By flipping from utter ideal to utter cynicism, not only do you totally break your own idealistic argument, but you make any further discussions on rights moot because according to you, it doesn't matter anyway since you're not rich. And maybe you're right. But I think you're still wrong.
Perhaps you don't understand that the rich and powerful have always written the laws? Are you aware that the constitution was a compromise between The agrarian slave holding states so wealthy farmers in the South and the industrializing states so wealthy factory owners in the north, and between people who thought the government ought not to have any power because the states and the people ought to have it all and the people who thought that the federal government ought to be large and powerful more similar to the states of Europe? In spite of that, the Constitution which you invoked repeatedly here was created with a Bill of Rights that has done as good of a job as any protecting the rights of individuals.
Perhaps you don't understand that the rich and powerful have always written the laws? Are you aware that the constitution was a compromise between The agrarian slave holding states so wealthy farmers in the South and the industrializing states so wealthy factory owners in the north, and between people who thought the government ought not to have any power because the states and the people ought to have it all and the people who thought that the federal government ought to be large and powerful more similar to the states of Europe? In spite of that, the Constitution which you invoked repeatedly here was created with a Bill of Rights that has done as good of a job as any protecting the rights of individuals.
Seems like you're not actually reading what you're responding to, or at least not understanding it, before you write.
I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place.
None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional.
The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one.
The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms.
I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in.
I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place.
None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional.
The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one.
The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms.
I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in.
Not that it matters -- they could be manufacturing 8 billion GPUs a year, most people are using ancient GPUs because they can't afford one at MSRP anyway.
Seems to me that such a statement is nonsense. You accused me of making an absurd statement before, but the phrase "god given constitutional rights" is facially absurd.
God gives you all the rights. You can speak, you can go wherever you like, you can move your body in any way you'd like, you can hunt and fish and gather off of trees. God gives you free will to decide how to act, then scripture to try to convince you to use that free will to do good and not evil.
Pre-postmodern liberal governments (Also referred to as classical liberal governments) inherently take away your rights. Things God made you free to do are no longer allowed or are controlled.
The constitution then tries to bind those governments into not infringing any more than the most limited number of rights required under the circumstances.
The rights that the constitution protects aren't necessarily the best ones or the only ones, they're just the ones that everyone in the room could agree on 250 years ago.
After that, the constitutional rights didn't exist in a vacuum. Courts immediately created cut-outs for rational limits on freedom of speech including laws against libel, slander, and importantly in this case, criminal conspiracy.
The United States court system inherited criminal conspiracy charges from English common law at confederation, and because of the balance of rights between the right to speak a conspiracy and the right to not have crimes committed against you, they were kept on the books, and in many jurisdictions immediately codified under state laws. Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states, and in spite of the 14th amendment which extended the federal constitution to state law, they were not successfully struck down.
We're talking about a situation where a bunch of people are cheering for the violent murder of a peaceful political voice. As I said, that's really on a line. Then they're working on putting together a list of additional people to murder online.
Mass conspiracy to commit murder has never been constitutionally protected speech. Not even in 1777. God may have given us the right to do it, but the state has always taken that right away for the good of civilization.
We aren't talking about these things in a vacuum here. This is all related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which a leftist appears to have committed the murder because he didn't like what Kirk had to say (an act which fundamentally violated Kirk's right to free speech and his right to not be murdered). Some people online have been cheering for the murder and calling for more people to die, some people are naming who they want dead. There haven't been any state interventions yet, but some of these people were in sensitive positions for their jobs and lost those jobs for what they said.
One latenight talk show host falsely suggested that MAGA was the one who committed the murder and they were lying about who did it for political gain and had his show suspended, for what we now know was a week. Importantly, this wasn't on cable or Internet, it was on network TV where the show is broadcast over the airwaves.
Let's talk about that last point in terms of constitutional rights: The government has regulated the radio spectrum, such that you and I are not allowed to run a TV station. Even if we pay for the infrastructure, if we were to broadcast in such a way, we will go to Federal prison. So whoever is allowed to use that spectrum has a variety of additional limitations on their speech because they are given access to a public resource and expected to use it for the public good to an extent. Disseminating misinformation about assassinations to justify them is not in line with the regulations on that public resource (which have been held as constitutional for those reasons), so there are potential consequences to those actions.
