A shameful day. I miss my Twitter friends dearly, but perhaps I willed this. I have two jobs, neither of which I perform particularly well, and two malnourished children to feed. On second thought maybe they look that way because they’re half Asian. (Just kidding. I have a normal family, dweebs). A nice respite from the infinite meme-carousel is recommended so we might remember to enjoy the finer things in life. “See you next week!” Yeah, yeah; I know.
You used to not be allowed to talk shit about troons because they were in charge. Now that it’s Indians running twitter… you know how it goes. Try to appeal anyway.
Interesting paradox on how labels can be judged. You can be called a genocide supporter for crimes against humanity on Twitter for having a different perspective or viewpoint, with the accuser suffering no repercussions. Yet one off the cuff snark gets ES banned for life. Clown World.
I'm temp banned and about a month into what I assume is a completely non-functional appeal process. Touching grass has been fun.
Also, I mostly skimmed, so forgive me if this was already covered, but aren't we all the 5'1" Guatemalan, barking loudly on Twitter and Substack because our day-jobs at the abstract widget factory has close to zero real meaning or value? "My big brain could beat up your big brain" is exactly the sentiment that 3000 words on Substack for exactly $0.00 seems to reek of. I certainly enjoy my hobby as blogger Neo, it really is just like a videogame, but in theory there's a linebacker in academia or somewhere in government that could get their entire hand around my neck.
You’re greatly missed already, but I like to think you’ll be back.
Liberalism is on an interesting path of sleepwalking into totalitarianism in part as a consequence of its self-perception as a system that could never be totalitarian. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is one of the columns that supports this bridge towards the total state that they’re building.
Popper’s paradox gets some flak but the thing is, it’s not an unreasonable claim, insofar as any system has to—in order to survive—exclude to some extent the rival ideologies that would destroy it. However, his paradox only really functions under a sane definition of what tolerance means: “I’m not going to kill or inflict violence on those who aren’t like me/disagree” is a sensible understanding of tolerance; a fast-food chain morally disapproving of gay marriage is an entirely different thing that is neither intolerant nor even bigoted in any meaningful way. But progressives and liberals believe such people and attitudes have to be stamped out in the name of tolerance, which is a critical failure that will turn Popper’s sincere liberalism into a machine for totalitarianism.
This is some high-octane NRx post-modernism.
Miss you already, man. Not sure how to share an email address on here that isn’t available to God and everybody. Incredible post.
You used to not be allowed to talk shit about troons because they were in charge. Now that it’s Indians running twitter… you know how it goes. Try to appeal anyway.
Interesting paradox on how labels can be judged. You can be called a genocide supporter for crimes against humanity on Twitter for having a different perspective or viewpoint, with the accuser suffering no repercussions. Yet one off the cuff snark gets ES banned for life. Clown World.
I'm temp banned and about a month into what I assume is a completely non-functional appeal process. Touching grass has been fun.
Also, I mostly skimmed, so forgive me if this was already covered, but aren't we all the 5'1" Guatemalan, barking loudly on Twitter and Substack because our day-jobs at the abstract widget factory has close to zero real meaning or value? "My big brain could beat up your big brain" is exactly the sentiment that 3000 words on Substack for exactly $0.00 seems to reek of. I certainly enjoy my hobby as blogger Neo, it really is just like a videogame, but in theory there's a linebacker in academia or somewhere in government that could get their entire hand around my neck.
Enjoy your time off.
You’re greatly missed already, but I like to think you’ll be back.
Liberalism is on an interesting path of sleepwalking into totalitarianism in part as a consequence of its self-perception as a system that could never be totalitarian. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is one of the columns that supports this bridge towards the total state that they’re building.
Popper’s paradox gets some flak but the thing is, it’s not an unreasonable claim, insofar as any system has to—in order to survive—exclude to some extent the rival ideologies that would destroy it. However, his paradox only really functions under a sane definition of what tolerance means: “I’m not going to kill or inflict violence on those who aren’t like me/disagree” is a sensible understanding of tolerance; a fast-food chain morally disapproving of gay marriage is an entirely different thing that is neither intolerant nor even bigoted in any meaningful way. But progressives and liberals believe such people and attitudes have to be stamped out in the name of tolerance, which is a critical failure that will turn Popper’s sincere liberalism into a machine for totalitarianism.
Glad you're back