I’ll go ahead and quote in full, verbatim, in case this gets taken offline. Plus it’s short, yay tiktok.
“The next person who has the sheer nerve, the sheer entitled *caucacity* to say all lives matter, I’ma stab you. I’m a <jab> stab you. And while you’re struggling and bleeding out I’ma show you my papercut, and say, my cut matters too.
It seems to me like papercut girl went a little off the rails here. Or maybe she’s just high spirited? Let’s say gray area. She lost a job offer over this outburst, and has more posts where she is crying over this and doubling down over her commitment to social justice, then she gets mocked by pepe, then I assume (I stopped reading) pepe is accused of hatred and racism. It’s twitter! We hate it, but we can’t stop. Maybe that’s a good thing?
Here’s a longer meltdown, crazier, framed as “ideological posession” by jordan peterson. Which I agree with.
A pretty inoffensive white guy identifies himself as “Hugh Mongous” when this crazy lady attacks him. He is being interviewed about his daughter’s drug problem. The crazy lady has a meltdown about him sexually harassing her (due to the name joke), and won’t back down even when private security intervenes. She’s pretty scary, as is papercut girl to my eyes, and one can easily see how this kind of thinking can escalate to violence, and kind of undirected mob violence at that, just letting off steam.
A lot of committed marxists starved and froze to death in the gulag. Not much due process once things get rolling.
The ideologically posessed lady from the JP video thought they should be interviewing Hugh Mongous about something more social justice relevant, involving defunding the police… it was pretty hard to understand for me to understand exactly what she wanted, and it’s not really important. As Jordan Peterson points out, when you are ideologically posessed is it’s possible to predict your speech from 5 or 6 basic axioms that free you from thought, and also give you the confidence that you can judge whether someone is good or evil with perfect accuracy based on the simple short list axiom screening. It’s dangerous to give people like this political power.
My stretch circle was offline today, so I watched the full Peterson lecture, to see how the Hugh Mongous story plays out, while I stretched alone. Turns out, someone started a social media donation campaign for Hugh, and it went viral and he got $140k. I wonder if crazy lady also got donations from other campaigns, but it’s not important. Unless it is?
In any case, paper cut lady lost a job offer. Hugh Mongous got twitter mobbed but then also got a life changing lump sum from the viral social media lottery. Hugh was a low income blue collar guy having financial difficulties, so this was life changing for him. So money is popping up here, in both cases.
In the full Jordan Peterson lecture, once the Hugh Mongous story is over, he goes to some pretty dark places, primarily the russian gulag in Solzhenitsyn’s archipelago. This is where ideological posession ultimately leads, he claims, and again I agree. Some will see this as overreaction or white fragility, or maybe male fragility. But whatever. When you give lunatics the keys to the asylum, don’t complain when you are the one that winds up getting lobotomized. (Even if you’re on the lunatic side!)
“in east germany, 1/3 of population was a government informer.” (1:09:13)
This strikes me as an important ratio. 33%. I’m going to keep it in the back of my mind moving forward.
Bitcoin is an emergent aspect of our society’s cognitive immune system. It doesn’t just protect against financial shenanigans, but also crazy forms thoughts. Cake and eat it / victim thinking / marxism.
Money is just speech, it turns out. To censor money, you have to censor speech. Free speech defends sanity (healthy thinking), and free money defends free speech.
Coincidence that social justice whackjobs that favor cancel culture censorship, also support punitive reparations and “something for nothing” redistributory economic policies that bitcoin would (and will) make impossible? I don’t think so.
Trump opposes bitcoin, but wields power through twitter. Dorsey supports bitcoin, but profits from whackjobs that are ideologically posessed with hatred of trump.
If we can remember that the American bedrock value is free speech, because it’s necessary for healthy thinking, maybe we can muddle through this mess without turning into 1960s china.