Unfortunately, all of this thought about classical liberalism is probably just ghosts of a dead era at this point. On one hand, you've got mounting political violence from people who don't know or care that it's going to end in totalitarianism or actively desire totalitarianism because they think their foolish faction will be the one on top. On the other hand, you've got people who naively think you can give all the rights and none of the responsibilities in a society where the current sitting president has nearly been assassinated, a sitting supreme court justice has nearly been assassinated, and a peaceful political activist is freshly dead, his wife widowed, his two kids no to never hear their father's voice again. It reminds me too much of North Africa and the middle east, which was pacifist and Christian until the Muslims took over and never gave it up. It was only Byzantium and Western Europe which grew some teeth that were able to keep going with their ideology rather than be taken over by someone else's.
Postmodern liberalism attempted to give people freedoms they wouldn't have otherwise had, but in reality that's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, or in the case of a recent high profile murder, releasing a violent criminal 24 times before they just straight-up murder a refugee, which is why I made the distinction between pre-postmodern liberalism.
The next step in our society, if we actually get there and don't just collapse into murdering one another when they make a good point we can't counter without bullets, is a stage of liberalism that accepts the freedoms God grants us but also re-integrates the responsibility God demands of us to be judged worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. The focus on the state is a major problem, because by focusing on how the state does or does not protecting or "providing" your liberty, that becomes part of every answer. In reality, we do need collectivism as a cultural force -- just not a genocidal high progressive cultural collectivism. The idea of individualism as our postmodern society has defined it -- to make everyone look better by just eliminating any measure of a person's worth that they might not measure up to -- might make people free from judgement, but it will lead them to slavery, because they will lack the virtue the physical world demands to achieve personal liberty.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- you've got one side that sees murder their side commits as positive and to be promoted, and the mere response to murder as evil and to be attacked and punished. If you can't even get both sides to agree that "murdering peaceful individuals is wrong", then you're starting from the wrong end worrying about the rest.
God gives you all the rights. You can speak, you can go wherever you like, you can move your body in any way you'd like, you can hunt and fish and gather off of trees. God gives you free will to decide how to act, then scripture to try to convince you to use that free will to do good and not evil.
Pre-postmodern liberal governments (Also referred to as classical liberal governments) inherently take away your rights. Things God made you free to do are no longer allowed or are controlled.
The constitution then tries to bind those governments into not infringing any more than the most limited number of rights required under the circumstances.
The rights that the constitution protects aren't necessarily the best ones or the only ones, they're just the ones that everyone in the room could agree on 250 years ago.
After that, the constitutional rights didn't exist in a vacuum. Courts immediately created cut-outs for rational limits on freedom of speech including laws against libel, slander, and importantly in this case, criminal conspiracy.
The United States court system inherited criminal conspiracy charges from English common law at confederation, and because of the balance of rights between the right to speak a conspiracy and the right to not have crimes committed against you, they were kept on the books, and in many jurisdictions immediately codified under state laws. Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states, and in spite of the 14th amendment which extended the federal constitution to state law, they were not successfully struck down.
We're talking about a situation where a bunch of people are cheering for the violent murder of a peaceful political voice. As I said, that's really on a line. Then they're working on putting together a list of additional people to murder online.
Mass conspiracy to commit murder has never been constitutionally protected speech. Not even in 1777. God may have given us the right to do it, but the state has always taken that right away for the good of civilization.
We aren't talking about these things in a vacuum here. This is all related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which a leftist appears to have committed the murder because he didn't like what Kirk had to say (an act which fundamentally violated Kirk's right to free speech and his right to not be murdered). Some people online have been cheering for the murder and calling for more people to die, some people are naming who they want dead. There haven't been any state interventions yet, but some of these people were in sensitive positions for their jobs and lost those jobs for what they said.
One latenight talk show host falsely suggested that MAGA was the one who committed the murder and they were lying about who did it for political gain and had his show suspended, for what we now know was a week. Importantly, this wasn't on cable or Internet, it was on network TV where the show is broadcast over the airwaves.
Let's talk about that last point in terms of constitutional rights: The government has regulated the radio spectrum, such that you and I are not allowed to run a TV station. Even if we pay for the infrastructure, if we were to broadcast in such a way, we will go to Federal prison. So whoever is allowed to use that spectrum has a variety of additional limitations on their speech because they are given access to a public resource and expected to use it for the public good to an extent. Disseminating misinformation about assassinations to justify them is not in line with the regulations on that public resource (which have been held as constitutional for those reasons), so there are potential consequences to those actions.
