This morning I saw this posted, and I found it interesting as a masterwork in delivering multiple messages depending whether you are in the in-group being targeted or the out group not being targeted.
Let's look at the rhetorical methods used in this image, and specifically why individuals may end up reading it with a much different message than it facially suggests.
"the assassination" -- passive voice, it just did itself! His neck started bleeding because an assassination happened! Just like how it rained last week. "We should condemn the act" huh, so are you going to or are you just saying you should, like how I really should exercise or not eat that extra slice of cake? It seems to me that this post does not actually condemn the assassination.
A second heinous act besides the assassination isn't even mentioned, that individuals witnessing a heinous assassination were celebrating it, justifying it, or calling for more pointed assassination attempts towards further political enemies.
Meanwhile, "the maga response" -- in the active voice, apparently didn't just happen on its own, it had a person who did it, and a political movement who did it. And rather than just saying that it should be condemned, this post does in fact condemn it.
The way that this post distances itself from political assassinations while clinging desperately to the reaction to the reaction to political assassinations is damning. Assassinating a political opponent is not an action one takes but something like the weather, and it is a thing that should be condemned but won't be. The people who see that assassination and cheer for it or call for more aren't even mentioned, because it is not even worth discussing. However, people who call for consequences for the people who are cheering for an assassination which occurred and calling for more assassinations to occur, they are the only ones who will be in fact condemned for their actions.
The underlying message here appears to be "you deserve to die, so die silently".
I will now demonstrate what it might look like to condemn someone on the right-wing side for a terrorist attack: A right wing extremist blew up a Tesla Cybertruck in front of Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This was an unforgivable act of terrorism. I condemn this man for his stupid selfish actions completely. Nobody on either side of the political spectrum ought to be using political violence to further their ends. Anyone celebrating the attack, either because a right winger died or because they supported the right winger is evil and wrong and I condemn them. However, as is consistent with my worldview as long as no one is breaking any laws they are entitled to their own opinions.
Note that in my demonstration, I named the ideology and I assign the blame for the attack to a specific individual. I directly condemn the attack rather than meekly saying that it is something that should be condemned by someone somewhere, and I also attack people who would celebrate the attack for any reason. Then, like the original post, I point out that people ought to be entitled to their own opinions regardless. My demonstration refers to an actual event that occurred on the 1st of January of this year. It demonstrates the problems with the rhetoric on display here.
Let's look at the rhetorical methods used in this image, and specifically why individuals may end up reading it with a much different message than it facially suggests.
"the assassination" -- passive voice, it just did itself! His neck started bleeding because an assassination happened! Just like how it rained last week. "We should condemn the act" huh, so are you going to or are you just saying you should, like how I really should exercise or not eat that extra slice of cake? It seems to me that this post does not actually condemn the assassination.
A second heinous act besides the assassination isn't even mentioned, that individuals witnessing a heinous assassination were celebrating it, justifying it, or calling for more pointed assassination attempts towards further political enemies.
Meanwhile, "the maga response" -- in the active voice, apparently didn't just happen on its own, it had a person who did it, and a political movement who did it. And rather than just saying that it should be condemned, this post does in fact condemn it.
The way that this post distances itself from political assassinations while clinging desperately to the reaction to the reaction to political assassinations is damning. Assassinating a political opponent is not an action one takes but something like the weather, and it is a thing that should be condemned but won't be. The people who see that assassination and cheer for it or call for more aren't even mentioned, because it is not even worth discussing. However, people who call for consequences for the people who are cheering for an assassination which occurred and calling for more assassinations to occur, they are the only ones who will be in fact condemned for their actions.
The underlying message here appears to be "you deserve to die, so die silently".
I will now demonstrate what it might look like to condemn someone on the right-wing side for a terrorist attack: A right wing extremist blew up a Tesla Cybertruck in front of Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This was an unforgivable act of terrorism. I condemn this man for his stupid selfish actions completely. Nobody on either side of the political spectrum ought to be using political violence to further their ends. Anyone celebrating the attack, either because a right winger died or because they supported the right winger is evil and wrong and I condemn them. However, as is consistent with my worldview as long as no one is breaking any laws they are entitled to their own opinions.
Note that in my demonstration, I named the ideology and I assign the blame for the attack to a specific individual. I directly condemn the attack rather than meekly saying that it is something that should be condemned by someone somewhere, and I also attack people who would celebrate the attack for any reason. Then, like the original post, I point out that people ought to be entitled to their own opinions regardless. My demonstration refers to an actual event that occurred on the 1st of January of this year. It demonstrates the problems with the rhetoric on display here.
They're on the verge of a serious debt crisis, so it makes sense to stock up on hard assets before defaulting.
I find that AIs often tell you something isn't true when it's too recent.
