublemakers. This particular one also defends itself from any attempt at policing. Leo Frank being a perfect example.
> Teddy wasn't the architect of the administrative state.
How sure are you of that? He participated in the cover-up of the sinking of the USS Maine (and the playbook for every unpopular war from then until 9/11 was "sink a boat and blame whoever it is that we want to go to war with") and engaged in plenty of overseas adventures later as president. He's responsible for the policy of federal annexation of state land.
> Certain genetic clusters generate a high percentage of troublemakers.
I am fine with just removing troublemakers after they make trouble. "These people are predisposed to be troublemakers" is, whoever "these people" are, a bad plan.
@p Centralization was the trend from 1865 on when the Klan failed to live up to its promise and execute all carpetbaggers forever. Basically a secret deal that can only be deduced from the results dissolved the Klan and permitted Jim Crow as a substitute. But this requires hundreds of hardcore WN priors to buy into, so I can't prove it to you.
As for the evil swarm, only a lynch mob managed to bring justice to major troublemaker Leo Frank after the swarm got his death sentence commuted.
If a group acts as a group I persecute the group.
I am actually an opportunistic anarchist in that I consider the federal government to be the jews' ultimate weapon, and so delegitimizing it and dissolving it is job one. This is the source of my dispute with TRS/NJP, who apply authoritarian ideology to the existing state.
@judgedread@p Well said. Now, @p, a place the Judge and I differ is that I am a Falangist (Catholic monarchist state with fascist government). However, as said Catholic, I am all in on Subsidiarity. The Founding Fathers tried to hook that into the "catch-all" Tenth Amendment, but after gutting the perfectly reasonable Articles of Confederation, no one was having any of that...leading in a straight line to Ape Lincoln.
Subsidiarity is, essentially, "solve your own fucking problem at the local level, morons." Impossible in a republic/democracy as the mob and money flow upward to buy influence. With a stable aristocracy tied to their own race, they can tell the rabble-rousers to eff right off.
> Falangist (Catholic monarchist state with fascist government).
You're free to move back to Europe with the other serfs; if you don't like how Europe works, it's probably better not to bring their horseshit to this continent.
> With a stable aristocracy tied to their own race,
Even if that were desirable, it's not workable in practice: they are tied to whoever does them favors.
@skinwalkerq400@TrevorGoodchild@dj@dcc I've been running FSE since 2018. I don't care if people have strange concerns, just what they bother me about. There are three types of person that will connect everything to their weird fetish and if you say "Don't bother me with that", will screech about persecution:
:mgsgb_1: Furries :mgsgb_2: Rust programmers :mgsgb_3: Internet Nazis thread_cycle.png
@p@TrevorGoodchild@dj@dcc It comes with the territory, when you're on an online platform that doesn't come down hard on anyone whose politics are to the right of Ho Chi Minh. It's always gonna be about the Jews. Not that these people are wrong, not that there aren't any good people here. It's just that it's easier to spout anti-Semitic statements here.
@TrevorGoodchild@skinwalkerq400@dj@dcc If I can get some more attention on code and less on whether or not I'm secretly Jewish, we will grab the internet by its entire fucking face.
@p@dj@dcc@TrevorGoodchild I get that. As much of an "Internet Nazi" as I may be, even I know there are limits. You can only cry "IT'S DA J00Z!" so much before it loses its specialness. Though it does fuck with the signal-to-noise ratio, it helps to just ignore it for the most part.
@skinwalkerq400@dj@dcc@TrevorGoodchild Well, yeah, and it's like, there are people that care about listening to that and I was bored with it in 2018 so I say it's retarded and I don't care. I'm pretty sure the same people completely get it if a salesman or preacher knocks on the door and you tell them to fuck off. (This is why Nazis have been banned from 109 websites.)
@p I hate shatter ops. And what's being directed at you smells of shatter-op combined with autistic neuro-divergent spergery. 1% bad-actors (feds), 99% repeater-stations too brain-broke to realize they're being danced like muppets.
Fuck'em, do your thing, most of us appreciate that you give us a playground to spout gamer words and post photos of our nerdy 20 year old game saves. Anyone who has issues with that - or you - can eat a cargo-container of dildos.
@judgedread@p Ronald Bernard was a Dutch banker who claims to have been involved in top level financial shenanigans (sanctions manipulation, big time money laundering, etc.) in the late 1990s. He talks about being invited to the satanic parties with the naked women Eyes Wide Shut style, he thought it was all a big joke.
What broke him was when he was asked to participate in harming children as part of keeping his job and moving up the ladder, that's when he got out. Of course the satanic child abusers were Zionists.
The original interviews with him should still be out there, @p -- go watch them and convince yourself that he's lying. The people on my crew that are gifted with reading people can't do it.
@Countermeasures@judgedread@p Oh, I totally believe it; I know someone that tended bar in Berkeley for a while. (I would be interested in seeing the interviews regardless.)
@p@judgedread This is the difference between how normal people and Inquisitors think. A normal person thinks, "only sub-5% of the members of group X cause real problems." An inquisitor thinks, "60% of the public high-level troublemakers out there are part of group X, which is only 2% of the population." Both of these statements can be true (and in the case of the jews likely are).
Those of us with a libertarian background get unhappy about the injustice associated with putting the boots to the entire group, because we empathize with the unfortunate small business jew who's just trying to sell bagels, who *hasn't committed any crime personally yet*. By an accident of birth that could be *us*. We want a purely reactive justice system where nobody gets hit except for bad shit they personally did, one where "everyone gets to go to Hell in their own go-kart", as WJBIII once said.