Unfortunately, all of this thought about classical liberalism is probably just ghosts of a dead era at this point. On one hand, you've got mounting political violence from people who don't know or care that it's going to end in totalitarianism or actively desire totalitarianism because they think their foolish faction will be the one on top. On the other hand, you've got people who naively think you can give all the rights and none of the responsibilities in a society where the current sitting president has nearly been assassinated, a sitting supreme court justice has nearly been assassinated, and a peaceful political activist is freshly dead, his wife widowed, his two kids no to never hear their father's voice again. It reminds me too much of North Africa and the middle east, which was pacifist and Christian until the Muslims took over and never gave it up. It was only Byzantium and Western Europe which grew some teeth that were able to keep going with their ideology rather than be taken over by someone else's.
Postmodern liberalism attempted to give people freedoms they wouldn't have otherwise had, but in reality that's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, or in the case of a recent high profile murder, releasing a violent criminal 24 times before they just straight-up murder a refugee, which is why I made the distinction between pre-postmodern liberalism.
The next step in our society, if we actually get there and don't just collapse into murdering one another when they make a good point we can't counter without bullets, is a stage of liberalism that accepts the freedoms God grants us but also re-integrates the responsibility God demands of us to be judged worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. The focus on the state is a major problem, because by focusing on how the state does or does not protecting or "providing" your liberty, that becomes part of every answer. In reality, we do need collectivism as a cultural force -- just not a genocidal high progressive cultural collectivism. The idea of individualism as our postmodern society has defined it -- to make everyone look better by just eliminating any measure of a person's worth that they might not measure up to -- might make people free from judgement, but it will lead them to slavery, because they will lack the virtue the physical world demands to achieve personal liberty.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- you've got one side that sees murder their side commits as positive and to be promoted, and the mere response to murder as evil and to be attacked and punished. If you can't even get both sides to agree that "murdering peaceful individuals is wrong", then you're starting from the wrong end worrying about the rest.
The way that the conversation has been changed to the State versus the market is brilliant in that it ensures that the only thing that can get any more power is those two things. In that way, even though they are ostensibly in opposition, they end up in a symbiosis by crowding out anything else.
The problem is that culture is not conducive to the increase of power for the market or the state because it will judge people in government and it will judge people in the state and they don't want to be judged, they just want everything.
The problem is that culture is not conducive to the increase of power for the market or the state because it will judge people in government and it will judge people in the state and they don't want to be judged, they just want everything.
If we're being totally honest, they shouldn't have cut it at any point so far. Inflation is still high, and actual inflation is much higher.
Freedom to do what?
One of the problems of the word "Freedom" is that it's a hanging signifier, it means everything and nothing.
Freedom to murder people in the street and eat their flesh without consequence?
Freedom to set off nuclear bombs in the heart of cities?
The freedom to own slaves?
Freedom to murder peaceful political enemies and to create lists of new people who ought to be murdered next?
Many dictators use the word "Freedom". Adolf Hitler used the word often in Mein Kampf -- he saw conquering Europe and eradicating racial impurities in Germany as part of establishing freedom for the German people. Stalin used the word to invoke the idea of the working class being freedom from class oppression. Mao used the word to invoke the idea of freedom from colonialist powers who had caused the century of humiliation.
Same with the word "rights". You can have a right to many things, including the right to oppress others.
Freedoms collide with one another, rights collide with one another, and we need to figure out how to rationalize them. That's just reality bumping up against itself.
One of the problems of the word "Freedom" is that it's a hanging signifier, it means everything and nothing.
Freedom to murder people in the street and eat their flesh without consequence?
Freedom to set off nuclear bombs in the heart of cities?
The freedom to own slaves?
Freedom to murder peaceful political enemies and to create lists of new people who ought to be murdered next?
Many dictators use the word "Freedom". Adolf Hitler used the word often in Mein Kampf -- he saw conquering Europe and eradicating racial impurities in Germany as part of establishing freedom for the German people. Stalin used the word to invoke the idea of the working class being freedom from class oppression. Mao used the word to invoke the idea of freedom from colonialist powers who had caused the century of humiliation.
Same with the word "rights". You can have a right to many things, including the right to oppress others.