For months after Mark Carney's liberals won a minority government in Canada, Chatgpt told me that it was a hypothetical and obviously wasn't true every time I brought it up.
For months after Mark Carney's liberals won a minority government in Canada, Chatgpt told me that it was a hypothetical and obviously wasn't true every time I brought it up.
When you think about the fact that Cathode Ray Tubes were so mass produced that virtually every home had one and many had more than one, it's kind of crazy to think of.
"oh the problem is that teachers don't make enough money"
What happens when teachers make enough money:
What happens when teachers make enough money:
I saw a question recently: Did the boomers destroy college, and do universities have a duty to ensure people can get jobs after graduating their programs?
The answer must be: Realistically, buyer beware.
It doesn't really make sense that universities end up as glorified a job programs. If you get a 4-year degree, most of the classes you're paying for aren't even related to your field.
Until the postmodern age after the world wars, University wasn't intended to be a job training center. It was a fancy school where people with a bunch of extra money would go to play around learning about things that they were interested in. Virtually no jobs on Earth required a university degree. Postmodern bureaucratic norms ended up turning everything into a policy or procedure. Companies stopped training on the job.
Did the boomers do this? It's a tempting narrative to go with, but the reality is world wars represented the end of the modernist era. Before the beginning of World war I, there's been 99 years of relative peace following the Napoleonic wars after the 1815 conference of Vienna. This extended peace had convinced the Western world that the modernist way of looking at the world, rational and logical, objective and Grand, was the correct way of looking at the world. They thought that they had ended war, since for centuries before that there was almost non-stop war. The first world war shattered that illusion, and the first postmodern thinkers were born, but they didn't have total control of the society yet. The second world war, that's what ended up ultimately breaking the modernist project all together.
I think it's important we treat the boomers as what they actually were: People who did get to experience the best times, but who came of age into a decline, much like many millennials who came of age into the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm working on an about this for my third book, effectively what existed as liberal democracy before the world wars and after was not the same thing. Before, government spending as percent of GDP was 3 to 5%. Afterwards, it was never less than 30 to 50%, and in some cases it was a high 60%. This included things like funding for universities which previously had to take care of things with private funding, but it also included funding for certifications and other regulations which forced people into having University degrees for certain jobs.
It's easy to blame the boomers for this, but remember even as late as the 1970s, they may have been adults but that didn't mean that they were in charge. A lot of what happened around that time happened when their parents were in charge, or even to a lesser extent their grandparents.
You can see who was actually in charge of things based on who was the president. The first baby boomer president was Clinton, meaning that the postmodern bureaucratic order was completely and totally in place by the time the boomer generation was in charge. Offshoring was already fully established. The hollowing out of the rust belt had long since begun to occur.
One of the things that led to the university system being the way it is today will be the 1944 GI Bill. It's primary recipients would have been the greatest generation who are returning home from the world wars. This would have been the moment that universities stopped being a finishing school for the elite and began being a vocational training center. This was explicitly because after the first World war a giant horde of trained Killers descended on Washington to demand post-war benefits.
You might want to blame the greatest generation then, since they were in charge for a lot of this. Arguably, the 1944 GI Bill wouldn't have been put in by the greatest generation either. It would have been put in by their parents, the ones who fought World war I and the ones who would have been a charge during the world wars. If I had to guess, I'd say that they remembered what happened having all of those soldiers coming home after World war 1, and they wanted to try to prevent the mass suffering that demobilization had caused. Although many of the things that were done after World war II ended up having negative repercussions, I really have to give credit that they were in a lot of cases shockingly clever and humane.
And I will say that even early millennials or late Gen X we're already being warned that they better choose their majors carefully. I distinctly remember sitting down watching Saturday morning cartoons and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air came on, and they had an entire episode dedicated to the idea that if you're going to go to university you better very carefully choose your major because you're not going to be able to just party and have an easy life afterwards. I also remember kids in the Hall skit talking about it where there were a bunch of homeless boomers, and they all suggested that they eat their University degrees because that's about all they were useful for.
The answer must be: Realistically, buyer beware.
It doesn't really make sense that universities end up as glorified a job programs. If you get a 4-year degree, most of the classes you're paying for aren't even related to your field.
Until the postmodern age after the world wars, University wasn't intended to be a job training center. It was a fancy school where people with a bunch of extra money would go to play around learning about things that they were interested in. Virtually no jobs on Earth required a university degree. Postmodern bureaucratic norms ended up turning everything into a policy or procedure. Companies stopped training on the job.
Did the boomers do this? It's a tempting narrative to go with, but the reality is world wars represented the end of the modernist era. Before the beginning of World war I, there's been 99 years of relative peace following the Napoleonic wars after the 1815 conference of Vienna. This extended peace had convinced the Western world that the modernist way of looking at the world, rational and logical, objective and Grand, was the correct way of looking at the world. They thought that they had ended war, since for centuries before that there was almost non-stop war. The first world war shattered that illusion, and the first postmodern thinkers were born, but they didn't have total control of the society yet. The second world war, that's what ended up ultimately breaking the modernist project all together.