There are two difficulties with this reactive approach. The first one is that groups containing a much larger than normal percentage of coordinated manipulative exploiters can use their first strike advantage to *capture the enforcement mechanisms*. This is what has happened to us: the FBI, CIA, court system have been completely subverted by bad actors for a long time, and very obviously so.
The second problem is when the group in question has sufficient in-group loyalty such that members will not actively report bad faith actors in the group to the enforcers in the larger society. Civilian reporting of real crime is essential to a functional high-trust society, especially a more libertarian one where we want law enforcement to be as decentralized as possible. The jews fail very badly on this measure.
Now if those jews who consider themselves good faith Americans got really serious about purging the bad faith actors from their ranks, much unpleasantness and injustice could surely be avoided -- but I've seen no indication that they are ready for that at scale.
It's a big mess, and I haven't even gotten started on the *religious* aspects of this problem.
@Countermeasures@judgedread As noted, this is a :checkem::moon: problem: I'm complaining about the zealots, and people want to debate the merits of the zealots' worldview. Engaging means that I have let the zealots control the agenda, so I probably shouldn't. (See the top post in the thread.)
I posted something about some code I wrote, and I'm scrolling through the notifications and for the nth day, it's people that are three degrees downstream from someone that wants to shift the Overton window. Exactly one person perused the code enough to give feedback, a single line of feedback; a few people told me they couldn't understand it, and those people were coders; and, finally, I got a flood of horseshit and it was all the same flavor. What the flavor was doesn't matter, really; I've got my own philosophical horseshit to litter the roads with, and I don't even want to do that.
So, you know, that having been said, I keep jumping on this with both feet and I don't see a reason to stop now.
> injustice associated with putting the boots to the entire group
I'm a little less concerned with whether the world is just than I was when I was wee. Justice is a personal concern: you can't be a society. I'm not going to take responsibility for society, but I can take responsibility for myself.
Race is a bad heuristic for real decisions. If someone wants to use it, they're free to cause themselves problems. I won't be conscripted, I don't want to hear their sales pitch, and I sure as hell don't want to get all the tardspam. That was the topic: getting spammed by retards. One man with a thousand megaphones, to borrow a metaphor from the (very good, though it seems to have 404'd) article you sent me, is giving me tinnitus. I'd really like to talk about code (which is relevant to me) and not constantly get the sales pitch (which is not) from the shills. The shills don't want to let you opt out, and that was my complaint.
Other than that, how someone makes decisions doesn't cause me trouble, until they start trying to decide for society. Since a lone guy can't decide for society, people try to build a rudder, and once there is a rudder, without exception the wrong person will get his hand on the wheel, and again without exception, he will completely fuck it up.
> By an accident of birth that could be *us*.
Once the ruleset includes doing it to them, it includes doing it to whoever else. I can't help noticing that I happen to be whoever else.
> *capture the enforcement mechanisms*.
This is the issue, you know? The enforcement mechanisms are too big and too pervasive. It's not a problem that the wrong people got their hands on them: it's a problem that they exist. The problems you describe in this paragraph and the next paragraph completely are reliant on the existence of those mechanisms and the willing serfs. There's no opt-out, and there is only one reason to create a system which people are born into with no opt-out.
> will not actively report bad faith actors in the group to the enforcers in the larger society.
Yeah, you cannot have people that expect to engage with an open society but to preserve their ingroup's insularity; that's their problem, not mine. To pick a relatively neutral example, there are forums that engage in this kind of extremely insular behavior, but that stick their tendrils into other places, like fedi. Or the ISD/BMBF/BND: I don't get to participate in the German government's decision-making process, so it's maximally insular from my perspective, so I would like to minimize German government influence.
> It's a big mess, and I haven't even gotten started on the *religious* aspects of this problem.
Yeah, I've seen that, I forget the word, "fix the world", one of the schools of thought has that as a tenet. Whatever philosophy requires you to interfere with other people against their will, compel them indirectly by controlling their society, etc., that's a diseased philosophy: "I have a divine mandate to fuck with you and I don't have time for your concerns so I'm going to build a rudder". That was my complaint with the tardspam: they lose their shit over my complete inability to care what they have to say. It is the most important thing to them and they can't maintain that worldview without total buy-in to the collective delusion of their choice.
So, the solution is a force-multiplier, and that's why I am writing this code, and I'm kind of in the middle of nowhere so if I want to bounce ideas off anyone, it's the internet, but as @pnotifbot indicates, I've been getting an unusually high number of notifications since I started pushing this code. As I'm both paranoid and cynical, I can't help but wonder if someone intends to frustrate me, but the decision tree doesn't branch whether or not that is real or driven by paranoia: I end up doing the same thing whether I assume it is true or I assume it is false, which means it doesn't matter. Whatever people think about any other given race or religion, it's the same. I can only afford to worry about things that actually do affect my decisions.
@p@judgedread One big problem we have is that our instincts regarding the effects of relatively small shifts in the average properties of groups are very wrong:
This means that we can easily have many friends in a particular group who seem normal without realizing that the group taken as a whole is responsible for an enormous over-representation in trouble. These effects are very powerful, such that refusing to focus one's crime reduction efforts based on them easily reduces their efficiency by an order of magnitude.
All those extra non-racist investigators have to be *paid* -- this means higher taxes. Also, as you well know, if you have enough police in a state, it becomes a police state.