Freedoms collide with one another, rights collide with one another, and we need to figure out how to rationalize them. That's just reality bumping up against itself.
What happened to Jordan Peterson? He was once a pretty respected figure, and today he's considered much more of a joke.
Some think he just got destroyed by fame.
I think it's also the fact that he went from a guy who could spend a long time figuring out the truth to a guy who needed to put on his show every week or whatever.
It's like "Say something" important at some point in your life -- ok, you probably can. Now "say something" every week. Say something every time someone asks, and people are always asking. And your continued success relies on it.
My first book came out in 2021. I didn't have much else to say until this year, I banged out one book and I've got another on the way. But what if I needed to write a new book every year? if I needed to fill an hour-long show every week? If I had to do that I'd definitely be churning out worse work, and I've got an IQ of 79 on the best of days.
And the other thing is, having to say things about current events all the time! My work is trying to imagine 100 years from now, so if people keep asking me about the latest Trump cabinet pick or the news from last week, of course I'd end up another brainrotted commentator.
Plus, one of the logical fallacies is the bento box fallacy -- If you want the calamari sushi, you need to buy the box that includes the fried egg sushi even if you don't like fried egg, and you need to accept the tempura and the seeweed salad, even if you only really care for the calamari sushi. The problem is that once you start accepting money from somewhere like Daily Wire, you've bought the whole bento box. You need to comment on climate change and trans issues and a bunch of other things and you're basically expected to fit your commentary within the bento box. He was able to "win" in the argument with Kathy Newman because she was engaging in the bento box against someone with a nuanced opinion. Today, he has to have a fairly simple opinion because large elements of his new audience doesn't want nuance, they want the whole bento box.
Peterson's "Christianity" is another victim of this. He originally had a nuanced and non-mainstream opinion of Christianity as mythic technology that regardless of the empirical existence or non-existence of God, was a proven powerful thing that could help individuals and groups thrive. The problem is that he's stuck between two groups who don't want that kind of nuance: The atheists want him to pick "God doesn't exist and religion is bullshit", the Christians wanted him to pick "God Exists in the way we specifically say today and everything in Christianity is perfectly true".
He wants to get back into that nuance, but he hasn't put in the legwork because he's too busy being a media personality, so you get the "it depends what you mean by believe in and god", because you can believe in something you know isn't empirically real -- people believe in love, in hate, in the nation, in the people, but all those things are abstractions that don't strictly exist empirically and measurably. And "God" in the sense that you can see God as a literal dude in the sky, or as a mythic construction that is real in a premodern sense, but can't be measured or quantified in a modern sense.
The smartest thing for him is something I doubt he has the strength to do: Finish up whatever his obligations are under the daily wire contract, then take his giant stack of money and go into reclusion for a few years. Get off of Twitter, off of youtube, and hit the books. Brush up on his Nietzsche and his Dostoyevsky, and spend some time rebuilding. Maybe spend some time trying to get his daughter off the course she's on and back on the track to virtue before the same forces chew her up and spit her out. He's interviewed some of the foremost thinkers of today, so potentially he's got a lot of interesting new material to consider, but he's not the sort who can flip like that on the fly. He'd need a lot of time not sitting in interviews or posting on Twitter or giving speeches to sort and integrate and utilize it.
Some think he just got destroyed by fame.
I think it's also the fact that he went from a guy who could spend a long time figuring out the truth to a guy who needed to put on his show every week or whatever.
It's like "Say something" important at some point in your life -- ok, you probably can. Now "say something" every week. Say something every time someone asks, and people are always asking. And your continued success relies on it.
My first book came out in 2021. I didn't have much else to say until this year, I banged out one book and I've got another on the way. But what if I needed to write a new book every year? if I needed to fill an hour-long show every week? If I had to do that I'd definitely be churning out worse work, and I've got an IQ of 79 on the best of days.
And the other thing is, having to say things about current events all the time! My work is trying to imagine 100 years from now, so if people keep asking me about the latest Trump cabinet pick or the news from last week, of course I'd end up another brainrotted commentator.