I think it's important we treat the boomers as what they actually were: People who did get to experience the best times, but who came of age into a decline, much like many millennials who came of age into the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm working on an about this for my third book, effectively what existed as liberal democracy before the world wars and after was not the same thing. Before, government spending as percent of GDP was 3 to 5%. Afterwards, it was never less than 30 to 50%, and in some cases it was a high 60%. This included things like funding for universities which previously had to take care of things with private funding, but it also included funding for certifications and other regulations which forced people into having University degrees for certain jobs.
It's easy to blame the boomers for this, but remember even as late as the 1970s, they may have been adults but that didn't mean that they were in charge. A lot of what happened around that time happened when their parents were in charge, or even to a lesser extent their grandparents.
You can see who was actually in charge of things based on who was the president. The first baby boomer president was Clinton, meaning that the postmodern bureaucratic order was completely and totally in place by the time the boomer generation was in charge. Offshoring was already fully established. The hollowing out of the rust belt had long since begun to occur.
One of the things that led to the university system being the way it is today will be the 1944 GI Bill. It's primary recipients would have been the greatest generation who are returning home from the world wars. This would have been the moment that universities stopped being a finishing school for the elite and began being a vocational training center. This was explicitly because after the first World war a giant horde of trained Killers descended on Washington to demand post-war benefits.
You might want to blame the greatest generation then, since they were in charge for a lot of this. Arguably, the 1944 GI Bill wouldn't have been put in by the greatest generation either. It would have been put in by their parents, the ones who fought World war I and the ones who would have been a charge during the world wars. If I had to guess, I'd say that they remembered what happened having all of those soldiers coming home after World war 1, and they wanted to try to prevent the mass suffering that demobilization had caused. Although many of the things that were done after World war II ended up having negative repercussions, I really have to give credit that they were in a lot of cases shockingly clever and humane.
And I will say that even early millennials or late Gen X we're already being warned that they better choose their majors carefully. I distinctly remember sitting down watching Saturday morning cartoons and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air came on, and they had an entire episode dedicated to the idea that if you're going to go to university you better very carefully choose your major because you're not going to be able to just party and have an easy life afterwards. I also remember kids in the Hall skit talking about it where there were a bunch of homeless boomers, and they all suggested that they eat their University degrees because that's about all they were useful for.
One source tells me the tweets are fake, but I don't care -- the message can be true even if the source is wrong.
For each person I'd like to play them a tiktok from their side defending cancel culture. "It's accountability culture" "don't be a Nazi" "they're a private company" and so on.
I do need to point out that when rbg died I did make a joke about someone finally smashing her phylactery, but there's a real difference between someone who is old as shit dying of being old as shit and someone barely out of their 20s being murdered in cold blood.
I thought about how my son would feel if he lost me, and realizing how he'd cry and never fully recover really got to me.
I remember as far back as the 2000s watching the daily show and they had a skit where one of the minorities on the show was laughing about how whites were going to be a minority in 2040.
So there's literally nothing to debate. Americans are being replaced and they're celebrating and have been for decades. If that's offensive take it up with them.
So there's literally nothing to debate. Americans are being replaced and they're celebrating and have been for decades. If that's offensive take it up with them.
I'm surprised it's that low.
Those made a lot of people really sick, even without a single conspiracy theory. Seems totally probable that the strong reaction to it would take some people out.
Those made a lot of people really sick, even without a single conspiracy theory. Seems totally probable that the strong reaction to it would take some people out.
One thing about Plato's allegory of the cave: It isn't about what most people think it's about. Most people think it's about using reason to escape from the fallacious nature of mundanity. In reality, it's about his theory that there exists a perfect "form" of everything in a spiritual sense and that only philosophers can gain closer access to the forms.
The thing is, the forms are an almost pre-modern form of epistemology. It's the idea that there is the spirit of perfection of everything, and we are merely seeing poor manifestations of that spirit.
The thing is, the forms are an almost pre-modern form of epistemology. It's the idea that there is the spirit of perfection of everything, and we are merely seeing poor manifestations of that spirit.
I do think that the attack on the unh ceo wasn't necessarily left wing. I think it's just a spoiled rich kid who lashed out because he hurt himself doing spoiled rich kid things and took his frustration on not being immediately cured by current medical technology on the CEO of a company he didn't even have a business relationship with.
win every battle (against unarmed people who aren't fighting)
lose the war
shockedpikachu
lose the war
shockedpikachu
https://www.gbnews.com/news/neighbour-row-wooden-fence-legal-bill
When you curse someone, dig two graves.
When you curse someone, dig two graves.