Plus, one of the logical fallacies is the bento box fallacy -- If you want the calamari sushi, you need to buy the box that includes the fried egg sushi even if you don't like fried egg, and you need to accept the tempura and the seeweed salad, even if you only really care for the calamari sushi. The problem is that once you start accepting money from somewhere like Daily Wire, you've bought the whole bento box. You need to comment on climate change and trans issues and a bunch of other things and you're basically expected to fit your commentary within the bento box. He was able to "win" in the argument with Kathy Newman because she was engaging in the bento box against someone with a nuanced opinion. Today, he has to have a fairly simple opinion because large elements of his new audience doesn't want nuance, they want the whole bento box.
Peterson's "Christianity" is another victim of this. He originally had a nuanced and non-mainstream opinion of Christianity as mythic technology that regardless of the empirical existence or non-existence of God, was a proven powerful thing that could help individuals and groups thrive. The problem is that he's stuck between two groups who don't want that kind of nuance: The atheists want him to pick "God doesn't exist and religion is bullshit", the Christians wanted him to pick "God Exists in the way we specifically say today and everything in Christianity is perfectly true".
He wants to get back into that nuance, but he hasn't put in the legwork because he's too busy being a media personality, so you get the "it depends what you mean by believe in and god", because you can believe in something you know isn't empirically real -- people believe in love, in hate, in the nation, in the people, but all those things are abstractions that don't strictly exist empirically and measurably. And "God" in the sense that you can see God as a literal dude in the sky, or as a mythic construction that is real in a premodern sense, but can't be measured or quantified in a modern sense.
The smartest thing for him is something I doubt he has the strength to do: Finish up whatever his obligations are under the daily wire contract, then take his giant stack of money and go into reclusion for a few years. Get off of Twitter, off of youtube, and hit the books. Brush up on his Nietzsche and his Dostoyevsky, and spend some time rebuilding. Maybe spend some time trying to get his daughter off the course she's on and back on the track to virtue before the same forces chew her up and spit her out. He's interviewed some of the foremost thinkers of today, so potentially he's got a lot of interesting new material to consider, but he's not the sort who can flip like that on the fly. He'd need a lot of time not sitting in interviews or posting on Twitter or giving speeches to sort and integrate and utilize it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m74zazYPwkY
Absolutely fascinating youtube video about how oscillation develops in traffic systems due to resonances in interactions between vehicles and their attempts to manage speed. It isn't just a matter of overdamping or underdamping your speed, but finding ways to mitigate interactions with the vehicle in front of you -- so presumably just choosing a speed and going that speed without trying to maintain a distance with the car in front of you is enough to break the oscillation. You might go "Ok, but what if you're about to hit the car in front of you?" but the answer is to set your cruise control to be slightly slower than the car in front of you, so the gap in front of you grows over time and you maintain the same speed without worrying about stopping. It doesn't take a major speed difference to pull it off. Then the people behind you are no longer interacting with the car in front of you.
Absolutely fascinating youtube video about how oscillation develops in traffic systems due to resonances in interactions between vehicles and their attempts to manage speed. It isn't just a matter of overdamping or underdamping your speed, but finding ways to mitigate interactions with the vehicle in front of you -- so presumably just choosing a speed and going that speed without trying to maintain a distance with the car in front of you is enough to break the oscillation. You might go "Ok, but what if you're about to hit the car in front of you?" but the answer is to set your cruise control to be slightly slower than the car in front of you, so the gap in front of you grows over time and you maintain the same speed without worrying about stopping. It doesn't take a major speed difference to pull it off. Then the people behind you are no longer interacting with the car in front of you.
You are correct, of course. But you have to admit, it's an entertaining thought experiment that helps show viscerally how absurd the attempt to connect the two is.
A really funny thing is when people say something the police do is a "War Crime".
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
Followed immediately by Nuremberg trials for Palestines leadership.
"Oh shit! What do you mean there are laws to war?"
"Oh shit! What do you mean there are laws to war?"
Too much writing lol
If we're being honest, absolutely everyone is entitled to say bad things about Charlie Kirk.
Honestly, his videos weren't my pot of tea. He always struck me as kind of a dick, making a big show of going on college campuses and arguing with dumb college kids. I know a lot of people have told me he was the nicest guy you'd ever meet but that wasn't my impression based solely on the media presence.
And you know what? No one's going to have a single problem with anything I said above. I didn't celebrate his death, I didn't justify his death, I didn't willfully lie about the circumstances to make my narrative look better, and I certainly didn't say who needs to be murdered next.
That's the problem with modernists. They can only see in black and white. They don't have a choice but to flatten complexity. That's why Charlie Kirk is dead, because they could only see disagreement as the exact same thing as calls for genocide, I know that he is dead and they are getting pushed back for calling for the deaths of more people they can only see mild criticism of the man and hysterical celebration of his death as the exact same thing because murder must be justified in the former case, and absolutely zero consequences must be justified in the latter.
I think a lot of people have been confused as to why over last week or so they've seen a lot of posts from me working through the implications of things like Jimmy Kimmels show being canceled or the consequences have come about for the people who were celebrating the political assassination and calling for more. It's because the world isn't digital, and the answers aren't simple or permanent. Even Buddhist monks invented Kung Fu to protect their temples.
The justification for murdering Kirk was essentially that by saying mean words he was literally Mass murdering people. Now these mean words tended to be things like "men and women are different" or "you shouldn't hire people solely on the basis of race because otherwise you're going to get people who aren't very good at their jobs because you hide them based on race," which has to be flattened because otherwise you look stupid. Meanwhile, people who are cheering for the political assassination, and calling for more political assassinations, they are saying that they're free speech is being violated for what they are doing but the reality is we're not talking about it calling Charlie a dick, we're talking about cheering for his murder and calling for more murders.
All these people pleading free speech sure seem to have different standards for themselves than others because every one of the Free speech warriors was on top of the "disinformation and misinformation must be regulated" train, and now regulating disinformation is misinformation caused someone to lose their job and instead of celebrating they're acting as if it was a travesty.
Honestly, his videos weren't my pot of tea. He always struck me as kind of a dick, making a big show of going on college campuses and arguing with dumb college kids. I know a lot of people have told me he was the nicest guy you'd ever meet but that wasn't my impression based solely on the media presence.
And you know what? No one's going to have a single problem with anything I said above. I didn't celebrate his death, I didn't justify his death, I didn't willfully lie about the circumstances to make my narrative look better, and I certainly didn't say who needs to be murdered next.
That's the problem with modernists. They can only see in black and white. They don't have a choice but to flatten complexity. That's why Charlie Kirk is dead, because they could only see disagreement as the exact same thing as calls for genocide, I know that he is dead and they are getting pushed back for calling for the deaths of more people they can only see mild criticism of the man and hysterical celebration of his death as the exact same thing because murder must be justified in the former case, and absolutely zero consequences must be justified in the latter.
I think a lot of people have been confused as to why over last week or so they've seen a lot of posts from me working through the implications of things like Jimmy Kimmels show being canceled or the consequences have come about for the people who were celebrating the political assassination and calling for more. It's because the world isn't digital, and the answers aren't simple or permanent. Even Buddhist monks invented Kung Fu to protect their temples.
The justification for murdering Kirk was essentially that by saying mean words he was literally Mass murdering people. Now these mean words tended to be things like "men and women are different" or "you shouldn't hire people solely on the basis of race because otherwise you're going to get people who aren't very good at their jobs because you hide them based on race," which has to be flattened because otherwise you look stupid. Meanwhile, people who are cheering for the political assassination, and calling for more political assassinations, they are saying that they're free speech is being violated for what they are doing but the reality is we're not talking about it calling Charlie a dick, we're talking about cheering for his murder and calling for more murders.
All these people pleading free speech sure seem to have different standards for themselves than others because every one of the Free speech warriors was on top of the "disinformation and misinformation must be regulated" train, and now regulating disinformation is misinformation caused someone to lose their job and instead of celebrating they're acting as if it was a travesty.
It's kind of interesting, I was in a discussion relating to this a day or two ago. The person I was discussing with make the claim that the constitution is perfect and all the founding fathers agreed on how different parts of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted, and so I just put the facts on the table of exactly how the founding fathers were acting immediately after founding.
It seems a lot of people don't know how laws or sausages are made.
It seems a lot of people don't know how laws or sausages are made.
It's humorous that not only did their "allies" in big business let them loose, their "allies" protecting them in government are too.
"Just imagine if the roles were reversed" wasn't a moral warning, it was a practical one. Treat others the way you would have others treat you, because at some point if you keep it up others will treat you the way that you've treated them.
"Just imagine if the roles were reversed" wasn't a moral warning, it was a practical one. Treat others the way you would have others treat you, because at some point if you keep it up others will treat you the way that you've treated them.